HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technolo
X-To: ADRIENNE REGARD
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 16:17:00 GMT

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

AR> Just what planet does this guy live on?
AR> Where does he suppose the tender years doctrine *came* from, if not a societ
AR> expectation that *mothers* have an obligation to support their children?!?!?

He was referring to the fact that she does not have any *forced responsibilities
At The Moment of Birth - she can simply give up the child for adoption.


AR> Man, ANY misrepresentation seems to be fair game for his argument, don't it.

It isn't a misrepresentation, Adrienne.  Besides which, on many occasions when
we have discussed some issues of rights and responsibilities, you often seem to
frame those rights in terms of born and *wanted* children, ie., access rights,
tender years doctrine, etc.  This somewhat misrepresents our position, too.


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

And your side *doesn't*?

---
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 * Def: Mixed emotions: Your child gets an "A" in Sex Ed.
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6002 misc.legal:21477 talk.abortion:52311
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,misc.legal,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Embryos as Property?
Date: 17 Dec 1992 22:02 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1grl3sINNs7o@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
 cd382@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jim Walker) writes...
>There was a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode involving involuntary
>cloning.  The crew of the enterprise seemed to feel that they owned
>the _combination_ of all their chromosomes.  But in the case of frozen
>embryos, we are dealing with a new combination from two sources.  It has
>been said jokingly that if you steal from one source it's plagerism, but
>if you steal from two it's creativity.

Of course, one must remember that in ST:TNG there have been several hundred
years of legal development, at least one documented breakdown of the legal
system, see "Encounter at Farpoint", and substatial constitutional changes, see
"The Drumhead".  :-)

Arrgh!  I'm still at it and I finished my exams already!

						Daniel Reitman
						DReitman@Oregon.UOregon.Edu
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:5811 alt.dads-rights:2893 alt.feminism:5882 alt.missing-kids:599 alt.politics.homosexuality:7860 alt.politics.sex:443 soc.women:21377 soc.men:21008 talk.abortion:51709 talk.rape:2889
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Quoting Someone Else's Private e-mail (was: abortion)
Note: Can someone from misc.legal please evaluate the legality of this?  Thanks.
X-To: KATHI MILLS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:52:00 GMT

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.


Hold on there, Kathi ... the net might very well be a "civilised anarchy,"
but most people on the net at least adhere to a set of *manners*, an honour
system of sorts.  And one of these honour systems is that we do *not* quote
private e-mail (other than anonymously) unless the person has the writer's
permission to do so.

"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.

So please, although nobody can force you to do anything, *please* do not
threaten people by declaring that you will publicly post their private mail
to you.

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.

P.S. : BTW, I know whereof I speak, because when I first joined the net, I
made the mistake of accidentally quoting someone's private mail, and while
I didn't get people demanding my removal from the net, I was only treated
leniently because it was a "first offense" of sorts.  (This *can* be done if
there is sufficient public will for it, but the reasoning has to be for *major*
breaches of network honour systems, rather than having unpopular opinions.
Even so, I know of *one* exception to this... Do we all remember Ralph Winston?
I may not have liked his opinions, but I agreed with the people who had him
and his entire system exiled, even *less*)

---
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 * A well-crafted tagline is a joy forever.
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6057 talk.abortion:52491
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: male choice
Date: 20 Dec 1992 07:46:30 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

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

>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
>MLP> In pre-Roe days, a woman who got accidentally pregnant was in a real
>MLP> pickle.  Does this mean she was a fool?

>MLP> Well, if she engaged in *consensual* sex she certainly took a risk.
>MLP> One hopes that risk -- and the benefits -- were taken into account.
>MLP> If they were, and she got pregnant, then she was unlucky.
>MLP> If they were not, and she got pregnant, then she was an unlucky fool.

>MLP> Roe hasn't changed this.

>Oh, au contraire, but it *has*.  She can now get OUT of her "pickle" ; he
>still *can't*.  Still a fool, but not an "unlucky" one, or not at least for
>very long, certainly not for EIGHTEEN YEARS, hmmm?

I suppose.
So I take it that you're arguing that men should be *more* careful 
than women?

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,misc.legal
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Quoting Someone Else's Private e-mail (was: abortion)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:20:29 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 <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.
>
>Hold on there, Kathi ... the net might very well be a "civilised anarchy,"
>but most people on the net at least adhere to a set of *manners*, an honour
>system of sorts.  And one of these honour systems is that we do *not* quote
>private e-mail (other than anonymously) unless the person has the writer's
>permission to do so.
>
>"Warning" someone that you will defy a matter of honour is hardly a sufficient
>reason for doing so.

She's not warning him that she's going to "defy a matter of honour", she's
telling him that if he sends her any more email, he's also sending implicit
permission to post it.

>quoting someone's private e-mail without permission is dirty pool, plain
>and simple.

If I tell you that if you send me something, I'm going to post it, and you send
me something, then you *have* given me permission to post it.  Plain and simple.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: abortion
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: 11 Dec 92 15:56:25 GMT

In <1fokkhINN4l3@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>nelsonwr@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Weaver Nelson) writes:

>>There are already many classes of people.  When you were 4, you were
>>not a full, legal person. If you were, you would have been able to vote,
>>you would have had to pay taxes, you could have been drafted, etc.
>>I can use the same stupid arguments to prove that a 4 year old is not a
>>person just as effectively as you can use them to prove that a fetus is
>>not a person.  Since I have "proven" that 4 year olds are not people,
>>and you feel that the mother should have the authority to decide the
>>value, rights, and priviledges of non persons, I assume that you would
>>see nothing wrong with 4 year olds being terminated.  Dont say that this
>>is rediculus, I was only using your logic.

>Do you believe in the color gray?

>Our society gives 4yos certain rights and priviledges -- life among them.
>It does not give 4yos full adult rights and priviledges.  It does give
>the parents of 4yos certain responsibilities that are not given to 
>parents of adults (eg, the oversight of the 4yo's medical treatment)

>The point is, our society does have a significant consensus on 4yos.
>It has a different consensus on foetuses, although that consensus
>is nowhere near a solid.

Your spelling suggests my wording: society has gone like a yo-yo in the
last 200 years on this.  In the 1st half of the 19th century there was
a widespread acceptance of abortion, even though it was illegal after
quickening.  Then in mid-century, when the human zygote was actually
seen for the first time (!) and the details of conception known, major
papers like the New York Times (!) came out strongly against abortion,
calling it "infant-killing", "child-murder," etc.  Public opinion 
swung sharply against it, laws allowing it only when the woman's life
was endangered were passed as early as 1850 with every state agreeing
by the end of the 19th century, and the public opinion almost as strongly
against it as against infanticide.

Today, only about 70 percent of people agree that abortion is morally
repugnant.  Somewhere around the same percentage agrees that the woman
should have "the right to choose" at least in the first trimester.

Neither of these qualifies as a "consensus" in my use of the word,
not even a "non-solid" one.

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: alanf@cs.monash.edu.au (Alan Grant Finlay)
Subject: Re: Unfounded Allegations Of Sexism
Organization: Computer Science, Monash University, Australia
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:41:42 GMT

bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:

>#    -- goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves)
>>>   -- bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)

>>>>> Something.  Anything.  Shit or get off the pot, son.  Either decide
>>>>> you're a Real Man and you can take a little criticism, or get used to
>>>>> the fact that you're a snivelling little weasel whose only purpose in
>>>>> life is to keep the Little Woman from ever having to do anything but
>###  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>> look after the children.
>###  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The "real men" in our society are the ones who are not touched by legislation,
they murder women that refuse to behave as their property.  They don't care if
going to jail destroys their family.  The trouble with family law legislation
is that it can only threaten those who have feelings and care about their
families.  Such people can be reasoned with and law should only be used
as a last resort.  The current legislative approach is doomed to create more
problems than it solves in my opinion.

-------Alan Finlay, email: alanf@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Miscarriage Grief == Abortion Grief (was: abortion)
Note: I used "==" to imply "similar" rather than "equal". No nitpicking, please.
X-To: BETH WEISS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 04:09:00 GMT

bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss) writes...
BW> > nelsonwr@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Weaver Nelson) writes:
BW> >> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
BW>    [on not having funerals for a miscarried fetus]
BW> >>So you're telling us that a foetus is not worthy of respect.
BW> >>Why then do you believe that it is worthy of protection?

BW> >I didnt say that it was not worthy of respect, but it didnt have any
BW> >friends, did it?

BW> Last year, I went to a funeral for a baby who died two weeks after
BW> birth.  Did she ahve friends?  I don't think so--only a few of the
BW> people there had ever seen her.  People (including me) went to offer
BW> support to her parents--and as a gesture of respect to them.  (Haven't
BW> you ever got to a funeral where you didn't know the deceased, but were
BW> offering sympathy to relatives of the deceased?)

BW> So, the argument that we don't have funerals after miscarriages
BW> because the miscarried baby doesn't have any friends doesn't hold
BW> water--the parents certainly have friends.

BW> The insensitive comments people make after a miscarriage (you can have
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BW> others, it wasn't really a person yet, etc.) suggest that many people
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BW> don't consider a miscarriage to be at the same level of tragedy as a
BW> baby who dies after birth.


Ah, but would you grant the same amount of passionate defense to a man
who has just lost a wanted child by abortion?

Indeed, *I* have received a lot of insensitive comments, like "You can always
have another" or "Go find a woman who wants one," or even "Go hang around
outside a Catholic girls' school" (!)

And yes, I *was* thinking of putting a wreath at the Women's College Hospital
exactly a year afterward (and every year), but after telling the "mother" of
my intentions, received the response "If you did that, I'd never forgive you,"
spoken in much the same tone as the time when she said "If you do (ie., go
public), you're a dead man".

---
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 * Jesse Jackson: the EDLIN of political candidates.
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6041 alt.feminism:6269
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Artificial Wombs
Date: 19 Dec 1992 23:41:34 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
>MLP> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>MLP> >If doctors refuse to perform a "current procedure" abortion, but will
>MLP> >perform an incubator transplant (heh, we named the procedure already!)
>MLP> >then the issue of what is legal is moot.

>MLP> I find this terminology, with it's implication that the woman in
>MLP> a mere "incubator", rather insulting.

>Michal, it WOULD be offensive, IF he meant the term to be used in that fashion,
>which is *not* the case.  He was only attempting to place a name on the
>operation of removing a "foetus" and placing "it" into an incubator.

I aagree that he didn't mean it that way.  But the term has a connotation
of transferring the foetus from one "incubator" into another.  

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu (Angela KAY Rolling)
Subject: prejidism
Reply-To: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:49:05 GMT

I have on several ocasions adreesed this in general with out using
names. I mentioned the miltintness of some posters pointing out statements
befor getting venomuse. I got venomus after there coments esculated and 
I got really pised (they didnt notice anyway) Statements that playboy 
calenders are more derogitiory then cups with slanderous political slogens
on them bothered me, no one payed head to my comments. (Didnt notice
when I stated that using bioligy for a reason to justifieing curent practices
were a man can not say that he doesnt want the child but still have to pay to
suport the child are as bad as justifieing that wimen are lessers becuse they
dont support the famly because they care for the children (no I dint say that
exsactly but I dont remember the quotes that I used from the posts or there
corispondents) ether) and hoe convenitly it is forgoten that when someone
stated that if wimen didnt dress sexsy the human race would go extinct 
(talk about sexist) I replied that men would continue to hit on us no mater
what, they would just tend to be a bit more polite about it.

Elf-Kin
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,misc.legal
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Quoting Someone Else's Private e-mail (was: abortion)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:30:31 GMT

> = (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.  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?

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.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:5902 soc.men:21140 soc.women:21448 talk.abortion:51912 alt.feminism:6006
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 18:48:35 GMT

In article <1gdcpaINNhbc@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>
>>If a man has made it clear to his 'mate' that he doesn't want 
>>children, and uses appropriate contraception, then why should he be
>>responsible for any resulting children?  If the woman didn't want children
>>either then the man should help pay for an abortion.  But, if the woman
>>decides *she* wants children then why should he be held responsible for
>>her decision?
>
>Because they are still *his* children.

Only in terms of genetic similarity. Tell me, Michal, if the next child
found abandoned in a trash dumpster happened to be genetically similar
to you (even though you weren't its actual parent), could you be legally
billed for its support?

>And because children have a right to be supported by both parents.

Where is this right written in the federal Constitution (i.e. the same level 
of jurisdiction where the man's property rights are given protection)?

>>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?  Is this child any less deserving than a child who's parents
>agreed tthat they would both provide support?

The question is not whether the child is deserving of a certain AMOUNT of
support, Michal, the question is about the SOURCE of that quantity of 
support. The child generally doesn't care where the support comes from.
Daddy's greenbacks smell pretty much the same as Mommy's. So why are you
strenuously arguing that X amount of support must always come from BOTH
parents?

Have you responded substantively to my "child support lottery" proposal
yet, Michal?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 20:39:19 GMT

<1gdcpaINNhbc@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) said:
>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>If a man has made it clear to his 'mate' that he doesn't want 
>>children, and uses appropriate contraception, then why should he be
>>responsible for any resulting children?  If the woman didn't want children
>>either then the man should help pay for an abortion.  But, if the woman
>>decides *she* wants children then why should he be held responsible for
>>her decision?
>
>Because they are still *his* children.

Not a good enough reason in my opinion.  Biologically they are his, but
this argument could be used to seek paternal support from anonymous sperm
donors.

>And because children have a right to be supported by both parents.

I don't recognize this right.  Perhaps you'd like to provide some evidence
that this it true.

>>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?  Is this child any less deserving than a child who's parents
>agreed tthat they would both provide support?

Gosh, why aren't all children deserving of parental support?  I guess we
should outlaw putting children up for adoption.  The child's
"deservedness" has nothing to do with the situation IMHO.  If the woman
decides that she wants a child without the man's approval then she becomes
the responsible person.  Everything else seems to work this way.


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