response 177 of 404:

Oct 27 04:01 UTC 1998

I don't think of pro-lifers as evil.  I do think of the abortion
debate as being about a woman's right to terminate an unwanted
pregnancy.

Even if I didn't already know this I'd suspect the author of
that last response could never be pregnant.

response 179 of 404:

Oct 27 05:25 UTC 1998

by the way, the act of mounting is, in the dog world, a way of establishing
dominance in social relationships, not just a sexual behaviour.  male and
female dogs alike engage in this activity, without regard to the sex of the
recipient.  dogs usually only mate when the female is in heat.

response 181 of 404:

Oct 27 16:01 UTC 1998

(Shoot, system went down and I lost my first paragraph, which was,
basically: Jan, I agree with you entirely about abortion. I don't
know who you were talking to that didn't understand your points.
Only more verbose than that, because, well, I'm verbose.)
>
>Actually, you statements reminded me of a Bill Hicks comment (sampled on
>Tool's "Third Eye"): "It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal
>freedom." Were drugs legal, I wouldn't take them (I drink very little
alcohol,
>I don't smoke, I avoid caffeine and only take over-the-counter medications
>when I'm unbearably ill); but I'm against their prohibition on grounds of
>principle. And yes, I've seen what drugs do to people, in the same way that
>I've seen what prostitution does to people, in the same way that I've seen
>what abortion does to people, in the same way... I don't care. Taking
>responsibility away from people because they can't handle it isn't the
>solution. Personal freedom is the MOST IMPORTANT concern... all others are
>secondary.
>
>"But wait!" cries the detractor... "This is a slippery slope! That means I
>should have the right to kill other people, and you're detracting from my
>personal freedoms in stopping me!"
>
>Nope, nope, nope. I have the right to get stoned. I have the right to risk
>my own life getting stoned. I do NOT have the right to get stoned and drive
>on the sidewalk and kill and injure others. My personal freedoms end where
>yours begin.

Homosexuality> I like the food analogy, and have used it myself. Somebody
asked (elsewhere, I beleive) how one can "choose" to be a lesbian (in
the context, for political reasons), and the food analogy response is:
The same way some people *choose* to be vegetarians, while others don't.
Some vegetarians get physically ill from meat, either for medical reasons
(allergy) or, much more commonly, for psychological reasons (they can't
rid themselves of the image of a slaughterhouse, for instance). My mother-
in-law can't eat turkey for the second reason. Some vegetarians, though,
could eat meat, but choose not to... some (like Selena) even crave meat 
from time to time, but still avoid it.

At any rate, why on Earth does anyone CARE what anyone else does, so long
as it stays out of your own space? 

((Show of hands... can any of y'all tell I'm a libertarian?))

I admit there are questions that are difficult to answer. Let's take 
public nudity, for instance. I feel that I have the right to not wear
clothing, if I choose. But you may feel that you have the right to protect
your children from seeing a naked adult man. Both are legitimate rights,
so who gets their way?

Let's take public displays of affection. One of the things that those who
oppose gay rights say is that they don't want to see two men kissing each
other, and they don't want their kids exposed to that. In fact, they oppose
PDAs in general, but feel taht heterosexuals, who tend to be much less open
in public, are within acceptable tolerance levels.

Let's take pornography. Psychologists feel that exposing young children to
hardcore pornography unduly traumatizes them. I feel that I should have the
right to view whatever I want to.

So who wins?

Well, we've only had the legal system we've had for a few centuries. Before
that, what was the answer? Social values, mores, and regulation... personal
ethics and responsbility were tantamount, and when those were abuse, people
were ostracized. 

My girlfriend has four children, all under the age of ten. They've been 
over to my house. I haven't shown them my porn mags, not because I think
it's against the law, and that I risk imprisonment, but because I don't
think it's appropriate for them to see it, any more than I think it's 
appropriate for them to see ultraviolent movies, like Terminator and Die
Hard. If I had a boyfriend, I wouldn't drop to my knees and suck his cock
in the middle of a store not because it's illegal but because it's not
appropriate behavior (and who knows, I might do it a few times for the
sheer thrill of it, but not on a regular basis)... just like I'm not
openly sexual with my wife or GF in public because it's just not 
appropriate.

"But," say the detractors, "it's wonderful that you have a strong sense
of ethics, but not everyone does, and we need protection from them."

BULLSHIT. Telling the government to protect you and yours from the bad,
filthy people doesn't make them go away. Instead, it changes people from
thinking about ethics to thinking about laws... people stop doing things
because they're right or wrong, and start doing things because they're
legal or illegal. Instead of blaming themselves when they do something
inappropriate, they start blaming the government for daring to catch them.
It starts becoming a game... can I suck another guy's cock in public 
without getting caught? Can I wave my wang in front of a six-year-old?
When there are no legal limits of behavior, there are no legal limits 
to test.

All right, I'll shut up for now. =}

response 183 of 404:

Oct 27 21:47 UTC 1998

Actually, it's unfathomable to me why anyone -- pro-choice or otherwise --
wouldn't agree with the statement, "It would be good to come up with ways to
decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies."

response 187 of 404:

Oct 28 04:42 UTC 1998

It doesn't have to be justified. It is the *right* of the woman.

Why are you curious about all those things? What would you do about
it if you knew. Actually, there are lots of statistics like that somewhere,
perhaps on the web. The important information, I think, would be that
which might provide some guidance to reducing the number of unwanted
pregnancies. I much prefer contraception to abortion as a means to
prevent/eliminate  those.

However your question about all those successful happy kids that don't
get born seems to suggest that you think that every ovum ever produced
should be fertilized and a baby produced, regardless of the means
to support same and, ultimately, the capacity of the earth to sustain
people. 

response 189 of 404:

Oct 28 20:14 UTC 1998

Actually, Rane, you believe it is the right of the woman.  And under the law
it is the right of the woman, and that is because the supreme court has
determined it to be the right of the woman.

Um, Kenton, what does it matter?  If your view is correct, and abortion is
murder, then who cares who does it and why?  If your view is incorrect, and
abortion is a right, then who cares who does it and why?  The only grey areas
are situations like rape and when the mother is at risk, which are fairly
obvious causes for abortion on both sides, and they are small percentages.
Someone who is excersizing a right doesn't need "justification."  I don't need
to be "justified" to speak freely.  You're attempting to make a point which,
while relevant to you, isn't relevant to others.  The best you can accomplish
is to establish that you have solid reasons for believing what you believe.
Changing the minds of people who believe something else is virtually
impossible, and 20+ years of this country's experience should pretty much
verify that.  

response 191 of 404:

Oct 29 02:46 UTC 1998

Ah, love that liberalism vs. conservatism at work

it's all a matter of perception and paradigm

and I'm tired of the subject..can we go on?

response 193 of 404:

Oct 29 11:31 UTC 1998

Uh, yeah, drift away.  

My choice to be a heterosexual was carefully made.  At the age of 12, when
encountered with the issue, I took it very seriously.  First, I read all the
material I could explaining the advantages and disadvantages of the various
choices of sexual orientations.  Then I listened and attended lectures
outlining the various issues involved.  Then I talked to people who had made
both choices about why they made those choices and how they thought their
choice had panned out.  I carefully investigated the activities both choices
would involve until I knew the ins and outs of everything, and scheduled a
viewing so I could see the processes in action.  And, finally, to make my
choice, I went to a beach.  I saw a couple women walking buy in thongs, said
"Oh, daaaaaammmmmnnnnn," and decided to be heterosexual.

The preceeding paragraph is sarcastic.

response 195 of 404:

Oct 30 01:48 UTC 1998

ROTFL!!

response 197 of 404:

Oct 30 02:33 UTC 1998

Put the abortion issue to bed-- I grow tired of it.  Opinions are like
buttocks-- everyone's got one, and they all stink.

Anyway, I thought we were talking about Matthew Shepard's untimely death and
homophobia in general.

Anyone see the ABC News special on it?  They had a gay filmmaker who did a
documentary of interviews with men who had murdered homosexuals.  They talked
a little about perceived attitudes, etc., etc.

response 199 of 404:

Oct 30 15:19 UTC 1998

I didn't catch that documentary, Jon.  Could you give a brief synopsis?

response 201 of 404:

Oct 31 11:53 UTC 1998

   kenton, i'll repeat my question: when, exactly, did you make a 
conscious choice to be heterosexual?