HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
X-To: JOSEPH.R.MOORE
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:36:00 GMT

jrmo@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (joseph.r.moore) writes...
JO> People don't own children.  In custody hearings, the rights of the child,
JO> and the best interests of the child should be considered, not the parents.
JO> The parents have certain responsibilities in raising the child, but
JO> that doesn't give them ownership.  If you want one of the responsibilities
JO> of a mother to include incubation for nine months, fine, but again, it
JO> doesn't have anything to do with the father.  It's not his responsibility.
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Oh, but when the child comes out (*if*...), it definitely *IS* his
responsibility...


JO> That said, it's embarrassing to see people go to such lengths to try
JO> to restrict abortions using lame ideas like spousal notification.

Wait a second here...  Many people who support notification *ARE* "pro choice".
They think, and *I* think, that consent laws are draconian and unacceptable.

In other words, this isn't some grand conspiracy to "dismantle Roe versus
Wade, doorjamb by doorjamb".  Maybe *some* people who support notification,
would like to take the next step to consent, but I take some umbrage at being
lumped in with them.


JO> Please, don't lump me in with those who think up such lame ideas.

And please, don't lump *me* with them either.

---
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 * It's 10 PM. Do you know where your PC is?
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: M15841@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: abortion
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:05:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.224928.7952@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Jason.A.Kittredge@dartmouth.edu (Jason A. Kittredge) writes:
 
>
>>Abortion should not be legal because a lot of innocent people
>>die.  There can be different ways of controlling population for
>>the next several decades.  All in all, in my opinion abortion
>>should be illegal forever.
>
>Forgive me if I am violating any normal proceedure, but I was unable to
>find
>a FAQ for this group.  I was reading through and I noticed the above
>post. I
>think as an argument it presupposes that a 'fetus' is a 'person' which
>is an
>erroneous assumption in at least some cases. Although I concur that
>there are
>similarities between a fetus and a grown human being, I do not believe
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are similarities between newborn babies and grown human beings, but they
cannot be categorized as the same.  What makes it so horrible should a newborn
baby be killed but it's OK to kill a "fetus"?  Isn't it just a matter of
timing?  The creators of a "fetus" are two human beings--what makes you think
the "fetus" is going to be anything different?  The "fetus" is a human being
and when they are called human beings it makes it difficult to accept their
mass slaughter.  Calling them a "fetus" just makes it easier; it doesn't make
them any less human.
 
Mary Brick
e-mail:  m15841@mitre.org
 
>they
>can be cateogorized as the same.
>
>Could someone please post the FAQ before I make a fool of myself?
>
>**********************************************************************
>**penguin@vixen.dartmouth.edu**      Sometimes a King...             *
>*************************************   Sometimes an Emperor...      *
>*Only the BOLD can take the COLD...**      But Always a penguin!     *
>**********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: RE: Back Again To Father
X-To: HSIMS@VAX.CLARKU.EDU
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:45:00 GMT

hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes...
HS> In a previous article, lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) wrote:

HS> >That child is as much the man's as it is the woman's.
HS> >I do not wish to discount the fact that a woman has a lot more at stake in
HS> >abortion decision, but if that fetus can be brought forth to be partially t
HS> >man's responsibility for 18 years because it's "his" child, then it's his
HS> >partially his fetus in between.  You can't have it both ways.

HS> Okay, so how about this for a compromise:  If a woman wants an abortion she
HS> can have one, and if the man wants the fetus he's welcome to it once it's be
HS> removed.


Sure, it's a good compromise, if "it" is still alive after being removed...

This is why I support some sort of technological advance which will *safely*
allow the "foetus" to be removed, without harm to either the woman or the
child.

This suggestion *does* fit in with your compromise.  I am interested in
hearing your opinion on this.

---
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 * Look!  There's the old man from Scene 24!
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
X-To: MICHAL LEAH PERI
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:22:00 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
MLP> forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis) writes:

MLP> >We are talking about aborting the father's child; true, there may be nothi
MLP> >left after the woman gets done, but this does not and can not alter the fa
MLP> >that she has deprived him of something of him that definitely did exist.
MLP> >The "no child" bit comes after the fact.

MLP> >If I burn a man's wallet after I steal it, does that mean the theft never
MLP> >occured, because the wallet no longer exists?

MLP> Ah but if it weren't for the woman the foetus would never have been there
MLP> in the first place.  If I show a man some of my money, and then put it
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
MLP> back in my pocket, have I stolen something from him?
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ah, but your attempted analogy assumes that the man didn't contribute anything,
when in fact, the "foetus" wouldn't be there *without* him (and indeed, without
*her* as well...)

---
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 * Look!  There's the old man from Scene 24!
From: nelsonwr@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Weaver Nelson)
Subject: Re: abortion
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:20:02 GMT

In article <so96sss@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>
>In article <winkern.6.0@columbia.dsu.edu>, winkern@columbia.dsu.edu writes:
><Blah balh balh deleted>
>
>|I think the woman makes her choice when she decides to screw,
>|protection or no protection.  
>
>Do you consent to pregnancy every time you consent to sex?  Do
>you think a woman who has used birth control is consenting to
>pregnancy?  I would think the opposite-- I would in fact
>conclude from her use of birth control that she has explicitly
>REJECTED pregnancy.
>
She used birth control because she did not wish to become pregnent,
but she consented to the possibility of becoming pregnent assuming
she was aware that no birth control device is 100% effective.

>Any intelligent person who gets behind the wheel of a car
>knows the risks.  Does this mean that people who get into
>car accidents should be forced to live with their injuries
>& car damage, without the help of doctors &/or mechanics?
>
No, but this is a bad analagy for pregnency, because in the accident,
only the one person is involved.  If to repair the body damage to the
car, someone would have to die, then it would be a good analagy.
Im sure that if a woman could be end her pregnency without killing the
unborn child everyone would be all for it.                  

>---
>cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
>"Just saying no prevents teenage pregnancy the way 'Have a nice day' 
>cures chronic depression."  -- Faye Wattleton
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yep.  Free condoms for everyone is the only way.


Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.women
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Foetal removal
Date: 17 Nov 1992 23:26:54 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>In a previous article, Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> wrote:
>>This is why I support some sort of technological advance which will *safely*
>>allow the "foetus" to be removed, without harm to either the woman or the
>>child.

>If such a technological advance can be found, and is proven not to harm the 
>women, then I would support that.  Right now we do not have the medical 
>technology to do this, and until we do, if a man wants to have a child he 
>has to find a women who is willing to be pregnant and stay pregnant.  Biology 
>says men can't do it on their own, and I do not support forcing women to stay 
>pregnant against their wills.

Does this suppose that the father would pay all costs of the removal of the
foetus from the woman and costs of the nurturance of the foetus in the 
artificial womb?

Would the would-be father be able to force the woman to undergo the
foetal removal proceedure rather than a standard abortion, even though
she may prefer the stadnard proceedure?

If the woman is injured during the foetal removal proceedure, would 
she be able to sue the would-be father for damages?

							--  Michal
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:5291 soc.women:20218 soc.men:19855
From: forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis)
Subject: Re: Reproductive freedom (was: Re: Foetal removal)
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:14:50 GMT

In article <1egq8nINNftg@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>
>Would the government keep a record of the "notification of choice"
>documents?  Would these be available in the public record (as are 
>marriage licences)?  Keep in mind that for women these are pointers
>to medical records, whereas for men they are not.
>
>							--  Michal

In a somewhat related post, I recently predicted that feminists would 
find reasons to oppose the use of incubators; thanks to yourself and 
Adrienne for bearing this prediction out. ;)

BTW, isn't the Big Brother straw man getting a bit stale?
---------

Eric Forbis      forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu
From: msc9315@geovax.ed.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Extermination
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:52:18 GMT
Organization: University of Edinburgh, Geography Department.


                      ***********************
                      ***********************
                      ***********************

                         ATTENTION PLEASE

                      ***********************
                      ***********************
                      ***********************



My girlfriend and I were wondering re. the following question ......


Is an imbecile child of greater value to society than a well-trained sheepdog?

Thanks in advance

J.   [y SHOULD u b a LOSER when u can b a WINNER?]
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,misc.legal
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Rights Versus Responsibilities (was: Nadja...)
X-To: RINI
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 21:51:00 GMT

mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes...
RI> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
RI> >nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes in alt.abortion.inequity...

RI> >NA> On the other hand, if men weren't financially responsible for their
RI> >NA> children legally, then it might be held that they had no right to them
RI> >NA> at all.

RI> >Oh, so you THAT'S what you think?  Men should only be sperm donors,
RI> >AND wallets, and then you can throw them away like a used condom, eh?

RI> Will, Nadja did not make a preposterous proposition.  If I understand
RI> what Nadja says here, it follows from this framework:

RI> Who has the responsibility to raise children?

RI> -The parties that create the pregnancy (i.e. mother and father)
RI> -The party who determines the fate of the pregnancy (i.e. the mother)

Fine...


RI> If you believe the former, then it is fair to hold men responsible
RI> for children (financially), along with the mother. (Setting aside
RI> for the moment the history of the sexist guidelines for dividing
RI> that responsibility between the two parties.)

RI> If you believe the latter, however, it isn't a far stretch to say that
RI> responsibilities and rights are two sides of the same coin.  Whoever
RI> holds the responsibilities for raising children should certainly be,
RI> IMO, the same party with the rights.

RI> I know that this framework may gloss over complexities, but I don't
RI> think it is right to dismiss as aburd the idea that no responsibilites
RI> implies no rights.


Ah, but you have also misinterpreted what I said, as implying that I dismissed
the idea of "no responsibilities implies no rights".  However, this is *close*.
My own view, in fact that if a person has no rights, he/she should have no
responsibilities.

This is a minor difference in wording, but I would rather start with the
presumption of who was the rights *before* determining what responsibilities
should be, *instead* of determining who has responsibilities and then moving
on to distribute rights.

---
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 * Back Up My Hard Drive? I Can't Find The Reverse Switch!
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: A New Species?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 21:37:37 GMT

af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes:

] Is the unborn child a HUMAN or a NEW SPECIES? 
] 
] If it's a HUMAN, it should be protected from harm as such.
] If it's a NEW SPECIES, it should be put into some new genre or classification.
] 
] -- 
] Frank				    |	"rightly dividing the word
] af664			            |          of truth"
] "Jesus is Lord"			    |      (2 Timothy 2:15)


So let me guess,
Another one of these folks who wants to gut the bible
and jump in bed with the SeXularHumanists?????


Have you ever noticed that Children who are BORN
are NOT YET ADULTS, and therein lies certain
differences in what is allowed them?

ciao
drieux

ps: or are you saying that all BORN CHILDREN are Adults
as they will be Adults if they live long enough?


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Little Miss Muffett, sat on a ToughtIt,
Eating her Kurds and Weighs, Along came a Spider,
and she drove off with the Neat Guy with a HOT CAR!
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,misc.legal
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Reproductive freedom (was: Re: Foetal removal)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:22:21 GMT

In article <1egm2sINNmgt@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <Bxyvsx.MIy@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>In article <1ebv3uINNd8g@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
[...]

>Please don't get so zealous in your enthusiastic support for your point of
>view that you attribute arguments to others that they would not make.
>
>Adrienne Regard

Excellent words.  A compelling irony.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: Jason.A.Kittredge@dartmouth.edu (Jason A. Kittredge)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: abortion
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:49:28 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a6@newshost.dartmouth.edu

>Abortion should not be legal because a lot of innocent people
>die.  There can be different ways of controlling population for
>the next several decades.  All in all, in my opinion abortion
>should be illegal forever.

Forgive me if I am violating any normal proceedure, but I was unable to
find
a FAQ for this group.  I was reading through and I noticed the above
post. I
think as an argument it presupposes that a 'fetus' is a 'person' which
is an
erroneous assumption in at least some cases. Although I concur that
there are
similarities between a fetus and a grown human being, I do not believe
they 
can be cateogorized as the same.

Could someone please post the FAQ before I make a fool of myself?

**********************************************************************
**penguin@vixen.dartmouth.edu**      Sometimes a King...             *
*************************************   Sometimes an Emperor...      *
*Only the BOLD can take the COLD...**      But Always a penguin!     *
**********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
X-To: DAVID S. AUER
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:29:00 GMT

auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes...
DSA> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
DSA> >Since the husband will be the legal father and be responsible for the
DSA> >childs welfare for perhaps 18 years or so, do you not think that he has
DSA> >some right to know, even if the wife finds it inconvienient to tell him?

DSA> Reality check.

DSA> Men and women have the same responsibility for their role in conception
DSA> theoretically except...

DSA> A man can leave town and a woman has a baby in her tummy no matter how you
DSA> slice it.                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Yes, but not if she runs off to the nearest "women's health clinic"...

And even if the men *does* "leave town," and she *does* decide to keep the
child, the rather draconian Child Support Enforcement cops (and here in
Ontario, we no longer *need* "child support cops" because it is deducted
directly from cheques) can just reach out with the long arm of the law...

---
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 * Once=Accident. Twice=Coincidence. Thrice=Conspiracy.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: winkern@columbia.dsu.edu (NANCY MARIE WINKER)
Subject: abortion
Organization: Dakota State University
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:45:49 GMT

Why is it that a woman may get pregnant, decide she didn't really want to 
be, and then abort the fetus and go on with her life as if it never even 
happened, and then a few years later the same woman gets pregnant again, 
decides she wants to be this time, and then goes on for the full term of her 
pregnancy protecting that fetus from all harm, praying it will be a 
beautiful and healthy child, dreaming of that fetus growing up, going to 
school, graduating, attending college, getting married, etc.  What is the 
difference between fetus #1 and fetus #2?  The mother's choice, that's all.

I think the woman makes her choice when she decides to screw, protection or 
no protection.  Any intelligent woman knows the risks.  I also believe that 
most abortions are made because the fetus is inconvenient for the woman.  
How trivial.  But that quick little act that brought it about wasn't 
inconvenient at all, huh?

I am pro-life, but I rarely make an argument.

From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:18:48 GMT
Subject: A proposal for reproductive freedom for *BOTH* sexes
Organization: HP Western Response Center
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.women
Subject: Nykios on Steeves Dancing One More Time...
Date: 20 Nov 92 21:00:23 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper


short and simple peter:

1. does the 'argument of potential' have validity in the abortion debate?

2. are there cases under which you will kill?

IF you answer yes to these two 
then clearly you are a MURDERER.


proof:

p1: the argument of potential states that a thing is
that which it can become, and ascribes to it the state
of its potential being.

p2. If you can Kill, then you have the potential to
be a Killer.

p3: If you Can be a Killer, then you have the potential
to actually murder someone.

k: therefore you are a murderer.


ciao
drieux

ps: steeves is still ranting on about his 
unborn children as if they were born children,
and hence carries in the act the substance
of p1. Given that he has accepted, and explicitly
stated there exists a case for p2, the rest of
the argument is mere history.


pps: or am I obliged to use your logic format
about how a circle is a two sided figure, just
like triangles, squares, ....



ObSub_text: note, that p1 is also a 'useful argument'
in establishing the RadFemDogma that all men are Rapists.



-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Little Miss Muffett, sat on a ToughtIt,
Eating her Kurds and Weighs, Along came a Spider,
and she drove off with the Neat Guy with a HOT CAR!
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
X-To: MICHAL LEAH PERI
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:35:00 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
MLP> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

MLP> >The two issues that come
MLP> >up are infidelity (grounds for divorce still, I believe) and the fact
MLP> >that the husband is automatically assumed to be father of the child, and
MLP> >assumes full responsibility.

MLP> These are real problems, and deserve solutions.
MLP> (1) make "irreconcileable differences" the *only* cause for divorce in
MLP>         in the eyes of the law
MLP> (2) get rid of the assumption of the husband's paternity


Wow!  We actually agree on something.

I agree wholeheartedly with (2), but (1) is good, though I consider it to be
too sweeping.

---
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 * Is this wretched demi-bee, Half-asleep upon my knee...
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men