HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Moral turpitude
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:25:30 GMT

In article <1h8efaINNofc@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>How does he "bother" to do so; how much effort is required
>>(eg. must he fly 3000 miles to peruse all birth records in New York
>>in September, 1993?); and is it not a moral invasion of privacy to
>>track a woman's medical records and gynecologists?
>
>Births (and deaths and marriages) are in the public record. A letter
>to the county recorder in the woman's county of residence should suffice.
>No violation of the woman's privacy is needed to ascertain the
>birth of a child.

Apparently, Michal, you've never dealt with bureaucracy.  Are you
really from Israel?  (:-)

According to you, to preserve his parental rights, a man must do the
following for every woman he has ever slept with, and for every
9-month period of his sexual life:

. locate the woman;
. have a public servant do a search of records by maternal name 
  (assuming it's still the same!);
. receive the results before the child reaches the adoptive parents 
  (else the child's best interest may prevent being relocated).

(And you'd complain in the same breath about the burden of a 
24-hour abortion waiting period?)

If he doesn't, he's guilty of "fleeing the scene" (of WHOSE crime?)
and can have his parental rights terminated.


By the way, if there is no violation of privacy, then why is it (IYO)
a violation of privacy to require the woman to name the father 
(penalty of perjury) and to have the "county recorder" notify 
the father?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 02:08:37 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1992Dec22.023310.2069@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>In article <1h5bokINN2ep@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <BzLB81.2n1@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>>In article <1gie2pINN1q2@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne 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?

Adrienne conveniently read around what I had written.  That's ok, I'll
clarify it for you.

My request for affirmative action was in the areas of custody and child
support payments.  

I propose as the yardstick of equality the total number of minor children
under the custodial care of each sex in single parent homes.  When it
reaches the level of the population dispersion (49% men / 51% women I
believe) then we have equality.  Until that time men are to be preferred in
both custody and child support awards.

Sounds like a fair way to redress the sexist court system, no?

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6105 alt.feminism:6367
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 22 Dec 1992 03:29:33 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>Rather, you claim if people "want to screw" then the man
>must shoulder the responsibility for possible outcomes resulting
>from the woman's subsequent decision.  The woman need not, apart 
>from getting an abortion.

If the woman gets pregnant, and gets an abortion, then *neither* the man 
nor the woman must "shoulder responsibility for [a child]".
If the woman gets pregnant, and doesn't get an abortion, then *both* the
man and the woman must "shoulder responsibility".

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:32:04 GMT

<1h8f6pINNol5@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:


>>A child support hearing meets only the minimal requirements of procedural
>>due process. The imposition of paternity child support FAILS, IMO, to meet
>>the requirements of substantive due process, however, in that it deprives
>>the man of his property with no rational reason for the deprivation.
>
>Apparantly our society disagrees with you.

Apparently our society also banned abortion, gave custody solely
to men, prevented women from voting, and according to some, continues
to condone giving women less pay, preventing their advancement, preventing
them from taking combat positions, and promoting violence against them.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6238 talk.abortion:53870 soc.men:22011
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men
Subject: Re: Miscarriage Grief == Abortion Grief (was: abortion)
Date: 2 Jan 1993 21:04:52 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)
>>Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>>>spoken in much the same tone as the time when she said "If you do (ie., go
>>>public), you're a dead man".

>>This is perfectly understandable, given the stigma associated with
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Are you justifying her death threats??

I do not condone her death threats, and I apologise if I gave the 
impression that I did.  Allow me to restate my comment as, "I empathise
with your ex-wife's feeling  disdtaught or threatened by your desire to 
commemorate the death of the foetus."

>> I do not wish to discuss whether or not you have a right
>>to do so.  But I would hope that you would consider the ramifications
>            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>that your "going public" might have on her life.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Yes, I did.  This is why I did not name her when I published articles and went
>on national television in Canada, earlier on during the year.

>However, I do not believe at all, to use your words, that *she* considered the
>ramifications that her "actions" might have on HER child's life, either.

I do not know your ex-wife, and thus cannot comment on what she did or did
not consider prior to the abortion.  However, it would be highly unusual
for her to be unaware that by having an abortion she was killing the foetus.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men
Subject: Does Steeves Really Hold Death Threats to be a NONO?
Date: 2 Jan 93 22:25:49 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
] Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
] >peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
] >>Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
] 
] >>>spoken in much the same tone as the time when she said "If you do (ie., go
] >>>public), you're a dead man".
] 
] >>This is perfectly understandable, given the stigma associated with
] > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
] 
] >Are you justifying her death threats??
] 
] I do not condone her death threats, and I apologise if I gave the 
] impression that I did.  Allow me to restate my comment as, "I empathise
] with your ex-wife's feeling  disdtaught or threatened by your desire to 
] commemorate the death of the foetus."


hum.....

Interesting that Steeves is back to the 'attributing to that
what it might become.' And Still has the Chutzpah to be upset
about persons implying death threats.....


Need we return, again, to the matter of the problem
with  'attributing to that what it might become.' 


ciao
drieux

-- 
Modern Day Problems:

"lets get linear, I want to get linear, linear"
				Olivia Newton Algegra
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6194 alt.dads-rights:3113
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
From: dan@stanton.UUCP (Dan Mahoney)
Date: 27 Dec 92 02:24:58 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Organization: Stanton Public Domain Systems, Stanton, Ca.
Summary: Reply re. motivation

In article <tvfqa80@zola.esd.sgi.com>, cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com 
(C.J. Silverio) writes:
[stuff deleted]

> 
> In article <1992Dec23.053750.21468@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com writes:
> |Quite possibly.  But between newspapers and stories posted by readers
> |of these newsgroups, I've seen 10 or so examples of men getting their
> |rights trampled, and none of women getting similar treatment.
> 
> Self-selected sample.  What do you expect to find in
> alt.dads-rights?  You might get different results by asking
> about the topic in soc.women.  
> 
[stuff deleted]

> |Granted, women get their share of hardships.  But is the issue merely
> |a matter of getting even?  Is child support primarily punishment?
> 

No, child support is not primarily punishment - at least, it's not meant
to be and is not usually used in that fashion.  However, an increasing
percentage of women (if my talks with other members of United Fathers 
of America are an accurate indication) are attempting to use the courts
as a tool of punishment.

I gladly play child support payments to my ex-wife.  I even buy my son 
many of the things he needs that his mother is too cheap to buy for him,
even though that often costs several times what I am legally obligated
to pay.  His mother, however, is still trying to get more money out of
me, and trying to reduce my visitation priviledges.  She doesn't need
the money to support my son, and according to the guidelines used in
San Bernardino County she is not entitled to any more money.   However,
given the outcome of previous family law hearings in my case and the
cases of others, my ex stands a fair chance of getting the additional
money she is requesting.  Why?  Beacuse the judges and commissioners that
hear family law cases area accustomed to giving the mothers almost
everything they ask for.  Am I bitter about it?  You bet!



Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6242 soc.men:22014 soc.women:22031 talk.abortion:53876 alt.feminism:6728
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Date: 2 Jan 93 21:08:17 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

| >karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
| >| ...
| >| I propose as the yardstick of equality the total number of minor children
| >| under the custodial care of each sex in single parent homes.  When it
| >| reaches the level of the population dispersion (49% men / 51% women I
| >| believe) then we have equality.  Until that time men are to be preferred in
| >| both custody and child support awards.

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >In many cases, companies say that they cannot get a sufficient
| >number of applicants from discriminated groups to balance their
| >hiring or promotion numbers.  In the case of custody, do we know
| >what the proportion of applicants is?  It may be that the draft
| >rather than the job market will turn out to be appropriate
| >analogy.

kd:
| Of course, when companies say this they have to prove it by presenting the
| resumes of qualified applicants for inspection.

I take it this is sarcastic; actually, I don't know what
goes into a case on discrimination.  My impression is that
the complainants have to show a pattern of discrimination;
they can only do this by showing that a number of applicants
of a certain category were available for hiring or promotion
and were rejected, while a significantly different 
proportion of those outside the category were accepted.  So
resumes might well become an issue.

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.  Considering the
implacable resistance to paying child support shown here
and elsewhere, I have the idea that a good many men might
not consider your proposal a boon if the luck of the draw
smiled upon them.  Take care: you may be giving ideas to
the devious witches on NOW's General Staff for yet 
another plot.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6090 soc.men:21597 soc.women:21769 talk.abortion:52588 alt.feminism:6351
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 17:00:17 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1993Jan1.161916.5572@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>| ...
>| I propose as the yardstick of equality the total number of minor children
>| under the custodial care of each sex in single parent homes.  When it
>| reaches the level of the population dispersion (49% men / 51% women I
>| believe) then we have equality.  Until that time men are to be preferred in
>| both custody and child support awards.
>
>In many cases, companies say that they cannot get a sufficient
>number of applicants from discriminated groups to balance their
>hiring or promotion numbers.  In the case of custody, do we know
>what the proportion of applicants is?  It may be that the draft
>rather than the job market will turn out to be appropriate
>analogy.

Of course, when companies say this they have to prove it by presenting the
resumes of qualified applicants for inspection.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6258 alt.child-support:4080
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
Subject: do 90% men pay the bills?
Date: 3 Jan 1993 23:40:26 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
Keywords: child support

Quoting from the Economist, 12/26/92, p.39:

"    Divorce also affects living standards.  Men may actually see their
disposable incomes rise, especially if they pay little or no child support.
Official American figures for 1989 found that 41% of all divorced and
seperated women living with children under 21 received nothing from their
former husbands; the rest received on average just over $3000 a year.
    The predictable upshot is that women and children are poorer.  A study
of American families who have been interviewed each year since 1968 finds 
that separated and divorced women suffer an average fall of about 30% in
their incomes in the year after their marriage breaks up.  The worst hurt
are middle-class wives who have stayed at home.  But 31% of all wives 
whose incomes were above average when they were married found that their
living standards fell by more than half in the first year after their 
marriages collapsed."
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,misc.legal,alt.child-support
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Forced Adoption, "In The Best Interests Of The Child"?
Organisation: GOiDS "R" We, Inc.
Note: I have removed talk.abortion from the Newsgroups line.
X-To: KEVIN DARCY
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:48:00 GMT
Keywords: Another Devil's Advocate, but may be worth taking a serious look at.

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. But, as a reasonably humane society,
>>we are unlikely to get such legislation.

>Ah, I see -- it's more "humane" to have the child grow up in poverty than
>it is to be raised by non-biologically-related parents, huh?


Ah, now *that* is an interesting idea, Kevin...

Adrienne, Michal, and others have spoken volumes about "the best interests
of the child," and that it's perfectly fine that they run roughshod over
the rights of any unwilling father (but not unwilling mothers, of course,
because "it's my body", after all...), but 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.

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*?  Indeed, parenthood is a *privilege*, not a right,
and study after study has shown that children of broken homes are often
at higher risks for alcohol and/or drug abuse and other crimes.  So, do
we not have a *very* "compelling interest" in ensuring that every child
who is born, is given an atmosphere with two loving and supporting parents
(or one parent who is *very* well off)?

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.

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.

---
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 * day++ ; dollar--
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6095 talk.abortion:52605 misc.legal:21626
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Quoting Someone Else's Private e-mail
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:26:42 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Dec18.193031.22216@advtech.uswest.com>, 
steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
> When I get *overland* mail, of ANY type, I can show it to whomever I please.

True.

> Are you saying e-mail is different?

No.

However, you are not merely showing the e-mail, you are reproducing it in 
copies.  When you get *overland* mail, of ANY type, you do not have the right 
to reproduce it in copies, except as allowed by fair use and a few other 
limited doctrines.  Are you saying e-mail is any different?

Followups mercifully directed away from the abortion groups, exclusively to 
misc.legal.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
X-To: MICHAL LEAH PERI
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 22:59:00 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
>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:
>>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.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

GIVE ME A BREAK, MICHAL!  Nobody is disagreeing with this!

See below...

>>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.


Well, Michal, *MEN* have the right to free travel as well, but you seem
to have a problem with this, in this particular case, as you have
concluded that his choice to travel freely, indicates a lack of interest
in his child.

Besides, it could also be argued that a woman who "flees the scene" can't
possibly be interested in her child, since she is depriving him/her of a
possibly willing father!

---
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 * Picard/Ryker in '92 - Make It So!
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6262 talk.abortion:53973 alt.child-support:4081