HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,misc.legal,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Embryos as Property?
Keywords: Property rights, abortion, compensation for involuntary loss...?
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:12:36 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <lairdb.724566025@crash.cts.com> lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes:

|Hmmm.  Let's go with this a little and see where it gets us.  Taking an
|embryo to be a body part of the mother, what is the "legal" status of a

Except that a fetus is not analogous to a finger.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: abortion
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 04:13:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16e by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <nyikos.724089385@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>Your spelling suggests my wording: society has gone like a yo-yo in the
>last 200 years on this.  In the 1st half of the 19th century there was
>a widespread acceptance of abortion, even though it was illegal after
>quickening.  Then in mid-century, when the human zygote was actually
>seen for the first time (!) and the details of conception known,

.. and the American Medical Association decided they wanted a monopoly,
and led a fierce campaign to make abortion illegal except when authorized
and performed by a licensed physician.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu (Angela KAY Rolling)
Subject: ?
Reply-To: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:13:56 GMT

>Then why would these people be so het up about raising kids with
>this particular partner??
Who sead they were?
When did we start talking about people raising kids *with* each other?
Last I looked it was about child suport not child raising.
Lets see usually when one raises a child *with* a particular partner one
is actualy with that partner and both actively interact with the child
and child support isn't a problem. Not to mention that both wanted the 
child so there is no forced parenthood involved.
How does this fit into a discusion about men being forced to be fathers
and pay child support agenst there will?
It seems to me that someone who is *forced* to be a parent can be counted
as being "so het up about raising kids" with anyone.
Did I just miss judge the mening of your sentince by basing it on the 
artical it was a reply to?

Elf-Kin
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6060 alt.feminism:6288
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 20 Dec 1992 07:52:11 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...
>MLP> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>MLP> >In article <1fpjdnINNbkq@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Lea
>MLP> i) writes:

>MLP> >>A full-term pregnancy is pretty obvious.
>MLP> >>(painfully obvious, one might say!)  One would think that the man would
>MLP> >>notice it. 

>MLP> >You're saying a man has to rely on "word of mouth" to know that
>MLP> >he's a father.  If he hasn't heard from his friends that he's a
>MLP> >father, then he must have "fled the scene," and can't possibly
>MLP> >be interested in his child.

>MLP> OK, let's hear your less "parochial" explanation of how a man
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>MLP> could miss noticing that his sex partner is full-term pregnant.
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>MLP> (remember: we're not talking about abortion -- we're talking
>MLP> about a man's needing to be formally notified so that he can
>MLP> claim his ofspring from the clutches of the adoption ward)


>Michal, I believe that the reason why Don used the word "parochial," was that
>in many debates over situations where a man and a woman are involved, you only
>seem to allude to situations where *the man* is the one at fault, ie., in this
>case, you spoke about the man "fleeing the scene," this providing an
>explanation why he would not know that he had fathered a child.

>But, there *is* also the possibility that the mother chose to "flee the scene"
>in order to prevent his finding out about the child.

Right you are, Will.  My apologies to Don.
But I really don't see how that can be prevented.
Women do, in America, have the right of free travel. 

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6059 talk.abortion:52493
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Here we go again! (l (1)
Date: 20 Dec 1992 08:07:58 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...
>MLP> >>>In article <1fdrtaINN9q6@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal 
L Peri) writes:

>MLP> My priorities are as follows:
>MLP> (1) to ensure that all born children are adequately provided
>MLP> (2) to ensure that women maintain the right to abort
>MLP> (3) to obtain equality for the sexes (note: I believe the right to
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>MLP> abortion is crucial to achieve equality)

>I'd like to ask you what you consider "equality for the sexes" to mean,
>in the context of Male Choice, ie., other than giving only women the right
>to abdicate parenthood, and making a legal presumption of joint custody.

I don't quite follow you here.  By "given only women the right to abdicate
parenthood" I assume that you mean that only women can choose to abort.
I agree that that is an inequality, but not unjust since the pregnancy does
occur in the woman's body.  The legal presumption of joint custody strikes
me as a point in favor of "equality for the sexes".  Feel free to give 
me hints....

>MLP> >Ah, but if I wear a condom during sex I think I am declaring quite loudly
>MLP> >and obviously that I have no intention of conceiving >anything<!

>MLP> But that does not relieve you of responsibility if an accidential
>MLP> conception should occur.

>It certainly relieves *her*, should she *choose* to take relief, as many have
>pointed out, again, and again, and again...

In America at the present time, the use of contraception has no bearing on
the availability of abortion.

>MLP> >the woman involved knows full well that there is no conception intended,
>MLP> >and therefore asking for child support post-sexual activity could be proof
>MLP> >of obtaining sexual favors under fraudulent intent?

>MLP> It is not the *woman* who asks child support.  It is the child.
>                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>This is a clever diversion.  In fact, this is like arguing against abortion,
>and arguing that it is a case of "men controlling women," because "it is not
>the man who wants the child to live.  It is the child who deserves to live".

>At any rate, the fact remains - it is a transfer from the man to the *woman*,
>*not* the child.

It is the transfer of money from the one parent to the other as the 
*guardian* of the child.  That presumes that the CP will use those funds
in the child's best interests.  Some have pointed out that that is
not always what happens, and have argued for more accountability from 
the CP to the NCP.  I happen to think that's a fine idea.
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice...NOT!
Date: 20 Dec 1992 00:54:53 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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?
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights,alt.feminism,alt.missing-kids,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.women,soc.men,talk.abortion,talk.rape
From: forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis )
Subject: Re: Proposal for reorganization of gender-issue groups
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:38:01 GMT

In article <Bz8Ior.7nq@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <forb0004.143.724305992@student.tc.umn.edu> forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis ) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec11.201041.608057@zeus.calpoly.edu> dgross@zeus.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
>>
>>>	soc.manumission (moderated)
>>
>>Your proposed changes were all well- considered and needed, but I place this 
>>group at the top of the list. We _desperately_ need a moderated space where 
>>men's issues can be discussed sanely.
>
>I understand that the traffic on the mail-men list is pretty
>reasonable ... oh! but I forgot that you oppose mailing lists.  You
>*neeeeeed* a newsgroup, yesterday if not sooner.

Since few others probably know what you're referring to: I recently 
supported the creation of an alt.fan.anne-rice newsgroup on alt.config. Tim 
thinks that an active mailing list, or burgeoning established group, is a 
prerequisite to create a group. I disagreed, but am beginning to change my 
mind; note the absence of further posts on alt.config and my suggestion on 
alt.vampyr. I freely admit that I've had no experience starting groups, and 
am not terribly bothered by the prospect of admitting that I could have been 
wrong. 

(Audience changed) I'm on the mail- men list, Tim. By your own 
criteria, the support is there, and the group should be created if enough so 
desire it. Don't judge Mr. Gross' efforts by my response; he's a paragon of 
fairness and tolerance. 

>
>>Feminism directly impacts men 
>>today, and usually in a negative manner. Criticizing feminism (radical, 
>>academic, whatever) is thus an integral function of the men's movement,  
>>and telling men to take their criticisms of an ideology that vilifies them 
>>to that enemy's camp.... ugh, simply unconscionable.
>
>I knew there was a reason I couldn't bring myself to be a part of what
>passes for a men's "movement."
>

Actually, the vast majority of the men's movement is pro- feminist. The 
above ("criticizing feminism...") is my opinion, not an established state of 
affairs. Fortunately, there are a few men willing to take on the more 
harmful brands of misandry, but they're fighting the demeaning of men by 
feminist radicals, not trying to roll the civil rights record back to the 
bad old days.
---------

Eric Forbis      forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,misc.legal
From: beckley@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Jeff Beckley)
Subject: Re: Quoting Someone Else's Private e-mail (was: abortion)
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:14:13 GMT

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>Would your opinion about this be any different if the original poster had
>stated:
>   I want you to stop sending me abusive email.  If you persist, I will feel
>   free to post it to the net.

No different.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  If the original poster has a
problem with abusive email, then (s)he should take up the matter with the
sys admin of the person sending the abusive email.  Just because someone is
breaking mail ettiquette doesn't give you the right to break news etiquette.

-- 
beckley@qualcomm.com         "A witty saying proves nothing." -- Voltaire
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:5903 talk.abortion:51915 alt.feminism:6007 soc.men:21141 misc.legal:21324
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Back Again To (Un)Father
Keywords: Two Legs Good, Three Legs Bad...
Date: 14 Dec 92 10:18:27 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
# However, it's quite possible that this procreation will not
# take place even in the sense of giving birth.  The birth
# rate of Americans is already too low to replace the popula-
# tion.

I read in the paper a week or so ago that the birth rate in the U.S.A.
climbed back up to somewhere over 2.0 children born per woman (2.1? or
2.5? can't remember exactly which) since 1981.

Someone want to get the stats and post them before I can get them from
home?


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``I guess the government that robs its
| J H Woodyatt              |  own people earns the future it is
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  preparing for itself.''
+---------------------------+                             -- Mark Twain
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6000 misc.legal:21472 talk.abortion:52305
From: cd382@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jim Walker)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,misc.legal,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Embryos as Property?
Date: 18 Dec 1992 04:46:52 GMT
Organization: Courtesy of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cd382@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jim Walker)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) says:

[original point deleted]

>
>Wellll, the non-gestating partner has contributed only a single chromosome,
23 actually, still a miniscule fraction of the volume of the embryo.
>so we'll ignore their physical property rights for the moment, but what
>about their *intellectual property* rights?  Does a person have an IP
>right in their chromosome sequence?  In another example, suppose someone
>clones you; do you have a copyright case against them?  (Again, entirely
>serious question, anybody following the various genetic IP cases?)

I think if I were cloned I would be entitled to compensation for any
genes I originated myself, i.e., new mutations.  Since the genes I
received from my parents were never copyrighted by the originators of
those genes, or if they were that was long enough ago that the copyright
would have run out on most of them, I believe they are public domain.

There was a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode involving involuntary
cloning.  The crew of the enterprise seemed to feel that they owned
the _combination_ of all their chromosomes.  But in the case of frozen
embryos, we are dealing with a new combination from two sources.  It has
been said jokingly that if you steal from one source it's plagerism, but
if you steal from two it's creativity.

>
>-- 
>Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
>Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!
How much do I send for quoting your shareware in my article, not in my .sig?

Jim Walker
Not the lawyer!
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6058 talk.abortion:52492
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Here we go again! (l (2)
Date: 20 Dec 1992 08:30:36 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

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

>Michal Peri writes:
>MLP> So what.  The father has an obligation to his offspring whether or not
>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>MLP> he agrees.
>     ^^^^^^^^^^

>Excuse me for budding in here, but this is *precisely* the sexist presumption
>which we would like to change, and soon.

Yes, I'm well aware of your intentions.  But I don't agree with them.

>Indeed... It USED to be the case that "the mother has an obligation to her
>offspring whether or not she agrees," which apparently you had a problem with,
>but NOT with the father having a forced obligation.

I have no problem whatsoever with "the mother has an obligation to her 
offspring whether or not she agrees", once the offspring has been born.

Moreover, if the law changes again such that abortion is prohibited
entirely, or prohibited after the Xth week, I would have no problem
whatsoever with the statement "the mother has an obligation to her 
offspring once she allows the pregnancy to proceed past the point
at which abortion ceases to be an option".

However, I am committed to securing a woman's right to abort a pregnancy
until that pregnancy has progressed to the point where the foetus 
can be reasonably expected to live without heroic measures.
(At this point I consider that to be sometime in the third trimester.
Yes, I know that foetuses more premature than that have beens saved,
but only with heroic measures that are too expensive to be extensively
used by the general populace!)

>MLP> >  Again, if you are using birth
>MLP> >control, that appears to be a rather clear statement of intention.

>MLP> Intention doesn't matter.  Once a child is born the parents (once again,
>MLP> note the plural!) have an obligation to see that it is cared for.

>No thanks.  Only if I CHOOSE to, thank you.

On this we disagree.

>MLP> > Now,
>MLP> >just why should women be allowed to change their intent AFTER THE FACT 
>MLP> >and bill the man for the results?

>he's saying that it's unfair for her to change her mind about having an
>abortion by NOT having one, and then sending him the bill FOR EIGHTEEN YEARS!
>Quite a bill, I'd say!

Yes, that is unfair.  But far less unfair than allowing him to force her
to have an abortion.  As for allowing him to abandon a *born* child -- I
just don't consider that an option.  I believe that the principle of 
people providing for their children is one of the cornerstones of human
civilization, and must not be relinquished.  (I doubt you will convice
me otherwise, although I invite you to keep trying.  I find our discussions
most interesting.)
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:5906 soc.men:21148 soc.women:21454 talk.abortion:51928 alt.feminism:6017
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Fetal Protectionism
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:58:33 GMT

In article <Bz7qAq.JzM@cs.psu.edu>
beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.185802.966@advtech.uswest.com>
>steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:

>>You might not be an anti-abortionist extremist, but at least for
>>third-term abortions (almost always done to save a woman's life or
>>health), you are not only advocating forced-birth, you are indeed
>>"worshipping" the fetus at the further expense of a woman in the most
>>dire need of an abortion.

>The simple fact that you respond in this way makes it clear that 
>you are a "pro-choice" extremist, IMO.  And you prefer straw men
>and insults to substance.

Blather, blather.

Don, would you or would you not forbid third-trimester abortions
performed to save the mother's life?  Would you or would not forbid
third-trimester abortions performed to protect the mother's health?

-- 
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,talk.abortion,soc.women
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Fetal Protectionism
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:33:20 GMT

> = (Will Steeves) writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes...

[to Don Beaver re: forced birth...]
>> Don't be *afraid*, Beave; point out exactly where my alleged lie is in
>> this posting.

>I'd guess that it had to do with the fact that you accused him of wanting
>to force women to give birth (ie., "By golly...") even though you have seen
>him say MANY times that he is *not* "pro force".

Anyone can *say* that, Will.  Beaver's also said that he would outlaw
third term abortions.  Now, when you outlaw abortions at any level, you
are forcing the woman to give birth, at least at that level (e.g., third
term abortions).  Simple.

>While I grant that you may not have seen it, he has said it quite a few times,
>and thus it is fairly unlikely for you to have missed it, Steve.

I didn't miss it, Will.  I also didn't miss his comment on 3rd term
abortions.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:5908 talk.abortion:51947 soc.women:21458