HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: The EVIL Conspiracy behind this "Men's Choice" thing...
Date: 7 Jan 1993 12:39:16 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1993Jan7.170809.700@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>Which is ridiculous. The adoption process should be mandatory if EITHER
>parent requests it. There shouldn't be any such thing as an involuntary
>parent, whether we interpret "parent" in terms of custody OR in terms
>of support+visitation. It's an abomination for the state to try and force
>people to be parents against their will.....

Hmmmm.  It's an abomination for the state to force people to be parents
against their will,

But it isn't an abomination for the state to force people to give up their
children against their will?

That's what mandatory adoption would mean as you present it above.

Adrienne Regard
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6329 talk.abortion:54476 alt.child-support:4219
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: The EVIL Conspiracy behind this "Men's Choice" thing...
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:08:09 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1i7vsoINN86l@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>>The key difference being that the mother gets all the options; she
>>isn't being forced into contributing anything at all.  If she doesn't
>>want to raise the child she can get an abortion or put up the child
>>for adoption.  The father doesn't get these options.  It's pay or
>>jail.
>
>The option of adoption is available only if *both* parents agree
>to relinquish the child.

Which is ridiculous. The adoption process should be mandatory if EITHER
parent requests it. There shouldn't be any such thing as an involuntary
parent, whether we interpret "parent" in terms of custody OR in terms
of support+visitation. It's an abomination for the state to try and force
people to be parents against their will, especially when the deal offered
is "7 days of support (@ 50% or more) for every 1/2 day of visitation". 
Sounds like a pretty raw deal to me. In fact, the word that comes to mind
is "unconscionable".

>The only choice the woman has that the father doesn't is the choice
>to abort the foetus 

She also gets the choice to discharge her support obligations via the same 
act. She gets both a biological choice AND and an economic choice, rolled 
into one. Equity demands that the man be given parallel choices, insofar as 
they apply to him, i.e. the economic choice, but obviously not the biological 
one. If not that, then at least folks should get the chance to determine 
their respective support obligations BY CONTRACT, free from state 
interference as long as the child's rights are preserved. If not that, then
at a BARE MINIMUM, the law should look at the elements of fraud, 
coercion and/or misrepresentation which are causing many men to become
ensnared in child support obligations.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.child-support
From: smile1@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (gray,david l)
Subject: "BETTER, BETTER, HATE"
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 23:21:06 GMT

I think another large problem in our system is that we have given credit
to the notion that the court system should be trying to make sure that
one group "CP and child" live better than another group "NCP" or "NCP with 
new mother and child".  To me this stinks of the same "isms" of race, sex,
and other social ills.  As soon as you give people the right to feel that
they have a bor right to live better than another group of people, you
cann't stop the atrocities.

If you look at the Massachusetts laws they read like the racist hate documents
of the 1920s.  All you have to do is substitue CP for White and NCP for
black.  If you take a look at the horrible and rediculous things that
judges have to do to the NCP family in order to insure that the other
family lives better, you can see why you have the hate.  I don't see
a lot of difference between the slander and horrible treatment between
CPs and NCPs than I did as a child in the 1960s.  Black men want equal
life enjoyments and success and white's had a million reasons why we
didn't deserve it, need it, or able to be trusted with it.

The domestic system is going through the same foolish, back bending acts,
to find new inventive ways to hold NCPs income down even if they have
to attack my new wife's income.

Personally, I still think we need to get rid of the core problem of just-
ifying greed, and revenge.  If you look at the feeling on this network
it is not much different between CPs and NCPs than it was between
whites and blacks during the riots of the 1960s.

Lets get rid of the concept of more is better for the child or anyone
else.  Both parents need their independence.  Most parents love their
child enough to take care of them with out a lawyer getting involved.
And to tell you the truth, I have not seen the lawyers in the system
interested in more than the money they can make.

Smile,

Dave
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,misc.legal,alt.child-support
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Forced Adoption, "In The Best Interests Of The Child"?
Keywords: Another Devil's Advocate, but may be worth taking a serious look at.
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:38:08 GMT


>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?

Kevin, you do love to quote out of context don't you. The whole article
stated (or at least implied) that the reason society imposes support
payments on fathers is simply to avoid imposing those payments upon
the taxpayers. The alternative I suggested was the forced adoption
above (not that I personally favor such an idea).

This whole thread seems to have gotten quite far off track. There
have been arguments and counter arguments regarding children being
born after sexual encounters, when the intent at the time was to
avoid pregnancy. Some of the proposals have struck me as coming
from outer space.

If two people have sex and for whatever reason a child is born, and
at this point I am not going to offer any scenarios, I would hope
that our laws would allow, nay insist, that the two parents sit
down and work out a sensible settlement. They might opt for
marriage - case closed. They might opt for joint custody and joint
support - case closed. They might opt for custody by only one of
the parents and an adjusted support. For example, if the father
or mother really does not want the child, but the mother or father
does, then whoever gets custody also gets some support from the other.
However, if both want custody then its either marriage or joint
custody and joint support. S**t, we are presumably adults and can
work out some reasonable terms - not all this shouting and hand
waving seen here.

I like the insurance idea. Same reasoning that we carry auto
insurance. I don't ever *plan* to have an accident, but if I
do and damage someone or their property I am responsible. A
closer analogy would be when an aquaitance accepts a ride with
me and an accident occurs. All they wanted was a ride (no pun
intended) and they got hurt. Well, my medical rider covers that.

Bob.

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: Wed, 6 Jan 93 01:06:35 GMT

>I'm glad to hear that you and your wife didn't have a slugfest in the courts,
>which would seem to be the exception rather than the norm.
>
>allen
>

Allen

I agree with most everything you had to say but I must clear up one thing.
My ex-wife and I went to battle worse than any case I have seen.  The only
thing I didn't do was go to jail.  After many of the things she accused me
of I am very lucky that I don't have a criminal record.  One of the reasons
it bothered me so much was I thought it would also effect my right to work
with the people am trying to help.  Of course knowing how I feel about 
children and working on the Lords work, what better way to get revenge.
Well, it all worked for her and I lost everything except my pension and
I went from having a totally paid for house with the exception of $8,000
to being $20,000 in debt and $111 a week to support myself.

The only way for me to deal with life was to practice the part of my faith
in God that I found the most difficult.  I forgave her and the system.  I hate
what they do but, I do not hate them for the are very short sighted.  It is
the biggest test of faith that I have had in my life.  The lord
has restored everything even greater than before and I will always be in his
debt for it.  As for the rest of my life, I will continue to try and work
on myself and to help others as best I can.  I have really been able to 
take comfort in knowing that this life and how much I own is not everything.  
There is a lot more to focus on and a lot of people need it.

Thanks for listening.

Smile,

Dave
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: Mon, 4 Jan 93 22:01:55 GMT

>Secondly, the mans payments are quite proportionate to the level of 
>his choice involved. Let us suppose that the mother spends 40 hours a 
>week raising her child. Let us suppose she deserves a decent salary for 
>such work,20 dollars an hour. She will spend several thousand dollars
>a year on material items for the child. All told, perhaps $40,000 worth
>of goods and labor each year go into raising the child. At a few hundred
>a month, the fathers burden can hardly be called disproportionate.
>
>Robert Johnston

Robert 

You are very mistaken!  People don't raise children for a fee.  It is a gift
from God that most parents would kill for!!!  People pay $20,000 - $40,000
to adopt a child.  Raising a child is a gift of love.  Only sluts expect to
get paid for sex or for raising their children.

Next, the other battle ground is expecting to get paid to clean your own house
or cook a meal.  I am married and I cook all the meals, clean the house, and
repair it also.  My wife, whom I love very, very, much is in school.  First,
the work is a gift of love between family members to a paid task.  Second,
it does not take any extra work to cook 1 lb. of fish or 1/2 lb. of fish or to
put four pairs of socks in the washer and dryer or 2 pairs.

Hate comes from being taken advantage of!!!  Having children is a God given
privalige and it is never anything else!!!  Second, there is a very large 
difference between making reasonable child support payments and making the
child a profit center!  Everyone, knows in there hearts that the children of
these last two decades have become hug profit centers for greedy parents!!!
The legal system has turned the most beautiful event a man and a women can
have into the most hate infested process I have ever seen!!!

Smile,

Dave
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: sam@sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:07:16 GMT
Organization: HP Sonoma County (SRSD/MWTD/MID)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL7]
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism

Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.mcs.com) wrote:
: Further, the LAW in many states is that support is calculated not on >actual<
: earnings of the NCP, but >imputed< earnings.  That is, if a NCP loses his 
: job he STILL owes support money, even though he is not earning ANYTHING at 
: the time! 

This is not as one sided as you are making it sound.  I quit work (at my
husband's request) when my children were born.  After 15 years of marriage,
he decided to call it quits.  My child support and alimony was based on a
$30,000.00 per year salary due to my engineering degree.  I had not worked
in 10 years so I was completely out of date and there were no jobs to be
had in the area even if I had been qualified!  I certainly still had to raise
the kids eventhough I was not earning that amount.  I spent the next year
updating my skills and then had to move out of the area where all my friends 
and babysitters lived in order to get a job at all.
Before I had quit, I was earning more than he was.  When I relocated, I
was earning about 1/4 of his salary.  If you move the entire short term alimony
and child support amounts from his salary to mine, the ratio drops to 1/2.
Therefor, I am supporting 3 people on 1/2 the amount that he has to support 1.
Also, as a single mother, I cannot work long hours or travel like he could so
it is incredibly unlikely that I will ever again earn as much as he does.
I, for one, do not feel sorry for all the men out there who do not want to
pay their child support payments -- I will be paying mine even after they are
gone but they were worth it.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.child-support,alt.dads-right
From: chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski)
Subject: Re: The EVIL Conspiracy behind this "Men's Choice" thing...
Organization: Tellabs, Inc.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:46:13 GMT

> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes ...
> Secondly, the mans payments are quite proportionate to the level of 
> his choice involved. Let us suppose that the mother spends 40 hours a 
> week raising her child. Let us suppose she deserves a decent salary for 
> such work,20 dollars an hour. 

You forget that the woman chose to raise the child; she could have aborted
or placed the child for adoption.

Most people don't get paid for raising their own children; rather, people
choose to have children knowing that it will require a great deal of
effort (and perhaps luck) to raise the child.  People have children
because they expect the rewards of parenthood to be worth it, don't they?

Indeed, some couples pay tens of thousands of dollars to adopt or for
fertility services; should they, too, be paid for raising the children
they have chosen to raise?

Why should people be paid for a burden they have voluntarily chosen?

> Let us suppose she deserves a decent salary for such work,20 dollars an hour. 

I'm sure we all "deserve" a decent salary, but mostly we settle for
what we can get.  Is a welfare mommy, whose untrained labor might be worth
minimum wage in the labor market, suddenly worth $20. an hour after she
gives birth?  Is child support now to be dependent on the qualifications
of the custodial parent?

Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6390 misc.legal:22331
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Maternity/paternity insurance
Date: 11 Jan 1993 06:39:04 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

>In article <1i7ut8INN7q6@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1i50iqINNjvu@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>>>Hey, that's what we need: paternity/maternity insurance!  Then we wouldn't 
>>>>>have to argue about forcing abortion, or withholding child support from 
>>>>>children, or insulting with contracts.  Why hasn't someone thought of this yet?
>>>>
>>>>This is rich!  Would we require all men to carry such insurance?
>>
>>>How about all women?  I think that's at least as an appropriate requirement.
>>
>>Sure.  All men.  And all women (of childbearing age).  Fair enough.

>So, why do you endorse "paternity/maternity insurance", but not a "pre-sex 
>contract"? What do you see as the essential difference between the two
>legal instruments?

Well, I meant it as a joke.  But since you ask I'll try to answer.

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.  Only it's kinda hard because most people conceive
children early in their working years, whereas retirement usually happens
after one has worked for a long time.  Of course, social security isn't
exactly the paragon of governental virtue.  Actually, I much prefer to 
just have people tighten their belts and support thier own children
(or not have them int he first place).
>								- Kevin
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6306 soc.men:22149 soc.women:22144 talk.abortion:54148 alt.feminism:6820
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Is $1000 a month exorbitant?
Date: 9 Jan 93 05:33:25 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:

> Before telling Karl to get a clue, get rid of your own prejudicial notion
> that child support should pay for almost everything above and beyond basic
> living expenses.

I'd like to hear from both sides of this question. Would both of you please
enumerate what constitutes 'basic needs?'

---
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: liberals
From: bugsys71@vax2.winona.msus.edu
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:57:54 CST
Organization: Winona State University

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

Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6361 talk.abortion:54853 alt.child-support:4294
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: "BETTER, BETTER, HATE"
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 22:55:12 PST
Organization: The Old Coot's (Spare) Almanac

smile1@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (gray,david l) writes:

> I think another large problem in our system is that we have given credit
> to the notion that the court system should be trying to make sure that
> one group "CP and child" live better than another group "NCP" or "NCP with 
> new mother and child".  To me this stinks of the same "isms" of race, sex,
> and other social ills.  As soon as you give people the right to feel that
> they have a bor right to live better than another group of people, you
> cann't stop the atrocities.

Hang on a moment, will ya?  I'm not sure that this is always the case. In my
own case, IF my ex were paying child support (which he doesn't), he'd STILL
have more net income *after support payments* than I would, INCLUDING the
support income!  Greed is not solely the domain of the CP, nor women as a
gender and furthermore, in my  experience, I know of a great many cases
where the NCP's court orders vs. net income, still leave the NCP with a very
adequate income and the CP with significantly less, with which the CP must
provide for themselves AND the children.  If you've been reading all of the
posts here lately, you will note, for example, that some CPs are not only
having to support their children, but also, pay alimony to the NCP even when
the NCP's independent income is substantial!

Granted, the latter cases noted are all wrt male CP's and there is a blatent
sexist bias in those cases.  I know of no female CP who not only must provide
for herself and the children, but pay alimony as well.  Frankly, that disgusts
me.  None-the-less, please avoid blanket statements.  Greed is not
gender-specific.  Furthermore, many CPs *DO* suffer a very significant reduction
in income (and often, an increase in expenses if, for example, the CP was a
"stay at home" parent prior to the marriage break-up, and now must work, there-
fore incurring daycare expenses, etc.).  Also, as has recently been discussed,
the CP must continue to provide a home with adequate space for themself and the
children, while the NCP  at least only needs a one bedroom place to adequately
house themself.  It's not so cut and dried as you may wish to believe.

Lisa


Lisa Lambeth                             lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
                      The Old Coot's Almanac
               Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
                    Courtesy the old coot hisse'f!
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6283 talk.abortion:54020
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Here we go again! (l
Date: 4 Jan 1993 05:59:29 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:

>>>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!

>>Yes, that is unfair.  But far less unfair than allowing him to force her
>>to have an abortion.
>I never claimed this right...ever.

>>As for allowing him to abandon a *born* child
>I never claimed *this* right, either.  I only claim the right to declare
>my intentions before the point of viability, and to not be held to her
>decision.  This is the ONLY freedom which I am asking for, and it seems
>to be too much to ask...

>In other
>words, Male Choice won't make things any worse than Female Choice.

On the contrary.  Female choice (legalized abortion) does not leave 
unsupported children.  Male choice  (legalized abandonment) does.
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.child-support
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: The EVIL Conspiracy behind this "Men's Choice" thing...
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 06:22:03 GMT

In article <1ii4dkINNa9b@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.170809.700@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>Which is ridiculous. The adoption process should be mandatory if EITHER
>>parent requests it. There shouldn't be any such thing as an involuntary
>>parent, whether we interpret "parent" in terms of custody OR in terms
>>of support+visitation. It's an abomination for the state to try and force
>>people to be parents against their will.....
>
>Hmmmm.  It's an abomination for the state to force people to be parents
>against their will,
>
>But it isn't an abomination for the state to force people to give up their
>children against their will?

I'm not so sure that it is. Removing a child from an environment where the 
(biological) parents violently DISAGREE on the value and worth of the child, 
to an environment where both (adoptive) parents strongly AGREE on the value 
and worth of the child, and are able to WILLINGLY provide full emotional 
_and_ financial support, with far less risk that the child will end up being
used as a pawn by the parents to inflict emotional pain on each other, seems 
to me to be a wise and compassionate act.

At least, in theory. If only we could _implement_ the adoption process 
better...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism