HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:30:14 GMT

> = (Hillel) writes:
>> = Michal Leah Peri writes:

>>I don't argue that he has to pay for a child just because he had sex.
>>I do, however, argue that he has to pay *if* a child is born, because 
>>it was *born* and has a right to be supported!

>Let's say that we have a situation where the father had notified the 
>mother in week four of the pregnancy that he does not want the child,
>but she decided to have it, and now she sues the father.

I would like to see forced child support laws modified to prevent men
being trapped by women who try to get pregnant, don't tell the father
until a paternity suit is filed, then get as much child support as they
can squeeze out of the man.  I know one young woman who used to work at
my company that has done EXACTLY that.

But in your example, you don't note if the potential father just changed
his mind, what went on before, etc.  No one can make a choice based on
this type of vagueness.  Why did you think otherwise?

>There are (at least) two options:
>1) An unmarried mother and an angry father and a bitter fight 
>   to force him to *pay*.

>2) A forced adoption by a pre-screened couple.

Uh, no, that's not an option in this country, Gazit; not when the
mother's done nothing wrong.  Why would you come up with
such a hateful example?

>Michal, like most feminists, just loves option 1) and she fights 
>hard against option 2).

Of course.  Most intelligent people would do likewise; it has nothing to
do with feminism.  It's pretty amazing that *you* would.  

>So I have just one questions for her (and every one who is against 
>choice for men): what, in your opinion, is better for the *child*,
>option 1) or option 2)?

Only a fascist creep could pick your unrealistic "option" # 2.  Come up
with some real *choices* (ha ha!) and maybe someone will answer.

>Please try to give a clear answer.

Please try a real question.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:51851 alt.abortion.inequity:5874 soc.men:21112
From: haydedr@wkuvx1.bitnet (Ross Hayden)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 13 Dec 92 02:50:56 CST
Organization: WKU Computer Science Dept.

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
> 
>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes...
>>DB> signed,  another disingenuous idiot,
>>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>>...And *all* this, just because I stole a single word from Heiner Biesel and
>>used it too much!  :-)
> 
> No, I think you stole some of his idiocy too.

This sophomoric comment is about on the level of what I expected from her.

-- 
Ross Hayden                     |
haydedr@wkuvx1.bitnet           |     "What you see is all you get."
Computer Science Department     |                -- Brian Kernighan
Western Kentucky University     |
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Genetics and Birth parents
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 04:16:41 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave) writes:

>>Does that mean I approve of anybody abandoning responsibility?      No.
>>Does that mean I judge my 'birth mother' by the same standards I hold men to.
>>                                                                    Yes.

>What about your genetic father?  Is he "chopped liver"?

>							--  Michal


What is all this about "genetic father" anyway?
IN the case of identical twins, is one the "genetic father/mother/parent"
of the other?  I think not.  The cleavage which created them occurs well
after conception, yet they have no responsibility to support each other. 

A sperm donor is a genetic father, yet is specifically denied
the right to ever be considered a parent in any legal sense whatsoever.

Does the fact that the donated heart of your identical twin beats in
the chest of a heart recipient give him the right to tap you for support?

An egg donor is not considered a parent, the birth mother is.  What the
hell does genetics have to do with that?

If a man gets a woman pregnant and dies before the birth, does the woman
have the right to tap his genetic twin for support?  I *really* doubt it.

IN short, the use of genetics to compel support out of someone who has 
nothing more to do with the existence of a child than a steel manufacturer
has to do with the existence of an Oldsmobile is an archaic manifestation
of a patriarchal society.  

When a woman chooses to abort, she does it for personal social, economic,
and emotional reasons.  If she chooses to have a child, she does it for 
personal social, economic, and emotional reasons.  If the man has no right
to be involved in her decisions about *her* life, then she has no right
to complain about how he stays completely out of her decisions about *her* 
life.  If she chooses to have a child, she did so because she
thought it was in her best social, economic, and emotional interest.  If 
she turns out to be wrong, it's not like the man was the one who made the
decision, now is it?  Why should he pay for her failure to choose well?
He merely supplied raw material.  She was the one who decided to create
a child, she was the one who contributed all the labor, and 99% of
the material.  That child is no more his than Picasso's paintings are
the property or the responsibility of the man who sold him paint.  

Steve Kellmeyer 
  
de
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.rape
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Patrick Humphrey finds humor in mass rape? (was Re: Rape After Rape After Rape
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:40:16 GMT

[... re-posted from alt.sex,alt.sex.bondage,alt.society.anarchy ...]

Patrick "get yer fat black ass down here" Humphrey writes:

>sh30443@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Shiva the Destoyer) writes:
>>rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>>imran@mbcl.rutgers.edu writes:

>>> [... article about mass rape committed in Bosnia ...] 

>>>>	I hope this article makes you uncomfortable.  I hope this article
>>>> makes you act.

>>> You bet.  I'm gonna go rape somebody.

>> I have *NEVER* flamed anyone, in ANY forums.  Nor am I a particularly
>> righteous or religious person, but you have stepped beyond tolerable 
>> boundaries, and I hope you were either kidding, or go kill yourself 
>> because otherwise your life is worthless.

> Do us all a favor -- get a dictionary and look up the word "sarcasm".  
> Let us know what you think it means.

How do the readers of talk.abortion feel about a cretin 
like Patrick Humphrey who defends "sarcasm" directed 
at an article about mass rapes committed in Bosnia?  


>--PLH, sometimes you have to sweat the small details

Do you find humor in mass rape, Humpty?   Did you think
that Dippold's "sarcasm" was not inappropriate?  


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: In re: the matter of Adrienne Regard et. al. vs. Don Beaver et. al...
X-To: ADRIENNE REGARD
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 02:02:00 GMT

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes...
AR> Now, Don, you are perfectly free to call me a liar if you like.  But the
AR> people who have been reading this string have observed your postings on the
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AR> subject.  So I don't know who you figure is going to be fooled.
    ^^^^^^^

Yes, but *nobody* who has been doing the observing, (as of having read the
message which I am replying to, on December 18th), has presented a quote
from Don, which would confirm your allegation.

Hardly a compelling case for the prosecution, I would say.

---
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 * "Ensign Pillsbury?"  He's BREAD, Jim!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.child-support
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 11 DEC 92 19:13:43 GMT

In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:

>If, somehow, I became pregnant, would I have an abortion.  The answer is no.  
>Not unless having an abortion was the only way to save my life.

Must be really easy for you to say that, knowing that in reality you will 
never be faced with such a decision.

Let's try something new here.  You say that you believe that killing fetuses 
is murder.  If a friend of yours had an abortion, would you remain friends 
with this murderer?

If a friend of yours paid for his girlfriend to have an abortion, would you 
remain friends with this hitman?

If a friend of yours had a history of emotionally and physically abusing 
pregnant girlfriends until they all miscarried, would you remain friends with 
this mass murderer?

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: MURDER
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 12:06:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.043531.10053@pellns.alleg.edu> romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:

}                                   Stay tuned for my thesis on the  
}question of justice as it relates to abortion.

Some guy in South Carolina already tries this method.  See my post
"PRO-LIFE" WINGNUTS WHO THINK THAT THEIR "REASONABLENESS" SHOULD
BE LAW.



--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide 
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:06:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.025342.12892@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>Pro-choicers will often argue that even if the child is 
>considered to be a person, the woman should still have the 
>right to separate herself from the child, and that this 
>right stems from the so-called "right to bodily autonomy",
>or the "right to bodily privacy".
>[...]
>Clearly, pro-choicers who support unrestricted abortion-on-
>demand must argue that the child should not be considered
>as a person.  This position implies that newborn infants 
>are not persons, since there is no difference between a 
>late-term fetus and an infant, and hence these pro-choicers 
>must condone infanticide.

I argue for pro-choice on the basis that the mother is under no obligation to
provide support to the child.  This is independent of the question of
personhood.

This condones "infanticide" only if there is no cost-effective way to cease
providing support short of "infanticide".

                                   James Parker
                                   jap@cb1focus.att.com
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Equal protection dead end? 3.
Date: 20 Dec 92 14:49:58 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec19.224007.17068@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
(Kevin Darcy) writes in response to my claim that he was incorrect in
asserting that equal pay for equal, i.e. identical, work required a
presumption of intent to be proven by posting a case of housing
discrimination.  I think the non-responsiveness of this is obvious.
The point is also peripheral: Why should intent be presumed in the one
case but need to be proven in another?  Could it be arbitrary social
construction as suggested by critical legal theory?

SJM
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52172 alt.society.civil-liberty:6951
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Reproductive Freedom
Date: 16 Dec 1992 22:36:35 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec16.215545.21544@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

> Ah, another tax whiner.  Well bad news kiddo, you DO have a choice.
> You're getting services; the government demands that you pay for those
> services.  Seems fair to me.  If you don't like it you have two choices.
> 
> 1) Vote for different services.
> 2) Move out of the country.
> 
> Easy, eh?  If you don't like the services the US government supplies,
> then live in a different country.

Ah yes -- "America, Love It Or Leave It" -- the favorite bumper sticker
of American... liberals?
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 21:38:38 GMT

In article <5882@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> 
tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Rape is a situation where the woman can reasonably believe that
>> her life is immediately threatened; pregnancy is not.

> Is that so?  The percentages rape-with-murder to all rapes are
> considerably less than 100%.  Yet the lethal force allowable in 
> self-defense is still there. 

Because in rape situations, the rape victim can reasonably 
believe that their life is being threatened.  The percentage
of rape victims who are murdered is not relevant.

> Carrying to term is an order of magnitude more lethally risky than a 
> first trimester abortion.  

In most instances, pregnancy is not a situation where the woman 
can reasonably believe that her life is *immediately* threatened.

> Who are you to force the woman to take on that extra
> risk?

I take extra risks whenever I choose driving over walking. 
I'm not permitted to kill other motorists to reduce that
risk.

>Teddi


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Law vs. religion
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:09:53 GMT

lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes ...
>You want another example of religion being a fit basis for legislation?
>Here are a few
>
>"Thou shalt not kill"

This is based on self-interest.

>"Thou shalt not steal"

Ditto

>In parts of New Jersey, it is Illegal for most stores to be open on sunday.

Tough to show that this is both based on religion and being proper
legislation.  One might as easily argue that it's intent is to ensure
that all employees and businessmen will have at least one day off each
week.

>In most states having more then 1 spouse is illegal.
>In some states adultery is illegal.

Sounds like you are confusing morality with religion.  The two are
not, after all, quite the same thing.  (and according to some people,
the two have no relation whatever)

By the way, what does the Bible have to say about insider trading?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!
Organization: Clark University
Date: 16 DEC 92 15:20:22 GMT

In a previous article, mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) wrote:

>Loren, after reading your posts all this time, I've come to a
>conclusion. Yes, you've convinced me.
>I've been convinced by your keen grasp of law, sociology, politics,
>medicine, and now, the ammendment process.
>I'm convinced clarku.edu should raise their entrance standards.

I would just like to say that not all Clark Alumni are idiots.  Loren and that 
guy who guy took all that money from the United Way are NOT respresentative of 
all Clark graduates.  Some of us have gone on to lead productive, non-criminal 
lives.  

Unfortunately, at some point between the time I was accepted at Clark and the 
time Loren was accepted, Clark U. really did lower their standards due to a
decrease in the number of applications.  Hopefully they will soon be able to 
return to the high extrance standards they once had.


				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:33:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.003658.13726@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
|> From article by madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann):
|> > forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes: >
|> > 
|> >>Don't be stupid.   When the child trips of her own accord and is hanging
|> >>over the cliff, all she has to do is answer "yes" or "no" to God's question:
|> >>"Do you want Me to save you?"   He will not _force_ His saving grace on
|> >>someone who prefers suicide.
|> > 
|> > Then if that's the case, kindly stop forcing your odious religion
|> > on us good-hearted atheists.  Sheesh.
|> 
|> 
|> Sure, if you stop forcing death on unborn children.

First of all, I'd like to point out that most pro-abortionists or
pro-choicers are Christian.  Secondly, there do exist atheists who
are pro-life/anti-abortion.  So, just what exactly are you implying here?

-Mike Noonan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Unborn Children
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:35:13 GMT

bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes: >
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes: >>
From article by madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann): >|>
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes: >|>>>
 
>|>>>Don't be stupid.   When the child trips of her own accord and is hanging
>|>>>over the cliff, all she has to do is answer "yes" or "no" to God's
>question:
>|>>>"Do you want Me to save you?"   He will not _force_ His saving grace on
>|>>>someone who prefers suicide.
>|>> 
>|>> Then if that's the case, kindly stop forcing your odious religion
>|>> on us good-hearted atheists.  Sheesh.
>|>
>|>Sure, if you stop forcing death on unborn children.

Everyone who believes Suzanne has *any* intention of quitting
her obnoxious prosletyzing on alt.atheism, raise your hand.

No one believes you, Suzanne.  You lied.  Now you're going
straight to H-E-L-L!
             
>Maddi is killing unborn children! Wow! How did you find this out?
>Is this true, Maddi!?! How many have you killed?

Well, I had two eggs in an omelette on Sunday, does that count?
I suppose a Christian would claim I've killed hundreds of
unborn children because I've never been pregnant, and allowed
all those potential lives to waste away every month.

>(PS If your comment was aimed at atheists in general, then I think 
>it is high time you learn that not all atheists are Pro-Choice/Pro-War/
>Pro-Deathpenalty/Pro-IceHockey or anything else:  we just don't
>believe in your god. Everything else is up to the individual.
>Such overgeneralizations just makes you look stupid.)

Hear, hear!  Go away, Suzanne.  You are tiresome.

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Choices and burdens
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 04:49:38 GMT

rissa@world.std.com (Patricia O Tuama) writes ...
> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In the cases we've been discussing, the mother is almost competely responsible
>>for the child's need for support.
>
>Wrong, the -only- person responsible for the child's need for support
>is the child.  

Pah, nonsense.  The child doesn't decide whether it's going to private
schools, or whether it wears $140 Nike's, or whether it eats
Mac&cheese for dinner.  Those are all decisions made by the custodial
parent (aka, mother).

And please take your vendetta against Darcy somewhere else.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: We can always count on Suzanne for a laugh (Was: Re: kebbin and sex)
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:15:51 GMT

From article by clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge):
> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
>>> 
>>> 	"None of them platonic"? That seems like a contradiction in
>>> terms here. If there was no sexual activity involved, then the
>>> relationships were, by definition, platonic.
>>
>>Your definition is far too limitted.  Open up.  Get rid of the narrowness
>>hangup.  They certainly were not platonic relationships because there was
>>lots of romantic interest in each of them.  Brother and sister relationships
>>they were _not_.
>
> 	His definition comes, I suspect, from the common usage of the term
> and from the dictionary.  Here's how The American Heritage Dictionary defines
> the term:
> "1. Of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Plato or his philosophy.
> 2. Transcending physical desire and tending toward the purely spiritual or
> ideal"
> 	Assuming the phrase "none of them platonic" does not refer to the first
> definition, we must assume it refers to the second.  Unless, Humpty-Dumpty
> style, you have decided that a word means whatever you decide it means.  

The second definition certainly fits nicely.  There was certainly physical
desire.  Just none of us chose to answer those desires.  The desires themselves
were delightful enough.


> In
> which case, ham sandwich bucket and water wings kibbles micturate cups
> empirically.

Hey, I can prove to you that a ham sandwich is better than nothing!

Nothing's better than heaven, right?
And a ham sandwich is better than nothing, ain't it!


> 	That didn't make any sense?  Obviously your definition of the words
> in that last phrase is far too limitted (sic).

Look who's limitted!   You, who can't understand that men and women can
be attracted to each other and still CHOOSE NOT to consumate.


 
>>> 	BTW, Isaac Asimov was once asked how one kisses when on Pluto
>>> and wearing a spacesuit. "One doesn't. One carries on a Plutonic love
>>> affair."
>>
>>Isaac Asimov.  My hero!  Pssst - I've heard he's not an atheist any more.
>>
> 	REALLY?  Receiving messages from the spirit world, are we?  


You certainly fell right into that one!   I knew somebody would!
My dear fellow, I was just commenting that he's dead.   He's not Russian
anymore either, now is he.


> Or is this
> just the usual smug theist assumption that everybody who is dead has SEEN GOD
> and is no longer an atheist?  

Hey, one way or the other, he is not an atheist any more.   I simply enjoy
the play on words.


> 	But then, I suppose once one has decided that one speaks for the Unborn,
> it's no great stretch to decide one speaks for the Dead as well.

Hey, I've _BEEN_ an unborn child.   I haven't been dead yet.   But you must
admit that what I said is true.  In fact, no unborn child is an atheist yet
either.

> The_Doge

S. Forgach