HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 22 Dec 1992 03:41:46 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

>But don't legislate my children (intended or accidental
>or unknown) 

Don, why is it that you are so terribly worried about unknown 
children?  Why don't you just look up the mothers (about 8 months
afterwards) and find out for sure.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights,alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:20:17 GMT

In article <1h622uINN8vi@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>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".

And, in your view, *only* the woman makes the decision.

Thus, every father must shoulder responsibilities as a direct
consequence of the woman's decision.  Do you deny she makes the
final decision, and do you deny she has months after conception
to consider it, whereas he has no such thing?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6179 soc.women:21914 talk.abortion:52954 alt.feminism:6539
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?
Date: 23 Dec 1992 01:25:45 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

>	GIVEN that a child has been born, and taken into the mother's custody,
>	what, besides his participation in the sex act, justifies the 
>	imposition of paternity child support on the man?

You've already given the justification.

>>A child support hearing *is* due process of law.

>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.
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6148 soc.men:21716 alt.feminism:6453
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:55:31 GMT
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.feminism
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Kevin Darcy (kevin@rotag.mi.org) wrote:
: robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman) writes:
: >	The woman creates the baby.  She has the choice, and she is, in 
: >fact, the only person who *can* create a baby.

: Have you been listening to Steven Kellmeyer, Robert? This specious reasoning
: sounds _awfully_ familiar...

: REFUTATION

: The man's action (participating in coitus sex) is part of the causal chain 
: leading to the creation of the child, therefore there is a _prima facie_ 
: legal case for holding him at least partly responsible for the support of that 
: child.

Speaking of specious reasoning...

Using this argument the all of the grandparents are also legally
responsible:  their action (participating in coitus sex) is part of the
causal chain leading to the creation of the grandchild.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 18:02:52 GMT

In article <C08KKH.I1o@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>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.  

Then we do in fact have a quota system.

>>                                           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.

They have to prove that they could not meet the quotas for non-discriminatory
reasons it would seem.
 
>--
>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


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 23 Dec 92 17:22:39 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) respondes:
.beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
.
.>you are proposing 
.>(pretty loudly and obnoxiously, IMO)  that no man has a right
.>to custody of his child if he fails to pursue (HARASS) a woman 
.>for 9 months after sleeping with her, to check if she's pregnant.
.
.I am not proposing that he check if she's pregnant. Which, BTW she
.would *not* be 9 months later -- she would have given birth.  And
.the birth certificate would be in the public record.  *That* is
.what I propose that he check.

  Michal, Michal, Michal.  I am adopted and my birth certificate shows
no sign of who my natural mother (or father) is.  If this hypotetical
woman did give birth, and put the child up for adoption, wading through
birth certificates would be useless not to mention far too late to do 
anything about it.  But you're smart so I'll bet you already knew that.
Any other ideas?
  BTW Michal, I would think it would be a 'matter of common decency'
for her to simply drop him a line, or call him to let him know - providing
of course she had 'kept in touch'.  Ah well, maybe it was just a 
meaningless 1 night thing for her and she has changed her 'circle of friends'
since then.
  What do you think Don?
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6099 talk.abortion:52620
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: adoption is when *both* parents forfeit the child
Date: 22 Dec 1992 01:15:55 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

>bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes...
>BB> In <ByxHpL.A8s@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>BB> >why can a woman give up a child for adoption at birth?

>BB> 1) if the genetic mother keeps the child she also contributes to its
>BB> support. So does the genetic father. Ergo, equality.
>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>It certainly is *not* equality, if he never wanted the child.  What, does a
>woman have the right to not want a child, but not a man?  Some equality!

Adoption occurs when *both* parents forfeit the child.  A woman cannot
give the child up for adoption if the biological father wants to keep it.

In fact, there's a big stink about such a case going on right now.
The mother claimed one man was the father.  He signed the release form.
The child was then formally adopted by another couple.  Now the birth
mother claims that another man is the father.  Since he never signed 
the release forms he claims that his legal right to the child was never
legally severed, and he is suing to recover custody from the adoptive
parents.  DNA tests pending.  (sorry, I don't have the reference 
pending just now.  But it's been in the news all this past week.)

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6104 soc.men:21627 soc.women:21793 talk.abortion:52639 alt.feminism:6366
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Date: 22 Dec 92 02:33:10 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

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?

I hereby declare my solidarity with men who desire reproductive equality, 
including the right to have an unwanted pregnancy and an abortion if they 
so desire.
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?
Date: 21 Dec 1992 09:18:53 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

>In article <1h0h9fINN2i6@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1gdcpaINNhbc@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
[arguing why a man is obliged to support his offspring]
>>Nope.  Because of his participation in the conception.

>How is that not a direct contradiction of the following?

>"I don't argue that he has to pay for a child just because he had sex."
>					12 Dec 92 03:34:32 GMT
>					<1gbmk8INN74p@gap.caltech.edu>

If a man has sex and no child is born, then he has no obligation
to support a child (since no child exists).  His obligation to support
is contingent on the existance of a child.

>Why do you 
>think the man's constitutional right to not have his property deprived without 
>due process of law should have any LESS weight than this alleged, non-
>enumerated "right" of a child to be supported by both of its natural parents?

>A child support hearing *is* due process of law.
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Moral turpitude
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:31:43 GMT

In <BzoJuB.7AD@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>In article <1h7q2vINNk17@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>
>>>Yes!  And you and Bob Blackshaw seem to want to punish
>>>"moral turpitude" (eg. not knowing a woman is pregnant!)
>>>by denying parental rights to men.
>>
>>Not quite right for me. I won't speak for Bob.
>>
>>I'm not out to *punish* anyone.  However, I feel that if
>>a man doesn't bother to find out about the *birth* (note: not
>>necessarily the pregnancy) then he has forfeited his right
>>to stop an adoption.  

>"Doesn't bother."  Back to square one.

>Michal, you started with checking to see if she's pregnant,
>you included bothering her friends to see if she's pregnant,
>now you retreat to "bother to find out about the birth."

>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?

Well, if she knows how to find him, it seems the decent thing to do,
but how many men leave their business card at a one night stand. I'm
sorry, I'm being facetious, but perhaps you begin to see why this
sort of sexual encounter is not 'my cup of tea'.

>I maintain he has a right to know if she gave birth to *his* child
>(especially if she gives it up for adoption), not whether she is pregnant 
>and/or gave birth to *some* child.  You're too Orwellian for me.


>>I am not prepared to apply that claim to *all* parental rights.
>>(Happy?  No, probably not.)

>Absolutely not.

>Don
>-- 
>beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged

Nor are many of us, I imagine.

Bob.

Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6182 talk.abortion:52958 alt.feminism:6541 soc.men:21809 misc.legal:21722
From: goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Back Again To (Un)Fat
Keywords: Two Legs Good, Three Legs Bad...
Date: 24 Dec 92 04:10:00 GMT
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
X-To: MICHAL LEAH PERI

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
MLP>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

MLP>>At 53, I can
MLP>>count on some of you to keep the economy going so I
MLP>>can get my social security and dividend checks as I
MLP>>hobble around twenty or thirty years hence; but for
MLP>>_you_, there will evidently be no next generation.
MLP>>Good luck!)

MLP>It's not a dearth of procreation that's bugging this
MLP>group.  It's a reluctance to pay for their progeny.
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Please spare me this rather patronising treatment, Michal.

If *I* wanted to patronise *you*, I could have said THIS, a very long time
ago:

"it's not a dearth of procreation that's bugging the Pro-Choice people.
It's a reluctance to BEAR their progeny".  (as though it's somehow your
RESPONSIBILITY to do so ; *that* is how I view your treatment of *us*)

And notice how you can squirm out of one of the above, but we CAN'T squirm
out of another, and all because of this little technicality about "foetuses"
not being "persons" requiring any sort of respect or consideration, until
that magical moment when they are no longer "foetuses," before which time
they are your sole property, to be disposed with as you please.

---
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 * The fifth one ended up in France.
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6253 talk.abortion:53951 alt.child-support:4076
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.child-support,alt.dads-right
Subject: Re: The EVIL Conspiracy behind this "Men's Choice" thing...
Date: 3 Jan 93 16:31:42 GMT
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Dec27.183413.8950@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
>>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>Now, "what about the child"?  Well, since the woman in this scenario has
>>>opted to keep the fetus and have children against the man's wishes she
>>>should be completely responble for all financial needs.
>
>>Why?
>
>Why...because the decision to keep the baby was HERS, and HERS ALONE.  This
>comes in large part thanks to this "Women's Choice thing," and we are only
>calling for men to have a similar freedom of choice during pregnancy.
>
>Indeed, if he had already expressed the desire not to be a parent, then
>there is *no* reason why he should be bound by a decision that is HERS AND
>HERS ALONE.  If she still decides to have the child, in spite of knowing
>full well that he doesn't wish to be involved in his/her life, then why
>should he be held liable for a decision in which he had no part?
>
>---
>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 * If your mind goes blank, remember to turn off the sound.

First of all, the man DID have a choice. He could have not had sex.
He could have properly used a condom and spermacide. Key word here is  
PROPERLY. This would reduce the chances of pregnancy to about once
in a couple of hundred years.

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
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6103 talk.abortion:52638 soc.men:21626 alt.dads-rights:3069
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Unfounded Allegations Of Sexism
Date: 22 Dec 92 01:24:25 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec21.192414.1542@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
># bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes...
># I have reread it, and I have found it *very* difficult to find something
># metaphorical in "face the fact that you're a snivelling little weasel..."
># It seems *quite* literal, and doesn't really seem to lend itself to a
># metaphorical interpretation.

Umm... it's quite metaphorical - unless you wear a brown fur coat with a
white front that cannot be removed, have a body like an inverted U hung
over short legs, and salivate when a mouse runs across the floor.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Is $1000 a month exorbitant?
Date: 21 Dec 1992 09:46:37 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>Does anyone actually believe that it costs $1,000.00 a month ABOVE AND
>BEYOND a single parent's living expenses to raise a kid averaged over 18
>years?

	Daycare center		$600/month (a cheap one)
	Food 			$100/month
	Add'l Health insurance	$100-200/month 
	Add'l medical costs	$50/month (dental, medical deductible,
					    prescriptions, etc.)
	Clothing + Shoes	$50/month
	Add'l rent		$100+/month

This is already over $1000/month, and doesn't include school costs,
vacations, gifts (the average Christmas spending by American families
is $600/child), braces, music lessons, swimming lessons, camp fees,
nor lots or other expenses of raising a child in middle-class America!

>Does anyone believe it costs TWICE that?

Add in private school ($5000-15000/year), camp, music lessons,
and college (today $15000-25000/year, and rising much faster than
inflation!), and it can easily cost more than $2000/month!

Get a clue, Karl!

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,misc.legal,talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Embryos as Property?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 08:13:05 GMT
Keywords: Property rights, abortion, compensation for involuntary loss...?

lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes:

>In <1h98toINN59@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>>It is not being squelched on the grounds that it's "icky".  It's being
>>squelched on the grounds that it is patently false.  An embryo is 
>>*not* a body part of the mother.

>Based on...?  Few disciplines I'm aware of accept proof-by-assertion; on
>what basis do you draw the line?  How do you distinguish a few cells of
>embryo from a few cells of skin?

Well, the fact that they are genetically distinct is one big way, even though
*detecting* that may be essentially impossible with current technology.

On the other hand, the embryo (we're talking pre-viability here) is nowhere
near being a separate, independent organism; it recieves *all* of its
sustinence from the mother's blood (after implantation) or from the reserves
of the egg (before implantation) which also came from the mother.  Without
the resources of the mother, the embryo would not survive.  It is probably
in that sense that was meant in the original post that the embryo is "part"
of the mother.

>-- 
>Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb


-Rob, who wonders why people insist on arguing over the obvious and the trivial

###############################################################################
Life began billions of years ago and hasn't stopped since.
Human life began thousands of years ago and hasn't stopped since.
An organism's life begins at conception (for sexually reproducing species).

All of these are obvious, trivial, and irrelevant since it is not always wrong
to kill a lifeform or a sexually reproducing organism, and it is not always
wrong to kill a human (the death penalty for extreem crimes)--depending on
your philosophy.

Try arguing about the beginning of an *individual* (a *mind*, as opposed to a
mere *life*)--but be prepared to justify and defend your assertions.    8-)
###############################################################################
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban