HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Quoting Someone Else's Private e-mail (was: abortion)
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:12:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.152653.15561@zooid.guild.org>, Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes...
> KM> BTW, Nelson, this is fair and public warning that any further e-mail you
> KM> send me is liable to be posted publicly.
> 
> 
> "Warning" someone that you will defy a matter of honour is hardly a
> sufficient reason for doing so.  Not only this, but I believe that
> there is at least some quasi-legal regulations regarding copyright
> infringement.

I agree that there might be some sort of copyright infringement.
However, I think you're overdoing this when you start talking about
"honor" in this context.  Being rude and being dishonorable are two
different things.  If you have advance notice that someone is going to
publish whatever you mail him or her, and then does, that person is
not dishonorable.  The person is violating nettiquette, but no is
required to agree to anything to get onto usenet.  (I don't believe in
the supposed social contract people have come up with on previous
debates on users responsibilities).  Rudeness is not a matter of
honor.

> This was not meant as a flame, but merely as a reminder of simple
> courtesies which we as net users can reasonably expect from each
> other, even though we may have strong disagreements on policy issues.
> Debating someone is one thing, but quoting someone's private e-mail
> without permission is dirty pool, plain and simple.

Again, you are over dramatizing this by calling it dirty pool.  If I
send you email that includes my darkest secrets (foolish as that is,
since I don't know you) and you reveal that; it is indeed dirty pool,
but only if we're freinds.  It has nothing to do with it being email,
because if you revealed a confidence w/o my permission that's
dishonorable no matter how I transmitted the information to you.

I don't reveal private email to the net w/o permission because it's
against nettiquete.  In most cases, truth, justice, the American
way, and honor have nothing to do with it.  I can get offended by rude
people from time to time, but I certainly don't impune their honor on
the basis of their being rude. === Al
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: RU486 misconception (was: The evil comspiracy...)
Date: 17 Dec 1992 22:32:52 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
Keywords: RU486, abortion

bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes:

>>bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes...
>If a man were to punch a pregnant woman in the stomach, and as a 
>consequence she miscarried, would he not be charged with murder?

>How about if he doesn't hit her at all, but rather just slips a couple
>of RU-186 pills into her coffee?  If she suffers no ill effects (other
>than miscarriage), can or should he be charged with any crime?

I'd like to correct a misconception (pun intended) about RU486.

RU486 does not alone cause miscarriage.  It needs to be followed-up
with a shot (perhaps more than one, I'm not sure) of progestin about
24 hrs after the RU846 is administered.  The progestin induces uterine
contractions causing the expulsion of the uterine contents (foetus and 
placenta).

The RU486 alone may kill the foetus, but it would almost certainly
remain in the woman's uterus and cause infection.  Thus slipping
"a couple of [RU486 pills into her coffee" is unlikely to cause
miscarriage with "no ill effects".

Caveat:  I am not a doctor, so please don't flame me if the details
are not 100% accurate.  
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 17:42:33 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1g54gsINNkaf@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <Byz3G1.LM9@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>In article <1fpjkhINNbl4@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>...., because the majority
>>>of the American public seems to think that fathers have an obligation
>>>to help support their childrenn.
>>
>>Yet mothers do not.
>
>
>Just what planet does this guy live on? 

Earth.  

>Where does he suppose the tender years doctrine *came* from, if not a societal
>expectation that *mothers* have an obligation to support their children?!?!?!

I have to disagree.  

"Tender years" did not come from an expectation that *mothers* had an
obligation to support their children.  It came from an expectation that 
they were the only people qualified to >mother< their children.  That, in
and of itself, is a sexist viewpoint unsupported by any hard evidence.

It also came with an expectation that >fathers< were the only ones
qualified to *support* (read: pay for) the rearing of children, and since
the woman was the only one qualified to >mother< the child, the man got to
support her in the bargain -- like it or not.

The way this was and is effectuated is to provide, under penalty of law,
transfer payments from >men< to >women< purportedly for the children's
benefit.  However, as there is no accounting requirement by the recipient of
those funds, as to just where and on what they were spent, a logical person
would conclude that the funds were really transferred for the benefit of the 
>mother<, not the child.

Every generally accepted principle in accounting and law says that if you
are the custodian of a thing, and that thing (or person) requires upkeep,
you must keep records to substantiate that the funds you receive and spend
for that upkeep are really spent on what they should be and are not
converted to your own personal benefit and use.  The SOLE exception is 
child support.  Here the woman has free reign to spend those funds >any
way she sees fit<, and is accountable to >NOBODY<.

This, of course, is because "tender years" has nothing to do with support in
the financial sense by women.  It, and the current sexist implementation of
child custody has everything to do with granting a form of alimony under a
different name.

>It's too bad the male-choice contingent has such lousy representatives.

Its too bad I don't respond to personal insults.  Stick to the point
please.

--
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
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights,alt.feminism,alt.missing-kids,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.sex,soc.women,soc.men,talk.abortion,talk.rape
From: forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis )
Subject: Re: Proposal for reorganization of gender-issue groups
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:51:37 GMT

In article <BzB2vL.IuC@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis ) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec11.201041.608057@zeus.calpoly.edu> dgross@zeus.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
>>>
>
>>Criticizing feminism (radical,
>>academic, whatever) is thus an integral function of the men's movement,
>>and telling men to take their criticisms of an ideology that vilifies them
>>to that enemy's camp.... ugh, simply unconscionable.
>
>I would have thought the men's movement would be more interested in
>doing positive things, than simply reacting negatively to other
>viewpoints.  Certainly the masculists I know don't see their agenda
>as conflicting with that of feminists (except the radical masculists,
>who I assume are as representative as radical feminists).

Granted the men's movement should be primarily interested in positive 
change, but why do you feel we must hog-tie men to prevent them from 
criticizing aspects of radical feminism that affect their lives, often in a 
highly negative manner? I'm not pressing for a woman- bashing forum- 
apologies for not being clearer- just the freedom to engage in relevent 
criticism of feminism on my own turf. 

Do you think feminists on soc.feminism should refrain from criticizing men, 
unless they do so on our new group? I know the reaction of most feminists to 
such a suggestion would be highly negative; what is your opinion? If not, 
how do we justify the prohibition on men's criticism?


---------

Eric Forbis      forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Where, oh where is Peter Nyikos?
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:43:12 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <jdunbar.2ln6@terapin.com> jdunbar@terapin.com (Jon Dunbar) writes:
>In article <1992Dec03.075243.100860@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com
>(Larry Margolis) writes:
>>In <1992Dec3.001503.13791@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM
>>(Nadja Adolf) writes:
>>>
>>>He's off arguing with the pervs in ASB. You won't be seeing him for awhile.
>>
>>Petie Nyikos is tied up in alt.sex.bondage?  Who'd'a thunk it!  :-)
>
>Larry thinks that bondage is perverted?!?

1.  Nadja wrote "pervs", I didn't.  What led you to draw that conclusion
    about me?

2.  It so happens that bondage *is* "perverted" - it's outside the norm.
    That doesn't mean that there's anything *wrong* with it.

>Hmmm I think that the destruction of our ecosystem is perverted.

I don't think that's perverted; I think it's *wrong*.

>Different strokes.......

Now you're getting into S&M...  :-)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
(A happy pervert)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?
Date: 12 Dec 1992 03:45:14 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman) writes:

>he doesn't create a
>baby.  He creates a foetus.  The foetus cannot exist on it's own, nor can
>the man, if given the foetus, create anything from it.  He, very literally,
>cannot create a baby.
>The woman creates the baby.  She has the choice, and she is, in 
>fact, the only person who *can* create a baby.
>The choice and ability to create a baby is entirely hers.  

You seem to be claiming that the man has nothing to do with creating
a baby.  Thus, it's not his child.  He has no responsibility and no
rights.

I suspect that the majority of men (and women too!) would disagree 
with your assessment.

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.feminism
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 18:56:47 GMT

In article <robert.724118193@labyrinth> robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman) writes:
>michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:
>
>>I don't see the argument that the guy can risk odds, create a baby, and
>>then suddenly say, I have no responsibility.  I mean I understand that a
>>guy CAN do it, but I don't agree with it.
>
>	According to the standard Pro-Choice argument, he doesn't create a
>baby.  He creates a foetus.  The foetus cannot exist on it's own, nor can
>the man, if given the foetus, create anything from it.  He, very literally,
>cannot create a baby.
>	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.

END OF REFUTATION

Of course, having said that, I'd prefer that his liability be proportionate
to his ACTUAL negligence, instead of the stupid, blind, presumption-of-equal-
negligence we implicitly have now...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu (Angela KAY Rolling)
Subject: RE:biological reasons against male choice (agen)
Reply-To: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 23:08:48 GMT

This one has gone on long enufe.

>I don't argue that he has to pay for a child just because he had sex.
No, you argue that just because he had sex and she wanted the child he
has to pay. Mening that she gets all the say and can really goof up his
life if she wants by forcing him to pay child suport for a child that he
may not even be alowed to see. (child suport should be % base cost to raise
child = to % time spent with child IMO).
>I do, however, argue that he has to pay *if* a child is born,
Then he should have a say in if a child is born?
If he doesnt want the child he should see to it that it isn't born?
That would be only equitable, after all. 
Both parties would have a say then, and no one would have to pay for someone
elses choice.
>because it was *born* and has a right to be supported.
Then shouldn't the person who *chose* to have the child support the child?
If the mother can't suport the child then why did she keep the child?
Why should anyone have the right to say "well I want this even if they dont
so I am going to and they beter pay there part"?

Elf-Kin 	"In the year 2525........."
			-Dont really know but its a great song
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men,misc.legal
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Back Again To (Un)Father
Keywords: Two Legs Good, Three Legs Bad...
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:13:14 GMT

bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

># However, it's quite possible that this procreation will not
># take place even in the sense of giving birth.  The birth
># rate of Americans is already too low to replace the popula-
># tion.

>I read in the paper a week or so ago that the birth rate in the U.S.A.
>climbed back up to somewhere over 2.0 children born per woman (2.1? or
>2.5? can't remember exactly which) since 1981.

That would be a surprise to me.  The most current data I have handy 
is 1984, where it 1.8.  (Compare with Sweden 1.6, France 1.9, Kenya 8.0)

Also note that the Total Fertility Rate has to be slightly above 2.0 
to be "replacement level fertility", since not *all* of the children 
survive/reproduce.  In the US in 1980, replacement level fertility was
taken to be 2.12.  (In high mortality countries, it can be more like 2.5.)

rini

Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:5910 talk.abortion:51965
From: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu (Angela KAY Rolling)
Subject: RE:Biological reasons agenst mali choice
Reply-To: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:53:19 GMT

>How can you argue that a woman should not have to carry a child to term
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men,misc.legal,talk.abortion
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: "Pro-Choice" isn't necessarily "Anti-Having Children," Larry...
X-To: LARRY BILLINGS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:11:00 GMT
Keywords: Neither is Freedom of Choice for Men

larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings) writes...
LB> In article <1992Dec4.063203.25007@netcom.com>, rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David
LB> wer) writes:
LB> >
LB> >      Women have unilateral decision power over what happens to the fetus.
LB> > Men can not legally stop an abortion or a birth if she decides on either
LB> > choice.

LB> AND SHOULD NOT HAVE!!!


He wasn't ASKING for that right, Larry, *JUST* the basic freedom of choice
to NOT be forced into the *consequences* of raising an unwanted child.


LB> >      My remark relates to some men feeling "I don't want to get screwed
LB> > over", feel "I don't want to have anything to do with an unplanned child."
LB> >

LB> Well, they can fix that so that you never have to worry about it again.  I
LB> understand it takes less than half an hour, and some guys even go back to
LB> work after having it done.


By your logic, we should outlaw all abortions, and when women complain (and
rightly so) that they are being forced into being parents, we can have you
cut in with:

"Well, they can fix it so that you never have to worry about it again.  I
understand it takes a little more than an hour, and some gals even go back
to work a few days afterward".

Although you've probably taken offense to the sarcasm, I intended it more to
show you that it somewhat misses the point, rather than as a personal flame.
Indeed, you should realise that your suggestion that men who do not wish to be
forced into fatherhood, should all go off and have vasectomies, is somewhat
akin to telling women who don't want to be forced to be mothers, to go and
have their tubes tied.  The point is - many men do not want to be a father
RIGHT NOW, but may *want* to be, in the future.

So naturally, telling men to get vasectomies and women to get a tubal ligation
is *not* usually a viable choice.  Remember, despite the stereotypes about the
"Pro Choice" movement being "anti child," or that they are composed of women
who hate children, etc., the fact is that many of the women *are* parents, but
parents who recognise that nobody can be a good parent when forced into that
position.  And of the women who are not currently parents, many *do* want to
be, but not RIGHT NOW.

Is it too much to ask to give these people (men *and* women) a little bit of
sympathy and realise that they might like to be parents one day, and shouldn't
HAVE to rob themselves of having a family in the future in order to avoid being
forced to be parents?

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Still assimilating... nothing outlasts a Borg...
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Fetal Protectionism
X-To: ROCKER
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 05:01:00 GMT

cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker) writes...
RO> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

RO> >Killing does not have to be intentional to be homicide.
RO> >There's always negligent homicide, but we don't jail
RO> >women for not eating right while pregnant.

RO> Surprise, surprise Michal.

RO>         In Iowa, the state took a woman's baby away at birth even
RO>         though no real harm to the infant was evident - because she
RO>         had, among other alleged offenses, "paid no attention to the
RO>         nutritional value of the food she ate during her pregnancy",
RO>         as an AP story later characterized the Juvenile Court
RO>         testimony.  "[S]he simply picked the foods that tasted good
RO>         to her."

RO> (Associated Press, "Baby Placed in Foster Home; Doctor Claims Prenatal
RO> Abuse", Des Moines Register, April 3, 1980, p. A11 - summarized in
RO> _Backlash_, Susan Faludi.)

RO> This war that pits mothers interests against their unborn children is
RO> one of the more distasteful legacies of the anti-abortion movement.


While you're correct in saying that the above situation is truly disgusting,
I need not remind you that those who are "Pro-Women's Choice" but "Anti Male
Choice" are pitting fathers' interests against unborn children...

Not a flame, just an observation that *some* of the people who share the
sentiments of your final remarks (ie., the "war that pits...") are not
entirely without hypocrisy, since some seem to have no problem with pitting
the interests of *fathers* against unborn children, yet they would call it
"oppression" to subject mothers to the same treatment...

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * The ranger isn't going to like this, Yogi.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:29:01 GMT

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

>Trotting out the "my body my choice" argument only takes care of the
>abortion angle at best.  How do you justify the ability to place that 
>infant for adoption, and why does not a man have the choice that a woman
>does to walk away at birth?

Personally, I don't justify the ability to place the infant for
adoption....  That is, I don't think the mother should be able to
place an infant for adoption when the father wants it; furthermore, if
the father gets custody (whether by agreement with the mother or
because a court decided that would be best for the child, which it
probably is more often than courts currently acknowledge), I think the
mother should be liable for child support.

If *both* parents want to put the child up for adoption, on the other
hand, it's not unfair to either to absolve both of their
responsibilities to the child.  However, I don't support doing so
until an adoptive couple (ideally, though I'd probably let a single
parent adopt if (s)he was otherwise a very good prospect) has
volunteered to take those responsibilities from them.

Once the baby is born, I don't see any reason why one parent should
have more rights than the other.  Before the birth, otoh ... if
nothing else, the woman's right to control her own body should act as
a tiebreaker....

-- 
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