HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 19:27:35 GMT

In article <SLAGLE.92Jul30132907@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.002016.26718@ntmtv>, jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:
>
>> [setenv RANTING ON ]
>> Provide *everyone* will adequate child care, health care, safe cities, 
>> affordable housing, good schools, access to higher education, etc.
>> Provide equal access in the workplace, and a pay scale that does
>> not discriminate on sex. Provide a society where most men choose
>> to be an active member of their household, and perform chores, etc. etc
>> [setenv RANTING OFF  ]
>
>Most of this has been tried.  The system that did it 
>recently collapsed from its own internal contradictions.
>--

The internal contradictions of that system which made it collapse
did not include having good schools etc. see above.  Those 
contradictions had more to do with an ossified political ruling
caste, lack of democracy, legitimation crisis, and a political-
economy mired in wasteful expenditures like nuclear power,
nuclear weapons, and empire building.
 

Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 23:14:57 GMT

In article <+4mmj4h.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>Perhaps if you were to stop being a Faggot With Attitude and become a
>Faggot that reads and rationally debates, we might make progress.


physician, heal thyself.


>1. I do not agree that all homosexuals are born and not "made".

And you have no evidence to support your belief.  You just keep
saying it.  I could say "I believe that phil ronzone was hatched
from an egg."  You could say "I was not hatched" and I could say
"I do not agree."  It does not make me any more correct.


>2. Both Clayton and myself (I don't know about the others) state
>   repeatedly that we believe in live and let live, and that you have
>   every right to your sexual preference. We ask for the same in
>   return.

No, you ask for the right to exclude us from society.

>   But, are you going to have your cake or are you going to eat it?
>   If you talk about oppression, then what is your problem if I
>   mention a poll show that a majority of people dislike/disapprove
>   of homosexuality? If the poll is full of shit, then you ain't
>   oppressed, right?

I am not oppressed by the majority.  I am oppressed by a very hateful
and vocal minority.


FWA
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:51:41 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: ba.politics

In article <1992Jul28.002646.13569@odin.corp.sgi.com>,
zursch@whizkid.corp.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide) wrote:
> 
> In article <0bEe03P0469C00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, James Preston writes:
> >I have to agree with Mr. Eames that there is no right to abortion nor a
> >right to privacy explicitly stated in the Constitution.  There is also
> >nothing in the document that I can construe as to giving Federal government 
> >the power to prohibit the states from making abortion illegal.  Therefore, 
> >much as I am strongly pro-choice, I find myself forced to say that I believe 
> >that the original Roe vs. Wade decision was CONSTITUTIONALLY incorrect.
> 
> While the original decision may well have been constitutionally incorrect, I 
> submit that a right to have an abortion, and more generally a right to privacy
> in personal affairs, has been retained by the people under the 9th amendment. 

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

That's a pretty WIDE statement, and kinda silly to use as an umbrella to
hide abortion under.  The true question here is whether or not the fetus is
life.  If it is, we are obligated to protects its life (like we do when we
arrest people for doing drugs while pregnant).

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:21:34 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Jul28.002646.13569@odin.corp.sgi.com>,
zursch@whizkid.corp.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide) wrote:
} 
} In article <0bEe03P0469C00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, James Preston writes:
} >I have to agree with Mr. Eames that there is no right to abortion nor a
} >right to privacy explicitly stated in the Constitution.  There is also
} >nothing in the document that I can construe as to giving Federal government 
} >the power to prohibit the states from making abortion illegal.  Therefore, 
} >much as I am strongly pro-choice, I find myself forced to say that I believe 
} >that the original Roe vs. Wade decision was CONSTITUTIONALLY incorrect.
} 
} While the original decision may well have been constitutionally incorrect, I 
} submit that a right to have an abortion, and more generally a right to privacy
} in personal affairs, has been retained by the people under the 9th amendment. 

That is certainly a line of reasoning that could persuade me.  Did the
original Roe vs. Wade decision mention the ninth Amendment at all?  I
haven't been able to read the actual decision, but my understanding was
that it hinged more on the fourteenth than on the ninth.

--James Preston

Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:36:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.010808.14225@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.213657.6532@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
>Then I'm sure you would not object to a law that requires doctors
>doing late second and third trimester abortion to make every possible
>effort to save the life of the fetus?

I wouldn't given the following restrictions.  Only private funds would
be used to save these fetuses, and the biological mother and/or father
wouldn't have any legal responsibility toward that fetus.  Given that,
I wouldn't object.

>>Can you show that an embryo is self-aware ?  Most people in iron-lungs
>>would fall into that catagory.  
>
>What about someone with massive brain damage who is not brain dead?
>
>After all, a 6 month fetus may not be very intelligent but it clearly
>is not brain dead.

Clearly not, and I don't think that people should have third trimester
abortions (whether it should be illegal or not is another issue).  As
for brain damaged people, I happen to have had some experience
along these lines.  several years ago, my grandmother had a massive
stroke which left her comatose.  The doctors caring for her asked my
parents if they wanted to remove her feeding tube.  It was made clear
to them that it was unlikely that she would be able to eat without
aspirating food.  This would result in pneumonia which would be fatal.
The bottom line is that my parents were given the option of euthenizing
her.  This goes on every day in major hospitals across the country.

Guido
>
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: 24 Jul 1992 00:12:49 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: forney.berkeley.edu

In article <64gm83p.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>    >I don't. In my opinion Claytpn's posts, including this one,
>    >indicate a fear of homosexuals totally out of proportion the
>    >facts involved. In my book that's homophobia.

>Is it fear or dislike? I can not stand lima beans, yet I am not lima bean
>phobic. I think that much of what really ticks me off in these kinds of
>discussion is the refusal to make a distinction between dislike, especially
>strong dislike, and fear.

Here's why people are accusing you and Clayton of being phobic and not
just having a strong dislike for gays.  People who don't like lima beans
simply don't eat them.  But to continue this analogy, you and Clayton go
beyond just not eating lima beans.  You (but more especially Clayton) use
a huge amount of personal energy crusading on the net against lima beans,
doing your best at all times to cast lima beans, their friends and
defenders into the worst possible light.  The only kind of rationale for
this level of intensity that I can come up with is fear.  If you prefer
being accused of obsessive hatred instead, because fear is unmanly and might
associate you with the dread enemy, those unmanly homosexuals, fine.

>Consider that while on the one hand, in the war on drugs, it is applauded
>that various public service messages decry drug usage. These messages are
>believed to be useful.
>
>Yet, the various (supposed) pro-drug messages in various styles of popular
>music are considered harmless.

What does this have to do with anything?  Being straight vs being gay is
in no way equivalent to choosing to use drugs or not to use drugs.  It's
not a choice in the same sense.

>In the same way, we talk about role models, and homosexuals talk a great
>deal about providing homosexual role models and examples for others, yet
>people like Clayton, (and in some case myself) that express concern and
>(a kind of reasoned fear) that we do not want homosexual role models for
>our our children are "pooh-poohed" as irrational.

It's a matter of simple survival.  Given the enormous amount of violence
and teen suicide that gays experience, role models are important both for
young gays (to show that it's possible to be gay and not to have your life
be a living hell) AND for the rest of us (a kid who thinks of gays as
people is less likely to think it's a great idea to beat them up).

Why don't you want homosexual role models for your children?  Because they
might find out that what you teach them about homosexuals is not true?
As for myself, when my wife and I have kids, I want to make sure that
they *do* know that gays are human beings to be treated with respect.


--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:36:29 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

}In article <170Q03cS4aoL00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jsp@uts.amdahl.com
}(James Preston) wrote:

}> Could you please cite exactly where the U.S. Constitution says that "people
}> cannot infringe on the rights of others"?  I cannot find anything to that
}> effect in my copy.  I see lots of stuff about the government or Congress
}> not being allowed to infringe on people's rights, but nothing about people
}> infringing on people.

}Sure.  It doesn't explicitely say people cannot infringe on others rights,
}but then it certainly doesn't say goverment can't either (it says CONGRESS
}cannot).  The Supreme Court has widened the interpretation (rightly or
}wrongly).

Since Congress is the branch of the federal government that makes the laws,
when the Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law . . ." it is
quite clearly putting a limit on the power of the federal government, not on
the people.  Similarly, anyone with a modicum of intelligence who reads the
Amendments will clearly see that they are spelling out limits on the
government, since it is the government that directs the troops, runs the
court system, creates laws allowing slavery to exist, regulates citizenship,
collects taxes, etc.  Read the document.  Notice that it uses phrases such
as, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied
or abridged BY THE UNITED STATES" [emphasis added]; and "Congress shall
have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this
article."

You see, it is THE LAWS, made by Congress, that limit a person's ability
to "infringe on the rights of others."  The Constitution itself never
so much as addresses that point.  Therefore, your earlier assertion about
the Constitution:

}Sure it does.  It says that people cannot infringe on the rights of others.
} Therefore, you do not have the right to infringe on the childs right to
}"Life."

is simply wrong.

--James Preston
From: brian@baja.Corp.Sun.COM (Brian Edge)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Right to Choose to Kill (Was Re: Abortion
Date: 30 Jul 1992 18:56:56 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: brian@baja.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: baja.corp.sun.com

>>In article <1992Jul11.180611.17679@ntmtv>, jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia
>>Jazanoski) wrote: 

>> It really irks me that pro-lifers insist on pushing their morality on 
>> other people: people they don't know anything about and people that are
>> in situations they could never imagine. The hard-core pro-lifers should 
>> be directing their efforts to make it easier for women to have their 
>> babies: provide them homes, clothing, food. And don't forget, having a 
>> child is forever, so let's provide reasonable schools, cities without
>> crime and access to higher education to everyone.  And then let
>> women decide.

That hard-core pro-lifer was to be born on December 25, 1992, the
mother chose an abortion, now all hope may be lost....

Brian@baja
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:28:36 GMT

In article <SLAGLE.92Jul29005513@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.010808.14225@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>> Then I'm sure you would not object to a law that requires doctors
>> doing late second and third trimester abortion to make every possible
>> effort to save the life of the fetus?
>
>At whose expense?  And who bears legal responsibility for the
>child that may result from this effort?  If you are, and I can
>have legal grounds to enforce it, then I've got no problem with 
>your proposal.

What if Michael were arguing for the right to life of a 2 year old?
Would he be responsible for the doctor bills and upbringing also?

-- 
My opinions are my own.
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: 31 Jul 92 00:45:54 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <92391@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >In article <j3pmxtd.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) accuses me of espousing the following:
    >
    >>Live and let live UNLESS somebody else has something YOU
    >>want.
    >>
    >Seems to me that this is EXACTLY what you want too. Live and
    >let live as long as you have heterosexual employees and
    >tenants.

No. I wish to have the freedom to engage in MUTUAl and VOLUNTARY
association. You, if I understand your position correctly, do
NOT want this. You want people to be FORCED to hire, rent, and live
with (per the lesbian roommate case) people they do NOT want to do so with.

I believe in MUTUAL and VOLUNTARY association You don't.

B I G   D I F F E R E N C E .


    >We've reached this impasse before. Sound familiar? Last time
    >your way out of it was "when in doubt ask whose property it
    >is."

Yep - the old can opener. Works great. Remember, property includes your
own body and thoughts. Makes it easy for things like, say, RU-486.


Now let me ask a question -- if I was a renting a house to live in, and
wanted roommates, in your view, should I be able to choose to not
have homosexual roommates?


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:37:30 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <qgmmfq#.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <92024@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>You're comparing gay men with juvenile deliquents. But none of us can
>>figure out just why.

>Really? You really, really can't understand that I do not my children to
>be homosexual? You really can't understand that?

Nope.

>Gosh, I really really did think I was explicit.

Not about your reasoning.

>Oh well, got it now?

Not a straight explication from you, no.

>Of course, you are still unable to face the fact that some people (if polls
>are to be believed, about 60% of "some" people) do not like homosexuals and
>homsexuality.

And most of those people believe so as an act of faith.

>But most of those are perfectly willing to live and let live, something
>that if the net is to be believed (to be a represenative sample of all
>homosexuals, which I doubt) homosexuals are not prepared to do.

So tell us Phil, why oh why do think homosexuality is disgusting? Is it
an act of faith to you, too? Do you want to live in a segregated society
all of your life?
From: steveth@rossinc.com (Steve Thomas)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Organization: Ross Systems, Inc.
Distribution: ba
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:08:56 GMT

In article <70457@apple.Apple.COM> athos@Apple.COM (Richard Eames) writes:
>
> [stuff deleted...]
>
>In any case, I find it incredible that you would tell me to just look the other
>way when I think a murder is happening.  How could you say this?
>
>I have noticed that the Pro-Choice crowd has become more and more abusive over
>the past couple of years.  I can't enter a rational debate with anyone without
>being called a nasty name, told I am a Nazi or anything like that.  I'm tired
>of it.  You can be civil and still be passionate about your topic and views.
>

I'm very sorry about that.  I often get a bad feeling about many pro-choice
activists and their rather irrational attitudes and arguments.  It makes me
nervous to think that THOSE people are in charge of defending my rights...

The issue consists of two things:

1. Unborn fetuses are NOT human beings.
2. People have a right to choose what they do with their own bodies.

It's really very simple, actually.  I think the majority of this country
agrees with #1 and #2.  Unfortunately, the Left (hipocritically) ceases
on this issue and packages the popular issue of keeping abortion legal
with the rather unpopular idea of forcing people to pay for another
government welfare program ("Free Abortion on Demand").

I wouldn't call you a "NAZI".  I'd call you a Christian--a rather zealous
one that needs everybody else to be Christians.  Even if you are not one,
the anti-choice movement clearly is.  Like the FAoD people, the anti-choice
people have a hidden adgena, and theirs consists of forcing the Biblical
views of sex and reproduction on the American public.

A postscript: the FAoD people might get shanghied by RU486--it's cheap,
and it being "Free, On Demand" wouldn't be much of a victory for Socialism
in America (they'll find something else to do).  I really hope that it
gets specifically legalized by congress, and that more research is done
with this medical technology...  (You'll watch the abortion issue become
a DEAD issue in a real hurry... [suppose the Demo's will find that to their
disadvantage?])

||-------
Steve R. Thomas
steveth@rossinc.com

        "I told you I have MONEY--I took stock in a mace company just before
         society crumbled..."

             -- Selma, from "The Simpsons"

Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 00:49:37 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <92392@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >I don't see heterosexuals acting in such a fashion against
    >the Rene Gruyon Society. Sure most straights are opposed to
    >RGS, just like most queers are opposed to NAMBLA, but you
    >should expect the same condemnation from both quarters...

Actually, I am not aware of this society ever marching anywhere,
even all by itself. I certainly would do all I can morally to
indicate my extreme dislike -- if nothing else was available,
I'd carry a sign (if they appear locally) indicating that they were sick
or some such.

    >Which only gets us to, "what causes the dislike?"

Does it matter? Do we all not have the freedom to dislike with free will?

    >Sister Boom-Boom? Who's she? (sounds pretty gravitationally
    >challenged! :)

He used to show up in the Gay Parade and other SF media circuses dressed
as a nun and weird nun-type headgear. Haven't seen him around for a few years.
Pity.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: I've been bumped from Mornings on 2 (again)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:42:22 GMT

Well, gang, it's happened again.  This time I've been bumped by
some "experts" who are coming in to discuss the situation in Iraq.
I'm rescheduled for August 3rd, same time slot (7:20-7:50) but I'm
leaning not to hold my breath on this stuff any more.

/June
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-abortion's view on life:
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:45:22 GMT
	<1992Jul29.192836.9225@adobe.com>
	<SLAGLE.92Jul29235801@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
	<1992Jul30.080109.17499@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU's message of Thu, 30 Jul 1992 08:01:09 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.080109.17499@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:

> So on the record, when do the pro-abortion people think human life begins?

So on the record, where do the anti-abortion people think
the Great Plains of the central United States begin?  As
we travel from the Pacific Ocean toward Nevada, where do
the Sierra Nevada mountains begin?  As we rise with the
space shuttle, where does space begin?  When does adulthood
begin?  When does old age begin?  When are anti-abortion
people going to learn to mind their own business?
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA