HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Men and Abortion Rights
Date: 30 Jul 92 18:46:12 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul29.235615.26198@ntmtv>, jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia
Jazanoski) wrote:
> 
> 
> >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.
> 
> I thought we were beyond all this. Well, at least you're honest 
> about it.....

Well, it comes down to this too:

* Women can choose to be a mother.
* Men cannot choose to be a father.

Biology has worked this out for us.  I cannot be a father without a willing
woman around.  You can be a mother without a willing man around.  He
doesn't have to know.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:43:54 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

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.

Not many, other than you. The only ones who would be bothered by it would
be the ones who think that "men should do the looking, not be looked at".
"Men should make the moves, not be the receptacle of amatory advances".


>Of course nobody is going ho be raped or subjected to obvious overtures.
>But the sense of privacy will be invaded.

Anyone who expects privacy in a shower room, or in the military for that
matter, is seriously deluded.

Face it Phil, you're a bigot when it comes to discussing homosexuality.

Brian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215.=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:12:38 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

1) A good argument can be made that the human population explosion is 
   threatening the future of human life on earth.

2) Condors are nearly extinct.

3) Condors are a part of the food chain. When species of life become
   extinct, their disappearance may or may not affect the ability of
   humans to exist on earth.

4) The extinction of species has a cumulative effect. The more you
   lose, the more you lose.


Just to clear up why (debatably) non-living zygotes seem to carry less
political weight than condor eggs. 

I don't know, talk to the scientists. They're the ones that started 
this mess. 
								MPA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:26:55 GMT

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

Can you show that a 1 day old infant is self-aware?
How about an 8-month old fetus?

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski)
Subject: Men and Abortion Rights
Originator: jazanopa@nmtvs264
Reply-To: jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:56:15 GMT


>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.

I thought we were beyond all this. Well, at least you're honest 
about it.....

Patti
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Evidence that Homosexuals are NOT Overrepresented Among Pedophiles
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:20:11 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

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

>In article <92388@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>Found in "Homosexuality: A Research Guide", by Wayne R.
>>Dynes, Garland Publishing, New York, 1987.
[...references...]

>First, all of the papers are "psychological" in nature and appear to be in
>a book that has a slant. In which case, anybody can dig up the "pro" papers
>and ignore the anti.

For your information, this is a comprehensive review, and the editor made
no attempt to hide reviews of homosexuality which were scathing. But
curiously, the section devoted to child molestation studies was devoid
of any that concluded that gay men were a special risk.

Brian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
oneself.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:48:13 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: ba.politics

In article <1992Jul27.180856.8765@rossinc.com>, steveth@rossinc.com (Steve
Thomas) wrote:
 
> 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").

That may be true, but the majority of American's believe in restrictions
and the Pro-Choice crowd still freaks out over those too.
 
> 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.

You have absolutely no idea what my religous beliefs are.  I haven't
mentioned them, and refuse to involve them in my debates.  For all you
know, I am an athiest.

I am also, FYI, against the death penalty.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Say no more, I know what you mean ...
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:30:37 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <11494@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>Actually, most churches I've attended have claimed homosexuality
>was sinful.  I assumed it was something culturally specific to
>the early church, because of the associations with pagan temple
>prostitution in the Greco-Roman world.  I argued this point at
>great length in Bible studies, that perhaps homosexuality in a
>monogamous, permanent relationship, might not be sinful at all.

Actually, the early Christian churches were surprisingly tolerant
of homosexuality, even permitting members who had been legally married
under Roman secular gay marriage law to worship in the church. Witness
the rebuke from other apostles that Paul received for his proselytizing.
The first condemnations of homosexuality after the formation of the first
churches were always from politicos, not church elders. Part of the
crackdown against all forms of deviance from newly adopted stoic
philosophy was the issue of decrees illegalizing gay marriage and
sexual acts. The church had by this time become politicized and began
to incorporate stoicism into its doctrine.

See Boswell, "Homosexuality, Christianity, and Social Tolerance" for
details.

Brian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
oneself.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Say no more, I know what you mean ...
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:23:30 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <axmmd7=.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>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.

None of us has ever claimed that to be heterosexual is wrong, disgusting,
etc.

I don't think you've ever really thought about ***WHY*** you've thought
homosexuality is disgusting. I can't think of any child who comes to this
conclusion without accepting it as an act of faith from their parents or
their church, or their friends.

You compare your disgust with homosexuals to your disgust with lima
beans. Bullshit---disgust of other people is learned.
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: steveth@rossinc.com's message of 27 Jul 92 18:08:56 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<70457@apple.Apple.COM> <1992Jul27.180856.8765@rossinc.com>
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 08:08:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.180856.8765@rossinc.com>, steveth@rossinc.com (Steve Thomas) writes:

> 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.

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.

Feel free to contact the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights
(RCAR) for a principled stand by Christians, Jews, and many
others in opposition to laws prohibiting abortion (I will look up
an address for anyone who asks me to).  The short version of
their position is that opposition to laws prohibiting abortion
can be argued on the grounds of religious freedom.  Since the
objection to abortion is one of morality and religious beliefs,
they argue convincingly that anti-abortion laws constitute an
establishment of a particular religious view and are thereby
prohibited by the Constitution.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:52:03 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <f3pmp_d.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>2. I find the current cultural and political environment that permeates
>   (much, some, all?) of homosexuality to have many disgusting aspects.
>   Such as:
>
>     - Lack of strident and immediate opposition to NAMBLA, like a total
>       shunning for example

Generally, NAMBLA is shunned by the "gay community".  If you read any of
the gay dailies you will see that the letters to the editor indicate this.
I tend to think that NAMBLA has a right to exist, but I find their ultimate
goals rather reprehensible.



>     - Mixture of sexual expression and politics (really disgusting)

And Bill Clinton parading Hillary around is not a combination of
sexual expression and politics?  If I ran for public office and brought
Blair on the campaign trail for me, would I be mixing sexual expression
and politics?


>     - A seemingly widespread drive to force acceptance of a lifestyle
>       upon people that do not wish to be exposed to it

You cannot avoid us.  We are everywhere.  You have to realize that.  I
don't care whether you associate with me personally, but saying that
you do not want to associate with any homosexuals is incredibly naive.


>Homosexual current cultural and political activities? Well, some of those
>I find really disgusting.

And you don't find the republican party disgusting (at least some of what
they do?)  How about professional wrestling?  How about all the teen flicks
that come out of hollywood?  How about college students at spring break?

Most human cultural and political activity is really disgusting.  We are
no better than anyone else.



FWA
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Genis for US Senate - upcoming bay area media stints
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:27:00 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Jul20.003738.6368@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>In article <k9bm2vf.phil@netcom.com>,
    >>I think your use of the word homophobic is entirely
    >>unwarranted.
    >>
    >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.

Being able to toss homophobic around casually is a useful technique in that
allows you to label people with a tag of "unreasoning fear".

Just WHAT are the "facts involve"? The issue is probably far too emotional
to ever say.

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.

Which is it?

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.

Well, which is it?

If there is fear, it is reasoned. As I said, or meant to say perhaps,
attack his reasoning, but, please, do not toss off a homophobic label
and run along.

In any case, the chance of reasoned debate on this issue is about nil.


At least it's a break from NAMBLA. :-)

Next up: Homosexual pets and the straight owners that own them. Sick or healthy?
         And can gay pet kennels be far behind ...



-- 
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
Followup-To: ba.politics
In-reply-to: athos@apple.com's message of Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:45:19 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<SLAGLE.92Jul24235405@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
	<athos-280792094436@athos.apple.com>
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 09:14:24 GMT

In article <athos-280792094436@athos.apple.com>, athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

> In article <SLAGLE.92Jul24235405@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>,
> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) wrote:

>> The government can't interfere with your conduct unless
>> the Constitution says it can, not the other way around.

> 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."

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.

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?
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 30 Jul 92 23:01:51 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <4945@gold.gvg.tek.com>, mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson) writes:
> In article <11451@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >By the way, what Western country in this century first allowed
> >abortion on demand?  The Soviet Union, in 1920.  No wonder Anderson
> >is so supportive of it.
> 
> 	That man over there is tall and wearing a blue hat.
> 
> 	Therefore all tall men wear blue hats.
> 
> 		Sheesh.
> 								MPA

Poor analogy.  We've seen enough of your postings that the analogy
should be:

    That man over there is wearing a blue hat, blue pants, blue
    shirt, a shiny gold oval on the shirt, a thick black belt with 
    a holstered gun, tear gas, handcuffs, and a radio.  He is also
    a policeman.

    It is therefore a good assumption that if we see someone else
    with all those characteristics, that he is probably a policeman
    as well.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:31:51 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

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

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

There's no evidence for this. I can cite evidence that counters this.
Want me to?

>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.

And we give it return. Problem is you believe "live and let live,
unless it's in my employment or landlordship". We believe no such
thing.

Brian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
oneself.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:46:50 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <f3pmp_d.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>1. I do not find homosexual sexual practices disgusting. I am very open
>   minded and, well, have fun boys.
>
>2. I find the current cultural and political environment that permeates
>   (much, some, all?) of homosexuality to have many disgusting aspects.
>   Such as:
>
>     - Lack of strident and immediate opposition to NAMBLA, like a total
>       shunning for example

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...

>     - A seemingly widespread drive to force acceptance of a lifestyle
>       upon people that do not wish to be exposed to it

You call it force, we call it persuasion. :)

>     - The quicken to equate dislike with a phobia

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

>So, homosexual sexual acts I do NOT find disgusting.

>Homosexual current cultural and political activities? Well, some of those
>I find really disgusting. Although, I do miss Sister Boom-Boom.

Sister Boom-Boom? Who's she? (sounds pretty gravitationally challenged! :)
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Help for California Libraries! Dire Need!
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:31:50 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.

From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
In <1992Jul27.215622.6859@island.COM>, guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:

>In article <SLAGLE.92Jul25002800@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lock
(stuff deleted)

>>No.  Not in proportion to the damages done to the highways
>>by the big rigs.  Roads that exclude trucks last a very
>>long time and stay very smooth so they do less damage to
>>other vehicles.  Until trucking fees pay for virtually all
>>highway maintainance, then they are not paying their "fair
>>share".

>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.

Tim Irvin  j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
*************************************************************************
The Federalist Papers:  Cliffs Notes for Constitutional study.  Use it.

Marrou/Lord '92
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: Raising Revenues vs Spending Them
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: brad@clarinet.com's message of 18 Jul 92 04:20:06 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Ca.
	<1992Jul18.042006.15190@clarinet.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 05:05:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul18.042006.15190@clarinet.com>, brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:

> There's an argument that a tax on savings is good because it encourages
> investment.

Surely you meant to say that a tax on consumption, e.g. a sales or
value added tax, encourages investment.  A tax on savings is a clear
disincentive to investment in favor of spending in the present, since
purchases will tend to hold their value relatively better than the
saved dollars, on the margin, in this case.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics