HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel)
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:22:54 GMT

In article <1i7slkINN7h9@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
>>However, what I was thinking of was this: insisting that
>>49% of custody go to men may run into the question of
>>whether 49% of the men _want_ custody.  
>
>Deviousness aside.  Gordon, it assumes that the percentage
>wanting custody among men and women is equal, although not
>specifying the percentages.  I have no idea whether that 
>assumption is valid.  Can anyone out there quote a study?

It seems to me that there's a problem with anything one quotes.  It would
not surprise me if a number of men who want custody don't pursue it because
they don't think they have a chance.  

Any statistics on the subject are skewed by self-fulfilling prophecy.  While
78% of men who seek sole custody get it (and 82% of women who seek sole
custody succees) this doesn't answer the question of what people want and
who would have gotten custody in an actual dispute.

Miriam Nadel
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Affirmative Action (Re: Reproductive Technologies)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:28:01 GMT

<1ia1h8INNs7p@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
><C0CBE3.InL@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>><1i9pfhINNo7s@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>Well, I'm all for applying equitable standards to child custody and support
>>>awards, so that makes the rest of your posting suspect, since I am a feminist.
>>
>>Yes, but are you all for applying AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?
>
>Define it.
>
>Then I'll take a whack at answering.

Another smokescreen response, Adrienne?  You conveniently omitted
Karl Denninger's question re AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, in favor of evading
the issue through the term "equitable standards" -- and then,
claiming that you represent feminists, you accuse *his* article of
being "suspect"?

You responded to <BzLB81.2n1@ddsw1.mcs.com> (Karl Denninger):

#So why not apply some affirmative action to this problem, as feminists are
#wont to do in the work arena?

I won't try to say what his intent was, but how about the following?

1.  Presumption in favor of the father, until such time as fathers
receive 49% of sole/primary custody awords.

[No smokescreens, Adrienne: I'm sure you know what a "presumption" means;
it can certainly be overcome by other issues (unfitness, etc.).]

AND/OR

2.  Fines against judges whose record continues to show bias against
fathers (eg. 40% or less).

AND/OR

3.  Insert your definition here, Adrienne.  (Either you meant to claim 
you support AA or you evaded it, using "equitable standards" intentionally.)

And please, Adrienne, stick to the issue: I am not interested in
discussing whether the political climate would *allow* this to
be implemented.  Just whether it fits into established AA principles
supported by women's groups and minorities.

Now, are you in favor of affirmative action for the underrepresented 
and oppressed minority (in this case, men), or are you a feminist?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: C.J. Supports Reproductive Technologies for Men!  E, Gads, er E, GOiDS!
X-To: C.J. SILVERIO
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:36:00 GMT
Keywords: Praise the Heavens for Small Mercies - NOT!

cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes...
>nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM writes:
>|regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>|>Scuse, please, but how does a society apply affirmative action to an unwanted
>|>pregnancy?

>|I suspect this is like the scene in 'Life of Brian' where the revolutionary
>|organization supported the right of the transexual to bear children. Might
>|I suggest that all of us feminists declare our solidarity with men who wish
>|to have unwanted pregnancies and get back on the topic of abortion?

>|I hereby declare my solidarity with men who desire reproductive equality,
>|including the right to have an unwanted pregnancy and an abortion if they
>|so desire.

>Indeed.  I've already done so twice, but I will speak up once
>again to agree with Nadja.  I support the right of all men like
>Karl Denninger & Will Steeves & Don Beaver to get pregnant and
>then to make their own choices about whether to abort or carry
>to term.

Good!  Then support research which can safely transfer a "foetus"
from the woman into the man.  (Apparently, there has been some
research in this area...you can start your support with a fairly
large donation, I trust?)


> I support their right to have uteruses of their own.

Great!  Put your money where your mouth is and support research into
artificial wombs, then.


>Go to it with my blessing, boys.
                            ^^^^^

And we "boys" love you too, girls.

Gee, I'm terribly glad that I haven't noticed you complaining about terms
like "girls" being used in ways intended to demean women...wouldn't want
you looking like a hypocrite, now would we?

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * REALITY.SYS not found, now using VIRTUAL REALITY DRIVER.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.child-support,alt.dads-right
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The EVIL Conspiracy behind this "Men's Choice" thing...
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 05:33:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.143035.29789@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> smile1@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (gray,david l) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.140356.29162@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> smile1@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (gray,david l) writes:
>>Sue
>>
>>You may thing scripture is sexiest but it is the only place where people are
                             ^^^^^^^
No Dave, I don't find anything particularly sexy in scriptures. Even
the _Song of Soloman_ does nothing for me.

>>expected to be treated with love and kindness.  We teach our children their 
>>worst self center values in it.  Take a look at our country.  We walk past 
>
>I need to make this correction.  We teach our children their worst self-
>centered values in divorce. 
>
>I wrote this not quickly and should have proofread it.
>
No Dave, you should have *canceled* it.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.child-support,alt.dads-right
From: smile1@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (gray,david l)
Subject: Re: The EVIL Conspiracy behind this "Men's Choice" thing...
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 14:30:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.140356.29162@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> smile1@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (gray,david l) writes:
>Sue
>
>You may thing scripture is sexiest but it is the only place where people are
>expected to be treated with love and kindness.  We teach our children their 
>worst self center values in it.  Take a look at our country.  We walk past 

I need to make this correction.  We teach our children their worst self-
centered values in divorce. 

I wrote this not quickly and should have proofread it.

Smile,

Dave
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.child-support,alt.dads-right
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?
X-To: KEVIN DARCY
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:06:00 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes...
>In article <1h0h9fINN2i6@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Per
>) writes:
>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1gdcpaINNhbc@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah P
>ri) writes:
>>>>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>If a man has made it clear to his 'mate' that he doesn't want
>>>>>children, and uses appropriate contraception, then why should he be
>>>>>responsible for any resulting children?
>>>>
>>>>Because they are still *his* children.
>>
>>>Only in terms of genetic similarity.
>>
>>Nope.  Because of his participation in the conception.

>How is that not a direct contradiction of the following?

>"I don't argue that he has to pay for a child just because he had sex."
>                                        12 Dec 92 03:34:32 GMT
>                                        <1gbmk8INN74p@gap.caltech.edu>

>Is there some subtle distinction I'm missing here between "sex" and
>"participation in conception"? If so, please enlighten me.


She really said this?!!  Wow, my system didn't catch *that* one, that's
for sure...

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * As Zeus said to Narcissus, "Watch yourself!"
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Embryos as Property and Viability as a Standard?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:52:54 GMT
Keywords: Property rights, abortion, compensation for involuntary loss...?

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

[Using this post because I missed the one it is responding to, which was a
response to one I posted.]

>In article <C02MCM.D71@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>
>>>lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes:
>>
>>>>In <1h98toINN59@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>
>>>>>It is not being squelched on the grounds that it's "icky".  It's being
>>>>>squelched on the grounds that it is patently false.  An embryo is 
>>>>>*not* a body part of the mother.
>>
>>>>Based on...?  Few disciplines I'm aware of accept proof-by-assertion; on
>>>>what basis do you draw the line?  How do you distinguish a few cells of
>>>>embryo from a few cells of skin?
>>
>>>Well, the fact that they are genetically distinct is one big way, even though
>>>*detecting* that may be essentially impossible with current technology.
>>
>>>On the other hand, the embryo (we're talking pre-viability here) is nowhere
>>>near being a separate, independent organism; it recieves *all* of its
>>>sustinence from the mother's blood (after implantation) or from the reserves
>>>of the egg (before implantation) which also came from the mother.  Without
>>>the resources of the mother, the embryo would not survive.  It is probably
>>>in that sense that was meant in the original post that the embryo is "part"
>>>of the mother.
>>
>>Which means that you are a rock, since you derive *all* your sustenance
>>from the earth, or from its reserves, which came from the earth. You would
>>not survive if you were suddenly thrown into space, thus you're not viable
>>either.  Therefore, anyone who wishes to kill you is only performing a
>>Gaia abortion - perfectly acceptable.

A good analogy for a woman's little finger deciding to abort the unborn child;
not a very good analogy for a realistic abortion situation.  If the earth
decided to toss me into space (a volcanic eruption maybe?) then I couldn't
do much about it could I?  I suppose the pro-life/anti-abortion people would
defend me and ban volcanic-eruption-space-throwing-into'ing.  No?  Aw, gee...

>In what way does the Planet Earth "suffer" from sustaining its inhabitants,
>Kellmeyer? If it doesn't suffer from the "effort", then what justification is
>there for the needless destruction of human life which would result from
>throwing them off into space?

There's another good response, based on bodily autonomy reasoning. (I think)

>								- Kevin

-Rob
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.child-support,alt.dads-right
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (E. Elizabeth Bartley)
Subject: Re: liberals
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 07:31:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.195754.1@vax2.winona.msus.edu>
bugsys71@vax2.winona.msus.edu writes:

>   I think you all should take a huge step to the right, then maybe we will
>call you moderate.

No, dear....  If I took a huge step to the right I'd be a fascist.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Forced Adoption, "In The Best Interests Of The Child"?
Date: 4 Jan 1993 06:15:53 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
Keywords: Another Devil's Advocate, but may be worth taking a serious look at.

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes in alt.abortion.inequity...
>>In article <bob1.724701599@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>>>Suppose she is incapable of supporting the child? Well, society will
>>>simply have to force adoption. 

>Ah, now *that* is an interesting idea, Kevin...
>indeed, perhaps we *should*
>implement a policy whereby all children's parents are scrutinised at
>birth, and if there are not two willing parents who are able to support
>the child (or one parent who is very able), then the child should be
>given to a couple who *is* willing and *is* able to support the child.

Why stop with income?  It has been shown rather conclusively that 
a child is at risk of adverse health effects if a parent smokes or 
drinks alcohol.  Perhaps we should take children away from smokers 
and people who drink?  It has been shown that children of non-college-
graduates fare less well in school than those of parents with advanced
degrees.  Perhaps we should only allow holders of PhDs to raise children.

I think it is awfully dangerous to grant the state the power to decide
what is "best" for children.  That power should be retained by the parents
(with the exception of cases of manifest neglect or abuse).  The state
should act only to arbitrate in those cases where the parents cannot or 
will not agree.

>Some of your are likely to call this idea "fascist," but how can you, *if*
>you believe that "the best interests of the child" take precedence over
>*ALL OTHER RIGHTS*? 

Because it is far from obvious that the state is better qualified to 
determine the "best interests of the child" than its parents.

>Again, while I realise that I must surely be speaking treason :-), I'd
>like people to consider the idea that forced adoption in cases where one
>parent is unwilling to support, and the other is unable, *may* be better
>than keeping the child in an environment of near-poverty with one
>impoverished, but willing parent and one very bitter and unwilling parent.
>Indeed, a loving environment is always in a child's best interests.

What makes you think, if we habitually take children from seperated
parents, that there will be enough "loving" adoptive homes to take them
all in?

>At any rate, I'm not sure that I'd support it myself, but I'd like to see
>what others think of it, before making up my mind.
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
From: kmdamra@sscux1.ssc.gov (Ken Damrau)
Subject: subtlety
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:37:00 GMT

In alt.abortion.inequity, someone named diane wrote:

****** begin quote ******
Your first line is completely gratuitous. Regardless of anyone's beliefs
concerning women's employment status, the parent who makes the most money
pays the most support. Say that a man and a woman make 40K/ year and 20K/year
respectively. Their combined income is 60K. The court will decide that
,under normal circumstances, the support of a child requires a certain %
of that income- let's say 10%, or $6000 a year, or about $500 a month. The
man is making 2/3s of the combined income, so his 'share' of the support
is also 2/3s, or ~$335.00. The woman is responsible for the remaining 1/3.
If the woman supplies a higher share of the combined income than the man,
she is responsible for the greater share of the child support.
****** end quote ******
 
There is a hidden subtlety here that many people miss.  I can explain
myself better using math, I ask your indulgence please.  Let's designate
the income of the custodial parent as CP and the non-custodial parent as
NCP.  The total income would be CP+NCP.  This is used to find a
percentage, let's call it PCT.  The larger the CP+NCP, the larger the
percentage.  The amount to be paid is then proportioned by multiplying
by NCP/(CP+NCP).  But this gives a final formula of:

PCT*(CP+NCP)  *  NCP/(CP+NCP)

Note that the (CP+NCP) cancels out leaving a formula of

PCT*NCP

where the percentage, PCT, is larger the more the CP+NCP is.  This means
that the more the custodial parent makes, the more the non-custodial
parent pays!!

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Ken Damrau                                |     Let the buyer be where?     |
|Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory |Internet: kmdamra@sscvx1.ssc.gov |
|2550 Beckleymeade Ave.   MS-1031          |      Phone: 214-708-5022        |
|Dallas, Texas 75237                       |                                 |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
-- 
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Ken Damrau                                |     Let the buyer be where?     |
|Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory |Internet: kmdamra@sscvx1.ssc.gov |
|2550 Beckleymeade Ave.   MS-1031          |      Phone: 214-708-5022        |
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6282 talk.abortion:54019
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice...NOT!
Date: 4 Jan 1993 05:50:25 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
>>Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>>>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
>>>MLP> A hungry child doesn't give a damn if Daddy used a condom.

>>>Oh, PLEASE, please Michal, do *not* start this
>>>idea) ... please.  Indeed, to what you have just said, *I* could say:

>>>An aborted baby doesn't give a damn if Mommy used foam.

>>Of course you could.  But the question is whether one really thinks
>>that an aborted foetus thinks *anything*.  And if one does, does it
>>really matter as much as what a living, breathing, interacting child
>>thinks?

>Apparently, some of the people who support abortion on demand yet oppose
>male choice, couldn't care less about the fact that a "foetus" will SOON
>end up becoming a living, breathing, interactive child.

Appararantly some of the people who support abortion rights care more
about what *is* than what *might be*.
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,sci.econ
From: landsbur@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Steven E. Landsburg)
Subject: Re: Maternity/paternity insurance
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 15:46:24 GMT

Michal Leah Peri writes:

>>I envision a "conception insurance" as a fund something along the lines
>>of what social security was meant to be.  You pay money in, and if you
>>concieve a child then you could take money out for the purposes of
>>supporting that child.  

and Ted Frank replies:

>Now there's a moral hazard problem if I ever saw one.  Unless such
>insurance was mandatory (in which case, the policy is essentially the
>same as the government supporting all children), it could never work --
>the "lemons" problem would predominate

In what sense do you expect that the lemons problem would predominate
over the moral hazard problem, and why?


--
Steven E. Landsburg
landsbur@troi.cc.rochester.edu   
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
X-To: NADJA ADOLF
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:17:00 GMT

nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes...
>In article <1h5bokINN2ep@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne
>egard) writes:
>>In article <BzLB81.2n1@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writ
>s:
>>>In article <1gie2pINN1q2@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienn
> Regard) writes:
>>
>>>So why not apply some affirmative action to this problem, as feminists are
>>>wont to do in the work arena?

>>Scuse, please, but how does a society apply affirmative action to an unwanted
>>pregnancy?

>I suspect this is like the scene in 'Life of Brian' where the revolutionary
>organization supported the right of the transexual to bear children. Might
>I suggest that all of us feminists declare our solidarity with men who wish
>to have unwanted pregnancies and get back on the topic of abortion?

>I hereby declare my solidarity with men who desire reproductive equality,
>including the right to have an unwanted pregnancy and an abortion if they
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>so desire.

As you continue to mock us, so indeed *you* will also be mocked.  Perhaps
you might consider the idea that while you refuse to take us seriously,
we will refuse to take *you* seriously, either.

The best way of solving problems is to talk about them openly and honestly,
not to make cheap wisecracks.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * What is meant to be will always find a way.
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6293 soc.men:22118 soc.women:22115 talk.abortion:54083 alt.feminism:6805
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Date: 4 Jan 1993 11:00:56 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <C0CBE3.InL@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
><1i9pfhINNo7s@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>Well, I'm all for applying equitable standards to child custody and support
>>awards, so that makes the rest of your posting suspect, since I am a feminist.
>
>Yes, but are you all for applying AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?


Don,

Define it.

Then I'll take a whack at answering.

Adrienne Regard

Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6314 soc.men:22192 soc.women:22170 talk.abortion:54202 alt.feminism:6837