HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re:Justice Blackmun's Mystical Prophecy
From: bthurman@uncavx.unca.edu
Date: 15 Sep 92 12:01:00 -0500
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Nntp-Posting-User: bthurman

Does the old saying still hold that "it's the lightning that kills, not the
thunder"?
Would those who have no personal assurance of any divine governance of the
universe, and hence no sympathy with basic Christian teachings, like to hear
what some Christians believe about Justice Blackmun's use of the phrase
'potential life'?  (You do know, don't you, that the Roe v. Wade decision
composed by Blackmun applies the phrase 'potential life' to the living creature
in question?  And wasn't that just a strong a theocratic dogma as if an ancient
Pharoah had ruled on some point of theology?)
Can the outsider to Christianism be expected to understand the seeming paradox
in John's Gospel 1,11-13 where it says, "...to as many as received him, to them
gave he power to become children of God, even to those who believe on his name,
who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of flesh, nor of the will of man,
but of God?  If they 'were born' already, how can it be said of them that they
simply have 'power to become children of God'?  Does not 'power to become'
refer to potential?  And what is true life?  Would it not refer to
participation in the divine life? to being a genuine daughter or son of the
King?
Did you know that some Christians think that the Supreme Court Justice's choice
of wording was, because of the dignity of his office, divinely inspired, just
like the cynical statement of Caiaphas in John 11,47-53?  From the standpoint
of their receiving power to become children of God, could not even mature
adults who have been born of God be described as 'potential life'?  Could one
say that for those who have an ear to hear it that the very judge who was
writing a death sentence for an entire class of entities was used as a
mouthpiece to pronounce over them special words of grace reserved only for
those who have been 'born of God'?
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:3571 alt.child-support:3066
From: shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
Subject: Re:  False, false, wrong, wrong, wrong.  (Was: TPPILH)
Followup-To: alt.child-support
Date: 6 Sep 1992 11:39:20 -0700
Organization: Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: gw.home.vix.com
Keywords: You expect me to mark my delitions?  Dream on...

In a recent missive kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) tells us:
*[Note changes in newsgroups and followups-to lines, please]

[Note that I've further limited this via followup-to to just a.c-s]

*>>Wrong.  False.  Nope.  If you've got a PHD in CompSci, and currently make
*>>$100,000/year, and you have to pay child support, you can always go work at
*>>McDonald's for minimum wage, and the judge will _have_ to reduce/eliminate
*>>your support payments.  A judge _cannot_ force you to work at a specific job.
*>
*>Maybe New York is different, but in Pennsylvania, if you're a CompSci PhD
*>with a $100,000/year job, and you take a job in McD's earning you 
*>$20,000/year, then the judge will impute to you a salary of $100,000/year
...
*Somehow, this doesn't sound right.  Could somebody [else] who lives in PA verify
*it for me (I have a hard enough time finding legal stuff for Colorado).


Not only is this probably right for PA...it's also accurate for NY,
CA, and just about every other state I have had contact with.  A
request for imputed income is quite common in many a child support
motion, and where it is clear that a reduction in income has been made
specifically to thwart child support payments, a so-disposed judge
will in fact impute income.

So think twice before quitting your Comp.Sci. job to go work at McD's.

-- 
   LOOKING FOR:  David Widdicombe, Hobson Woodward, Lorna Taylor & JJ Lancey
I am: Anne Mitchell, mom, & founder of the Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange
Ask me about FREE!  FREE files available via anonymous ftp 128.45.1.1; dir /pub
   CUM CATAPULTAE PROSCRIPTAE ERUNT TUM SOLI PROSCRIPTI CATAPULTAS HABEBUNT
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu (Angela KAY Rolling)
Subject: re: father notification reconsidered
Reply-To: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 22:38:15 GMT

kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Anchent" Cochran)
wrigts \/			 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ how & by whom?
=>This kind of sickness is what keeps women (and men) in battered
=>relationships. The old "but huney I dont *REALLY* meen it, please come
=>back to me" thought is nice, until they *do* mean it and we have another
=>woman dead, courtesy of "domestic violence"

your understanding of domestic violence is way off and you are asumeing a 
hell of a lot from a statment that is comenly used figeritively in this
scociety.
1:what keeps women in battered relationships is that they stay. this is 
usualy because they *beleave* that is what love is. most women who enter
into abusive relationships were eather abused as children of they say there
own mothers being abused. 				    ^or     ^saw
thouse who git help usualy dont return. thouse who leave and return ar not
gitting the help that they desperitly nead. it is not the "i dont really
mean it" atitude that keeps them there it is the "but i really did deserve
it because" atitude.

=>Look at it this way, Don. I'm Gay.  When I'm in a group of people, and one
of them says, "I hate queers. I think we should shoot them all", I take it 
^=>^
=>_very_ seriously. It might be that he's only talking about "probably"
=>shooting me, and it might be that he's going to pull a gun on me in the
=>next 5 minutes.

If you are Gay then you have _very_ little ground for haveing an opinon
about father notification as it is very unlikly that you will have to deal
with it.
you do have a right to take such a coment seriously as it shows a definite
pregidice twardes Gays. I would take it seriously no mater what was incerted
in the place of *Gays* not because I fit that catagory but because 
pregidicum is allways based on some thing that is unresonable. not because
the *might* actualy go threw with it. If you think that someone might pull
a gun on you in the next 5 minits after they make a statment then ether
1:you are paraniod or 2:you know that they have an unstable personality
and should be looked up. now as #2 is highly improbable i would say that
you are paranoid


ELF-KIN 
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu (Angela KAY Rolling)
Subject: CASUAL SEX
Reply-To: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:00:10 GMT

->Maybe you shouldnt take sex so casually?
Hate to break this to you but I'm not 'taking sex casualy' I am stating
a far more realistic vew of things then you are. Most people, expesualy
young people how ever have a tendincy to not think that far ahead. 
how much time did you spend going over the concequences whin you were 
younger, say 16. The truth is that there are times whin a person really
isnt thinking about what can happen if. you really need to git back into
the real world. The biggist flaw with your preposal is that most people
have a hard time finding a loyer they can aford when they *have* to have
one, much less to put together a pre-sex contract. which I feal and uthers 
would feal I'm sure apon hearing this that it really cheapens the whole
expereance. To state that to people can not have a relation ship because
they disagree about the abortion issue is crude and rather calouse.people
who disagree about bigger issues form lasting loving relationships. Just
how miny teenagers do you know who descuse much of any thing with there
partner. In a mature relationship that will last you descuse a lot of things
just in case. My love and I wint a lot farther then agreeing that abortion
was out of the question, we went on to discuse how to raise children if

I happened to get pregnite,who to tell first, not to use desposables, 
and he was rather adement on the vertues of brest feeding. Unfortinitly
now mater how considerit and upfrunt your realationship is there will 
still be people having realationships for no uther reasion then that they
are lownly. 

ELF-KIN
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: OPINION
From: burns@vax.sonoma.edu
Date: 15 Sep 92 10:51:16 -0800
Organization: Sonoma State University

I don't  believe  that  people  have  changed  their  minds  about  abortion.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I  think  that  the  people  that  were  against abortion  then  are  
the  people  that are  still  against  abortion  today  and  the  
people  that  were  for  abortion  then  are  still  for  it  today.  
Abortion  is  a  pritty  big  topic that  many  people  have  
different  views  on. But  those  views aren't going  to  change  
just  because  somebody  with  different  views  tells  you  their 
thoughts  on the subject.I  have  been  in  many  arguments  with  
people  that  have  different  views  on  the  subject and I have 
heard some pritty good  arguments against mine but, I would never 
change my opinion on abortion.If  you  do  for  some  reason  change 
your  mind  on  your  view  of  abortion  then  your  view  wasn't  
strong  enough. You  realy  didn't  have  a view  in  the  first  
place  because  once  you  have  an  opinion  on  a topic  that  
big,  you  can't  just  keep  going  back  and  fourth  on  the  
topic just  to  please  somebody else. You  have  got  to  stand  up  
for  what  you  believe  in  if  you  want  it  to  mean  anything.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,talk.abortion
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: amusing Facts of Life meet the day to day....
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 12:49:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.204619.1390@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>Welcome to the 'working week' - to quote elvis costello.....
>
>I hate to depress you Keith....
>
>In the glorious struggle to win the war against 'Dead Beat Dads'
>this is becoming a popular mechanism in many states.
>

	I got my license renewed yesterday.  They've got a poster up
	there, too.  That (theoretically) means that some day when
	these guys come in for renewal, they'll be recognized.


-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Do Men Have Reproductive Rights?
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 03:41:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.031055.27775@colorado.edu> fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick) writes:
>In article <1992Sep07.191948.639041@zeus.calpoly.edu> dgross@zeus.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
>>	DO MEN HAVE REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS?
>>	by Dave Gross
>>
>>The courts will be happy to take a
>>chunk out of his paycheck every month, and add a little retroactive support in
>>for those few months he didn't realize he was the family breadwinner.
>
> I did not think that the any courts had the authority to award retroactive
> child support. I know for a fact that they cannot in Colorado (I will cite
> the case if someone insists but I dont have it here with me right now).
> Does someone know for sure a state in which this can be done?

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe it can be done in PA, "retroactive"
to the date of FILING for support (ie. not service, final judgement, etc.).
So you can go a couple months without knowing you have a family, 
and be forced to pay for those months.

(My doubts: I may be mixing up spousal support with child support.)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: CASUAL SEX
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 04:09:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.180010.18751@news.iastate.edu> txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu writes:
>->Maybe you shouldnt take sex so casually?
>Hate to break this to you but I'm not 'taking sex casualy' I am stating
>a far more realistic vew of things then you are.

Ah, ok.

>Most people, expesualy
>young people how ever have a tendincy to not think that far ahead. 

That would be everyone, not most people, not young people.

>how much time did you spend going over the concequences whin you were 
>younger, say 16. The truth is that there are times whin a person really
>isnt thinking about what can happen if. you really need to git back into
>the real world. The biggist flaw with your preposal is that most people
>have a hard time finding a loyer they can aford when they *have* to have
>one, much less to put together a pre-sex contract. 

You don't need a lawyer for that.

>which I feal and uthers 
>would feal I'm sure apon hearing this that it really cheapens the whole
>expereance.

To be sure.

> To state that to people can not have a relation ship because
>they disagree about the abortion issue is crude and rather calouse.people
>who disagree about bigger issues form lasting loving relationships. Just
>how miny teenagers do you know who descuse much of any thing with there
>partner. In a mature relationship that will last you descuse a lot of things
>just in case. My love and I wint a lot farther then agreeing that abortion
>was out of the question, we went on to discuse how to raise children if
>
>I happened to get pregnite,who to tell first, not to use desposables, 
>and he was rather adement on the vertues of brest feeding. Unfortinitly
>now mater how considerit and upfrunt your realationship is there will 
>still be people having realationships for no uther reasion then that they
>are lownly. 
>
>ELF-KIN
>
>


-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
From: vernal@husc9.Harvard.EDU (David Vernal)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: <none>
Date: 13 Sep 92 18:56:27 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

Ray Fisher writes:

Sex 
is no more consent to pregnancy than driving is consent to dying in 
an accident.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com


I hate analogies, because no analogy is perfect, especially when talking about
something like abortion. But this one really doesn't cut it.
If you do not want a child, then pregnancy is a _risk_ of having sex.
If you go driving, dying in an accident is a _risk_ of driving.
You can minimize the risk in both cases, by taking precautions, etc.
The surest way to keep from getting killed in a car accident is no driving, and
staying off the road. Abstinence.
The surest way to keep from getting pregnant is to keep from having sex. Abstinence.
Many people will find abstaining from one and/or the other impossible...I wonder
which one more people could abstain from....:)
Face it, if you get into a car, and are a mature, responsible person (I won't say
adult, because I know eleven-year-olds more responsible than 21-year-olds), you
have to accept the risk of an auto accident. If you get into one, what are you
going to do, yell and scream at the sky that it wasn't fair, it shouldn't have
happened to you, etc.? You can't undo an auto accident.

Again, the analogy isn't perfect. But if one consents to sex, the pregnancy is a
risk that has to be faced, even if you take every contraceptive precaution in the
world. What the argument comes down to again, is not whether consent to sex is a
consent to pregnancy, but whether the termination of an unwanted pregnancy is a 
moral or immoral act. Right now, it is a legal act. Those who see abortion as an 
immoral act are working to change the law.
This is my first time posting, so please keep that in mind if you have bones to 
pick with me....:)
And that should be Ray Fischer, not Fisher. Sorry Ray.

-dave vernal
vernal@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Observations
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 03:41:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.044746.23826@advtech.uswest.com>
stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.222733.3174@coopsol.com>
>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>>It's technically incorrect - men are not subject to pregnancy, and only a
>>pregnancy is *aborted*.

>Technically incorrect?  No, it's not.  We just have different definitions
>of the word.

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, a Merriam-Webster --

abortion    1:  the expulsion of a nonviable fetus: as  a: spontaneous
expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of festation -
compare MISCARRIAGE  b: induced abortion    2: MONSTROSITY    3  a: arrest
of development (as of a part or process_ resulting in imperfection   b: a
result of such arrest.

Guess whose definition is correct?

If you want to communicate, you would be well-advised to use the
actual defintions of English words, rather than choosing an English
word and redefining it.

-- 
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
From: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu (Angela KAY Rolling)
Subject: logic
Reply-To: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:39:54 GMT

One thing that logic would show is that in a descusion of what equil rigts
includes-men and wimen having an equil say/chance at/in everything that 
has to do with both of them-does not mean -ban abortin- so what does the 
anology of just because people die in car crashis we dont have to ban cars
have to do with this descusion. I unlike some chouse to not be excesively
windy in my posts. here is my proposal
1=men and wimen have an equil say in an unplaned pregnincy.
 he/they can decide	a.its her decision (note he did have his equil say)
			b.one wants the child the uther doesnt-the one who
		wants the child takes the child the uther pays -nothing-
			c.she cant/is unwilling to have the child
				-he can respect this
				-he can ask her for her reasons agree/disagree
			d.the child is put up for adoption
			e.both want the child on git custidy the uther gets 
		visitation rights and pays child suport

we teach our young people about birth controle and make it easaly obtanable
so that they are at lest half way responsable. By having the knowlige and
means they can develop a habite of using birth controle.
I see no reason how ever that someone should be hurt because they had no
chouce in wether or not to keep/have there child.

ELF-KIN
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: whose decision? (was: abortion)
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:20:03 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <1992Sep15.105527.1@vax.sonoma.edu>, spitzer@vax.sonoma.edu writes:
|I disagree.  I think that the man is equally involved in the
|abortion with the woman.  The abortion should be a joint
|decision.  Since both the man and the woman conceived the
|"child," both should have a say in the matter. [...]

This is the ideal, certainly.  In healthy relationships, this
will happen.  Happy happy, joy joy.  I don't see how you can
force people to have good relationships, though.  Or what good
it would do to legislate communication in abusive relationships,
or broken relationships.

How would you resolve a situation where the man wants one
decision, the woman wants another, and no consensus seems
possible?  I feel that the final decision is always the right
of the woman, since it's her body, her risk, her burden.

|I am what you might call a Hippie of the 90's.  Only 
|difference is I have short hair and I don't do drugs. 

Gosh, how sad for you.  I get a lot of pleasure from my morning
cup of coffee, myself.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"For one thing, herbs can be eaten, which puts them right up there on the
positive reinforcement scale. If someone invented an edible decimal point,
most of us would be able to do our own taxes." -- From the Murky News 
gardening section
From: farrell@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: A response to the late, great Dr. Strychnine
Date: 15 Sep 92 02:40:19 EDT

Subject: Re: A response to the late, great Dr. Strychnine

In message-ID <1992Sep11.035226.23317@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust 
(John Stevens) writes:
> You conviently ignore the many places where women demanded equal rights,
> but where biological inequities would, by your reasoning, deny them
> equal rights.

Please explain this.  What "biological inequities" are you talking about 
that would deny women equal rights?  And which rights specifically are
you referring to in this context?
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: A response to the late, great Dr. Strychnine
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 18:36:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: usa

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>Just as I cannot change your mind.  What can I do to persuade you to believe
>that sharing control of a person's reproductive system IS morally correct?

Getting a vasectomy would be a start.

Or were you just talking about controlling the _woman's_ reproductive system?

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:44:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>I believe that for a baby that results from sex consented to by the mother,
>the babies right to life takes precedence, on the basis of what is being
>given up by both parties.  The mother shares her body with the baby for
>nine months, then gives birth.  Weight that against killing the baby, and
>in this case I believe that the babies right to life supercedes the mother's
>convenience.

How do you rationalize denying pregnant women rights enjoyed by _all_
other people (i.e., the right to bodily autonomy)?

How do you make the leap from "consent to sex" to "consent to have a baby"?
After all, the two are hardly the same thing.  I might just as plausibly
argue that since you drive a car, you therefore are also consenting to die,
and I may kill you with impunity.  But sex does not imply pregnancy, and
driving does not imply death, although there is some connection in both
cases.

>But the other side of the coin is, if the baby is the result of violence
>(specifically rape or incest), then it isn't a simple case of nine months
>of pregnancy and birth.  The emotional damage from being forced to carry
>the baby of her rapist would be so great in SOME, but not all cases, that
>I believe the woman's right to avoid such damage (since it is so great)
>supercedes the baby's right to life.

But the emotional damage from being forced to carry any other unwanted
baby is irrelevent, no matter how great it is?

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity