HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
X-To: DAVID S. AUER
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 03:56:00 GMT

auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes...
DSA> In article <1992Oct29.140348.23940@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnu
DSA> .ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
DSA> JL>The penny analogy is good but not complete.
DSA> JL>If, through her "investments" the women runs into trouble and ends up ow
DSA> JL>money, many would feel that the man must also share in the cost of her
DSA> JL>"legal" troubles.  Why?  Because without that extra "penny", she never
DSA> JL>could have gotten into trouble.

DSA> I like the penny analogy better than mine.  Perhaps to complete the analogy
DSA> one should add to it a statute providing that either the woman or the both
DSA> investment partners are bound to the investment for a nine-month period.  T
DSA> caveat here is that the responsibility of the woman is enforceable while th
DSA> responsibility of the man is practically unenforceable, allowing the man to
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DSA> default whether or not the investment is profitable.


Hardly!  Why are you ignoring the ever-present threat of a paternity suit on an
unwilling father?

These so-called "paternity suits" legally enable a man who is unwilling to be
a parent, to be forced into 18-24 of inedentured servitude.  Notice also that
there is no such thing as a "maternity suit" which would force the same fate
upon women.  (And I am *not* advocating that we institute maternity suits! ; I
am advocating that we *drop* paternity suits in the case where the father
states that he does not wish to be forced to be a parent).


DSA> Father's consent would in effect allow the father to enforce upon the woman
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DSA> unfavorable rates and still allow the father to default nonetheless.


Whoa, David, full stop.  I have *never* advocated *CONSENT* laws, *just*
notification.  I have told this to people *repeatedly*, yet they continue to
insist that I am advocating father *consent* as opposed to merely notification.

One more time.....  I am advocating notification, not consent.  I am advocating
notification, not consent, I am advocating notifcation, not consent ...

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

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Sometimes, logic is not enough.
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:5203 soc.men:19654 soc.women:20018 talk.abortion:48782 alt.feminism:4768
From: forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: RE: Back Again To Father
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:18:05 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota

In article <1992Nov17.032049.23933@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>HS> Okay, so how about this for a compromise:  If a woman wants an abortion she
>HS> can have one, and if the man wants the fetus he's welcome to it once it's be
>HS> removed.
>Sure, it's a good compromise, if "it" is still alive after being removed...
>This is why I support some sort of technological advance which will *safely*
>allow the "foetus" to be removed, without harm to either the woman or the
>child.
>This suggestion *does* fit in with your compromise.  I am interested in
>hearing your opinion on this.

The technology required to design such an incubator has been around for some 
time now; I'm surprised that it isn't under development as at least an 
emergency care system for extremely premature kids.

It would have enormous implications for fathers; without the woman feeding 
it, she couldn't claim exclusive ownership, the right to abort it, etc.. I'd 
be willing to bet that the NOW would begin an intensive campaign to limit 
the use of an incubator to miscarriages, etc.; special privilege dies hard.
---------

Eric Forbis      forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:5219 soc.men:19697 soc.women:20062 talk.abortion:48908 alt.feminism:4799 misc.legal:20241
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Reproductive freedom (was: Re: Foetal removal)
Date: 20 Nov 1992 16:41:36 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <forb0004.91.722297690@student.tc.umn.edu> forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis) writes:
>In article <1egq8nINNftg@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>
>In a somewhat related post, I recently predicted that feminists would 
>find reasons to oppose the use of incubators; thanks to yourself and 
>Adrienne for bearing this prediction out. ;)
>

Which is completely foolish on the face of it, ain't it Eric, baby?

What I said is that I'd expect women to have the same responsibilities
toward the support of a child produced in an incubator that they do now,
up until society made some determination that perhaps this wasn't such
a hot idea.


How exactly is that "finding reasons to oppose the use of incubators"?
How exactly is it finding reasons to oppose the use of incubators to say,
explicitly, as *I* did, that I'd love an incubator to be available to 
gestate a third child for me?

"woof, woof"  -- Eric, barking up the wrong tree.

(-:
Adrienne Regard


Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
X-To: MICHAL LEAH PERI
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:32:00 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
MLP> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
MLP> >Either the baby is a part of the woman's body and under her sole control,
MLP> >or it's a separate entity, deserving of rights.

MLP> Or, it can be a seperate entity but not deserving of rights.  Sort-of
MLP> like women used to be.

It's funny that you would mention that, Michal.  Indeed, it seems that the same
"pro-choice" activists who are celebrating women's declaration as "persons"
(with full knowledge of the fact that men who were abusive towards women, would
no longer be able to get away with it, because they would now be found guilty
of a crime against a "person" - ie., laws covering violence only concerned
themselves with violence against "persons") are the first ones who are rallying
against the declaration of the unborn as "persons," so that *they* can still get
away with violence against "non-persons"...

Rather hypocritical, I'd say...  And even considering that many men were
arguing for the right to abuse women because "they are not persons," there are
now about as many women declaring themselves as having the same "rights" as
men were once able to exercise against women...

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

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * "Data, are you dead?"  "No, Sir! I rebooted"
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
X-To: RONALD SCHOENBERG
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:21:00 GMT

rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg) writes...

RS> (Replying to Richard Lynch...)

RS> I'm curious - exactly what is the basis for your claim that the father
RS> has rights here?  There's nothing in the constitution that I know of
RS> one way or the other.  The mother has clearly defined rights because
RS> the foetus is physically attached to her, but it isn't so clear to me
RS> that the father has any rights at all.  It seems to me that you will
RS> have to make some kind of property rights argument: "I own half the
RS> foetus because half the genes are mine".  And if so, you will be
RS> required, in my opinion, to defend the idea that children, and
RS> foetuses ("foeti"?) can be owned.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Perhaps, but a large number of "pro choice" people already have the opinion
that the pregnant woman "owns" the child, because "it's part of her body,"
as opposed to merely "attached" to her body...

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

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * A nod is as good as a wink to a blind bat.
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:5293 talk.abortion:49344
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: abortion
Date: 24 Nov 92 01:19:53 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <winkern.6.0@columbia.dsu.edu>, winkern@columbia.dsu.edu writes:
|Why is it that a woman may get pregnant, decide she didn't
|really want to be, and then abort the fetus and go on with her
|life as if it never even happened, and then a few years later
|the same woman gets pregnant again, decides she wants to be this
|time, and then goes on for the full term of her pregnancy
|protecting that fetus from all harm [..]

In the second case, the woman wants to be pregnant & have a child.
In the first, she doesn't.

|What is the difference between fetus #1 and fetus #2?  The
|mother's choice, that's all.

Bingo.

|I think the woman makes her choice when she decides to screw,
|protection or no protection.  

Do you consent to pregnancy every time you consent to sex?  Do
you think a woman who has used birth control is consenting to
pregnancy?  I would think the opposite-- I would in fact
conclude from her use of birth control that she has explicitly
REJECTED pregnancy.

|Any intelligent woman knows the risks.

Any intelligent person who gets behind the wheel of a car
knows the risks.  Does this mean that people who get into
car accidents should be forced to live with their injuries
& car damage, without the help of doctors &/or mechanics?

|I also believe that most abortions are made because the
|fetus is inconvenient for the woman.  How trivial.  

Maybe you should ask women who've obtained abortions whether
their experience was "trivial" or not.  Maybe you think losing
your job is "trivial".  Maybe you think the requirements,
strains, and stresses of pregnancy are "trivial".  Maybe you
think dropping out of school is "trivial".  Other women might
disagree.

[...]
|I am pro-life, but I rarely make an argument.

You sure didn't this time.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Just saying no prevents teenage pregnancy the way 'Have a nice day' 
cures chronic depression."  -- Faye Wattleton
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.)
Subject: A New Species?
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:17:41 GMT


Is the unborn child a HUMAN or a NEW SPECIES? 

If it's a HUMAN, it should be protected from harm as such.
If it's a NEW SPECIES, it should be put into some new genre or classification.

-- 
Frank				    |	"rightly dividing the word
af664			            |          of truth"
"Jesus is Lord"			    |      (2 Timothy 2:15)
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:40:46 GMT
Subject: Men's Choice Media Opportunity! Act now!
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity


                Men's Choice Media Opportunity

A freelance journalist working for a major magazine wants to interview men
who have interesting stories about being forced into fatherhood. In particular,
he's interested in men's feelings about being forced into fatherhood.

This is an opportunity to educate thousands of readers.

If you, or someone you know, has been forced into fatherhood, send me email.
I'll tell you who to call (collect).

Act now! Time is of the essence!
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:5224 soc.men:19705 soc.women:20070 talk.abortion:48936 alt.feminism:4805
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
Date: 21 Nov 1992 02:25:40 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis) writes:

>The technology required to design such an incubator has been around for some 
>time now; I'm surprised that it isn't under development as at least an 
>emergency care system for extremely premature kids.

>It would have enormous implications for fathers; without the woman feeding 
>it, she couldn't claim exclusive ownership, the right to abort it, etc.. I'd 
>be willing to bet that the NOW would begin an intensive campaign to limit 
>the use of an incubator to miscarriages, etc.; special privilege dies hard.

There is no need for NOW (or any other group) to limit the use of the 
special incubators per se.  They would need only to retain for the pregnant 
woman the prerogative to choose whether the "live fetal removal" 
technique is to be used.  Note that most miscarraiges occur because
of foetal abnormality, so it is not at all clear to me that one would
want to keep miscarried foetuses alive by such techniques.

							--  Michal
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:5174 soc.men:19579 soc.women:19940 talk.abortion:48560 alt.feminism:4717 misc.legal:20170
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Reproductive freedom (was: Re: Foetal removal)
Date: 19 Nov 1992 10:23:24 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <Bxyvsx.MIy@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>In article <1ebv3uINNd8g@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>Oops.  So much for abortion as a means of birth control.
>Women had better be careful here.  As Adrienne Regard pointed out, a women's 
>right to an abortion isn't a reproductive rights issue.  Its a bodily
>autonomy issue.  Given that as a point of view, it is indefensible to kill
>the fetus if it is not necessary.

That doesn't necessarily follow, Karl.

Please don't get so zealous in your enthusiastic support for your point of
view that you attribute arguments to others that they would not make.

It is not 'indefensible' to kill a fetus if it is not necessary by virtue
of being *able* to bring it to term in an artificial womb.  The defense or
lack of defense of that particular action would rest with the determination
of the fetus's status in our society.  If the fetus is *not* considered to
be a person, with rights (as it is considered not to be today), then it isn't
at all 'indefensible' to kill it.  If it is deemed to be a person in the
future, then you might see more support for not killing it, but I'd guess,
just guess, mind you, that that support would be directly proportional to
the cost to society of such support.  i.e., if the procedure were relatively
inexpensive, we'd see support for it.  If the procedure were incredibly
expensive, and would bankrupt any normal family, society would not survive
supporting a policy REQUIRING that this procedure be used.

I'd go further and say that this situation is precisely as it *should* be.
If we had a cheap method of creating more productive workers, there isn't
any reason society shouldn't support that method.  However, merely poping
a baby out of an auto-mama doesn't mean said baby automatically becomes a
productive worker, and has no cost to society.  There's the rub.  We'll 
have to cross this particular bridge when we come to it.

Adrienne Regard
From: jeremys@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jeremy "EL HOMBRE" Scheinberg)
Newsgroups: alt.hurricane.andrew
Subject: The fate of this group
Date: 16 Nov 92 04:32:25 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

I would like to thank the kind soul from Colorado State who supported this
group.  Just because the story of Hurricane Andrew isn't on the news anymore 
doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist.

Any of those people who said that the problem of Hurricane Andrew is over,
I urge you to hop a flight to Miami.  Go down to Homestead and tell those
 people who don't have houses that the problem doesn't exist.

Therefore I urge those people who are "requesting" that this group be killed
to think before they post.  To anyone who still feels that this group should
be removed, I ask that you please find another group to read.  I recommend
alt.sex.stories; it's far more entertaining and there's a  lot less conflict.

Again, I urge anyone who went through the hurricane or is interested in the
subject, continue to post to this group.

Thank you all for your discussion.

Love always,

Jeremy "EL HOMBRE" Scheinberg 
Newsgroups: alt.hurricane.andrew
From: kjun@typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu (Pat Fitzpatrick)
Subject: Re: ???
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 03:46:59 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University -- Atmos Sci

In article <JAAPJL.92Nov13170421@cmb00.larc.nasa.gov> J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@larc.nasa.gov> writes:
>In article <96823@netnews.upenn.edu> jeremys@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jeremy "EL HOMBRE" Scheinberg) writes:
>
>   Why doesn't anyone post to this newsgroup?
>
>The storm is old history now.  How many votes for a rmgroup?

No, it's a reflection that the media has gone on to "more interesting" news.
The problems in Florida are still enormous.

Kind of sad, really -- I haven't seen anything mentioned in the papers for weeksabout the clean-up. Typical two-minute journalism.

Pat
From: jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)
Newsgroups: alt.hurricane.andrew
Subject: Re: The fate of this group
Date: 16 Nov 1992 15:06:00 GMT
Organization: AS&M Inc
Reply-To: J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cmb00.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: jeremys@eniac.seas.upenn.edu's message of 16 Nov 92 04:32:25 GMT

As I have replied to Jeremy in email, my reply is a result of my
observation that over the past few weeks, all I've seen on a.h.a
is questions like the one I replied to.  I do _not_ think that
southern Florida has recovered anywhere near completely.  My
comment that the storm is old news is related to the existence
and nonutility of the group in the recent past.

No offense intended to the victims of the storm or their supporters
(financial, physical, moral, etc.).  More helpers are needed.
--
J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@LaRC.NASA.Gov> +1 804/864-2148
    employed by, not speaking for, AS&M Inc, at
         NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23681-0001
From: don@ss1.interlan.com (Don Joslyn)
Newsgroups: alt.hurricane.andrew
Subject: Andrew Facts from Florida Power and Light
Date: 23 Nov 92 15:34:06 GMT
Reply-To: don@ss1.interlan.com
Followup-To: alt.hurricane.andrew
Organization: Racal-Datacom, Sunrise, FL

The following facts are taken from the Florida Power and Light Company
newsletter entitled "Inside FPL", for Nov. 1992.

Andrew Facts

Hurricane Andrew's eye passed directly over Turkey Point at 4 a.m, Aug. 24
cutting off telephone and fiber optic communications. Ham radio contact was
established.

2,000 FPL employees were affected by the storm in the South Data area.

600 home of FPL employees were destroyed or so severely damaged they were
uninhabitable.

1.4 million FPL customers lost electricity as the storm crossed South Florida.

Damage distribution facilities included:

	11,644 aerial transformers
	   566 padmount transformers
	18,552 wood poles
	   598 concrete poles
	   576 miles of service drop cable (almost the mileage between Miami
	                                    and Charleston, S.C.)
	 2,560 miles of overhead conductor cable (enough to stretch from Florida
                                                  to California.)

2 helicopters, on the ground, were damaged.

As many as 11 helicopters averaging two flights per day were employed during
the peak restoration activities.

16,000 meals were served daily to hurricane restoration field workers.

3,153 vehicles were used in the restoration of FPL's service territory.
110 buses transported crew members back and forth to their 2,626 hotel rooms.

1,330,000 gallons of fuel were consumed by field personnel during storm
restoration (that's enough fuel for an average family car to travel around the
world 11,000 times.)

Laundry was done daily for more than 4,000 field personnel.

---
Don Joslyn
Racal-Datacom			          Phone: (305) 846-6415
1601 N. Harrison Parkway                  INET : don@ss1.interlan.com
Sunrise, FL 33323-2899

Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
From: s.budd@cc.ic.ac.uk (Mr S. Budd)
Subject: Traffic control schemes
Reply-To: s.budd@cc.ic.ac.uk (Mr S. Budd)
Organization: Imperial College
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 11:31:49 GMT

 I am new to this newsgroup.
 There are really two questions I would like to ask.

 1. I wonder if there is a faq?

 2. Has there been a discussion of the possible 
    traffic control schemes which have been 
    implemented around the world.
    My particular concern is with
    London uk.

Thanks for your time.
Sinclair budd
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
From: dtasman@NMSU.edu (Dan Tasman)
Subject: Re: Urban Planning Models
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: alt
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:47:06 GMT

"kim lambert" <kim.lambert@canrem.com> writes:
: 
: This is a query of all of you.  I'm on a small committee trying to
: project changes in a large rural area, based on the interaction of a
: lot of factors - including large influxes of seasonal residents.  We're
: wondering if there are, or if any of you are familiar with, quantitative
: data based models for urban planning, especially for small communities,
: that allow for such fluctuations.  We're interested in a computerized
: model that can be adjusted and updated periodically.  Any help or
: suggestions will be greatly appreciated.  Take care....
: 

Sim City?  Seriously, it can be used as a valuable tool for laypeople who serve  
on various planning-related boards and commissions.

As far as serious, blood 'n guts planning models, I'd like to know if there are  
any out there as well.  I haven't seen any in the various software reviews ...  
most planning related software pertains to GIS and traffic modeling.

--
   Dan Tasman                                       dtasman@dante.nmsu.edu
                                                     molson@rever.nmsu.edu
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   "I think that I shall never see a billboard lovely as a tree
    Indeed, unless the billboards fall, I'll never see a tree at all."
                                                                Ogden Nash
Xref: sparky alt.planning.urban:225 misc.education:4410