HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bglazier@buffalo.asd.sgi.com (Bill Glazier)
Subject: Re: Forced Fatherhood Executive Summary
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:42:39 GMT

In article <16650014@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com>, larryf@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Larry |> 
|> >  Fuck everybody you can.  Just use your brain as well as your dick.  And live
|> >  up to your mistakes, big and small.  


>If a man has been deceived into thinking birth control is being
|> used, when in fact it is not, and this is a willful act, why do you insist
|> on making the man pay for the consequences?  By doing that you take away
|> the responsibility on the part of the female for the consequence on her
|> part.

You must also believe that a man should have the right to NOT support a child
he fathered, if he chooses not to be a Father.  If so, what about the case
where the man lied to the woman about birth control.  "Trust me, babe, you won't
get preganant - I'll pull out just become I come".  Do you still feel the man
should have the right to require the woman to terminate the pregnancy (or
financially support the result of a man's lie for the rest of her life if she
is morally against abortion or adoption)?  
   
|> 
|> If a woman was made to be more responsibile, perhaps more woman would
|> say no to casual sex, and perhaps the unwanted birth rate would go down.
|> I see this as a very positive outcome to the parental choice argument.

You are incredible!  Perhaps if men weren't so prone to hit on 
vulnerable women - via date rape, forced sex and the like, we wouldn't be
in the terrible situation we are in now. Men are the guilty party 9 out of 
10 times.  Your solution throws the baby out with the bath water.  

I consider myself a normal male. I, for one, have never had a woman hold a 
gun to my head and demand we have unprotected sex (as much as I may fantasize
about it 8*>).  I agree, both men and women should be responsible for 
themselves.  But anyone who assumes everyone around them is acting intelligently
deserves the unfortunate consequences.


Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Forced Fatherhood Executive Summary
Date: 2 Oct 92 00:32:56 GMT
Organization: HP Western Response Center

In alt.dads-rights, bglazier@buffalo.asd.sgi.com (Bill Glazier) writes:

> Perhaps a foolish question.  If the Forced Father's in your survey didn't
> trust these women enough to want to raise a child with them, why would 
> they then trust statements made in the heat of passion about birth control 
> or fertility or desire to have a child????????

In my case, I just didn't want to have a kid. I just wanted to have sex. 
Period. 

> I just wonder why so many men demand to be protected from their own 
> stupidity.  

I prefer to call it protection from fraud and deception. Our legal system
protects us from other fraud, and we should be protected from contraceptive 
fraud too.

> The facts are that by an overwhelming percentage, men force unwanted sex on
> women more often than women force it on men.  

I think that is an entirely different topic.

> Men can always choose to use birth control, and they should, or they 
> deserve the consequences.  

That sounds like "If you don't like the way I drive, stay off the sidewalks".

> Wear a condom unless you want to make a baby.

This is good advice. I also want men to have the right to terminate their
parental rights an responsibilities before fetal viability. Lets be civilized
about this.
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:35:14 GMT
Subject: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights

The National Center For Men is preparing to litigate the equivalent of Roe V. 
Wade for *men's reproductive rights*. Below are excerpts of a letter written by 
Joe Appelbaum, the litigation chairman for the National Center For Men.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><> Begin Excerpts <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Fighting For Fairness and Equal Rights
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Post Office Box 317
                                                       Brooklyn, New York 11240
                                                       Telephone (718) 845-2010

	We are attempting to overturn very sexist laws which deny men the
right to decline fatherhood in this age of "reproductive freedom" for women.

	A man's life, future and wallet are currently in the hands of his 
female partner if she gets pregnant and decides to have the child contrary
to his wishes. He is denied any say in the matter. He is not allowed to say, 
"I do not choose to be a father and I don't want to be held financially
responsible for this child." We are going to petition the federal courts to
permit a man, prior to fetal viability, to go into a family court and 
relinquish rights and responsibilities to the unborn child. We want a legal
"right to choose," too.

	Our attorney, Robert Smith, has agreed to take this case "pro bono,"
but we still have to cover his expenses. I, myself, have pledged $200 for
this case (I was a paternity suit victim). If you have been, too, there is
no need for me to emphasize the importance of this lawsuit. If you haven't
been (yet), try to imagine a deceptive and uncaring woman taking you to 
court to force you to support a child, when you were never given a choice.
The financial consequences alone could total over $100,000 for twenty-one
years or more.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><> End Excerpts <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

We can use this filing as an opportunity to raise America's consciousness 
about men's lack of reproductive rights. We would like to maximize media 
interest by simultaneously petitioning the federal courts in other districts 
nationwide. If you would like to join us, you can

	1.) Distribute this letter far and wide.

	2.) Help find an attorney in your area who will file papers in federal 
	    court.
From: larryf@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Larry Ferreira)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:51:09 GMT
Subject: Re: Forced Fatherhood Executive Summary
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights

In alt.dads-rights, bglazier@buffalo.asd.sgi.com (Bill Glazier) writes:

>  In article <16650014@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com>, larryf@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Larry |> 


>  >If a man has been deceived into thinking birth control is being
>  |> used, when in fact it is not, and this is a willful act, why do you insist
>  |> on making the man pay for the consequences?  By doing that you take away
>  |> the responsibility on the part of the female for the consequence on her
>  |> part.

>  You must also believe that a man should have the right to NOT support a child
>  he fathered, if he chooses not to be a Father.  If so, what about the case

Your assumption is incorrect.  What I am supporting is equal responsibility.

>  . . .                                               Do you still feel the man
>  should have the right to require the woman to terminate the pregnancy (or
>  financially support the result of a man's lie for the rest of her life if she
>  is morally against abortion or adoption)?  
   
I never said the woman should be forced to terminate a pregnancy.  (Personally
I am _very strongly_ against abortion as a means for birth control.)

>  |> 
>  |> If a woman was made to be more responsibile, perhaps more woman would
>  |> say no to casual sex, and perhaps the unwanted birth rate would go down.
>  |> I see this as a very positive outcome to the parental choice argument.

>  You are incredible!  Perhaps if men weren't so prone to hit on 
>  vulnerable women - via date rape, forced sex and the like, we wouldn't be
>  in the terrible situation we are in now. Men are the guilty party 9 out of 
>  10 times.  Your solution throws the baby out with the bath water.  

>  I consider myself a normal male. I, for one, have never had a woman hold a 
>  gun to my head and demand we have unprotected sex (as much as I may fantasize
>  about it 8*>).  I agree, both men and women should be responsible for 
>  themselves.  But anyone who assumes everyone around them is acting intelligently
>  deserves the unfortunate consequences.

We're not talking about forced sex, rape, etc.  What we are talking about
are men who have made it clear that they do not want to become a parent,
where the woman allows herself to conceive because she does want to be
a parent.  Then goes to court in order to make the man support something
he never wanted.  That's like saying because I looked at a new car in a
show room, I now must take it and make payments on it.  Sounds pretty
stupid to me!  (I don't me to be degrading with my example of equating
cars to people.  But the analogy make about as much sense to me as making
someone pay to support a child that he clearly never wanted.)

The question I have, does the argument hold in reverse.  If a woman has
made it clear that she doesn't want a child and ... etc.  Does the man
get to have the child?  Best to wait till after  marriage before sex,
could save a lot of problems, (I speak from experience)!

Larry Ferreira
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Forced Fatherhoods Per Year
Date: 26 Sep 92 00:25:45 GMT
Organization: HP Western Response Center

How many men are forced to become fathers? 

The Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement keeps track of how many
paternities have been established in the U.S. They published these totals in
their 1990 Congressional Report(1):


            Year    Paternities Established
                          Per Year
           ----------------------------------

            1986           245,000
            1987           269,000
            1988           307,000
            1989           339,000
            1990           393,000

                                  Paternities Established
                                          Per Year
        |
400,000 |                                                   XXXXXXXXXXXXX
        |                                                   XXXXXXXXXXXXX
        |                                     XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
300,000 |                        XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
        |           XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
        |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
200,000 |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
        |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
        |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
100,000 |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
        |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
        |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
        --------------------------------------------------------------------
           1986         1987         1988         1989          1990


The report defines "paternities established" as 

	"Legal establishment of fatherhood for a child after the opening 
	of a child support enforcement case, either by court determination
	or voluntary acknowledgment in states where that is legally 
	admissible."

The annual growth rate in "paternities established" is about 12%. The World
Almanac(2) says that the population in the U. S. only grew 1% per year during
the 1980s. Their data was based on the U. S. census. 


				References

1.) 1990 Congressional Report by the Office of Child Support Enforcement,
    Washington D.C. 

2.) World Almanac, 1991.
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 18:28:51 GMT
Subject: Jurisdiction Survey
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights



                WHICH STATES HAVE THE LOWEST AND HIGHEST
                   CHILD SUPPORT FOR PATERNITY SUITS?

Just send me email with two pieces of info:

	1.) The name of the state 

	2.) The percentage of after tax income that is awarded for 
	child support for children born out of wedlock

For example, my award was in California, which forces men to pay about 23% of 
our after tax income for one child.

All entries will be anonymous, and I'll post a summary of the responses by
state. IMHO it will be interesting to see which jurisdictions extort the
most and least money from men forced into fatherhood.

                        ENTER THE SURVEY NOW!
From: jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (Jim McNicholas)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Deleterious effects of sole custody - reference request
Summary: ENCOURAGEMENT from a like-situational NCP!!
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:41:29 GMT
Reply-To: jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (Jim McNicholas)
Organization: Prime Time Productions Aurora, Illinois

williakb@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Ken Williamson) writes:

> We are preparing a case to attempt to wrest joint custody from an adamant
> "this is *my* child" mother in a sole-custody biased state.
 
I Wish you the best of luck, my ex-witch is the most adamant I've ever seen 

and I only know too well that she is a real headcase when it comes to the kids.

> I am looking for articles, studies and case citations that 1) describe the
> problems that male children have when raised in a mother-only homes 2)
> attest to the benefit to the children of cooperative custody arrangements,
> 3) provide clues to an enforcable arbitration arrangement in a state where
> mediation is a heretical idea. 
 
My ex had the judge on her side from the beginning cause I had an affair and 
that made me some kinda criminal. God how I wish just one judge or politician
had to go through the inhuman treatment just once, maybe then the laws would 
change!!

> We have access to most of the popular literature regarding joint custody
> (e.g., Moms house, Dads house, etc.). Looking for more recent and
> empirical/legal precedent citations.
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ken Williamson, Computer Instructional Lab
> Email to: williakb@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu

I really wish I could have helped a little more but this post is more 
encouragement than any thing else!

GOOD LUCK!!

JIM


-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
|jim@jimmc.chi.il.us   |   ...And I believe in long, slow, deep, soft wet  |
|Prime Time Productions| kisses that last three days...good night...OH MY! |
|Aurora, IL. 60504     |        -crash davis to annie savoy in BULL DURHAM-|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: bglazier@buffalo.asd.sgi.com (Bill Glazier)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Forced Fatherhood Executive Summary
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:59:55 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <BvE5y6.MHF@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

|> 
|> >I just wonder why so many men demand to be protected from their own stupidity.
|> 
|> Do you think the same of women?  Would you ban abortion because a woman
|> was "stupid" enough to trust an untrustable man or unlucky enough to
|> have her birth control fail?
|> 
|> >The facts are that by an overwhelming percentage, men force unwanted sex on
|> >women more often than women force it on men.
|> 
|> Nobody is speaking of forced sex; they are speaking of forced parenthood.


Sex is required for parenthood.  Forced sex can well result in parenthood. 

|> 
|> >  Men can always choose to use birth
|> >control, and they should, or they deserve the consequences.  
|> 
|> "Women can always choose to use birth control, and they should,
|> or they deserve the consequences."  Your "consequences" for men
|> are the acceptance of an 18 year duty.  The natural "consequences"
|> for women would also be an 18 year duty, starting with 9 months of 
|> pregnancy.

And women are forced to deal with their own stupidity by devoting 18 years of
their life to caring for the child.  That's much more than 25% of your salary
is worth, my friend.


|> 
|> >Control your hormones, and you control your destiny.  Be smart.  Wash your hands
|> >before you eat, and you won't get ill.  Don't drink from bottles labeled
|> >'poison'.  Wear a condom unless you want to make a baby.
|> 
|> "Women: control your hormones, and control your destiny."
|> 
|> "Women: use a diaphram or the Pill unless you want to make a baby."
|> 
|> I could accept your hard-line beliefs if they apply to both women
|> and men (ie. if you want to ban abortion) -- but even so, to generalize 
|> that men are incompetent to think about reproductive issues and 
|> make responsible decisions is an insult.

My comments do apply to both.  Women have the option of adoption or abortion.  They should;  the vastly greater burden lies upon them.  Some men are 
responsible - some aren't.  I'm not generalizing - only reflecting on the
comments of the person who issued this idiotic Forced Fatherhood Survey

For the benefit of the net, let me say that I do empathise with divorced
fathers.  My parents were divorced - and I saw all the terrible things that
result.  Society does focus far too little on the harm divorce does to fathers,
and the terrible loss that results from separating fathers from their children.

I think that dad's-rights is a legitimate topic.  Please don't turn this
newsgroup into an ex-wife bashing medium, or an I-want-to-be-irresponsible
-and-damn-the-consequences-to-the-world newsgroup.

 
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.women,soc.men
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights

In alt.dads-rights, bglazier@buffalo.asd.sgi.com (Bill Glazier) writes:

>  Perhaps a foolish question.  If the Forced Father's in your survey didn't
>  trust these women enough to want to raise a child with them, why would they then trust statements made in the heat of passion about birth control or fertility 
>  or desire to have a child????????

>  I am not a radical right winger. I just wonder why so many men demand to be protected from their own stupidity.  It's like saying because my
>  wife cooked me all this food, I got fat.  I am sueing her for damages because
>  my life is irreparably harmed because I am fat.  She told me I wouldn't get fat 
>  if I ate her food. Bitch!!!!! 

>  The facts are that by an overwhelming percentage, men force unwanted sex on
>  women more often than women force it on men.  Men can always choose to use birth
>  control, and they should, or they deserve the consequences.  

>  Control your hormones, and you control your destiny.  Be smart.  Wash your hands
>  before you eat, and you won't get ill.  Don't drink from bottles labeled
>  'poison'.  Wear a condom unless you want to make a baby.

>  Don't say - gee, this is my only mistake, and I'll pay the rest of my life.  
>  If you get drunk and kill someone in a car accident, you'll pay just the same.
>  Human life has some value in our society.  

>  Fuck everybody you can.  Just use your brain as well as your dick.  And live
>  up to your mistakes, big and small.  


 
My first response to this post was to get angry and cut back.  Instead,
I'll just say that I don't understand your thought process at all.  From
what I read the issue seems to be that the woman's rights are usurping
the man's.  It has nothing to do with the adolescent mentality you pre-
suppose.  If a man has been deceived into thinking birth control is being
used, when in fact it is not, and this is a willful act, why do you insist
on making the man pay for the consequences?  By doing that you take away
the responsibility on the part of the female for the consequence on her
part.  

If a woman was made to be more responsibile, perhaps more woman would
say no to casual sex, and perhaps the unwanted birth rate would go down.
I see this as a very positive outcome to the parental choice argument.

Larry Ferriera
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Forced Fatherhood Executive Summary
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:42:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.200141.22850@odin.corp.sgi.com> bglazier@buffalo.asd.sgi.com (Bill Glazier) writes:
>Perhaps a foolish question.  If the Forced Father's in your survey didn't
>trust these women enough to want to raise a child with them, why would they then trust statements made in the heat of passion about birth control or fertility 
>or desire to have a child????????
>
>I am not a radical right winger. 

Why should a woman trust statements made in the heat of passion about
love or desire to marry?  Yet she has a right to second-choice and
legal recourse to demand child support, even though she "trusted"
an irreprehensible man.

>I just wonder why so many men demand to be protected from their own stupidity.

Do you think the same of women?  Would you ban abortion because a woman
was "stupid" enough to trust an untrustable man or unlucky enough to
have her birth control fail?

>The facts are that by an overwhelming percentage, men force unwanted sex on
>women more often than women force it on men.

Nobody is speaking of forced sex; they are speaking of forced parenthood.

>  Men can always choose to use birth
>control, and they should, or they deserve the consequences.  

"Women can always choose to use birth control, and they should,
or they deserve the consequences."  Your "consequences" for men
are the acceptance of an 18 year duty.  The natural "consequences"
for women would also be an 18 year duty, starting with 9 months of 
pregnancy.

>Control your hormones, and you control your destiny.  Be smart.  Wash your hands
>before you eat, and you won't get ill.  Don't drink from bottles labeled
>'poison'.  Wear a condom unless you want to make a baby.

"Women: control your hormones, and control your destiny."

"Women: use a diaphram or the Pill unless you want to make a baby."

I could accept your hard-line beliefs if they apply to both women
and men (ie. if you want to ban abortion) -- but even so, to generalize 
that men are incompetent to think about reproductive issues and 
make responsible decisions is an insult.

Don

for the disclaimer-challenged:  quoted material is parody.
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: woody@wolves.uucp (Woody Muller)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,misc.legal
Subject: Blood Test vs DNA Test (was Re: NO SUBJECT (1))
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:04:26 GMT
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
X-Md4-Signature: d6648642d1cf2048a3e6e8e4ae791439

>WM> CONCLUSIONS:
>WM> "The alleged father, [me], cannot be excluded as the biological father
>WM> of [child].  Based on the above genetic testing results, the probability
>WM> of paternity is 99.93%, as compared to an untested random man of the
>WM> North American Caucasian population.  (Prior Probability = .5)"
>
>Hold on a second... Was this a "standard" blood typing test or a DNA sampling
>test using blood samples?

The above quoted paragraph is from a one-page report on what was termed
an "HL-A Test" set up by the state AG.  The company is called "Genetic
Design Incorporated," and they note that they are "accredited by the
Parentage Testing Committee of the American Association of Blood Banks."

I assume it was a blood test, and that some words are intentionally
chosen to sound like it might be a DNA test.  My attorney told me before
hand that if the results came in below about 95% it might be worth
fighting in court.  I assume that I could have requested a DNA test
as well, so long as I was willing to pay for it.
-- 
woody@wolves.durham.nc.us
"Nothing in human affairs is worth any great anxiety."  -Plato
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men