HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:09:16 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <casivils.726703334@node_508ba> casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
>
>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.  

Dragging someone onto your property against their will is a criminal act,
and subsequently killing them compounds the offence. In comparison, sexual
intercourse between consenting adults is generally NOT criminal.

Now, your analogy might make a little more sense if you said

	I don't think the police would buy the story that I enticed so and so
	onto my property and then killed them for trespassing

But it still wouldn't work. The primary purpose of sex, from the point of view
of the participant(s) who later seek abortions, is to enjoy oneself. There can
be no provable criminal intent to "entice" a z/e/f into existence purely for
the purpose of killing it, when a much more innocent motive is indicated.

>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.  

That is the safest and most efficient way to perform the procedure, Craig.
If the fetus is non-viable and non-feeling, what difference does the method of
removal make to IT? The method makes a BIG difference to the mother, though.

>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?  

If it gets unbearable, you can put the child up for adoption, i.e. remove the
child from your custody. Likewise, when a pregnancy becomes unbearable, the
woman has the right to remove the child from her physical custody too. The
only difference is, in the case of a non-viable fetus at least, that EXERCISING
the right of removal has more serious consequences for BOTH parties, especially
the fetus. Yet it is an absolute right all the same.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 21:05:40 GMT

In article <Jan10.080748.71220@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>	And an employer is not violating a homosexual's right to life unless he
>slips some Anthrax virus in the guy's coffee during the interview.  Get real.

I find it funny to see some white, het men foam at the mouth when they
think they're the victims of AA, and yet the rest of us should just
learn to live with the discrimination we encounter.  "I'll raise holy
hell if AA causes me to lose one scholarship to college, but those
queers should just calmly accept their second-class status."

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 19:06:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.212615.9029@asl.dl.nec.com>
dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:

>Let me clarify this. I do not think that children should be taught
>that the homosexual lifestyle is normal. I respect the rights of all
>human beings, I just believe that the homosexual lifestyle is
>wrong (IMO).

Presumably children should be taught facts, whether or not they should
be taught values.  According to some definitions of "normal", that
homosexuality is "normal" is simply a fact.  According to other
definitions it is not a fact.  Probably it would be best not to use
such a loaded and confusing term at all, but do you really think it is
best not to teach factual information to students of an appropriate
age?


-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13576 alt.sex:41653 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12204 alt.politics.correct:6141 alt.politics.equality:59 alt.politics.homosexuality:9331 alt.politics.clinton:20038
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Protection for homosexuals *is* valid (Was "Colorado Amendment2 Query")
Date: 11 Jan 1993 09:29 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1993Jan11.070202.3699@anasazi.com>, karl@anasazi.com (Karl Dussik) writes...
|In article <10JAN199301241456@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
|>	Sexual orientation defines what gender you're attracted to,
|>and nothing more.  It does not define one's practises, or one's other
|>sexual preferences.
| 
|I guess I'm just naive - why is the word "orientation" restricted to gender
|in this context?  Is that a legal definition, a PC definition, or what?

	...Because of the word "sexual" that precedes it.

	It is a psychological term.  And as such, the word "sexual" refers
clinically to "gender".  Sex, in this case, means gender.  That is why
bestiality, pedophilia, bondage, etcetera, are not sexual orientations.

	I have been arguing for a while now that if it is not already
so, we need to stipulate, legally, what "sexual orientation" means.  If
we do, or have already done so, the clinical definition seems most
appropriate.

Gadson
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion
Organization: Kalamazoo College
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 09:28:45 GMT

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_!?
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy      Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu      AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 Batten's Law of Communication:
 When the communicatee does not understand what the communicator intended,
 the responsibility remains that of the communicator.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1993 17:21:36 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1205@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.175408.163649@watson.ibm.com>
>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>|In <1181@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>|>
>|>You argue above in effect that allowing the child to be born is an
>|>implicit agreement to care for it.  How is that different from saying
>|>there is an implicit responsibility on those who engage in sex to care
>|>for any resultant children?  It isn't.
>|
>|You are correct.  If any children result, there is an implicit responsibility
>|to care for them.  However, action may be taken to ensure that no children
>|result.  For example, contraceptives.  If those fail, then abortion is
>|a way of ensuring that no child results.
>
>As I have already shown, in arguments with you, the fetus or embryo is a
>child by definition,

And as you're well aware, I use "child" in the normal sense of the word.

>Therefore you are simply dodging the question I pose above.

Not at all.  I addressed the question as I understood it - i.e., if [A] allowing
a child to be born at time(9 months) is an implicit agreement to care for
the child, then [B] isn't there an implicit responsibility at time(conception)
to care for for [A].  And I pointed out that there are ways to prevent [A]
from occurring.

Now you explain that you were talking about something else, so I'll address
the new question.  The difference between the two is the difference between
a zygote, embryo, or fetus, and a child (in the normal sense of the word).
If you're unable to distinguish between a zygote and a newborn baby, then
there is no difference *for you*, but most of us are able to see a big
difference between the two.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: gerberrl@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Richard L. Gerberding)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Pollitically Correct vs Morally Correct
Date: 7 Jan 1993 12:53:35 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Distribution: world
Reply-To: gerberrl@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Richard L. Gerberding)
NNTP-Posting-Host: o200c-1.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

In article <1idatcINNnef@male.EBay.Sun.COM> birge@guerciotti.EBay.Sun.COM  
(John Birge) writes:
> I thought this might provoke an interesting conversation in this group
> so I cross posted it here.
> 
> When Clinton confronted the female Rapper on her own turf he was accused
> of pandering to Main Stream America, never mind the validity of his
> statements. When Perot used verbage outside of the PC vernacular at the 
> same Rainbow convention all context of the speech was lost as his "You
> People" was seen as some form of Freudian racism. 
> 
Interesting note on the Perot quote - the next day I caught a  
bla...African American rights advocate going off about what Perot said  
about "our people,"  isn't this the same separatist attitude that everyone  
got worked up over with Perot??

--

\===================================================================\|||||
|\  Richard Gerberding              Disclaimer: Like I even know     \||||
||\                                           what they think!!!      \|||
|||\ gerberrl@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu                                 \||
||||\===================================================================\|
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:42:33 GMT
Organization: A.I. Chem Lab, University of Arizona

In article <1992Dec30.210630.19156@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>>Since homosexuality is found in *every* mammalian species, 
>
>Source please.
>
>Ted

When I was in junior high school debating class I found that trick to be
very useful, especially when I didn't have a good rational arguement
with which to respond.

But it would be jumping to conclusions to assert that this is what
Ted is doing (at least in this case).  So I am awaiting Ted's reasoned 
rational arguement, and the end of rhetorical tricks, with bated breath.

Gosh this is sooooo exciting!
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13387 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11980 alt.politics.clinton:19904 alt.politics.bush:15717 alt.politics.homosexuality:9211
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Why the "argument from Nature" matters
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:36:40 GMT
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1ikfjpINNrup@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
>> Homosexual behavior is exhibited in some portion of all mammal species but
>> not all, clearly it is a natural phenomenon, and has a purpose in the natural 
>> scheme of things.
>
>What is its purpose in the natural scheme of things? 
>
>> Heterosexual behavior is exhibited in some portion of all mammal species but
>> not all, clearly it is a natural phenomenon, and has a purpose in the natural 
>> scheme of things.
>
>
>What is *its* purpose in the natural scheme of things?
>

What is your purpose in the natural scheme of things, wally?

Does it matter?

Why do you care? Do you wish to justify your bigotry?

Take a long, hard look at yourself, wally. Ask yourself:

"why do I dislike homosexuality?"
"why am I so threatened by people who are different from me?"
"why do I have so much trouble coming to terms with who I am?"
"why do I insist on prostlatyzing in various newsgroups?"

>Walter
>

Maybe if you find the answers to these questions you'll be able to answer
the following:

"why is this Robert Johnston guy being such a pain to me? why can't he
just leave me alone?"

Robert Johnston
From: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Women as "Objects"
Date: 12 Jan 1993 19:32:04 GMT
Organization: Delaware Technical & Community College
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.dtcc.edu

In article <Treble-120193095605@asc438.asc.slb.com> Treble@asc.slb.com (John Treble) writes:
>Women (er, feminists) don't want to be treated as objects, but want the
>right to treat unborn babies as objects...."it's just a lump of flesh"
>

  And, interestingly, approximately 50% of these 'objects' are women (that is
the unborn babies are approx. 50% females).  Talk about oppression of the
female of the species!  They're KILLING them...  8-((

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bob Rahe, Delaware Tech&Comm College | AIDS, Drugs, Abortion: -        |
|Internet: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu        |  - Don't liberals just kill you?|
|CI$: 72406,525 Genie:BOB.RAHE        |Save whales; and kill babies?    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 8 Jan 1993 03:48:49 GMT
Organization: Delaware Technical & Community College
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.dtcc.edu

In article <mwalker-070193105119@mwalker.npd.provo.novell.com> mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker) writes:

>larger families pay less per kid. Doesn't seem quite fair, does it?
>However, when I think that my taxes pay to have a society of educated
>people, and not just for my OWN kid, it seems a little more reasonable.
>It's an investment in society.

  So wouldn't you want your money spent in a way that produced the most
good?  Where might that be, do you think?  Where does Billary think?  He
answered with his actions....
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bob Rahe, Delaware Tech&Comm College | AIDS, Drugs, Abortion: -        |
|Internet: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu        |  - Don't liberals just kill you?|
|CI$: 72406,525 Genie:BOB.RAHE        |Save whales; and kill babies?    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
XXXDate: Thu, 7 Jan 93 00:48:39 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A7721D778A010614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 08 Jan 93 00:49:21 GMT

In article <C0Cn5A.7J@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> JIM GRAHAM,
graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes:
> <In response to Greg Bradt's original comment of...>
>>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.
>
>I don't recall the argument being specifically limited to Christianity.
>
>Was it?
>

Quite right... replace "Bible" with "<insert applicable dogma here>" and my
point is more correctly make.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    | having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             | things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                | piss you off.
From: stamber@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Kevin L. Stamber)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush's Ratings
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:27:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <C0EFLz.GxE@andy.bgsu.edu>, jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.) writes:
> 
>                       Now, Rush's first showing is
> on at 11 PM, and the rerun showing is at 6 PM the next
> evening.  Here on EST, our local news shows are at 6 and 11
> PM.  This is going to force me and many others to choose
> between watching the local news OR watching Rush. 
> 

     I suppose that the rules for the radio show carry over to
RL:TTS, in which case one must only consider the following rule:

"I will read the news for you.  You never have to read a newspaper
 or watch the television for news again.  IN ADDITION, I will tell
you WHAT TO THINK as an added bonus."

;)  {winking eye smiley}

Later.

Kevin L. Stamber
Purdue University

COWHER POWER!
From: dodeca!clyde@jarthur.Claremont.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush's email address at Compu$erve?
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:27:53 GMT
Organization: Ameritec Corporation
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA11675; Fri, 8 Jan 93 12:56:46 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA12815; Fri, 8 Jan 93 12:56:45 -0800
X-Received:  by dodeca.UUCP (UUPC/extended 1.11v);
           Fri, 08 Jan 1993 09:27:56 PST
X-To: alt.rush-limbaugh.usenet
X-Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


This is probably a FAQ but what's Rush's email address at Compu$erve?
Reply to me direct at cvisser@ucrmath.ucr.edu as I do not have 
usenet access.  Thanks!

crv
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: Self-similar
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:47:32 GMT

In article <nate.1039@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
| >mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
| >
| >Because the voucher isn't the whole cost and the parents will have
| >to make up the rest.  It's also usually more inconvenient to
| >attend a private school.  So, only motivated parents are going to
| >actually take advantage of the opportunity.
| 
|     So motivated parents (who are also the most likely to have instilled 
| the values of motivation to their kids) will benefit, but it seems to me 
| that unmotivated kids are still not going to be helped, and they're going 
| to be about the only ones left in public schools.

Why do you prefer to see those with motivation suffer from being
subjected to that environment?  What proof do you have that inflicting
that environment on the (perhaps few) kids with any kind of motivation
will somehow generate motivation in the unmotivated?  It seems to me
that the effects go the other way and those previously motivated
students are more likely to be demotivated.

In any case, we can agree that it is the responsibility of the parents
and the schools to educate and the childrens' responsibility to try to
learn.  So the kids are supposed to succeed at motivating the unmotivated 
students while we continue to pay salaries to public school teachers who 
_can't_ motivate them?  Maybe we should sack the teachers and hire
motivated children instead.


Regards,

-- 

Will Bralick			          Speaking _only_ for myself.

Standard disclaimers apply.            Void where prohibitted by law.
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Keywords: school choice, hypocrisy
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:51:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1993Jan8.210306.14041@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.020331.8836@afit.af.mil> wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
>>
>>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.
>
>One question: where will Chelsea go after her father is impeached?
>
>
>Simon

Wherever Linda Bloodworth-Thomas wants to send her.

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
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13164 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11746 alt.politics.homosexuality:9067 alt.politics.clinton:19732 alt.politics.bush:15626
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
XXXDate: Fri, 8 Jan 93 22:56:49 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A77354C18F040614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 08 Jan 93 22:57:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.161001.15025@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> Ted Krueger,
krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu writes:
>I think this statement points out the basic disagreement (or
misunderstanding) 
>between the two sides when considering homosexuality.  To the one side, it 
>is a given that gays do not have basic rights, and will not get them
without 
>legislation.  The other side looks at the history of legislatively
protecting 
>"minorities" and does not think that this "protection" is warranted
concerning 
>gays.  (Whether we see it as warranted for other "minorities" is another 
>question.)

There is no question, on either of the two "sides" you present, that gays
have rights IN PRINCIPLE.  However in PRACTICE, these rights (such as equal
access to employment, housing and spousal benefits) are frequently denied. 
True, if one does not believe that such denial of rights actually exists,
then that explains their reason for not being willing to offer "protection."
 However, these things =do= happen, they happen far too frequently, and they
will continue unless "protections" are extended.

The argument =has= been given (though not defended) that people should have
the "freedom" to descriminate against anybody they choose.  This is probably
the fundamental difference between the two "sides."  I hope that we
ultimately find this path to oppression to be something we are not willing
to tolerate.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    | having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             | things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                | piss you off.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality