HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Some more about 'RIGHTS'
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 20:26:46 GMT

In article <BvIJB2.AD7@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
    >In article <1aic5hINN3f8@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
    >stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:
    >>In article <1992Oct2.161740.6025@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
    >>(Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>
    >>>There are inherent rights -- they exist whether you care to
    >>>acknowledge or not. As for the majority of people you rave
    >>>about,
    >>>
    >Yeah, yeah. Ronzone made this same claim on
    >talk.politics.theory a few months ago and then disappeared
    >into the woodwork when asked to make some sort of sense of
    >his Randroid droolings. (and yes I *have* read all of Rand's
    >writings on ethics, and a weaker set of claims I have seldom
    >seen)

Well, first of all I don't post to t.p.m. Cross postings I reply to may
send some stuff there, but otherwise I don't play there.

Secondly, if all this "Randroid drooling" is so "weak", why, then, it should
be extremely easy for you to post your refutations.




    >>yes I agree - there are inherent rights; the right to be free
    >>of mental and physical persecution; the right to pursue
    >>intellectual avenues that favor your desires...
    >>
    >Sorry, you're wrong too. You will have a hard time coming up
    >with any kind of defensible proof of "intrinsic rights", as
    >opposed to rights merely granted or defined by social
    >consensus.

Every entity has the right to pursue survival in the way it has
evolved too. A lion has a right to [try to] hunt to live, a rabbit
has the right to try and run away from predators, and so on.

A lion can catch and eat a rabbit, a rabbit can run away, those are all
moral acts (technically not really -- morality requires a conscience,
something we don't think a lion or a rabbit has).

A man survives by thinking. To require a lion not to hunt to live
is immoral. To require a man to not think to live is also immoral.
All coercion requires a man a "not think" -- to negate the result of
his thinking. If you do not wish to sell you house for $5, that is
because your thinking says that is a NOT a rational way to survive.
To be forced to sell your house for $5 is a coercive interference
with your survival and is immoral.

Thus, FOA is the first, the primary result of man as a moral
being.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.perot
From: dtiberio@csws18.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio)
Subject: Re: Henry Ross Perot -- anagrams
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 06:04:38 GMT

In article <1ao6gsINN5cu@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:
>
>
> Henry Ross Perot -- anagrams
>*******************************
> 1.  Shorty errs?  Nope!
> 2.  He's ornery, Sport!
> 3.  Spy on the errors.
> 4.  Open yer shorts, R.!
> 5.  The sorry person.
>*******************************
>

	Andre Marrou - Our Damn Rear
	George Bush - Bush E Gorge
	Nancy Lord - Conan Dryl
	Dave Polewka - Weaved Polka
	David Tiberio - Bar Dive Idiot
	Henry Ross Perot - Sorry, Top 'N Sheer!
	Al Gore - Galore - Ear Log - Lo Gear


-- 

 ***** * ****  ***** ****  *  ***    * *   *    ***   ***   Make the Choice!
   *   * *   * *     *   * * *   *   * **  *   *   *     *    Don't Vote!
   *   * ****  ****  ****  * *   *   * * * *    ****    * 
   *   * *   * *     *  *  * *   *   * *  **       *   *      NO NEW SIGS!
   *   * ****  ***** *   * *  ***    * *   *   ****   ****
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:47996 alt.rush-limbaugh:5903 alt.politics.elections:14315 alt.politics.clinton:7280 alt.politics.bush:6746
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush is a Mass Murderer (was Re: Bush's Accomplishments)
Date: 26 Sep 92 16:49:38 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Sep23.192155.7282@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>
>He could have done that by going after the SOB Hussein and sparing
>the innocent 250,000 that he killed.

"Innocent" 250,000? Uniformed thugs and looters caught trying to
escape Kuwait in their stolen autos stuffed with loot is more like
it. There were civilian casualties of the bombing campaign, and that's
an unfortunate fact of war, but the bulk of the dead were on the road
out of Kuwait and in the entrenchments *inside* Kuwait and southern
Iraq.

>I never said that I supported Hussein. READ MY LIPS: WE SHOULD HAVE
>GONE DIRECTLY AFTER HIM AND SPARED THE 250,000. Thats my argument.
>Mostly, I'm concerned with the MOTIVATION behind Bush's actions: see
>my previos posts.

Perhaps no one has bothered to tell you that assassination of foreign
leaders is against US law, a result of Kennedy's botched attempts on
Castro. President Bush could not have legally ordered the deliberate
killing of Saddam. Not that the CIA, the Mossad, the British and
French secret services, and a lot of Iraqi dissidents probably weren't 
trying to anyway. Middle Eastern dictators have elaborate protections
against assassination attempts since they are such a frequent occurance.


>Hitler was an ally of Japan. Even before Pearl Harbor Day, the Germans
>were sinking our ships as we were sending supplies to GB. We were attacked
>by Hitler and Japan. We had a right to defend ourselves. Comparing
>the Gulf War and WWII is an obscenity to all those brave men who died
>defending our nation in the last JUST war that the U.S. fought in.

It's well known that Cordell Hull and Franklin Roosevelt wanted the
US in the European war. They bent the Neutrality Acts completely out
of shape attempting to indirectly enter the war. There is even evidence
that they deliberately failed to warn Pearl Harbor of the impending
attack so that the damage would be sufficient to shock the American
people into demanding war. We had broken the Japanese code and were
reading their dispatches. German subs were sinking US ships that
were *violating* the Neutrality Acts by entering a declared war
zone around Great Britain. WWII was a war that had to be fought,
but it was no more or less just than other wars we've fought. 

Gary
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49621 talk.abortion:40637 alt.activism.d:3549
From: ads3@PO.CWRU.edu (Andrew Shults)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 03:18:16 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b62204.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Oct6.004552.5641@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.031102.1065@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.
edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:> 
>>But when I talk to a pro-choice advocate, abortion seems to be the only
>>choice they want to discuss.
>
>Have you ever talked to pro-choice advocates when not talking about 
>abortion?  When discussing abortion, naturally they discuss abortion.
>However, pro-choice generally means they want as many available choices
>as possible.  Pro-life is the group that wants to restrict the number
>of choices available.  I would be very surprised if you could find a 
>pro-choice advocate that would want to make any of the other feasible
>options such as adoption illegal.  I would be extremely shocked if you
>could find a pro-choice advocate who wanted to outlaw abstinence.

I'll bet you'd also have a hard time finding a pro-choice advocate who
likes China's policy of forced sterilizations and forced abortions.
However, I happen to know of a certain President who seems to really like
China.

   ---Andrew

[Part of A Jeopardy Game]  * Paul McHale for Congress *   //    Andrew Shults
Emma: "Let's try 'The Best Medicine' for $20, Alex."    //   ads3@po.cwru.edu
Alex: "And the answer is -- '[Congressman] Don Ritter's pledge to run a clean
       campaign focusing on the issues' (BZZZZ) Emma."
Emma: "What is ha ha ha ha?"-B. White, Columnist, Allentown [PA] Morning Call


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48368 alt.rush-limbaugh:6091 alt.politics.bush:7020 alt.politics.clinton:7608 alt.politics.elections:14528 talk.abortion:39073 alt.sex:31171
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:41:24 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Sep28.184101.9307@sniap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>: In article <1992Sep22.173704.15681@sniap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>: >
>A gang threatens your daughter's life.  Is society involved now?  
>Or are you going to strap on a bazooka and sort it yourself?

I should hope you would defend your daughter. I'm sure you would defend
your son. As for rape, women do have the right to self defense, thank
the politically correct diety of your choice.

>I believe you'll find that you need somebody's permission to kill 
>"thus and such person".  Try killing a cop, and see what happens.  

I have yet to meet a fetus who was a person, let alone a fetus who was a cop.

>Thanks for the ad hominem - I feel priviliged - but what worries me is not what 
>anybody gets up to in their bedroom, but what they get up to in abortion clinics.  

Maybe you need something to occupy your time?  

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48265 misc.legal:17801 sci.econ:7822
From: jb00@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JOSE ANTONIO BASTO)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Cold Blood-The Massacre of E. Timor: DISC channel-5:00PM(EST)
Date: 26 Sep 92 18:37:17 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

The documentarie "COLD BLOOD - THE MASSACRE OF EAST TIMOR", from Yorkshire  TV
(GB) is to be showed today for the first time in USA.

If you have cable TV, get "The Discovery Channel" at 5:00 PM today (Saturday)
or 2:00 AM tomorrow (Sunday).

This is a independent view of the struggle of East Timor people against his
powerful neighbor Indonesia, that had cost 1/3 of its population (> 200 000
deaths) in 16 years of occupation.

See with your own eyes the way the resistance lives in the jungle,
the last words ofindependence fighters recorded (some of then had been shoot
at the 12 November massacre), the peaceful demonstration and the cruel
violence of the Indonesian army on assassinating the East Timorese
demonstrators.

Jose' Basto
-- 
Jose' Barros BASTO; Address:11,Duh Dr Apt 222; BETHLEHEM, PA 18015-3732
Phone :(215)758-1846; Office:(215)758-4640;  FAX:(215)758-4886   U.S.A.
From: lbaum@bcsaic.boeing.com (Larry Baum)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: An informed voter picks Bush
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:35:44 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle

In article <1992Sep29.144207.23442@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
: Michael Friedman writes:
: >In article <1992Sep28.94729.24996@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
: >
: >In that case why is it dropping now instead of six months ago?  Maybe
: >because the market is lowering the expected future value of those
: >stocks becasue they anticipate Clinton screwing up the economy?
: >
: >>The market is currently around 3200-3300. Tradional margins for these
: >>technical standards would put the market at around 2100-2200. >
: >Snicker.
: >
: >That's a 5% range.  As traditional standards are nowhere near that
: >exact I think we have some creative creation of statistics here.
: >
: >Mind giving us a source for this claim?
: >-- 
: 
: The story was in the Louisville papers. It was written by an
: analyst from a local brokerage house. His analysis had led him
: to caution people away from stocks. Since brokers usually like
: to have people BUY I thought his analysis deserved mention. 

Oh, I expect he's perfectly happy to have people SELL stocks.
He gets his share either way.



-- 
Larry Baum
Computer Science Organization
Boeing Computer Services     uucp:       uw-beaver!bcsaic!lbaum
(206) 865-3365               internet:   lbaum@atc.boeing.com       
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 20:23:12 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


In article <1992Oct2.034327.3571@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>Why isn't a fetus considered a living entity??

I personally have no problem considering a fetus a living entity.  But
then I am not a spokesperson for any pro-choice movement.  I don't much
think the fact that it is or isn't a living entity as having much 
influence on my pro-choice position.

>I could understand if there were extreme circumstances, but what about
>abortions carried out simply because the parents think a child might
>be an inconvenience.  I could understand if perhaps it was known that a
>child would be born with major medical problems and not live very long if
>born. But each case must be looked at individually.

And that is the crux of at least my pro-choice position.  Yes let each
case be looked at individually.  Don't pass stupid legislation trying 
to make each case fit into some square peg.  Legislation is just going
to muck up the whole process.  Nobody I am aware of is insisting that
particular abortions be performed, they are only insisting that the
people most effected by the abortion decision be allowed to decide
for their own circumstances.  

>Simon

Welcome to the pro-choice movement.
 
Dan King

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48494 alt.politics.bush:7092 alt.politics.clinton:7698
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: An informed voter picks Bush
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:56:17 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Sep28.94729.24996@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
>Brad Green writes:

>>Did you catch CNN today?  Seems Wall Street is finally looking at the
>>possibility of Clinton winning, and stocks are dropping?  How can that
>>be, if all these CEO's and Wall Street folks support him?

>Stocks are dropping for technical reasons: can you say "poor P/E ratios"?
>can you say overvalued stock price to asset ratios? can you say "low dividends"?
>I knew that you could.

In that case why is it dropping now instead of six months ago?  Maybe
because the market is lowering the expected future value of those
stocks becasue they anticipate Clinton screwing up the economy?

>The market is currently around 3200-3300. Tradional margins for these
>technical standards would put the market at around 2100-2200. 

Snicker.

That's a 5% range.  As traditional standards are nowhere near that
exact I think we have some creative creation of statistics here.

Mind giving us a source for this claim?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: New anti-abortion tactic
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 2 Oct 92 12:31:03 CDT


In article <1992Sep30.113744.4430@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 
> 	It's happened before (although not with abortion pics).  I remember one
> guy in CA running for office so he could use profanity on campaign literature
> and in TV ads.

I'm still waiting for the "free-love" party's campaign commercials.  :-)

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:15:04 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Kathryn Scholl) writes:
|> Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
|> >Bruce Varney) writes:
|> >] 
|> >] 	A couple DOES consent to the possibility of pregnancy when they
|> >] consent to sex.
|> >
|> >Sure, and when you go bungee jumping, you consent to the possibility
|> >that the cord will break and you'll smash into the ground.  Having
|> >consented, all should let you lie there, offering no aid.
|> 
|> 
|> You're right.  And yes, I would expect aid.  However, I would NOT expect
|> the GOVERNMENT to pay for the ambulance and doctor...would you?
|> 
|> Save for some _private_ donations from people who might want to donate to
|> my cause, I would expect to pay for it on my own, wouldn't you?
|> 
I think I've lost the train of thought here.  Are you saying:

1.	Terminating a pregnancy through abourtion is ok as long as it
	isn't funded by the GOVERNMENT, and

2.	That if you are laying on the ground dying of the flu or some
	other "involuntarily" acquired disease that you WOULD expect the
	GOVERMENT to pay for the ambulance and doctor?

It would seem that you are pro-choice and pro-citizen funded health
care as long as they don't cover procedures you don't agree with.  Is
my interpretation correct?

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 20:24:51 GMT

In article <19v5v3INN99t@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.005021.26871@versyss.com> keithd@versyss.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes:
>..
>>
>> Since a fertilized egg can divide into twins up to 6-8 weeks after
>> conception, how many individuals are present at conception?  When does
>> the additional individual appear?  What factor(s) constitute an individual
>> in this context?
>
> This is an excellent point. If there were any logic in the abortion debate
> everyone would agree that a fetus cannot be a person at 
> least until after this period.

My mother, a doctor, has a very simple (to her) rule about when a living be-
ing becomes a person.  The rule is that when s/he first differentiates him/
herself from his/her mother, then s/he becomes a person.  This is not a
psychological moment but a physiological one.

The vast majority of human beings make this differentiation within 10 minutes
of birth (she says; I assume it's in one of her journals somewhere, or she
learned it in med school).  A small minority makes this differentiation (i.e.
their immune systems react to the mothers' blood systems, etc., as if they
were foreign) up to several weeks before birth; a small minority fails to
make this differentiation (i.e., accepts non-type-identical donated blood
from the mother without any trouble) for up to several weeks after birth.
Her medical opinion is that a fetus is physiologically part of the mother's
body, like her finger or spleen is, until it physiologically separates.  The
difference between a fetus and a spleen is that in a healthy system the fetus
does eventually become physiologically different, and in a healthy system the
spleen does not.

I like my mother's position for two reasons:  one, that it reduces the "per-
son" problem to a simple medical test; and two, that the moral and ethical
dilemma of abortion is firmly restored to the religious sphere where IMHO it
belongs.  Whether it is moral or ethical seems to derive from the question of
when God endows a living being with a soul.  If you're a believing and prac-
ticing Catholic, it's at conception (and wrt twins, God knows whether the egg
will split and provides the appropriate number of souls at conception).
Other faiths have other beliefs.  The trick is to admit to the souls bit and
not try to muddy the moral dilemma by claiming that there's some secular
legal problem or impossible medical criterion that can only be resolved by
forcing everyone to adhere to a single religious position.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|	"Test everything; retain what is good."  1 Thessalonians 5:21	      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: mhmulli@eos.ncsu.edu (MARTIN HARPER MULLIS)
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
Originator: mhmulli@c00453-313mn.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: mhmulli@eos.ncsu.edu (MARTIN HARPER MULLIS)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:35:21 GMT


>And lets not flower up what Dandy Dan did with a bunch of
>Bullshit - the PUKE was a Draft Dodger with Nice Pull...

 Our friend here just discredited every member in the national guard.
 I guess since the national guard served in every war since its creation 
 it does not deserve to be considered military.
  One wont find the guard any different than the army.
 When the guard came home from Saudi the veterans that fought in Nam 
 (who were with the guard) marched alongside.
 
 When a persons draft number came up they had the option to 
 join the service of their choice. Some went to the navy, some the guard,
 and others the army. once you joined you had no idea if you were 
 going to war or not because some units did and some units did not.
 Any man that joins the military knows he may be called to battle and may die.
 for that reason he has served his country regardless of where he was stationed.

 Quayle served his country,  Clinton abandoned it.
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc