HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice...NOT!
Organisation: GOiDS "R" We, Inc.
X-To: MICHAL LEAH PERI
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 22:34:00 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
>Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
>>MLP> A hungry child doesn't give a damn if Daddy used a condom.

>>Oh, PLEASE, please Michal, do *not* start this
>>idea) ... please.  Indeed, to what you have just said, *I* could say:

>>An aborted baby doesn't give a damn if Mommy used foam.

>Of course you could.  But the question is whether one really thinks
>that an aborted foetus thinks *anything*.  And if one does, does it
>really matter as much as what a living, breathing, interacting child
>thinks?

Apparently, some of the people who support abortion on demand yet oppose
male choice, couldn't care less about the fact that a "foetus" will SOON
end up becoming a living, breathing, interactive child.

---
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 * Help!  Operator!  I need the number for 911!
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Miscarriage Grief == Abortion Grief (was: abortion)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 06:43:23 GMT

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

>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)

[heated argument deleted]

>However, I do not believe at all, to use your words, that *she* considered the
>ramifications that her "actions" might have on HER child's life, either.

Excuse me, what child?  What life?  The child was not born; it did not *have*
a life.  (*alive* sure, but it doesn't "have a life" until it is interacting
with the environment (everyone else))

Heck, some grown-ups complain they don't "have a life".  ;)


>Will Steeves
>"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"

Cute!  8-)

Mabye "a" law would work better?  Just a thought.

-Rob
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,misc.legal
From: beckley@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Jeff Beckley)
Subject: Re: Quoting Someone Else's Private e-mail (was: abortion)
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:20:57 GMT

steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:

>> = (Jeff Beckley) writes:
>>> = (Larry Margolis) writes:

>>>Would your opinion about this be any different if the original poster had
>>>stated:
>>>   I want you to stop sending me abusive email.  If you persist, I will feel
>>>   free to post it to the net.

>>No different.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  If the original poster has a
>>problem with abusive email, then (s)he should take up the matter with the
>>sys admin of the person sending the abusive email.  Just because someone is
>>breaking mail ettiquette doesn't give you the right to break news etiquette.

>C'mon Jeff, 'lax up a little.  These etiquette guidelines are just that:
>guidelines.

The problem with this attitude is that it gives free reign for anyone to
break the rules.  "Hey, they're not really *rules*, just guidelines.  So I
can ignore them if I choose."


>In Larry's scenario, the e-mail idiot has been warned.  

>When I get *overland* mail, of ANY type, I can show it to whomever I please.
>Are you saying e-mail is different?

Sure, there are no laws to prevent you from doing this.  But, IMHO, this is
not being very respectful of the sender.  It's not only my HO, but many others
as well since it managed to get into netiquette.  Usenet (and to some degree,
the Internet) is an anarchy, which means you can do whatever you please, but
the anarachy ceases to be useful when there is disregard for the
"guidelines."

Although there's not a good analogy with snail-mail, if the sender intended
for everyone to read the message, (s)he would have posted it to the newsgroup
and not sent personal email.

(btw, William Safire's "On Language" column a couple of months back talked
about the problem of referring to regular-old-post-office-mail now that the
term "mail" is often used for "email."  An interesting little article.)


>Wrong.  The one GETTING the mail can do what they like; it's now THEIR MAIL.
>The sender better not abuse his/her *privilege* in sending e-mail, or be
>prepared to be exposed.  Let the "exposer" face net opinion on whether or not
>a particular e-mail deserved to be made public or not.  This whole problem
>sounds self-correcting to me.

I agree with letting the net judge the "exposer," but the problem is that
to enable the net to judge it must see the message.  It's sort of a
Catch-22: to determine whether or not something should be exposed you have
to expose it.

In the long run, the problem is self-correcting.  Those that continually
abuse the guidelines by posting inappropriate personal email will eventually
be excommunicated by the net.  But in the short run, innocent people may be
hurt.

-- 
beckley@qualcomm.com         "A witty saying proves nothing." -- Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley)
Subject: Re: Embryos as Property and Viability as a Standard?
Keywords: Property rights, abortion, compensation for involuntary loss...?
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, UCLA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:57:51 GMT

In a previous article kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) spake...
>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.
>
Of course, sustinence can be provided by ANY mother's blood, depending on who
it's implanted into.

-- 
Bruce James Robert Linley | "Well, I tried shoving a weiner in the warp drive,
Comp Sci & Engr, UCLA     |  but it didn't do a bit o' good."
<linley@netcom.com>       | - Star Dreck, c/o Dr. Demento
<linley@seas.ucla.edu>    |
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6257 soc.men:22055 soc.women:22078 talk.abortion:53968 alt.feminism:6761
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Date: 3 Jan 1993 23:25:40 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

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
>implacable resistance to paying child support shown here
>and elsewhere, I have the idea that a good many men might
>not consider your proposal a boon if the luck of the draw
>smiled upon them.  Take care: you may be giving ideas to
>the devious witches on NOW's General Staff for yet 
>another plot.

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 22 Dec 1992 19:16:33 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

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

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

Why should I deny that which is patently obvious?
If a man chooses to gamble the risk of conception, and then loses,
then the consequences he faces depend on the woman's decision whether
to bear the foetus which is developing in *her* body.
>Don
>-- 
>beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
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: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 06:19:07 GMT

In article <3908@isgtec.isgtec.com> robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:
>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.

Do you know what _prima facie_ means? Essentially, "reasonable", or 
"plausible", or "worthy of consideration". A _prima facie_ case is one
which at least has SOME legal merit, though _prima facie_ does not in any
way imply conclusiveness or unassailability. This is _contra_ the claim, of 
Kellmeyer, Coleman et al. that the ruling in RvW removes any traces of
merit from the line of reasoning.

You are preaching to the choir, by the way. I've been calling for paternity
child support reforms on the Net for about a quarter-decade now. I disagree
with the DETAILS and the EXTENT of paternity child support, but at the same
time, I don't buy the "he doesn't make a child, so we should repeal all 
paternity child support laws immediately" line either. Kellmeyer uses this 
"reasoning" as scare tactics to try and win people over to his pro-life
point of view. Coleman apparently genuinely believes it.

As a point of fact, by the way, grandparents HAVE been held liable for
child support in some cases, but only where the father was a minor still
in their custody...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: allan@eskimo.com (Christopher Stewart)
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technolo
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 10:01:38 GMT

Sorry just testing
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: due process of the law
Date: 22 Dec 1992 01:28:02 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu
Keywords: child support

Whoops!  I need to fixed a mixed-up attribution
peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

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

[Michal, not Kevin, said:]
>A child support hearing *is* due process of law.
-- 

                                                --  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: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 23:50:36 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

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?

We can apply affirmative action to the inequity in child custody and support 
awards.  That is what I was (and am) proposing.

Of course I don't expect the feminists to support this.  

"When you do it to me its discrimination.  When I do it to you its
affirmative action".

--
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
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6146 misc.legal:21679 talk.abortion:52785
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,misc.legal,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Embryos as Property?
Date: 23 Dec 1992 08:44:40 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
Keywords: Property rights, abortion, compensation for involuntary loss...?

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

>In <nyikos.724958698@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>The claim that the embryo is a body part of its mother, besides being
>>pseudoscience of the lowest order, is just as offensive to me as the
>>notion that it is property.

>Whether or not is is "pseudo-science" would appear to be a matter of 
>opinion; whether or not it is offensive to you has absolutely nothing to
>do with the law.  Many things in the law, many decisions in individual
>cases, many actions by governments are offensive to me.  Nonetheless
>I can engage in rational discussion of them without trying to squelch
>the discussion on the grounds that it's `icky'.

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.
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies...
Followup-To: alt.flame
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:12:45 GMT

In article <tucajm4@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:

>... 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.  I support their right to have uteruses of their own.
>
>Go to it with my blessing, boys.

Warm fuzzy feelings.

In return, I support the right of the mentally-challenged 
to freedom of speech.

Go to it, Brahms Gang.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:23:06 GMT

In article <1h7pmfINNk09@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>><1h62pqINN907@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>>>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, why is it that you are so terribly worried about banning abortion?
>
>Because there are loud obnoxious political groups calling for such a ban.
>Need I remind you of the Republican national convention?

Then, Michal, why do you resort to a personal attack on me
("so terribly worried") when, in fact, 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'm not biting my nails in fear, Michal -- but I do oppose your position.


(By the way, there is no ban on abortion because other loud obnoxious
political groups oppose it...)  (And I'm now awaiting the ridiculous 
conclusions that I want to ban abortion because I made that observation.)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: The Evil Conspiracy Behind this "Male Choice" thing...
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 07:44:30 GMT

<1992Dec24.115940.1784@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) :
>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes...
>GS><1992Dec5.041249.19584@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com said:
>GS>>In article <Byr1Ky.J9D@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, hpzg0650@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Hale P
>GS>ngingonul) writes:
>GS>>#     I agree with Kevin here. Why should anybody pay for a kid he didn't
>GS>>#  want? If abortion was available to the mother of course.It is the mother
>GS>>#  who wanted to have the child, and she should be the individual who would
>GS>># take care of the child alone.
>GS>>
>GS>>Lemme see if I can 'splain it...
>
>GS>Ok, 'Ricky'. :-)
>
>Ricky???!!???

As in "Hey Lucy, I'm hooooome."  ('I Love Lucy', Desi Arnez?  Ring a bell?)

[description deleted]
>GS>Note: I obviously wouldn't code anything as ambiguous as this into law.
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Why not, Gordon?  I agree with the great majority of what you just said
>(amazing that we can agree on something... <-: ), but why wouldn't you
>want to code it into law?  How would you provide for a man to divest himself
>from forced responsibility, *without* putting it into law?  Indeed, why not
>just make paternity suit regulations much stricter, making sure that there
>has not been a declaration of intent to divest from parenthood, *before*
>beginning the Inquisition?

No, no.  What I mean is that there are probably dozens of situations that
would not necessarily be covered by my hastily written statements.  I only
meant that there may be further revisions.  I think the spirit of the
proposed law is fine.

>Surely, *that* sort of solution can't be all that ambiguous, could it?

I certainly hope not.

>GS>Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
>
>I recall asking, but I don't recall that you ever replied...?  I'm curious, if
>you're willing to explain it...

Dan Bredy was a semi-frequent poster here on t.a. until someon who
disagreed with his pro-choice political position (and got tired of ebing
bested by him in debate) complained to Kodak about Dan' signiture.  his
signiture said somehting to the effect of, "Of course, I speak for all of
Kodak and it's subsidiaries".  It was obvious sarcasm (unless someone
really believes that an official spokesperson for a major corporation
would have time to read this newsgroup let alone post on it).

Dan was disciplined and his posting privileges revoked.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
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,alt.feminism
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Moral turpitude
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:20:36 GMT

In <BznzxK.9Io@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>In article <1h62gcINN905@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>
>>>In article <bob1.724607266@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>>>>In <BzB858.6EL@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>
>>
>>>>>Are you actually so parochial that you think that any person who
>>>>>has a one-night stand, who breaks up after a year-long relationship,
>>>>
>>>>I guess I must be. In love with someone you met three hours ago in a
>>>>bar and have just jumped in the sack with?
>>
>>>How does "three hours ago" compare to "year-long relationship."
>>>Do you suggest that any man who sleeps with a woman before a year 
>>>has passed is guilty of moral turpitude?
>>>What about the woman?
>>
>>The original question of "moral turpitude" was not over whether 
>>the man (or the woman) consented to sex.  It was whether the man
>>bothered to check back afterwards to see if he fathered a child.
>>(We were discussing the question of father notification so that 
>>the man could claim his child from the clutches of the adoption 
>>agency.)

>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.

Whoops! In the first place I didn't call it moral anything, just
said it was not my cup of tea (not that I haven't 'sinned' in
my time even if not that way). Nor do I want to deny any man his
rights. In your example, if he has a one night stand and a child
results - meantime he is back at his home base and somehow (not
exactly how this happens, but somehow) he finds out he is now
a father AND wants to claim his child I have no say in whatever
arrangements he and the mother chose to make. I just hope the
child gets a good life. Turpitude? Is that the stuff they used
to thin paint with?

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

Bob (Whose only PC challenge is keeping his $#@% 386 running)

Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6107 alt.feminism:6369