HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 04:27:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Followup-To: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

Note followup change.

varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes ...
>	Having sex can result in pregnancy.
>
>	I would venture to say that MOST people who engage in sexual
>activity know this. That being the case, if they were interested in 
>avoiding pregnancy for sure, they would not have sex. Otherwise, they
>are taking a risk, AND KNOW IT FULL WELL!! If that is not consenting
>to the possibility of pregnancy, then I would like to know what is.

Fine.  Driving a car can result in injury or death.

Are you now going to claim that anyone who's is injured in a car
accident should be allowed to die?  Or the people who live in Florida
should _not_ get any federal assistance?

As has been pointed out, even if sex can be inferred to be a consent
to the _possibility_ of pregnancy, in no way can it be considered
consent to carrying a child for 9 months and giving birth.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Another Dehumanizer Steps Forward....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:34:37 GMT

mlbruce@husc8.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce) writes:
] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] 
] >Why does no one ever talk about UnBornGrandParents?
] 
]  Perhaps because there is a major difference between seperately-existing
] eggs and sperm, and already-conceived human...
 

So some Potential Humans do not Live up to your
Personal Standard Of PotentialPersonHood Or What?

I say that Killing off a Sperm is the Brutal
Cold Blooded Murder of an UnBornGrandParent
who Might have grown up to save the world
from the Threat of International Kommunism!!!!!

And Your Vile DEHUMANIZATION of the Potential Persons
who Just Have Not Reached YOUR Person Level Of PotentialPersonHood
merely shows How Depraved and Debased YOU ARE!!!!!

AS Long as People Like you are allowed to DEHUMANIZE
any Potential Persons, WHO IS SAFE!!!!!!


ciao
drieux




-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends MLKing Slur (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:01:17 GMT
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL

In article <1992Oct2.031050.5464@cs.brown.edu> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:
>To avoid running around in circles, maybe ARF would like to
>tell us his opinion about MLK and about D.Duke. This is what
>this thread is about anyway, not about facts or anything of the
>sort.


That would seem a rather dangerous thing to do.  You would have to wait
at least a week before you could start to invent my views again.

You have never cared much about what I say in the past when presenting
you hatefull interpretations of my statements, why start now?

js

>


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 23:35:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.180123.18903@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>I just wonder how rational some people are when they make that decision.
>What about making a choice for life??

>Simon


What about making a choice for not patronizing women?



-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49067 misc.legal:17957 alt.flame:13178
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Quayle and Lawyers
Date: 2 Oct 92 11:18:26 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Oct2.000158.7058@Princeton.EDU> pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:

> Theodore A. Kaldis:

>> It is not necessary to always appeal only to logic when trying to
>> convince a jury.

> But it is necessary to use logic to convince this jury (the average
> USENet reader).

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Got any more good ones?

> If you aren't going to try and be logical you might as well just stop
> posting now.

Because logical people generally don't post to the net.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49030 can.politics:7790 sci.econ:7914
From: alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,can.politics,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Banks and the October referendum: fear and drooling
Date: 2 Oct 92 02:46:18 GMT

In <1992Oct1.174138.3817@pandora.matrox.com>
thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
writes:

> alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon) writes:
> >	The bankers love Mulroney today.  He just made them oodles of money.
> >	Those bankers who did not make money in this are terminally
> >	stupid.
> >	The script was played out to perfection.
> The new organized criminals are financiers, and they prey on
> governments.

	I am sure they have their share of criminals (after all
	they have the motive, the weapon and the opportunity) but
	I would not tar brush the banking community for taking
	advantage of a perfect (and rare) opportunity.  And it
	was legal.

> Thomas Hood

--
 The Vacuum Cleaner Man (reality sucks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami)
Subject: Re: The US (Was Re: Choice for men)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
	<717015189@lear.cs.duke.edu>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 09:22:56 GMT


In article <717015189@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

> I really think that protecting people from the government's abuses of
> power is more important than protecting people from each other.

Is that based on the actions of current government or you would'n accept
any kind of government to have more power. I think it is better to try
getting a government that will use it's power right than trying to
make the current government toothless.

> Fine.

> Do your thing, and we will see how well you will do in the long run;
> especially after the US will stop wasting $150,000,000,000 a
> year on keeping troops in Europe.

You could start by disarming those missiles aimed to Finland.
As the former sovjet union showed, the ability of producing efficient
weapons and having a big army doesn't tell anything how well the
economic or political system works. I just tells that the system is
good for making weapons, nothing more.

> As long as they make their money, what's wrong in that?
> (The Industrial Revolution was carried out by those who wanted
> more money with less work, you know.)

There is nothing wrong with that. I just said that most of them leaved
just for more money. And not for some ideological reason. Some may
even think that they don't like the system but the economical benefits
are more important.

> Quite a few people have more freedom than it's good for them,
> but it is not a good enough reason to take their freedom away. 

I would say that they can do whatever they want, as long as their
activities doesn't seriously disturb other persons lives.
And I would consider killing or stealing (usually) as such a serious
disturbance.

> They have to break the law first.

They also must have failed in their criminal activities, so that they
cannot pay a lawyer to get them free. I think that the law should be
equal to everybody despite of their financial or political status, even
if that might sound socialistic to you.

> Because the US moved too far away from the original idea.  The
> government just sticks its nose in too many issues which are not
> its damn business.

From here it seems just the opposite. And if something is then done, things
then usually get too far.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Money isn't everything, : Sami Kiiskil{  ( The { means 'ae' ) :   Nothing   :
: . . . there is also     : e-mail : sk73171@ee.tut.fi          :     is      :
:  H i g h - T e c h  ! ! : phone : 931-180690 or 934-428254    : impossible. :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49003 ca.politics:8347 ba.politics:5780
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: No on 9
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:01:53 GMT
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.

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>You have a comprehension problem, don't you?

Speak for yourself, mate. Laura has generally impressed me - although I have
never met her, to my knowledge - as pleasantly clear-thinking, as well as
quite coherent.

This cannot be said for you.

>So you have evaded again the point -- unlike Jews, homosexuals are
>disliked by many for precisely WHAT they are and do.

This can be said for black, white, yellow, red people. However, this does
not validate this train of thought. You cannot discriminate against some-
-one who is not harming you without being a bigot, no matter how many other
bigots you find who agree with you that they are "offensive".

>Got it now?

That you're a bigot ? No secret there.

-- richard

-- 
=====
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49308 soc.motss:41676 ca.politics:8402 ba.politics:5827
From: pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu (Paul Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 3 Oct 1992 16:40:35 -0500
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: copland.crhc.uiuc.edu

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>Your ignorance is showing.  Also, the risky behavior hasn't changed.
>For starters, the risks from sodomy are dramatically higher than
>from vaginal sex -- this is why there are so few cases of vaginal
>sex transmitting the disease, except from prostitutes with vaginal
>lesions.

Whose ignorance is showing?

The only place this is a gay disease is in your deeply prejudiced mind.

From the January 1992 issue of Discover Magazine (page 52):

        	"Now, in the world as a whole, at least 70% of the 
	people infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, are 
	believed to have caught it from their heterosexual partners."

        	"While infection rates among homosexual men in this 
	country have begun to drop, among women they are soaring.  In 
	1990, 4,890 teenage and adult women were diagnosed with 
	full-blown AIDS, and at least 100,000 more are feared to be
	carrying the virus.  Among adolescents, a group in which the 
	disease is making especially rapid inroads, straight sex 
	surpassed gay sex for the last two years as a way of spreading 
	the infection."

There are really no risk groups, there are only risky behaviors - and good
old-fashioned unprotected heterosexual sex outside of a monogamous
relationship is a risky behavior.

Uninformed statements like yours only reinforce the myth among straight
people that AIDS is not something they have to worry about.  The biggest
"risk group" in America today is fools who still think being straight
and white is protection enough.  Don't make the next wave any bigger
than it already has to be.

Paul


-- 
Paul Ryan                  (pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu)     1308 West Main St.
Center for Reliable High-Performance Computing     Urbana, IL 61801
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign         (217) 244-7179
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.bush
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 04:54:29 -0400 
From: Thomas Omar Smith <ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
	<=#_pfkp.ray@netcom.com>

Excerpts from netnews.alt.rush-limbaugh: 28-Sep-92 Re: rights and
responsibili.. Ray Fischer@netcom.com (1034)

> Note followup change.

> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes ...
> >	Having sex can result in pregnancy.
> >
> >	I would venture to say that MOST people who engage in sexual
> >activity know this. That being the case, if they were interested in 
> >avoiding pregnancy for sure, they would not have sex. Otherwise, they
> >are taking a risk, AND KNOW IT FULL WELL!! If that is not consenting
> >to the possibility of pregnancy, then I would like to know what is.

> Fine.  Driving a car can result in injury or death.

> Are you now going to claim that anyone who's is injured in a car
> accident should be allowed to die?  Or the people who live in Florida
> should _not_ get any federal assistance?

> As has been pointed out, even if sex can be inferred to be a consent
> to the _possibility_ of pregnancy, in no way can it be considered
> consent to carrying a child for 9 months and giving birth.

If Abortion is murder, and if having sex is consenting to the
possibility of pregnancy, then yes it is consent to carry the child to
term.

					Tom the non hacker
					Read my lips, No second Term!
					Buchanan in 92!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: And Hence Abortion is NOT Murder
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:08:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.205934.9979@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>]
>] 	BTW, life of the mother and rape exceptions are CONSISTENT exceptions. 
>] Incest, if it was also rape, is consistent as well; but allowing abortions for
>] children incestuously conceived between two consenting adults would be an
>] INCONSISTENT exception (and therefore one I would oppose).
>] 
>] Steve
>
>If abortion is Murder
>then
>
>you are allowing an innocent to be murdered because
>someone raped someone...

That's right, and we'll probably be condemned by future generations for 
compromising our principles just like Thomas Jefferson and the other 
founding fathers are condemned by some because they allowed slavery to exist
in their new nation. But unless you're advocating a fascist state, this is 
the only way progress can be made. 

If this bothers you, however, then chew on this for a moment - society is 
already allowing hundreds of murders, if not thousands, to take place by
allowing convicted murderers and other criminals to be paroled. Not all 
parolees do kill which is why parole is allowed to continue. 

Needless to say, the few hundred abortions a year that would result from 
rape or incest would be far preferable to the 1.5 million that occur as 
a form of birth control.
-- 
John Switzer               | 50 years from now, nobody will
                           | remember Candice Bergen or Murphy
74076.1250@Compuserve.com  | Brown, but every school kid will
jrs@netcom.com             | be taught about President Quayle.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: United We Stand, America  (was "... Deliver")
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:18:56 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <BvAKwB.C71@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>In article <BvAGBD.FJo@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>> [deleted]
>>
>>  31% federal and 12% state tax is ENOUGH responsibility!
>
>SHUT UP ALREADY about your stupid state tax!!!  

  Why?   

  A large amount of state spending is federally mandated.  This
  has been a common ploy among the Republicrats during the last
  decade or so: the NON-TAX TAX.  They make a law requiring that
  corporations or states provide certain services, offer certain
  protections, etc, but allocate no funds to pay for them!  The
  company or the state is stuck with the bill.   This way the 
  Demopublicans can say, "See?  We didn't increase taxes!"

  In any case the 12% state tax figure IS relevant since your premise
  was that as a "wealthy" person, I wasn't taking enough responsibility.

  However, for your sensitive ears I'll be happy to amend my statement:
  31% federal tax is ENOUGH responsibility!

  There, happy?


---peter





Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Sho
Reply-To: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:19:42 GMT

more history:  the original working draft of our constitition
(the virginia plan) did not allow *any* re-election for
house, senate, or executive.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Ah, the truth is out!  (was Re: rights and responsibilities)
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<BuwJ68.Ixt@mentor.cc.purdu <1992Sep24.233614.2952@nwnexus.WA.COM>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:28:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.233614.2952@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
   In article <1992Sep24.015639.28562@news.acns.nwu.edu>
	dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:

   >I tend to believe that sex needs a deterent, and pregnancy seems to be
   >a good one to me.

      And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the crux of the matter.  Sex is
   evil, according to Douglas, and the sexual urge needs to be curbed.
   Fear of pregnancy, fear of disease need to be encouraged in people so
   that they will not have sex.

      Does anyone remember 1984, and Big Brother's Anti-Sex League?

      Douglas, tell us why sex needs a deterrent...

As my deceased father once told me:

	"Son, if it makes you grin, it's a sin.."

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Oh sure, we could do it the _easy_ way. But it just wouldn't be the COWBOY WAY.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49549 ca.politics:8445 ba.politics:5872
From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len B.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Some more about 'RIGHTS'
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:26:54 GMT
Organization: Informed Consent

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)
>
>
>>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.
>
>
>---peter
Peter....how's Apollo doing? Used to work there as a writer back
in 1984....with regards to rights, if you will check Article 9
in the Bill of Rights I believe thayt is the one that specifies
that we have all rights that are no expressly prohibited or
granted to the state or the feds. These are called "Implied
Rights" and are established by trial in major courts.....defense
of these "implied rights" rests on case law...ie: past cases
which have set precedent.

Len

--
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
The accountability of government has gone to the point where the very
use of the law is the instrument of illegality.
		-- Ralph Nader @ Harvard Law School, 1/15/92
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush's Accomplishments
Date: 28 Sep 1992 01:43:49 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

So Clinton mentioned the wrong missile.... anyone remember that when
Ronald Reagan was being briefed on different levels of military
readiness, they had to draw him a comic book? (With pictures of the
readied equipment....)

andy
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48821 soc.motss:41276 ca.politics:8312 ba.politics:5748