HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:13:16 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <athos-170792113154@athos.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

>They can make decisions about their own lives, the same way that men have
>to: birth control.
>
>Men do not have the control you want to have.

Utter stupidity. Men have the right to not bear a child. In fact, they
can't bear a child. They don't have the right to bear a child for obvious
reasons.

Men "have to" make the birth control decision?????????? By what law? I
may stop laughing at this stupid comment sometime next century...

>What about the best decision for the father or, better yet, the baby?  Even
>if you discount the baby, you cannot discount the father.

The father is not growing the baby in his womb. Where he puts his sperm
has nothing to do with what that sperm creates. He has no more rights to
that baby than to free ice cream for life.

>Fine, but abortion is not, contrary to whatever the Supreme Court says, a
>fundamental right set out in the constitution.  I have a copy right here in
>front of me, and it is simply not in there.  Period.

Right to privacy.

>Oh, gosh.  How dare us put the mother out of her way in destroying a life. 
>Man, why don't we just hand out abortion at home kits?

Sounds good to me. If fact in France it's in the here and now. Coming to
a country near you as soon as the zealots are deposed. Better find a nice
rock to crawl back under. Your 12 years ARE OVER.

>Except, of course, the baby's health.  I think their health is rather
>snuffed, eh?

It's not a baby. If you pull it out before 6 months it doesn't live on
its own. IT'S NOT A BABY.

>This is what bothers me: pro-choicers do not seem to realize that we view
>that "thing" you are aborting as a full human life: as much of one as a
>baby.  I would stop you from killing a baby too!  Why?  Because it angers
>me in the same manner.  It's not "forcing a morality."  Don't you
>understand that when we hear about an abortion, it's like telling us "I
>just shot my baby."  That's how we feel.  I think the debate makes more
>sense when you understand that thinking.

Who cares if YOU are angry? Who the hell are YOU? You're not the embryo,
you're not the mother. It's none of your f*cking business. Butt out. 
Harass someone who cares about your opinion.

You will never win.
You are in the extreme minority.
You are a zealot.
You are abusive.

Go away.
								MPA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 01:08:08 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.

In article <1992Jul27.213657.6532@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
>In article <1992Jul25.051714.19087@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>In article <4918@gold.gvg.tek.com> mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson) writes:

>>But if you ask a pro-abortion type would they be willing to let the
>>fetus live if it could be removed from the womb with zero risk or cost
>>to the mother and no responsibility for taking care of it afterwards,
>>most would insist on killing it.

>I don't believe this for a second.  

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?

>>>It's not a baby. If you pull it out before 6 months it doesn't live on
>>>its own. IT'S NOT A BABY.

>>And people on iron lung machines are not human either.

>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.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: christic@igc.org (Christic Institute)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Emergency Advisory: Attack on Iraq
Date: 23 Jul 92 02:27:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1325600012:000:846
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!christic    Jul 22 19:27:00 1992


From: Christic Institute <christic>
Subject: Emergency Advisory: Attack on Iraq

/* Written  5:06 pm  Jul 22, 1992 by peacenet in cdp:pn.alerts */
/* ---------- "Emergency Advisory: Attack on Iraq" ---------- */
Emergency Committee to Stop the U.S. War in the Middle East
(Affiliated with the Nat'l Coalition to Stop US Intervention in MidEast)
2489 Mission St., Rm 28, San Francisco, CA 94110  (415)821-6545

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                             CONTACT PERSON:
21 July 1992     			Richard Becker, (415)821-6545

EMERGENCY ADVISORY

In the event of a new U.S./U.N. attack on Iraq, an emergency 
demonstration will be held at 5 p.m., Powell & Market Sts.,
San Francisco on the day of the attack.  (If an attack takes place
after 5 p.m., the demonstration will take place the following day.)
For more information, call (415)821-6545.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Distribution: ba
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:25:04 GMT

In article <j3kmvtq.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>Another example -- a high official in the Navy reasigned because he was
>protecting one of his aides who was guilty of sexual harassment. Said aide
>was a son of an old family friend. The aide is homosexual and was sexually
>harassing enlisted men.

I don't understand why you included this story.  If the high Navy official
was protecting an aide who was sexually harrasing enlisted men, he/she
deserved to be fired (along with the person doing the sexual harassment).
Sexual orientation doesn't enter into it as far as I can see.

>We woulkd all likely agree (?) that coed showers in the military would not
>be a good idea. Most women are not likely to enjoy being naked around
>men -- it is a violation of the sense of privacy. If women are naked, men
>will look and enjoy the show.  I don't think just because a man is homosexual
>that that part of him disappears. Do you claim otherwise? Yet why is their
>such vehemence in maintaining the crusade against the military policy
>against homosexuals? The lack of a matching crusade FOR total coed
>showers, latrines, housing is conspicous by its absence -- or is there
>something to privacy, expecially in sexual matters?

Well, I belong to a health club which has men's and women's showers.
The men's showers are communal (ie: there isn't any privacy in the
shower).  I must assume that a certain number of the men at this
club are gay (as far as I know, my club doesn't discriminate against
gays).  Yet, surprisingly enough, I have yet to see any oggling or
catcalls in the men's shower.  Are you seriously suggesting that if
the military admitted un-closeted gays (they admit plenty of gays 
right now), that the military showers would suddenly be filled with
oggling men ?  Why don't we see this in other areas where gays are
freely admited ?

Guido
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:03:59 GMT
	<SLAGLE.92Jul29021420@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
	<athos-290792155141@athos.apple.com>
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Followup-To: ba.politics
Distribution: ba
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: athos@apple.com's message of Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:53:46 GMT

In article <athos-290792155141@athos.apple.com>, athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

> But you've stated in previous postings that 2nd and 3rd
> Trimester abortions didn't bother you.  At that point, there is
> far more than a "blob of cells."

I've stated no such thing.  Please refrain from putting
words into my mouth.

>> Finally, if you have no right to "infringe on the rights
>> of others", then how do you propose to enforce your view
>> of the world on the hapless woman who has inadvertently
>> become pregnant?

> Personal Responsiblity.  The government makes abortion illegal
> and then it is up to the individual (male and female) to
> prevent a pregnancy.  Personal Responsiblity.  And then you
> hold the man completely responsible for the baby as well.

This is not responsive.  You have not answered the question.

> You *do* have the choice not to get pregnant.  You may not like what you
> have to do to achieve it, but you do have that power.

If I have sexual intercourse with a fertile female, whether or
not we practice one or more methods of birth control, I have a
statistical chance of impregnating the woman.  The odds can be
reduced by various methods, but the chance of pregnancy can be
eliminated only by abstention.

If I drive a car, I have a statistical chance of sustaining
injuries.  The odds can be reduce by various methods, but the
chance of injury in an automobile accident can be eliminated
only by abstention.

No matter how much you moralize and posture, the realistic
expectation for a general abstention in either case is nil.
Do you have any policies for the real world?
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 06:53:11 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <92024@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >Phil:
    >>Same things my parents did when I was 8 and hung around what
    >>was called then a "juvenile deliquent" -- forbid me to
    >>associate with him and ensure that the edict stood.
    >>
    >Brian:
    >>>As far as I'm concerned, you're still beating around the
    >>>bush.
    >>>
    >>How? I am being pretty explicit here.
    >>
    >You're right. Your'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?

Gosh, I really really did think I was explicit.

Oh well, got it now?

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.

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.


-- 
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: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Say no more, I know what you mean ...
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:32:00 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <92029@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >In article <nr1ehag@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff
    >Dauber) writes:
    >
    >>In article <6zlm4fn.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >>Ronzone) writes:
    >>
    >>>I want control over who and what my daughter associates with.
    >>>
    >>What are you going to do when 8 years from now, your daughter
    >>tells you that she is a lesbian?
    >>
    >Unless he wants to be accused of hypocrisy, he had better not
    >associate with her in that case. Or he could do something far
    >more useful. Like think really, REALLY hard about why he is
    >so adamant about homosexuals being bad role models. He might
    >surprise himself, Jeff.

Not even clever.

So sorry that I'm not one you "right thinking" boys. After all, if I REALLY
thought CORRECTLY about the matter, and REALLY understood it, then of COURSE
I would agree with your every opinion.

In the meantime, I will continue to try to acquire research on the issue
of homosexual .vs. hetereosexual child molestation. The reason I've mentioned
this is that interestingly enough, government funding for research on this
very subject was prevented due to a protest by a special interest group.

Care to guess the nature of this special interest group?

Say no more ...


Now, if you would care to address issues directly, we can continue the
attempt to have rational discussions.

Otherwise, if your "side" is so sorely lacking rational correctness that
you need to resort to "well, all us right thinking boys KNOW ...", too bad.

-- 
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: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com's message of 24 Jul 92 22:13:16 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<4918@gold.gvg.tek.com>
Distribution: ba
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 06:58:54 GMT

In article <4918@gold.gvg.tek.com>, mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson) writes:

> You are a zealot.
> You are abusive.
> Go away.

As it happens, I disagree strongly with Rick Eames (to whom
the above remarks were directed), but you are the one who
is acting like a zealot, and you are most certainly the one
who is being abusive.  Please stop it, or please "go away"
yourself.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: wayne@ultra.com (Wayne Hathaway)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: SF 105/Again No Justice for Blacks
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:56:37 GMT
Reply-To: wayne@ultra.com (Wayne Hathaway)
Distribution: ba
Organization: Ultra Network Technologies

I am being urged to complain to the District Attorney because 90% of
the people facing felony charges stemming from the vandalism spree
following the Rodney King verdict are African American.

Before I do this, could someone please tell me what percentage of the
*VANDALS* were African American?

If that number is also around 90% (which it certainly seemed to be
from what I saw on TV), then how in fact is there any discrimination?

If, on the other hand, someone can show that the percentage of African
Americans among the people who were actually committing the crimes was
less than 90% by some statistically significant amount, then I will
indeed be happy to lodge complaints, very widely and very loudly.
(But please do note that I am talking about the people who were
looting and fire-bombing and smashing car windows, *NOT* the people
who were ambling across the Bay Bridge.)

    Wayne Hathaway               domain: wayne@Ultra.COM
    Ultra Network Technologies     uucp: ...!ames!ultra!wayne
    101 Daggett Drive             phone: 408-922-0100 x132
    San Jose, CA 95134              FAX: 408-433-9287
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 30 Jul 92 18:49:17 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul30.002016.26718@ntmtv>, jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia
Jazanoski) wrote:

> I agree. But meanwhile, back at the protest line, if someone is 
> adamently Pro-Life and can't accept the thought of someone having an 
> abortion I challenge them do something about it ==> adopt the child. 
> Give money to organizations that *help* women and their children.
> Be there to help for (at least) the next 18 years.  Put your $$ where
> your mouth is.

I am a Pro-Lifer that agrees with you on this issue.  I have no problem
with the money going for that.

> [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  ]

No, society does not guarantee you a great life, nor should it.  I can
agree to HELP you with that sort of thing, but not to do it FOR you.  If
you can't afford a child, then you should avoid getting pregnant.  And that
goes for men too.  If I don't want to be a father, then I have to take
steps to prevent it knowing that even if I screw up, the woman can make me
a father against my will.  That is a choice I have to make.
 
--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Men and Abortion Rights
Date: 30 Jul 92 03:23:03 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <1992Jul29.235615.26198@ntmtv> jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:
>
>>From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes
>>Men do not have the control you want to have.
>
>Is this what it comes down to, after all? 
>
>    A man can choose what happens to his body.
>    A woman cannot choose what happens to her body.

May I add,
     The Unborn can NEVER choose what happens to his/her body.
     (at this rate).  
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: phil@netcom.com's message of Sun, 26 Jul 92 18:41:25 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<14nhu1INN238@agate.berkeley.edu> <j3kmvtq.phil@netcom.com>
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 07:28:40 GMT

In article <j3kmvtq.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

> We woulkd all likely agree (?) that coed showers in the military would not
> be a good idea. Most women are not likely to enjoy being naked around
> men -- it is a violation of the sense of privacy. If women are naked, men
> will look and enjoy the show. 

We might agree on this, but it is only because it is a 
conventional expectation.  But given the general lack
of privacy imposed by the military, I would seriously
expect that a policy of "coed" showers would, following
the initial storm of outrage, be fairly quickly accepted
and ignored just like most of the other impositions on
individuality and privacy that the military imposes already.

New recruits would find it disconcerting and uncomfortable,
but would soon come to think of the situation as normal
and routine.  The tendency of the men, and the women as
well perhaps, to "look and enjoy the show" is contingent
on the novelty of the spectacle.  If it were a daily event, 
who would find it so overwhelmingly titillating?

Also, from the standpoint of efficiency and expedience, there
is no reason to duplicate the facilities or to enforce segregated
hours.  So no, I won't fully agree that having a single set of
shower and toilet facilities is a bad idea.  It may not be
a politically feasible idea, but I don't see how it is bad
in any moral or organizational sense.  People would just
get used to it, like all the other crap they have to put
up with in the military.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: help for california libraries! Dire need!
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Followup-To: ba.politics,ca.politics
In-reply-to: eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov's message of Wed, 22 Jul 92 18:32:36 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Ca.
	<1992Jul22.030701.6889@informix.com>
	<1992Jul22.183236.10744@nas.nasa.gov>
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 01:36:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.183236.10744@nas.nasa.gov>, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) writes:

[... sarcasticly, I presume...]
> I would also like to turn off the National weather satellites.
> Hurricane season?  Too bad.

Do you believe that there would not be any weather satellites
without the support of the Federal government?  There is a 
rather large market and financial stake in knowing the weather
forecast, why wouldn't someone fill that need?  

> And we should probably privatize the fire departments.  As I recall
> that was where this government issue began 100 years ago.  If you thought
> Oakland was bad, I wonder what it could have been like.

Why do you believe that privately operated fire departments 
would have been less effective than those in place?  Why not
more effective?  Why is operation by government necessarily 
better?

> We are neither a pure socialist system or a pure capitalist.  Are people
> seeking such simplistic solutions?  Tisk tisk.

People always do.  But your apparent assumptions about
the superiority of government operated enterprises might
be seen as a product of the same tendency.  The question
that is still begged is that of the proper role of government.
I would prefer to see a more limited role, others would
disagree.  But, the ever expanding government is creating 
at least as many problems as it solves.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Help for California Libraries! Dire Need!
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:53:56 GMT

>In <1992Jul27.215622.6859@island.COM>, guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
>
>>And it isn't just the damages that trucks do to the roadways.
>>The cost of building the roadways themselves is greatly increased
>>becuase they must be engineered to withstand the weight of large
>>trucks.  My understanding is that this accounts for a good deal
>>of the cost of construction for new roadways.
>
>We'll have the answer after 1994, when Route 85 between South San Jose and
>Cupertino is completed.  This highway will be off limits to trucks.

I doubt that we'll see much difference for this particular roadway.
The reason is that because of its location, the cost of acquiring the
right-of-way is sure to be much larger than any other cost.  I was thinking
more in terms of the inter-state highway system where the land costs for 
the freeway are small in relation to the building costs.

Guido


Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:56:32 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: ba.politics

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).

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!