HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Embryos as Property and Viability as a Standard?
Keywords: Property rights, abortion, compensation for involuntary loss...?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 06:51:20 GMT

In article <C02MCM.D71@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>
>>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.
>
>Which means that you are a rock, since you derive *all* your sustenance
>from the earth, or from its reserves, which came from the earth. You would
>not survive if you were suddenly thrown into space, thus you're not viable
>either.  Therefore, anyone who wishes to kill you is only performing a
>Gaia abortion - perfectly acceptable.

In what way does the Planet Earth "suffer" from sustaining its inhabitants,
Kellmeyer? If it doesn't suffer from the "effort", then what justification is
there for the needless destruction of human life which would result from
throwing them off into space?

Oh, in case you're wondering, Kellmeyer, I do NOT want to get into some 
protracted discussion about environmentalism. My point here is unless you
can show that throwing inhabitants into space is the ONLY way for Planet Earth 
to assert its autonomy, then what you have raised is a -lousy- analogy to
abortion. 

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6317 alt.child-support:4126
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
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: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 01:07:26 GMT

In article <1i8kmpINNc70@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>
>...it is far from obvious that the state is better qualified to 
>determine the "best interests of the child" than its parents.

And yet, you insist that the state should have the option, rationalized on
"best interests of the child" [sic], to decline to enforce valid contracts 
wrt child support? 

Your capacity for self-contradiction astounds me.

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6410 soc.men:22582 soc.women:22573 talk.abortion:55485 alt.feminism:7089
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: C.J. Supports Reproductive Technologies for Men!  E, Gads, er E, GOiDS!
Date: 13 Jan 93 03:02:31 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Followup-To: alt.whine
Organization: SGI TechPubs


goid@zooid.guild.org writes:
|cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes...
|>Indeed.  I've already done so twice, but I will speak up once
|>again to agree with Nadja.  I support the right of all men like
|>Karl Denninger & Will Steeves & Don Beaver to get pregnant and
|>then to make their own choices about whether to abort or carry
|>to term.

|Good!  Then support research which can safely transfer a "foetus"
|from the woman into the man.  (Apparently, there has been some
|research in this area...you can start your support with a fairly
|large donation, I trust?)

Nope, sorry.  The portion of my disposable income that I've
earmarked for political causes goes to preserve abortion rights
for people who can get pregnant today.  I have to help protect
abortion rights from people like you & Karl Denninger, after all.

Followups to where followups belong.

---
C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
"Ah, but if a man is to consent to raising a child when he has sex, by the
sex act, then it is damn well time that women be held to the same standard.
Ergo, there is no need for abortion rights." -- Karl Denninger, a supporter 
of "men's rights"
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6279 soc.men:22082 soc.women:22095 talk.abortion:54015 alt.feminism:6781
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Date: 4 Jan 93 05:44:29 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
|Yeah, men are upset.

No, *you* are upset.  Stop this shrill projection.
And get this out of talk.abortion, unless you're
trying to strip abortion rights away from women
as a part of this bitter vendetta of yours.

---
C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
"People call me feminist whenever I express sentiments that
differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute." --Rebecca West
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: Tue, 5 Jan 93 14:54:00 GMT

Greed and Revenge

I see the problems of greed and revenge to be killing us all.
When my family divorced when I was a child I thought the problem 
was because we were poor and there was not enough to go around.  I 
was dead wrong.  Donald Trump wanted to give Evana the $10,000 he
had promised and she wanted more.  Not because she could not live an
absoluletly excelent life on it but, she could have more!  Joan London
is angry about $18,000 a month to raise a child.  Is it necessary? No.
But her ex-husband knows he can have more!  It happens to men and women.

No amount of money and no rational will ever work when we live in a society
that has its values on "more".  We do not feed our hungry because it keeps
our taxes lower and we who have jobs can have "more".  We did not address
the aids issue be those of us who are straight thought we were "more" important
than "those people".  The government did not want to help them because it
cost money and they could have "more" for themselves if they did not help.

We also all think we are better than the next person.  We think it is OK for
the other person to suffer for a result of what they have done.  And if
what they have done hurts us we want revenge on them.  Since we know everyone
needs money and many love it beyond its real value what better way to get
back.  I have been through 42 years of racism, sexism, and many other social
problems.  They all started with greed.  The tactics for slandering the oppressed side has not changed a bit.  The process always starts with de-humanizing 
the other side.

For example:

White's are good Indians are savages.
White's are good Blacks are lazzy.
Men work hard and are smart women could not handle a man's job.
Women can raise children men can not.
Women love and support their children 41% of men do not.

The lies and de-humanization never stops.  It is what makes man feel justified
when he steps on his nieghbour.  Take this piece of advice from me becuase
I have a lot of experience in it!  

When I got through all of the racial crap of the 60s and 70s white people
fianlly got down to the truth.  They did not want to share what was good with
others.  Better educations, more articulate speach was all a put on.

This child support thing is the same.  We would all kill for it!  Women do not
want to share it and they want all the comforts they can during the process.
When you stop the greed and get to the point you beging to make progress.  Notr
one second before that.  Women went through hell try to prove they could function during the time of the month and lots of other sexiest crap before men got
to the point that they just wanted the jobs they felt were their and the pro-
motions that went with them.

The child thing is the same.  All of these arguements are not the real issues.
They are the exuces for keeping the most precouse part of life to one group.

Smile,

Dave 

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,misc.legal,sci.econ
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Maternity/paternity insurance
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity,sci.econ
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:33:58 GMT

In article <1ir4m8INNgq6@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>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.  

Now there's a moral hazard problem if I ever saw one.  Unless such
insurance was mandatory (in which case, the policy is essentially the
same as the government supporting all children), it could never work --
the "lemons" problem would predominate, and the only people buying such
insurance would be those likely to conceive children, in which case the
insurance would cost just about the same as what it would cost to just
pay for supporting the children.

Followups out of misc.legal.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
never shout movie in a crowded firestation
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6409 soc.men:22574 soc.women:22564 talk.abortion:55429 alt.feminism:7079
From: baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:08:05 GMT
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <1i7slkINN7h9@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
>>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
....
>
>Deviousness aside.  Gordon, it assumes that the percentage
>wanting custody among men and women is equal, although not
>specifying the percentages.  I have no idea whether that 
>assumption is valid.  Can anyone out there quote a study?
>

Michal, Gordon,

Does anybody have a study that says that half of the women in America
want jobs? Has anybody done a study to determine the percentage of
men who would be happy to be displaced out of the job market?

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:53:27 GMT

In <1ijd6dINNr3g@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>>In <1i4ul0INNjf6@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>>>Would you be satisfied with paternal notification of the child's birth?
>>>I would have no problem with that with regards to privacy considerations,
>>>since the birth is already a matter of the public record.  (I have problems
>>>with requiring additional governmental paperwork, but that is not an 
>>>direct inequity issue.)  However, requiring a woman to notify anyone of 
>>>her pregnancy is a violation of her privacy.

>>However, in the scenario above - should the mother wish to put the
>>child up for adoption - surely the father should be given first
>>refusal. I cannot see how this violates her privacy.

>Why does the father's right of refusal to relinquish the child for 
>adoption require notification of pregnancy?  Notification of the 
>birth should suffice, since the adoption does not become final for
>6 months.  The man has 6 months after the birth to claim the child.

Sorry, I was not clear in the above, or cut out too much debate. While
I personally have dificulty understanding the hatred or bitterness that
causes the desire to hide her pregnancy, I will agree that she does not
have to notify the father. But if she proposes to put the child up for
adoption she should notify him, or at least ensure that some authority
will notify him, i.e., if there is now a child, she is no longer
pregnant.

I imagine there could be situations where the father is known by the
mother to be abusive, and she would desire that the child be adopted
rather than fall into his hands, but all this scenario illustrates
is that we are all individuals, all different, and writing laws to
cover all contingencies is damned hard.

>-- 

>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.child-support,alt.dads-right
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action (Re: Reproductive Technologies)
Followup-To: alt.flame
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:23:36 GMT

In article <1icftuINNopf@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>my, my.  Are 5 newsgroups *really* necessary?  Is what Don has to fling upon
>this net *that* important?  Sigh.

If you don't like it, why did *you* post to 5 newsgroups in the
first place, Adrienne?


>In article <C0E32p.AG2@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>><1ia1h8INNs7p@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>><C0CBE3.InL@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>><1i9pfhINNo7s@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:


This sort of attack is yet more evidence of your 
lack of substantive thought.  To alt.flame...

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.child-support,alt.dads-right
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: The EVIL Conspiracy behind this "Men's Choice" thing...
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 08:34:23 GMT

<1993Jan3.163142.18210@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
><1992Dec27.183413.8950@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> :
>>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?
>>
>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.

Wrongo.  Personally I've had two condoms break in my life, each was a
different brand, each was used properly.

>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.

I disagree completely.  If a man and a woman have sex, with the woman
completely aware of the man's unwillingness to have a child, she alone
should be responsible for any child that she decides to have.  How much
more "personal responsibility" get you get?  If she wants a child, has a
child, and cannot support that child on her own - that's her problem (and
of course, the child's).  I would call her an unfit parent and remove the
child from her care.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:32:27 GMT

<1i9pfhINNo7s@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
><Bzzu8C.FMp@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>><1h5bokINN2ep@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>><BzLB81.2n1@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) 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?
>>
>>We can apply affirmative action to the inequity in child custody and support 
>>awards.  That is what I was (and am) proposing.

>Well, I'm all for applying equitable standards to child custody and support
>awards, so that makes the rest of your posting suspect, since I am a feminist.


Yes, but are you all for applying AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6337 alt.feminism:6923
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 8 Jan 1993 08:15:09 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>In <1i4ul0INNjf6@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>>Would you be satisfied with paternal notification of the child's birth?
>>I would have no problem with that with regards to privacy considerations,
>>since the birth is already a matter of the public record.  (I have problems
>>with requiring additional governmental paperwork, but that is not an 
>>direct inequity issue.)  However, requiring a woman to notify anyone of 
>>her pregnancy is a violation of her privacy.

>However, in the scenario above - should the mother wish to put the
>child up for adoption - surely the father should be given first
>refusal. I cannot see how this violates her privacy.

Why does the father's right of refusal to relinquish the child for 
adoption require notification of pregnancy?  Notification of the 
birth should suffice, since the adoption does not become final for
6 months.  The man has 6 months after the birth to claim the child.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,misc.legal,talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Embryos as Property and Viability as a Standard?
Keywords: Property rights, abortion, compensation for involuntary loss...?
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:49:04 GMT

kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

>Which means that you are a rock, since you derive *all* your sustenance
>from the earth, or from its reserves, which came from the earth. You would
>not survive if you were suddenly thrown into space, thus you're not viable
>either.  Therefore, anyone who wishes to kill you is only performing a
>Gaia abortion - perfectly acceptable.

Close, but no guitar.  Your only mistake is in the word "anyone" in the
last sentence.  Now, if the Earth _itself_ decided that he was an undue
burden, and tossed him out into space, this would be perfectly 
acceptable.  (Note: Also acceptable if the Earth legitimately _asks_
someone else to toss him into space, and pays for the service.)

>Steve Kellmeyer

                       -rocker
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Walk away, run away, was Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Date: 11 Jan 1993 04:52:23 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>In article <1993Jan8.120125.28598@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>Thus, the feminists changed the rules mid-stream TO EXCUSE THEMSELVES FROM
>THE RESPONSIBILITY that came with their choice.  Of course, they conveniently
>forgot to change the law on paternity so that the legal options and
>requirements of both sexes matched the physical options.  Then, in the '70s
>and '80s, they went after men with a vengence for "the good of the child".

>Is this a surprise?  No.  Is it surprising that feminists now refuse to
>grant men the same financial freedom that they obtained by changing the
>rules mid-stream?  No, but it does tell all men just what they're up
>against, and what tactics are going to have any chance of success.

So Feminists make all the rules, huh?  
Karl, don't you vote?

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.child-support