HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:49:43 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <4952@gold.gvg.tek.com>, mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P.
Anderson) wrote:


> 	    If a man and a woman have sex it's none of my damn business.
> 	    If a man and a woman have sex it's none of my damn business.
> 	    If a man and a woman have sex it's none of my damn business.
> 	    If a man and a woman have sex it's none of my damn business.

That's right.  It is NONE of my business. Therefore, if we follow your
logic, AIDS is none of my business if it was spread through stupid sexual
practices.

See, what bothers me about the above argument is that the attitude seems to
say "Hey, leave me alone until I screw up and then I will demand that you
spend millions of dollars to ensure that I can safely do the deed that I
wish you would leave me alone about."

Silly argument.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: steveth@rossinc.com (Steve Thomas)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Organization: Ross Systems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:32:43 GMT

In article <92209.61537.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>
J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>
>Just to be fair:  If the pro-lifers can be called "anti-choice," can't the
>pro-choicers be called "anti-life?"
>
>Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
>

Well, no.  The "Pro-Life" name is simply not correct--in any way, not even
on their own terms.  If they were really "Pro-Life", they'd also advocate
protecting the lives of innocent hamburgers and head lice.  Now, even if
they called themselves "Pro-Human-Life" (just doesn't roll off the tounge
as well...), it would still be a silly word game of a name.  The LP does
not call themselves the "Pro-Happiness" movement, etc.  The "Pro-Life"
movement is against abortions: they should be called "anti-abortion", to
be fair.  The other side is not FOR abortions per se, but specifically
against abortion LAWS: mabey we could call them "anti-abortion-law", or
pro-abortion-choice, or, in the correct context, Pro-Choice.  The name
"Pro-Choice" does not contain a value judgement in the very name, the
name "Pro-Life" certainly does.  I don't go around calling my own ideas
"Perfectly Correct" (even though they are :-))...

Now when you call the Pro-Choice movement "Anti-Life", you're just
compounding this error.

An OpRescue person would certainly agree the he/she is "anti-choice" (in
the context of abortions); us pro-choice folk certain don't think of
ourselves as anti-life (quite the contrary).

I think the "Pro-Life" movement needs a different catchy name...


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

                        /----------------------------\
                        | Don't Blame Me, I voted LP |
                        \----------------------------/
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:15:31 GMT
	<SLAGLE.92Jul24235405@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
	<athos-280792094436@athos.apple.com>
	<170Q03cS4aoL00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
	<athos-290792155519@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 22:56:32 GMT

In article <athos-290792155519@athos.apple.com>, athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

> 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).

This is wrong.  The tenth amendment states quite clearly:

  "The powers not delegated to the United States [not Congress]
   by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
   reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That says the (Federal) government cannot infringe on my rights.
--
----
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: Thu, 30 Jul 92 18:41:35 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba

In article <SLAGLE.92Jul29001644@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
    >In article <1gmm8d_.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>Ask instead, how many straight men would mind showering in a
    >>predominatly homosexual shower room. Of course nobody is
    >>going ho be raped or subjected to obvious overtures. But the
    >>sense of privacy will be invaded.
    >>
    >How would these hypothetical men know that they were
    >showering in a "predominatly homosexual" shower room.

Uh, they're showering at the YMGCA (Yound Mens Gay Christian Association)?

:-) :-)


-- 
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 ...)

Xref: sparky ba.politics:3742 ca.politics:5993
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: help for california libraries! Dire need!
Date: 25 Jul 92 00:09:05 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

>In article <1992Jul23.150122.10108@unocal.com>, stgprao@xing.unocal.com (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>> The market is pretty small.  I think the percentage of Americans who read
>> one or more books a month is in the single digits.  I think the percentage
>> who have visited a library in the past five years or read a book in the
>> last year is still well under 50%.

In article <SLAGLE.92Jul23121232@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>Then why are all these individual and small chain bookstores
>thriving all over the SF Bay Area?  Why are Kepplers, Printers
>Ink, A Clean Well Lighted..., and so on packed with people 
>every time I go into them?  The market is surely not as large
>as for videos, so we don't need bookstores and libraries on
>every other corner.

You've got to be careful not to generalize too much from the local
area, and in particular from Palo Alto and Menlo Park.  I don't
remember where I saw the factoid, but it was recent and in some local
publication.  People in Silicon Valley exceed the national average for
book reading by quite a lot, and people in Palo Alto and Menlo Park
exceed the local average significantly.  Kepler's turns over its
inventory something like twice as fast your the average bookstore.

To get a handle on how out-of-whack MP is, consider the number of
bookstores and the number of video rental stores.  Downtown Menlo Park
has a library (a good library), and something like half-a-dozen
bookstores (Kepler's, Wessex, East-West, a feminist bookstore off El
Camino near Palo Alto, plus a couple more tucked into side streets off
of Santa Cruz Avenue).  Before Blockbuster Video showed up, downtown
MP had two smallish video rental stores.  Now only Blockbuster
remains.

So, we're pretty weird.

David Chase
Sun 
(and Menlo Park resident, and frequent customer of Kepler's)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: steveth@rossinc.com (Steve Thomas)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Organization: Ross Systems, Inc.
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:29:39 GMT

In article <SLAGLE.92Jul29010809@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>
>The abortion issue does not divide along Christian lines, nor
>does abortion necessarily violate the principles of many
>religions.  Certainly the Catholic church, along with many of the
>so-called "fundamentalist" sects of the Protestant church oppose
>the practice of abortion.  But many Christian and other religious
>groups, every bit as "devout", disagree.
>

I didn't mean to imply that all Christians are anti-choice.  I
simply maintain that the core of the core of the anti-choice movement
are Christians.  I don't care what people believe in, religiously, until
they come invading my privacy, etc.  ("It neither picks my pocket nor
by brain").  All you have to do is read ther bible's views on Sex to find
out the whole story.  Some people (call them, "Political Christians"), feel
the need to enforce those views into law...

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

                        /----------------------------\
                        | Don't Blame Me, I voted LP |
                        \----------------------------/

The opinions expressed here not necessarily those of Ross Systems, Inc.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:29:12 GMT
	<1992Jul25.051714.19087@adobe.com> <1992Jul27.213657.6532@island.COM>
	<1992Jul30.002016.26718@ntmtv>
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP's message of Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:20:16 GMT

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.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:47:18 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <SLAGLE.92Jul30130355@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>,
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) wrote:
> > 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.

I will check my archives, but 2 days ago you were debating with another
about not infringing on a woman's right to have an abortion any time she
wanted to.
 
> > 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.

Sure I have.  The government does not have the obligation to make sure that
you don't get pregnant.  You do.  And you have to live with the
consequences.  
 
> > 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.

Sure.  And it is not the government's responsibility to ensure you medical
care once you crash your car.  Your insurance and your savings are there
for that.  The gov't establishes rules (such as the speed limit) to make
the world safer, but it cannot make it foolproof.  Therefore, it is up to
you to take precautions, and if you absolutely can't stand the idea of
crashing, you shouldn't be driving.  But sometimes it happens and sometimes
you get hurt.

The gov't is not your mommy.
 
> 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?

Sure.  I would say that (1) you make abortion illegal.  Then what happens
is that (2) there becomes an even bigger demand for better birth control. 
So then (3) companies respond so they can make tons of money.  Then you
have (4) people probably giving more thought to what they are doing before
they do it which may even (5) curb the spread of nasty things like AIDS.

The gov't establishes rules, but doesn't have to help you follow them.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:53:46 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: ba.politics

In article <SLAGLE.92Jul29021420@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>,
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) wrote:

> Giving a blob of a few cells the same status as a person
> is more than a bit of a stretch.  I do not find arguments
> resting on the "potential" of that blob of cells to be
> compelling.  If you choose to call the blob of cells a
> human life, then that is your privilege, but I am not
> obliged follow your dictates that follow from your opinion
> of that status.

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."
 
> 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.

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.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
From: Christic Institute <christic@igc.org>
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Date: 27 Jul 92 05:43 PDT
Subject: SF 105/Again No Justice for Blacks
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1325600013:000:2726
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!christic    Jul 27 05:43:00 1992


From: Christic Institute <christic>
Subject: SF 105/Again No Justice for Blacks

/* Written 10:14 pm  Jul 26, 1992 by peacenet in cdp:pn.alerts */
/* ---------- "SF 105/Again No Justice for Blacks" ---------- */
From: <peacenet>
Subject: SF 105/Again No Justice for Blacks

From josefina Sun Jul 26 21:25:33 1992
>From lesconso Sun Jul 26 12:04:44 1992
From: Jan Adams <lesconso>

NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE

Charges have already been dropped against thousands who took to 
the streets here in the days following the verdict. Some of those 
arrested for blocking Interstate 280 and the Bay Bridge do still 
face infraction charges. Most of these people are white. However, 
of the 105 demonstrators facing felony charges for property 
crimes, according to District Attorney Arlo Smith, at least 90 
percent are African American. 

The District Attorney got secret grand jury indictments against 
these 105 people. When they appeared in court of their own free 
will for what they thought would be a preliminary hearing, instead 
they found themselves re-arrested and placed in jail for a second 
time, this time with a higher bond. Some young African American 
men are still in jail awaiting trial today, because they could not 
pay this higher bond.

Is the District AttorneyUs office discriminating against African 
Americans?
Not exactly. TheyUre prosecuting the people the police arrested. 
The problem, of course, is that the District Attorney doesnUt have 
to discriminate, because the police have already discriminated, by 
choosing to target African Americans almost exclusively in their 
felony arrests. The District Attorney has no control over whom the 
police choose to arrest, but he has complete control over whom he 
chooses to prosecute, and on what charges. This set of arrests is 
obviously discriminatory, or more bluntly, racist. The Defense 
Committee believes the District Attorney should drop the charges 
against all 105.

We hope that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors will act soon, 
joining the Human Rights Commission in urging the D.A. to drop 
these charges.
In the meantime, thereUs a great deal you can do to help get 
justice for the SF 105.

What you can do:

1.	CALL the District Attorney's office at (415) 553-1752 and 
demand that the charges against the SF 105 be dropped because 
these are unjust, racist prosecutions.

2.	WRITE letters to the editors of local papers, so that other 
citizens can be informed and share your outrage.

3.	GET INVOLVED by working with No Justice P No Peace: Bay Area 
Political Defense Committee, a group of local activists who've 
come together to defend the SF 105.

	Call (415) 241-1551 for more information.


For full text, please see <justice.comm>.
From: bguest9@bsg9.Corp.Sun.COM (Kristian Skrinak)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Willie Brown: Antichrist?
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:07:08 GMT
Reply-To: bguest9@bsg9.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: bsg9.corp.sun.com

Willie Brown's good intentions define the road to hell. Can someone stop this man?
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  Marin County, Ca.
Distribution: ba
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:36:57 GMT

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.  I, for one, am hoping that medical
science quickly develops a method to transplant embryos from women to
men.  Then, all those men showing up at protests at abortion clinics
can instead spend their time acting as surrogate mothers for all those
unwanted embryos.  Yeah, I can hardly wait, it would be put up or shut
up time for those guys.  Somehow, I doubt many would volunteer, but then
I'm probably just cynical.

>>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.  

Guido
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Molesters vs Molestation (WAS Re: Against Our Will)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 01:03:00 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <92395@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >I don't think my salient point is sinking in. I agree that
    >men who molest boys do so with significantly greater
    >frequency than girl-molesters. All studies seem to point to
    >this. But the obvious conclusion is that since the number of
    >boy-molestation incidents are outnumbered 2 to 1 by girls,
    >and that many many more boys can be the victim of a single
    >molester, that there are substantially fewer boy-molesters
    >out there than girl-molesters. And then according to the
    >study that Clayton cited, only 21% of the boy molesters
    >self-identify as homosexual. The numbers I work out give
    >anywhere between 2.5 and 4% of the _MOLESTERS_ are
    >homosexual. This is in line with general population
    >demographics.

Hmm, but I guess I worry more about the total victim count. If a male
molestor of boys is much much higher in victim count, then it is even more
to worry about men that are scoutmasters and homosexual for example.
Of course, this does lead to the unusual conclusion the male molestors
of exclusively young girls would make perfectly safe scoutmasters -- we 
already know where their sickness is. Ugh.

    >>But in ANY case, but the current accepted definitions (molest
    >>a same-sex child, you are homosexual) homosexuals molest
    >>children far above the general per capita rate.
    >>
    >The definition you have just made is not accepted by the
    >psychological, psychiatric, or sociologist communities. See
    >other studies which I posted. Or you might want to write to
    >Brian Evans. I don't ahave his e-mail address handy, but I
    >know he's been a frequent poster to alt.sex. I think he's
    >currently at the University of New Mexico.

You may be absolutely right. There is little scientific rigor in those
communities. That's why the police victimization reports should be
used instead of fuzzy-wuzzy papers. Basically, I feel most of the
"psychological, psychiatric, or sociologist" are essentially arguments
by authority and consist of large cirlce jerks via quoting each others
papers -- do it long enough and it sure looks like real science.


-- 
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: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: ba
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 05:17:14 GMT

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

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.

>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.

>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. 

So a father raping his daughter should be allowed to continue by the
same logic.

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

Someone is being abusive all right, but you ought to look in a mirror.

BTW, don't ASSume I am anti-abortion, I am simply anti-bad reasoning.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: ba.politics