HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Date: 10 Jan 93 22:02:14 GMT

If the difference is so clear between a zygote and a new born baby then perhaps
these questions might also be much easier for an expert such as yourself.

My sister recently had a baby over a month premature.  Sure looked like a baby.
Seems to act like a baby.  Yet, I live less than 5 miles from a "establishment"
where third trimester abortions may be obtained.  So, zygote != newborn.  Where
does an "8 month old fetus" fall.  No matter what your answer is, I will now
move the line a step in the other direction.  I'm sorry, but birth is not a
good answer.  What is birth.  Exit from the mother, then all babies (pc term 
fetus) are born (some are born dead).  Question, since a baby is a newborn for
only a short period of time and a zygote for an even much shorter amount of 
time, what is it inbetween?

On to another question.  Does the mother the right to "kill an intruder into
her own body".  Now did the baby forceably ask to be put there?  Yes, in some
states you can kill trespassers, but I don't think the police would buy the
story that I dragged so and so onto my property and then killed them for 
trespassing.  Nor does the eviction analogy work either since the baby is
not evicted, it is normally killed in the womb then removed sometimes piece
by piece.  The question, The first night my daughter woke me up in the middle
of the night, she sure seemed like an intruder into my house, and was a real
inconveniacne when I felt like sleeping so the answer was to kill her?  Sounds,
like an extreme example.  But if you subscribe to life before birth then most
of the pro-abortion arguments sound extreme.

Two other questions.  If the media is truly "pro-choice" then why have
the three network stations stopped airing the Life-what a beautiful choice
ads.  The line I heard was that it was against their values?  Why, isn't the
whole concept of a choice that there are more than one alternative?

Question number dos, I heard that the FCC is contemplating placing restrictions
on what may be placed on TV in a pro-life ad.  ( I would assume due to the 
graphic content ).  I have seen some real graphic things, Holocost pictures, war pictures, famine pictures, various late stage disease pictures, baby seal
clubbing and probabbly the worst offense ecobrainwashing/politically correct
cartoons.  How does the restriction on content based censorship affect this?

			Craig




Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:16:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.203017.5516@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
> In article <1993Jan11.184632.20121@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> >In article <1993Jan10.174837.26171@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
> >> 	I mean, are these "Kill a queer for Jesus" bumper stickers 
> >> 	anythingbut a joke, or do people take them seriously?
> >
> >    About as much of a joke as the Southern Baptist Convention 
> >might take a bumper sticker which stated:
> >
> >    "Kill a Fundie for Satan".
> >
> >    You make me ill.
> 
> 
> 	Well, Mike, you're a judgemental ass.  Someone asks a question
> 	about something, and look at your reaction.  

   You just don't get it. Pathetic. 

   "Gee, Herr Hitler said he was going to gas all those Jews, but I
    didn't think it was anything but a joke. Do people take him
    seriously?"

   Ha, ha. We're all laughing.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: oten@ixcim.att.com (55539-Oten)
Subject: Re: Rush's Ratings
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:55:19 GMT
Originator: oten@ixcim13


In article <Treble-060193122946@asc438.asc.slb.com>, Treble@asc.slb.com (John Treble) writes:
|> In article <C0EFLz.GxE@andy.bgsu.edu>, jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.)
|> wrote:
|> >  
|> > Here in the Toledo area, Rush's TV show was originally aired
|> > on WUPW, the Fox affiliate station.  As of yessterday, there
|> > has been a minor (?) programming change.  Rush has moved from
|> > WUPW to NWO, the ABC station.  He completely took over Arsineo's
|> > time slot at 11PM.  This has not just bumped Arsinio back a
|> > half an hour, because after Rush they played "Top Cops" (or
|> > whatever the name of the show is, with the theme song about
|> > bad boys...)  Top Cops also used to be a Fox show, and moved
|> > to NWO.  TV Guide obviously hasn't noted the change yet, because
|> > Rush is still listed as being on WUPW.
|> >
|>  
|> Yup!  And here in Austin, a city swarming with liberals (UT @ Austin) we
|> have another anomaly in television: Rush Limbaugh is on at noon and again
|> at 10:30 on our Fox affiliate KBVO, Channel 42!  A double dose of dittos! 
|> Bumped ol' Arsenio Hall who used to come on in that time slot.....
|> 
|> treble@asc.slb.com "My humble, but accurate, opinion does not necessarily
|> reflect that of my employer. I get full credit for my insightful and witty
|> comments!"

Well, don't worry about Rush competing with your local news.  It won't be that
way for long.  Here in Chicago, Rush used to be on at 10:00pm.  After wiping
Whoopi off the airwaves, he started cutting into the local news audience and
their lucrative ad revenues.  His show was just moved to 10:30 this week.  I
guess the local stations aren't as protective of the network feed shows as
they are of their own productions.

Pete
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12926 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11421 alt.politics.clinton:19555 alt.politics.bush:15462 alt.politics.homosexuality:8896
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Date: 4 Jan 1993 10:48 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <C0B5vL.14I@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes...
|howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:
| 
|>Define secularism.  If you mean Secular Humanism, I'd agree.  If you
|>mean 'all secular activities' as it appears, I'd like to see someone
|>take a fourth derivative or find the roots of equations by religious
|>means. 
| 
|Point taken.  Secular reasoning, in the context I discuss it, refers
|to reasoning which is about social issues and which specifically ignores
|any religious references.

	Okay, secular is what is not religious.  Now, define "religious".
I have already done so in a previous post today, and I know that your
definition will simply disagree with mine.  Then you can go from there.


|It was only after the publication of Darwin's work, combined with Marx's
|"Das Kapital" that society began differentiating scientific knowledge
|from religious knowledge.  Before the 1850, there was arguably no 
|difference between the two in terms of cultural perceptions.

	Society may not have differentiated.  I now, however, recognise
that any reasoning that does not require religious reasoning to accompany 
it is secular.

|>Thanks for conceding my point.  I wasn't trying to start a death toll
|>contest;  I was pointing out that religions didn't have that clean of
|>a slate either.  Not by a long shot.  And alost all wars in modern
|>history have had religious justifications on both sides. Like Napoleon
|>said, 'God is always on the side with the biggest guns'.
| 
|Napolean was hardly a churchman :)

	But he was correct in his assertion about God.




|Or Darwin.  The very idea of a biologically superior race is purely 
|secular.  One of the problems with secularism is that it damns so 
|thoroughly.  One can convert and become saved, but how does one dispose
|of a genetic inferiority?  You might argue that the savages Columbus
|found were thought to be inferior by many.  I would point out that the
|Church did not agree.

	But one might also argue that the religious "many" define the 
"Church" just as much as the potentates that run the institution.

	How does ont convert from a genetic inferiority?  It depends
on whether the inferiority is a judgement based on aesthetics or more
on a performance which is more difficult to deny.

Gadson

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
XXXDate: Mon, 4 Jan 93 18:39:19 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A76DD267F8050614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 04 Jan 93 18:40:18 GMT

In article <C07oBz.F74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeyer steven l,
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning? 
>
>Let's take a clear look at a couple of examples of *secular* reasoning:
>
>     <badly argued secular philosophy omitted>

Reasoning, of any sort, is good.  Religious or secular, when sound arguments
are based on mutually accepted premises they generally lead to areas of
agreement.

However, the problem with the common application of "religious reasoning" is
that it is based on biblical premises, which are only acceptable to those
who accept the Bible as doctrine.

Unless you can find a set  of premises that you can agree on, argument is
pointless.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | tFreedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you offa.
From: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rights and responsibi
Date: 9 Jan 93 05:34:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: HAL 9000 BBS, W-NET HQ, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Reply-To: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 

SRF>|No I'm not.  If the unborn child is a person, then the mother may not
SRF>|simply kill him for any non-vital rights she claims the child is
SRF>|violating.  You can't kill a house-guest just because he has overstayed
SRF>|his welcome and doesn't want to leave and you think he is violating your
SRF>|rights.

SRF>|orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyc
SRF>|uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .                Deer are for Dinne

Let's say you go to the store one day and fail to lock your door
properly. You get home and find a stranger living in your house.
He refuses to leave, eats your food, steals money from you, and
his lack of hygiene and living habits cause you to be physically
sick. Are you entitled to have him thrown out of your house? What if
there are no police?  Are you required to feed and house this
person?
---
 . SLMR 2.0 . "God created Michigan to train the faithful."
 * KMail 2.94e W-NET HQ, hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us, 313-663-4173 or 3959
                  
----
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| HAL 9000 BBS +1 313 663 4173 or 663 3959 | Four 14.4k v.32bis dial-ins |
| Public Access QWK-to-Usenet gateway      | With PCBoard 14.5aM & uuPCB |
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kellyj@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kelly Johnson)
Subject: Re: Abstinence
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 18:22:22 GMT

In article <3704.97.uupcb@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us> laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers)  writes:
>JS>AIDS will have to emphasize abstinence over safe sex. Rush
>JS>wonders what is wrong with this - the schools are not prohibited
>JS>from teaching about condoms or safe sex. Complaining about the
>JS>teaching of abstinence is like complaining that kids in drug
>JS>classes are told not to do drugs. This simply doesn't make any
>JS>sense. Rush used to think that he understood the logic and agenda
>JS>of the pro-condom crowd, but now he believes that he was too
>JS>lenient; the opposition to abstinence is "hideous."
>
>A large part of the problem is that abstinence is NOT taught
>effectively.... Other parts left out...
>
>Teach them that 'scoring' and tab-A-into-slot-B is not the
>be-all, end-all of sex. Sexuality includes masturbation,
>hugging, kissing, touching, and other ways of being close
>that don't involve screwing.
>
>You can teach abstinence, but teaching them that sex is a nasty,
>rotten thing that they should avoid isn't going to do squat.

That's not the point.  I agree that teaching that sex is a nasty
rotten thing is wrong, but teaching them that they can somehow
avoid the consequences of their actions via condoms and abortions
is equally wrong.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:08:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.031518.8457@netcom.com> teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger) writes:
>In article <C0B0Cu.Eu7@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:

>Excuse me, but to my recallection Thomas Jefferson was an ATHEIST.

	Strictly speaking, TJ was a Deist. He believed that the
Universe had a Creator, but one that did not have too much to do with
the Universe after it was created. He also believed that the story of
the Virgin Birth was as fictional as the story of Athena being born
from Zeus's head. He also wrote a version of the Gospels in which he
edited out all the miracles, as if he considered JC to be someone who
was a great man but not a miracle-worker, a rather un-Fundie belief.

	However, he did try to keep his Deism in the closet, as it
were, though not completely successfully. Thomas Paine had similar
views, and was more outspoken, in his book _Age of Reason_, in which
he pointed out numerous Biblical Satanic Verses, as I call them. How
many others of our Founding Fathers? We may never know for sure,
because they would have gotten in deep trouble if they took any
heresies they might have had out of the closet.

	This "closet" analogy is with, of course, homosexuality, and
in that connection I once saw somewhere that there were those who, in
Bertrand Russell's words, "exaggerated the intimacy" of TG and TP,
calling them "the two Toms".
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13552 talk.abortion:55106
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion
Date: 8 Jan 93 15:52:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1993Jan8.092845.2048@hobbes.kzoo.edu> k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
>stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>>...
>>If the unborn child is a person, then the mother may not
>>simply kill him for any non-vital rights she claims the child is
>>violating.  You can't kill a house-guest just because he has overstayed
>>his welcome and doesn't want to leave and you think he is violating your
>>rights.
>>...
>>-- 
>>orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
>
>If you are the NRA, then you will fight tooth and nail (and gun) to
>preserve your right to legally shoot and kill an intruder in your home.
>(If you don't subscribe to this, then you _ipso_facto_, Q.E.D., are not
>the NRA, and should stop misrepresenting yourself as such, or you will
>hear from their lawyers first thing in the morning.)  I believe, in this
>state at least, you don't even have to prove self-defense.  A Man's Home
>Is His Castle, and Men have to have to have the Right to Defend their
>Castles against Intruders with Very Big Guns, eh?
>
>Yet a woman can't kill an intruder in her own _body_!?

The woman hung out a sign that said "baby welcome" when she had sex.  It 
is one of those laws of nature, when women have sex, babies will result.  
Not always, but sometimes.  Therefore, if the baby would be an intruder, 
then don't hang out the welcome sign.

Ted


-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:29:33 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...

In article <1993Jan7.020331.8836@afit.af.mil>, wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will
Bralick) says:

>Well, Miss Chelsea Clinton will avoid going to public school this
>year by virtue of her parents' money and connections.  As Mr. Limbaugh
>pointed out today, Gov. Clinton opposes school choice for middle and
>lower class people, but not members of his own economic class.

Hey now... be careful not to drift into class envy, okay?  That's for
Democrats.  :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:39:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.204314.19257@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> jon@Turing.ORG (Jon Gefaell (KD4CQY)) writes:


AHA !!

I FOUND your sorry butt! 

Hey JoN, how'd you like getting your butt kicked by me on IRC?!

That was a BEAUTIFUL shootout we had - you shutting down my
IRCSERVERS, me getting on just in time and kicking you off my channel,
all on a 300baud modem!

You are pathetic, dude. You have the hacking power of some Wargames
maniac and I stopped you dead in your tracks. 

The entire IRC net is laughing at you, dude. And don't THINK about
trying it again - you and your cronies are set on autoban and
autokick. 

I heard you wanted this newsgroup destroyed. You damned sure have
tried to destroy #Limbaugh. But you're on notice, punk: You're not
EVER going to stop us. I am amazed that I stopped you at all, but it
happened and I know how to stop you again. (If the IRCops don't get
you first.) 

I can also hack ops, by the way, in addition to getting netsplit ops.
And as you know, I'm running a NeXT account - I kick faster than you.
Do you REALLY want to net-attack me again? 

BTW, I have friends on IRC who'd love to nail you.



  --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
         Jon@turing.org: Another skull on Borgie Boy's belt. :)
  --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
  --Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.5--
  USENET Warlord / IRC Channel Owner / Accounts WorldWide / Home Login!
	      (Whooboy that means LOTSA time for all this?)
                  The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:27:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article Will Bralick writes:

>Maybe we should sack the teachers and hire
>motivated children instead.

(Unfortunately) This has been shown to "work".  The motivated
students do seem to make "good" teachers.  They don't get paid
anything and they don't learn anything and they probably couldn't
"take it" for very long, but for a while it does "work".
From: Treble@asc.slb.com (John Treble)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 8 Jan 93 20:11:33 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: ASC-Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: asc438.asc.slb.com

In article <4031.1026.uupcb@idcbbs.uu.holonet.net>,
steven.fischer@idcbbs.uu.holonet.net (Steven Fischer) wrote:

> I believe you left out a couple of other  important  solutions  to  the 
> school crisis:
> 
>      5.  Disband the NEA union.  It has become nothing more than a 
> self-serving organization that demands that we spend more and more 
> money on a defunct teaching method.
> 
>      6.  Return to a curriculum that focuses on reading, mathematics 
> and the sciences.  This continued shift towards the non-subjects like 
> ethno-centrism, new-age studies and the rest.
> 
>      7.  Institute a teacher certification and testing program to weed 
> out those that are incompetent.  And do away with the near inablity of 
> a school to fire a tenured teacher.  *****MERIT PAY******
> 
> You make a good point that parents should be involved in the schools.  
> But I have heard many accounts a parents who have taken to task 
> teachers for mistakes or wrong behavior and have been all but ignored 
> by the teachers and counselors.
> 
>                                                      
Steven is right about the NEA, the curriculum, and teacher certification.
In fact, one of the problems is getting parents involved in schools is the
NEA's attitude that parents don't know how to educate their kids.  Teaching
should be left up to the professionals.... Unfortunately, many parents have
swallowed that line.  They send their kids to school and say, "Here's
little Johnny.  Educate him, because I'm not qualified to do it."

I spoke to a teacher in our public school that attended a teacher's
conference (sorry, I can't remember the name of the conference) and she
told me that some of the conference speakers actually warned about letting
parents into the schools.  Something about them getting in the way of the
educational process.
Make you wonder just what the professional educator's agenda really is.....

treble@asc.slb.com "My humble, but accurate, opinion does not necessarily
reflect that of my employer. I get full credit for my insightful and witty
comments!"
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality