HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: The EVIL Conspiracy behind this "Men's Choice" thing...
Date: 4 Jan 1993 00:20:40 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>The key difference being that the mother gets all the options; she
>isn't being forced into contributing anything at all.  If she doesn't
>want to raise the child she can get an abortion or put up the child
>for adoption.  The father doesn't get these options.  It's pay or
>jail.

The option of adoption is available only if *both* parents agree
to relinquish the child.

The only choice the woman has that the father doesn't is the choice
to abort the foetus (in which case no child is born, and the man has
no support obligation).   This inequality devolves from the fact that 
the pregnancy occurs inside the woman's body.
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,misc.legal,talk.abortion
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:26:39 GMT

<1h62pqINN907@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>But don't legislate my children (intended or accidental
>>or unknown) 
>
>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?

Why don't you just practice more effective precautions?  (I'll leave out
your style of using detailed suggestions.)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6142 alt.feminism:6440
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Moral turpitude
Date: 23 Dec 1992 01:13:14 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

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

>How does he "bother" to do so; how much effort is required
>(eg. must he fly 3000 miles to peruse all birth records in New York
>in September, 1993?); and is it not a moral invasion of privacy to
>track a woman's medical records and gynecologists?

Births (and deaths and marriages) are in the public record. A letter
to the county recorder in the woman's county of residence should suffice.
No violation of the woman's privacy is needed to ascertain the
birth of a child.
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6265 talk.abortion:53985 alt.child-support:4082
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.child-support,alt.dads-right
Subject: Re: The EVIL Conspiracy behind this "Men's Choice" thing...
Date: 3 Jan 93 21:11:58 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:

> First of all, the man DID have a choice. He could have not had sex.
> He could have properly used a condom and spermacide. Key word here is  
> PROPERLY. This would reduce the chances of pregnancy to about once
> in a couple of hundred years.

Well, maybe 'one out of a few hundred sexual unions' would be a better
analogy, but your point is valid.

> Secondly, the mans payments are quite proportionate to the level of 
> his choice involved. Let us suppose that the mother spends 40 hours a 
> week raising her child. Let us suppose she deserves a decent salary for 
> such work,20 dollars an hour. She will spend several thousand dollars
> a year on material items for the child. All told, perhaps $40,000 worth
> of goods and labor each year go into raising the child. At a few hundred
> a month, the fathers burden can hardly be called disproportionate.

Whoa! You represent this as if a man has a duty to pay a woman for her
part in a mutual decision. The man's payments and the woman's time and
other costs are each the burdens they bear by their choices. A parent 
who sues for, and gains sole custody has made another choice, and that
choice is to raise the child --thus promising that time you want them
paid for.

IF joint physical custody was offered to the man, and he refused it, then
an assessment for things which should normally be discretionary would be
an acceptable adjunct.

In no way, though, should a man (or NCP) have to pay the other parent for
their time. All dollars should be spent on the child. If anything is left
over (and it usually is because support is income-derived instead of need-
derived), then that should be spent on extra clothing, pets, sports, vac-
ations, and or any of the other accoutrements of childhood.

If the law didn't add fudge factors for discretionary items, and it does
in MANY states (the income model has it built in), then more kids would
get to see that their non-custodial parents do give a rip about their
pleasures, and not assume that all NCPs don't care --an image that seems
to prevail, and likely because of the gross unfairness of it when they
don't care. (See the Pre-Sex Contract. ugh). 

It's time for people to quit believing that a divorce between parents
is a divorce of the kids too. The facts are, those are a tiny minority
of cases.

---
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Moral turpitude
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:32:34 GMT

In article <1h7q2vINNk17@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>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.
>
>Not quite right for me. I won't speak for Bob.
>
>I'm not out to *punish* anyone.  However, I feel that if
>a man doesn't bother to find out about the *birth* (note: not
>necessarily the pregnancy) then he has forfeited his right
>to stop an adoption.  

"Doesn't bother."  Back to square one.

Michal, you started with checking to see if she's pregnant,
you included bothering her friends to see if she's pregnant,
now you retreat to "bother to find out about the birth."

How does he "bother" to do so; how much effort is required
(eg. must he fly 3000 miles to peruse all birth records in New York
in September, 1993?); and is it not a moral invasion of privacy to
track a woman's medical records and gynecologists?

I maintain he has a right to know if she gave birth to *his* child
(especially if she gives it up for adoption), not whether she is pregnant 
and/or gave birth to *some* child.  You're too Orwellian for me.


>I am not prepared to apply that claim to *all* parental rights.
>(Happy?  No, probably not.)

Absolutely not.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:47:26 GMT

In article <1h425tINNnhm@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>
>If a man has sex and no child is born, then he has no obligation
>to support a child (since no child exists).  His obligation to support
>is contingent on the existance of a child.

Circular, Michal. Very circular. Since we stipulated at the outset that we
were discussing "child support" then it is GIVEN that a child has been born,
and not given up for adoption. Your statement is no more a "justification" of 
child support than 

	Black people should earn less because they are non-white

is a "justification" of employment discrimination. A stipulation is not a
justification.

Care to try the question again?

	GIVEN that a child has been born, and taken into the mother's custody,
	what, besides his participation in the sex act, justifies the 
	imposition of paternity child support on the man?

>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?
>
>A child support hearing *is* due process of law.

A child support hearing meets only the minimal requirements of procedural
due process. The imposition of paternity child support FAILS, IMO, to meet
the requirements of substantive due process, however, in that it deprives
the man of his property with no rational reason for the deprivation. The
deprivation cannot be defended on ordinary tort negligence grounds, nor can 
it be defended on social policy grounds, either, IMO, since the current 
system forces subsidies from men for, and therefore encourages, the 
production of illegitimate children, a phenomenon which I believe can be 
shown statistically to be detrimental to the public welfare.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Moral turpitude
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:22:31 GMT

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.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.child-support,alt.dads-right
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The EVIL Conspiracy behind this "Men's Choice" thing...
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 19:59:28 GMT

rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes ...
>First of all, the man DID have a choice. He could have not had sex.

First of all, the woman DID have a choice. She could have not had sex.

Well, that takes care of THAT old argument.  There's no reason a man
should be forced to pay because he had sex any more than a woman
should be forced to pay.

>He could have properly used a condom and spermacide. Key word here is  
>PROPERLY. This would reduce the chances of pregnancy to about once
>in a couple of hundred years.

Condoms aren't that effective.

>Secondly, the mans payments are quite proportionate to the level of 
>his choice involved. Let us suppose that the mother spends 40 hours a 
>week raising her child. Let us suppose she deserves a decent salary for 
>such work,20 dollars an hour. She will spend several thousand dollars
>a year on material items for the child. All told, perhaps $40,000 worth
>of goods and labor each year go into raising the child. At a few hundred
>a month, the fathers burden can hardly be called disproportionate.

The key difference being that the mother gets all the options; she
isn't being forced into contributing anything at all.  If she doesn't
want to raise the child she can get an abortion or put up the child
for adoption.  The father doesn't get these options.  It's pay or
jail.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6129 alt.feminism:6412
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Moral turpitude
Date: 22 Dec 1992 19:25:19 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

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

>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.

Not quite right for me. I won't speak for Bob.

I'm not out to *punish* anyone.  However, I feel that if
a man doesn't bother to find out about the *birth* (note: not
necessarily the pregnancy) then he has forfeited his right
to stop an adoption.  

I am not prepared to apply that claim to *all* parental rights.
(Happy?  No, probably not.)
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6106 alt.feminism:6368
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Moral turpitude
Date: 22 Dec 1992 03:36:44 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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.)

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: What's really behind
X-To: BOB BLACKSHAW
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 22:47:00 GMT

bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes...
BB> In <ByxHpL.A8s@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

BB> >In article <1fol83INN53e@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah
BB> i) writes:
BB> >>hpzg0650@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Hale P Zengingonul) writes:
BB> >>
BB> >>>Why should anybody pay for a kid he didn't want?
BB> >>
BB> >>Perhaps because that kid has a right to be supported.
BB> >>                                                      --  Michal

BB> >Then why can a woman give up a child for adoption at birth?  Doesn't that
BB> >kid have a right to be supported by his/her real mother and father?

BB> >If you say "yeah, but someone will adopt him/her" then you ignore that if
BB> >the man walks away someone will also support that child.   In fact, the
BB> >mother can decide whether or not to do so herself even in that case.

BB> >If you attach responsibility to the genetic donors to that child then it
BB> >should be attached equally.  If you do not, then it should not be attached

BB> Maybe my last post did not get out, or maybe it was to polysyllabic. Again;



BB> 1) if the genetic mother keeps the child she also contributes to its
BB> support. So does the genetic father. Ergo, equality.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It certainly is *not* equality, if he never wanted the child.  What, does a
woman have the right to not want a child, but not a man?  Some equality!

---
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: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 03:52:22 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1993Jan2.210817.10907@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>| >karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>| >| ...
>| >| I propose as the yardstick of equality the total number of minor children
>| >| under the custodial care of each sex in single parent homes.  When it
>| >| reaches the level of the population dispersion (49% men / 51% women I
>| >| believe) then we have equality.  Until that time men are to be preferred in
>| >| both custody and child support awards.

>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.

Yeah, we're upset about the idea of child support.

Particularly when "support" is grossly in excess of what is required to
support and raise a child, and is another name for alimony.

Particularly when men have no control over the raising of their children,
but get the bills anyway.

Particularly when the woman can up and move 3000 miles away and the man has
no recourse -- effectively preventing the man from having a parental role in
the raising of his children.  All at her whim.

Particularly when, should the man complain, she can simply use the "nuclear
bomb" of child custody disputes, sexual abuse allegations, and >even if they
are false and baseless< walk away scott free -- with the kids -- while the
man is ruined not only personally for financially as well.

(Feminists, don't bother saying "but some men have custody".  90% of men in
this situation do not have >meaningful< custody or contact, but they do
seem to have the bills.)

Yeah, men are upset.

I suspect that if men had their kids, and were the ones receiving the
support checks, you'd hear a lot fewer complaints.

Go ahead NOW.  Use this tactic (affirmative action).  We'll be real upset.
:-)

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900]
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?
Date: 25 Dec 92 06:03:10 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1h8f6pINNol5@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>	GIVEN that a child has been born, and taken into the mother's custody,
>>	what, besides his participation in the sex act, justifies the 
>>	imposition of paternity child support on the man?
>
>You've already given the justification.

Wrong. A stipulation is not a justification. "I should drink a gallon of water 
a day, because that's 4 quarts of water" stipulates, but does not justify.
"Murder is wrong, because it's the deliberate taking of human life" stipulates,
but does not justify. Similarly, "a man should pay child support, because a
baby was born" stipulates, but does not justify. The only justification you've
ever offered for an imposition of child support is the man's participation in
the sex act which caused conception.

>>>A child support hearing *is* due process of law.
>
>>A child support hearing meets only the minimal requirements of procedural
>>due process. The imposition of paternity child support FAILS, IMO, to meet
>>the requirements of substantive due process, however, in that it deprives
>>the man of his property with no rational reason for the deprivation.
>
>Apparantly our society disagrees with you.

Is that your final justification, then? Social inertia?

If that's your ultimate justification for child support, why are you so upset
at our attempts to nudge that social inertia in a different direction?

Your statement rings pretty hollow, Michal. Sounds like you're out of 
arguments, as a matter of fact. I think it's time to admit that your
bias against paternity child support reform has no rational basis.

							- Kevin
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6128 alt.feminism:6411
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 22 Dec 1992 19:18:38 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

><1h62pqINN907@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>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?

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies...
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 22:52:22 GMT


nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM writes:
|regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes: 
|>Scuse, please, but how does a society apply affirmative action to an unwanted
|>pregnancy?

|I suspect this is like the scene in 'Life of Brian' where the revolutionary
|organization supported the right of the transexual to bear children. Might
|I suggest that all of us feminists declare our solidarity with men who wish
|to have unwanted pregnancies and get back on the topic of abortion?

|I hereby declare my solidarity with men who desire reproductive equality, 
|including the right to have an unwanted pregnancy and an abortion if they 
|so desire.

Indeed.  I've already done so twice, but I will speak up once
again to agree with Nadja.  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.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com       C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
The chain that can be yanked is not the eternal chain. -- G. Fitch

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion