HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity

How many men are forced to become fathers? 

The Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement keeps track of how many
paternities have been established in the U.S. They published these totals in
their 1990 Congressional Report(1):


            Year    Paternities Established
                          Per Year
           ----------------------------------

            1986           245,000
            1987           269,000
            1988           307,000
            1989           339,000
            1990           393,000

                                  Paternities Established
                                          Per Year
        |
400,000 |                                                   XXXXXXXXXXXXX
        |                                                   XXXXXXXXXXXXX
        |                                     XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
300,000 |                        XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
        |           XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
        |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
200,000 |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
        |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
        |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
100,000 |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
        |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
        |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
        --------------------------------------------------------------------
           1986         1987         1988         1989          1990


The report defines "paternities established" as 

	"Legal establishment of fatherhood for a child after the opening 
	of a child support enforcement case, either by court determination
	or voluntary acknowledgment in states where that is legally 
	admissible."

The annual growth rate in "paternities established" is about 12%. The World
Almanac(2) says that the population in the U. S. only grew 1% per year during
the 1980s. Their data was based on the U. S. census. 


				References

1.) 1990 Congressional Report by the Office of Child Support Enforcement,
    Washington D.C. 

2.) World Almanac, 1991.
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,talk.politcs.misc
Subject: Trying this as a New NeoLogism
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:28:58 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
] Let's face it, why not just say: "I killed the unborn child because I
] wanted to."  

Why not just say:

"I killed the UnBornPotentialGrandParent because I wanted to."

Or

"I Killed the UnBornPotentialNeoNaziFanatic because I wanted to."

Or

"I Killed the UnBornPotentialSaviorOfTheFreeWorldFromTheGodLessCommunistConspiracy because I wanted to."

These are FAR more far MORE effective 'shock terms'
and might be considered the next time you wish to
win the argument on shock value alone.

If I can be of any further assistance, 
feel more than free to call upon me 
in the future.

ciao
drieux





-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Subject: Re: WHY IS ABORTION NOT A WOMEN'S ISSUE ?
Reply-To: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 06:51:23 GMT

[I'm takingout the headers because I fear the attributions are messed up;
 and I don't want anyone complaining]
>>Abortion is not a women's issue. Therefore, only men have the right to 
>>decide whether abortions should be legalized.
>>Why ?
>>
>[argument that women cannot be objective deleted]
>>
>>[argument that married men cannot be objective deleted]
>>
>But wait!  Unmarried men still might have sex with women at some time in
>their lives, either in or out of wedlock, so they have a personal interest
>in this issue. Therefore, only men who have vowed never to get married
>or have sex are truly uninvolved.  The obvious solution: the Roman Catholic
>clergy is the only group qualified to decide this important issue.
[oops deleted ":-)" sorry]

Ah, but wait!  Some (!) (that is *some*, not all) Catholic clergy have a
vested interest in this as well.  There are certain members that would like
to avail themselves of a constant stream of young children to molest and
thus have an interest in keeping the number of available children at max.
(For those that consider this a slanderous slap at Catholism, I suggest you
watch the news more carefully: currently there are cases in MA/WI (one
individual who moved on (with the complicity of his supervisors, I believe)
after getting caught in one state); and if I remember correctly there are 
a few pending cases (ie >1 individual) in the Chicago area; and who knows how
many other (under)/un-reported cases).  Not that this is necessarily 
restricted to Catholic clergy ... but they were cited as the prime
candidates for deciding the issue.  And I'm pretty convinced that this
isn't the prime reason that the upper heirarchy has chosen to endorse it's
*present* stand (do remember that it wasn't always considered immoral by
the church).

No, I think it's clear that there are *NO* *groups* that are totally 
disinterested parties in the issue of pregnancy and abortion.  And since
groups as a whole can't be trusted to decide the issue for *all* cases, 
maybe the issue should be decided on a case-by-case status.  And who best 
to weight *all* the relevant information and make a decision?  Seems clear 
that the woman involved is the most informed individual in all the 
mitigating circumstances.

you are in a maze of twisty, turvey concepts all different,
-robert (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu)

[For the humor challenged please take everything with a grain of salt]
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 21:04:42 GMT

In article <usglkrx.717767962@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman) [her sister, actually] writes:
>
>At the time I became pregnant I could barely take care of
>myself, I had problems with drugs and alcohol.  The man who got me
>pregnant was the man I had been living with for 3 years - he had told
>me he had a vasectomy and he hadn't, 

Well, gee, if a woman lied about HER ability to cause conception, the law
would gladly just "look the other way", and bill the man the usual amount of
paternity child-support regardless, i.e. in essence, we REWARD this deceptive 
behavior by giving the woman the option of raising a child with the benefit 
of the victim's, er, the man's mandatory financial contributions.

But, of course, when a MAN pulls this kind of crap, most folks are morally
outraged, and ready to hang him up by his toenails. 

I just love sexist double standards...

								- Kevin
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 23:47:58 GMT
Subject: Forced Fatherhood Survey Results
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity


                          Results of Pilot Survey of 
                         Men Forced to Become Fathers


Do you feel comfortable discussing your 'forced fatherhood'?

Yes             28%
No              43%
Other           14%
Not Available   14%


Were you and the mother married?

Yes             28%
No              71%
Other            0%
Not Available    0%


Did you live together?

Yes             28%
No              28%
Other           14%
Not Available   28%


Did you want to have a child?

Yes              0%
No             100%
Other            0%
Not Available    0%


Did she?

Yes             57%
No               0%
Other           28%
Not Available   14%


Did you want an abortion?

Yes             43%
No               0%
Other           28%
Not Available   28%


Did she?

Yes              0%
No              71%
Other           14%
Not Available   14%


Did you want to put the child up for adoption?

Yes             43%
No              28%
Other            0%
Not Available   28%


Did she?

Yes              0%
No              71%
Other            0%
Not Available   28%


Did she sue you for child support?

Yes             57%
No               0%
Other           28%
Not Available   14%


Do you know anyone else who has been forced to be a father?

Yes             57%
No              14%
Other            0%
Not Available   28%


==============================================================================

Survey sample size              7

Gender of survey respondents
        Male                   86%
        Female                 14%  (She responded because her significant 
                                     other would not)
Occupation
        Computer literate:     100%

When survey was taken:         From 7/23/92 to 9/25/92

Geography of respondents:      U. S. nationwide 

Survey method:                 Internet questionnaire and personal
                               correspondence

Survey conducted by            Kingsley G. Morse Jr.

=============================================================================

Future Research:

1.) Need a larger sample size
2.) Need more demographic info for both the man and woman
	Age
	Location
	Race
	Occupation
	Political affiliation
	Income
3.) Ask when she decided to have a child instead of if she decided to have
a child.
From: peerson@neyman.ucdavis.edu (Jan Peerson)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: WHY IS ABORTION NOT A WOMEN'S ISSUE ?
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:39:30 GMT

In article <8186@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> khanh@edison.seas.ucla.edu 
(Khanh V. Nguyen) writes:
>
>Abortion is not a women's issue. Therefore, only men have the right to 
>decide whether abortions should be legalized.
>Why ?
>
[argument that women cannot be objective deleted]
>
>Futhermore, to insure the highest fairness possible, only young men who have
>never married can vote on this issue. Otherwise, family commitment will 
>influence the votes of married men. Married men are not free to express their
>own opinions in this sensitive issue.
>
>
>Kan Nuel.

But wait!  Unmarried men still might have sex with women at some time in
their lives, either in or out of wedlock, so they have a personal interest
in this issue. Therefore, only men who have vowed never to get married
or have sex are truly uninvolved.  The obvious solution: the Roman Catholic
clergy is the only group qualified to decide this important issue.

( 8-) for the humor-impaired).

Jan

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Radical Reading Notions....
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:51:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.191914.27156@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>] In article <1992Sep30.175355.23854@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>] 
>] >But I guess that when its important enought to legislate
>] >against the rights of the Born in favor of some of the UnBorn,
>] >{as they are still DeHumanizing Sperms and Eggs - since they
>] >seem not to have 'enough' potential....} it does not surprise
>] >me that a little 'disrespect' can be overlooked when it comes
>] >to killing women who fail to show the proper respect.....
>] 
>] You have some very odd theories.  Where do you get them from?
> 
>Don,
>
>I will presume that you are as new to the abortion debate
>as you suggest, and hence have never heard the classic 
>argument of 'potential.'

I will presume that you are as new to debating as your postings
suggest and hence have never heard of the concept of "straw man."


>Given that the Gentleman would KILL a woman for NOT
>showing enough/the_right respect for/toward himself,
>{and Please, let us not equivocate that he did in
>point of fact say that... its been reposted enough }
>it is a logical consequence of the argumentative form
>to conclude that As He Might Potentially Become a
>Murderer of Women as They Might Potentially Show Disrespect,
>THEREFORE it is that He is a Murderer of them...

By the logic you are presenting, every person has the potential 
to become a murderer, so they are already murderers.

By your reading style and your concept of context, it seems that
since most people have uttered 90% of the words in the dictionary, 
most people are guilty of making explicit murder threats.


>Now do you wish to resolve this 'argument of potential'
>or do you wish to conclude that I have misinterpreted 
>your line, and that you are merely arguing about the
>speculation that there might possibly be some interpretation
>somewhere that may or may not agree with some notion held
>by someone at some time and place. But of course that this
>is not your personal opinion.

Yes.  No.  Maybe.  Who is equivocating?  Never mind, 
I'm not interested.  Thanks for your time, I think.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Radical Reading Notions Revealed....
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:34:27 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <BvpsCs.IrE@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.182636.8965@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>] In article <1992Oct1.191914.27156@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>] 
>>] >Given that the Gentleman would KILL a woman for NOT
>>] >showing enough/the_right respect for/toward himself,
>>] >{and Please, let us not equivocate that he did in
>>] >point of fact say that... its been reposted enough }
>>] >it is a logical consequence of the argumentative form
>>] >to conclude that As He Might Potentially Become a
>>] >Murderer of Women as They Might Potentially Show Disrespect,
>>] >THEREFORE it is that He is a Murderer of them...
>>] 
>>] By the logic you are presenting, every person has the potential 
>>] to become a murderer, so they are already murderers.
>>
>>
>>I think that you understand the basic notions
>>of the 'argument of potential' quite well....
>>
>>Now how far are we allowed to go with the
>>'argument of potential' when working in
>>the AntiAbortionistMindSet?
>
>I don't know.  Why don't you ask someone of the "AntiAbortionistMindSet"
>or someone who professes an 'argument of potential'?
>
>I'm not sure what s/he would respond, but I don't see a parallel
>between being a person and being a murderer -- potential or real.  
>So you've lost me.  What's your point?

His point eluded you?  Seemed perfectly obvious to me that one can conclude:

Every person may have the potential to become a murderer. This does not mean
every person IS a murderer, or should be treated like a murderer.

Some anti-abortionists argue that every fetus has the potential to become
a person. This does not mean every fetus (or any fetus, IMO) IS a person,
or should be treated like a person.

The anti-abortionist "argument of potential" drieux is referring to, I believe
argues that since the fetus is a POTENTIAL person, that it should be treated
like a person BEFORE it realizes this potential. And that makes about as much
sense as a POTENTIAL murderer should be treated as a murderer before s/he
realizes this potential.

Persons =/= murderers (necessarily)
Fetuses =/= persons

-Kristy
-- 
   +==========================+============================================+
   |Kristy Patterson          |"Jack's favorite author is the man who wrote|
   |kristyp@mac.dartmouth.edu |'Pull tab to open.'"      -Jewel of the Nile|
   +==========================+============================================+
From: khanh@edison.seas.ucla.edu (Khanh V. Nguyen)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: WHY IS ABORTION NOT A WOMEN'S ISSUE ?
Date: 3 Oct 92 05:12:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles

In article 4076 hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU wrote:

> There are certain members [of the Catholic clergy] that would like
> to avail themselves of a constant stream of young children to molest and
> thus have an interest in keeping the number of available children at max.

I can't understand why there are people who can make such an explanation
of the Catholic Church's stand on the abortion issue. 

As a Catholic, I strongly believe in my Church, but I never consider other
religions my enemies, and the same is true for all the Catholics I know.
Unfortunatelly, I have seen so many people who openly express their
hatred and hostility toward our Catholic Church. These people often point
to some stories hundred years ago to accuse the Catholic Church of 
religious intolerance, but now they themselves never miss a chance to blame
and attack her. Are these people more tolerant ? 

As a Vietnamese, I never forget how 300,000 Vietnameses were executed
just because they were Catholics. We have been suffering enough. We don't
need any more bashing.


Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: "As a taxpayer screw [Deadbeats]...but..."
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:41:53 GMT

In <22SEP199213401611@arecibo.aero.org> terwill@arecibo.aero.org (Bill who?) writes:

[ deletia ]
>I enjoyed this post from the martyr, but think the attitude displayed
			      ^^^^^^  who me ?	
>now is just as foolish as the stupid macho one 30 years ago. Bottom line
>is that he is taking from the current to support the former and it would be
>more cost effective to just give up shaving :)


>P.T. Barnum was thinking of these guys.

>Bill

< sarcasm on >

I'm deeply touched by everyone's concern for my situation.

< sarcasm off >

Funny thing is that none of the people directly involved is
complaining and I can afford it, so I wouldn't lose any
sleep folks.

REB
From: kwelch@WALTZ.SEAS.UPENN.EDU (Kevin Welch)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Classic Argument of Potential
Date: 1 Oct 92 23:47:55 GMT
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

drieux, just drieux writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>] In article <1992Sep30.175355.23854@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>] >But I guess that when its important enought to legislate
>] >against the rights of the Born in favor of some of the UnBorn,
>] >{as they are still DeHumanizing Sperms and Eggs - since they
>] >seem not to have 'enough' potential....} it does not surprise
>] >me that a little 'disrespect' can be overlooked when it comes
>] >to killing women who fail to show the proper respect.....

>] You have some very odd theories.  Where do you get them from?

>I will presume that you are as new to the abortion debate
>as you suggest, and hence have never heard the classic 
>argument of 'potential.' Namely, that we should defer
>to the UnBorn the Attributes of the Born, as there is
>a Potential that they May Be Born.

This is not correct.
We, or at least I and those I know, are in agreement that the fetus has
relatively few of the attributes that the born have, at least in the
realm of philosophical personhood.

[...]


>In the specific: Most AntiAbortionists Dehumanize sperms
>and eggs as they Fail to have enough of the 'potential stuff'
>to be in the position to be "A Thing is that which it might become."

The human sperm and egg are just that.  They are haploid cells that survive
for a few hours and die.  They carry the potential to form a human being,
not a person.

[...]

>drieux



--
Kevin C. Welch
kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu

I died once, but then I renewed my subscription to LIFE . . ..
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 00:50:48 GMT
Subject: Forced Fatherhood Law
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity


                            Forced Fatherhood
                                The Law


	U.S. court precedents force men to be fathers. The N.Y. case of
	Frank S. v. Pamela is such a case. Pamela admitted to lying
	to Frank about using birth control. The Appeals court still made
	him pay child support. Even when he pointed out that fraud was
	committed, the court made him pay.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu (Angela KAY Rolling)
Subject: parasite
Reply-To: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:28:26 GMT

David Knapp writes

->Personally, I've done *a lot* of thinking about it. I've been thinking that
->it is really nothing but a parasite, in the true definition of the word
->(not black's mind you).
No by your definition. In fact by your definition we were all parisites once.
Perhapse you should remember that

->I personally can't imagine having something growing inside of me at *all*.
->It makes me think of tape worms. I'm rather amazed that any women would
->*want* to get pregnan let alone keep a fetus (just listen to that word,
->feeetusssss,ickh) if they got pregnant without wanting to.

Gee its a good thing that your mother didnt feal this way because then were
would you be now? Perhapes you should be thankful that she didnt, perhapes
we should all be thankful that we are here.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Radical Reading Notions Revealed....
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:19:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.182636.8965@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>] In article <1992Oct1.191914.27156@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>] 
>] >Given that the Gentleman would KILL a woman for NOT
>] >showing enough/the_right respect for/toward himself,
>] >{and Please, let us not equivocate that he did in
>] >point of fact say that... its been reposted enough }
>] >it is a logical consequence of the argumentative form
>] >to conclude that As He Might Potentially Become a
>] >Murderer of Women as They Might Potentially Show Disrespect,
>] >THEREFORE it is that He is a Murderer of them...
>] 
>] By the logic you are presenting, every person has the potential 
>] to become a murderer, so they are already murderers.
>
>
>I think that you understand the basic notions
>of the 'argument of potential' quite well....
>
>Now how far are we allowed to go with the
>'argument of potential' when working in
>the AntiAbortionistMindSet?

I don't know.  Why don't you ask someone of the "AntiAbortionistMindSet"
or someone who professes an 'argument of potential'?

I'm not sure what s/he would respond, but I don't see a parallel
between being a person and being a murderer -- potential or real.  
So you've lost me.  What's your point?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion