HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1992 00:04:58 GMT
Distribution: na
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14k by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
            <1992Nov06.212456.123893@watson.ibm.com>
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Followup-To: talk.abortion

Oops - didn't notice that Dougie had set the followup to t.a only.
Everyone there knows about his lies already...

In <1992Nov06.212456.123893@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>In <1992Nov5.215938.1617@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU writes:
>>Now I have to ask the critical question before we go wild here talking
>>about whether it is "right" to allow the broad definition of health
>>(Doug seemed to be implying that allowing exemptions for pyschological
>>health was somehow a "bad" thing):
>
>You cut right to the heart of the issue, and pointed out the flaw in
>Dougie's lies.  The issue of mental health was brought up in Doe, which
>was about an earlier-term abortion; Jane Doe had serious psychological
>problems - so much so that she was institutionalized.  Doug is trying
>to get people to believe that this means that a woman in her ninth
>month could be bummed out because of a bad hair day and decide to
>get an abortion, and this would be allowed under the same exception.
>Unfortunately for Doug, few people are as stupid as he is; most of us
>can see the difference.
>
>>  Could someone please cite some statistics on the frequency and/or
>>  absolute number of cases where a post-viable abortion is granted
>>  for (1) any reason (2) reasons outside strict physical health?
>
>There's about 100 third-trimester abortions performed *per year* in
>the US, and these are *only* done for serious health reasons.
>
>The number is from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, and the reason is
>from the Minneapolis StarTribune, Sat Oct 26, 1991, p5B:
>[...]
>        Only three or four doctors perform late-stage abortions,
>        said Patricia Anderson with the National Abortion Federation.
>        "There are a handful of third-trimester abortions that are
>        done in instances of serious fetal anomalies or in the case
>        of a pregnancy threatening a woman's life.  And only under
>        those conditions," she said.
>
>>If there aren't any (or many) cases then PLEASE let's not have some
>>great big debate.
>
>There's no "great big debate"; Doug knows what the truth is, but he
>still tries to scare people with his lies.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: Who, me???
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:33:04 GMT

In article <forb0004.49.721188466@student.tc.umn.edu> forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.183618.22589@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>Xref: news.cis.umn.edu soc.men:18412 soc.women:18384 alt.abortion.inequity:4913 talk.abortion:45999 alt.feminism:3653
>>Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
>>Path: news.cis.umn.edu!umn.edu!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!ray
>>From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
>>Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
>>Message-ID: <1992Nov3.183618.22589@netcom.com>
>>Organization: Netcom San Jose
>>References: <1992Oct30.145703.13722@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> <forb0004.33.720650534@student.tc.umn.edu> <1992Nov3.145708.2748@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
>>Distribution: na
>>Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1992 18:36:18 GMT
>>Lines: 12
>>jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes ...
>>>If the fetus is not a separate entity deserving of rights, namely the
>>>right to life, than it is distinctly part of the woman and under her sole 
>>>control.
>>
>>there is another alternative you haven't considered: that the woman's
>>body is her own, and she may evict anyone else using it against her
>>will.
>
>Does anyone have the right to "evict" when such an action results in the 
>death of the evictee? If this is a valid form of reasoning, then local Twin 
>Cities residents may have cause to worry when it's 20 below zero outdoors 
>and the owner of their habitation arbitrarily decides to evict them.
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^

And there's the key word that renders the analogy moot. There's nothing 
"arbitrary" about a woman's choice to end the horror of an unwanted
pregnancy.

								- Kevin
From: erik@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Erik Lode)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:30:47 GMT
Subject: Re: WET DREAMS: How often? Why?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: soc.men

nrh@philabs.philips.com (Nikolaus R. Haus) writes:

> I was wondering: if your 'average' man were to go without sex of any sort
> (with other
> pwople or by himself), how often would he have wet dreams? And, more
> interestingly,
> _why_ would he have wet dreams?
> 
> -nikkin
> -- 

  I can answer this from personal experience, although many people would
argue I'm not normal--much less average.

  As time goes by, seminal fluid accumulates in the prostate gland and
sperm in the epididymes.  Since there is only a finite volume, at some
point the body must eject the excess.  In some cases the excess dribbles
out during urination; in other cases it is ejected in a nocturnal emission.
I've never been curious (or bored) enough to keep track, but I think my
rate has been a few times a year.  Again, I don't know how "average"
that is.

Xref: sparky soc.men:18651 soc.women:18820 alt.abortion.inequity:4836 talk.abortion:46612 alt.feminism:3702
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:53:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <Bx7LBL.72z@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <QYNSB17T@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>>In article <BwyEK1.L1C@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>In article <N0GSB7DQ@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>>>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
RP>Since the husband will be the legal father and be responsible for the
RP>childs welfare for perhaps 18 years or so, do you not think that he has
RP>some right to know, even if the wife finds it inconvienient to tell him?

DSA>Reality check.

DB>Yes, please.  Let's look at your points, most of which are irrelevant
DB>to notification.

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.

DSA>There is a built in iniquity, and we must do what we can to protect women
DSA>despite the iniquities of the situation.  I am not saying men don't get the
DSA>short end of the stick some times, but in the overwhelming majority of
DSA>instances it is the woman who needs the benefit of the law rather than men.

DSA>And those are the sad facts which you may dispute if you wish.

DB>By the way, have you noted that in the PA case, the Supreme Court
DB>said that the majority is not the relevant group?  It is the oppressed
DB>group, even and especially when in the minority, that matters.

DSA>I agree with this point even though I find the implications frightening if
DSA>applied to fetal rights.  I am unsure what you are getting at, though.

DB>It has nothing to do with fetal rights.

In the context of the Court decision it was.  I was not implying you were
advocating fetal rights.

DB>If men get the short end of the stick sometimes, then the law is
DB>unconstitutional (let alone, wrong) unless there is some compelling
DB>reason for it.  Saying that the oppressed group is the underwhelming
DB>minority is not enough justification.

DB>The men who get the short end of the stick are entitled to equal
DB>protection under the law.  *Especially* if they are a minority.
DB>Just like the minority of women who would be oppressed by informing
DB>their abusive husbands of an intent to abortion.

-dave
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna)
Subject: Remembrance of marriage past (Was Re: It's just a TV SHOW!)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: The Original Estrogen-Crazed Lust Bunnies
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:18:31 GMT

[This was crossposted to waaay too many newsgroups; I removed alt.child-support,
 alt.dads-rights and misc.kids, but note Followup-To: line. -- ckb]

In article <1992Nov3.223728.8602@borland.com> garnet@borland.com (Garnet Chaney) writes:
>
>On a slightly different topic, how many have retained old pictures,
>greeting cards, etc. from the days of dating and marriage to the 
>exspouse?  What percentage has been kept, and for how long? Does
>remarriage significantly decrease the percentage kept? What about
>preserving things, from those happy starting days with the exspouse,
>for the benefit of children who might later have questions about what 
>the early days were like for the mother and father? 

Through three marriages, I've kept a lot of the memorabilia, mainly
pictures.  Greeting cards and love letters go in the trash, not that
there have been many of the latter in this electronic age.  Remarriage
hasn't seem to have made a difference in what I keep.

The problem comes when there are multiple ex-relationships.  I don't
think you can just throw everything out when you break up with
someone.  After all, you lived through those years, too.  So you put
the pictures away.  After a divorce or breakup, there's some level of
pretending that "the relationship never happened" going on.  You want
to start over.  You find someone new and wonderful, if you're lucky
(and I am).  Your friends and family play along with the
it-never-happened game by being very careful never to mention your ex's
name, and at some point, if everyone is scrupulous about it and your
social circle no longer intersects your ex's, for all practical
purposes your ex will cease to exist.  (I can't imagine this being
possible if you have children, though.)  Then one day, you open a box
of old pictures, and you're transported back through time.  And you know
you must have been married to that person at some point, because here
are the pictures to prove it.

Charleen
--
My old man spent all his money on booze.  I was 6 years old when I
found out there was no such thing as Alpo baby food.
                              -- Rodney Dangerfield
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: "toxic masculinity"
Keywords: Couvade, birthing, absentee fathers
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:51:34 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <Bx9BDo.AsG@world.std.com> ematz@world.std.com (Ed Matz) writes:
> "boasting;pugnacity; pursuit of military glory; and narcissism." [_ibid_]
>Hope this helps.

	Nope.  So far you've taken a few minor character flaws that
a person of any gender could exhibit, and used them to define a new phrase
that describes an essential part of my being as (at least potentially)
"toxic".  What makes a boastful narcissistic person an example of 
masculinity gone bad?  In fact, *I* interpret that behavior not as an
excess of masculinity, but as a lack of sufficient *femininity*.  These
people are exhibiting poisoned femininity; their female natures are
smothered by this repressive culture that draws such sharp lines between
the sexes.
								W.rat

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Emotional Cripples and Women in Combat
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:57:29 CST

In article 7322@oz.plymouth.edu, patstew@oz.plymouth.edu (Pat Steward) writes:
>In article <Bx25y2.Cuq@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (RedSwordTarga) writes:
>>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>
>>>Why is it hard to accept the notion of Women in COMBAT?
>>
>>One basic reason that people tend to argue against women in combat is
>>that the *average* woman cannot complete infantry training. The Canadians
>>did an experiment and very few women were capable of completing infantry
>>training. Thus, a lot of military leaders fear that instead of making
>>women meet high standards, the standards will be lowered so that more
>>women can compete "fairly".
>
>I'd be *real* interested in knowing an attributable source for this
>study.
>-- 
>Pat Martin Steward                          patstew@oz.plymouth.edu
>I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is;
>I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express senti-
>ments that differentiate me from a doormat.       Rebecca West, 1913


 I'll give ya a source. The city fire dept. of St. Paul had to *change*
it's fire fighting fitness requirements so women could qualify. They
*changed* / lowered the weight carrying requirements (picture obese
couch potato) to pass the physical exam so women could be hired. 
There should be women in the fire dept IF they qualify. The same standards
should apply to all. Obviously,some older male fireman aquired the physique
of a prego and could no more carry the exam requirements than my 
92 year old grandmother Myrtle. *Changes* were made and now women
are on the St. Paul fire dept. 
 I believe the requirements of infantry would need to be *changed*. 
Would it benefit the infantry by *changing* the amount they are 
required to change? Maybe it would mean they would have to draft
more women or just pump em full of steroids. 

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:16:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov06.184317.99333@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1992Nov5.225150.29300@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov04.212102.27579@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct29.154439.6563@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>>>I don't want to take away a woman's right to make this decision; but I truly
>>>>believe the father has some rights that are currently being ignored.  The
>>>>father deserves some role in the decision, and I don't think requiring a
>>>>pregnant woman to get a little input from the father in the decision is such a
>>>>bad idea.  It places *more* responsibility on the father.  It also might allow
>>>>a father to have a child he truly wants that the mother doesn't.  The final
>>>>decision should still be that of the mother.
>>>>
>>>>Certainly there are tough cases where this simply won't work [many have been
>>>>outlined here], but I think it should be the norm.
>>>
>>>Just curious - what makes you believe that it *isn't* the norm?  Or do
>>>you just like making unnecessary laws?
>>
>>First of all, I didn't say it wasn't the norm, but if you want to claim it's
>>implied, fine, I'll retract that.
>
>Well, if we agree that it's the norm, and that it's only in the
>"tough cases where this simply won't work" that the man isn't notified,
>then there's clearly no need for any laws.

Who said that all the cases that aren't the norm are the tough cases where this
simply won't work?!!!

>>I still believe that there are a significant number of cases where a father's
>>rights are being ignored, and a law to correct this could hardly be called
>>unnecessary.
>
>Which gets back to my original question - what makes you believe this?
>Do you have any facts?  Just a hunch?  Or what?

I have not gone out and surveyed women who have/have not had abortions to see
if they have/have not informed the father.

I don't think it's that unlikely that there aren't *some* women who choose to
[not] have an abortion without informing the father without due cause...do you?

btw, if I said I believe something, obviously I don't have any data to prove
it, otherwise I would have said so.

Do you really wish to contend that there are *no* women who make this choice
without informing the father, but with no reason to believe there would be any
danger from the father?!!!
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: ccsmh@sunlab1.bath.ac.uk (Mark Harding)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: WET DREAMS: How often? Why?
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:58:38 GMT
Organization: Bath University Computing Services, UK

In the referenced article, erik@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Erik Lode) writes:
>nrh@philabs.philips.com (Nikolaus R. Haus) writes:
>
>> I was wondering: if your 'average' man were to go without sex of any sort
>> (with other
>> pwople or by himself), how often would he have wet dreams? And, more
>> interestingly,
>> _why_ would he have wet dreams?
>> 
>> -nikkin
>> -- 
>
>  I can answer this from personal experience, although many people would
>argue I'm not normal--much less average.
>
>  As time goes by, seminal fluid accumulates in the prostate gland and
>sperm in the epididymes.  Since there is only a finite volume, at some
>point the body must eject the excess.  In some cases the excess dribbles
>out during urination; in other cases it is ejected in a nocturnal emission.
>I've never been curious (or bored) enough to keep track, but I think my
>rate has been a few times a year.  Again, I don't know how "average"
>that is.

I believe the average is every 64 days, unless someone or something intervenes
in the mean time :-}

Mark
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Sexual victimization of 13 year old boy
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:13:54 GMT

ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
>carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:
  
>>	I believe sexual abuse of boys to be far more common than
>>is realised because of the massive stigmas attatched to it. A boy who
>>has been abused by men or boys will be seen as gay in the homophobic,
>>patriachal society. 
 
>I just don't agree. Or at least, certainly not by adults. Do you actually 
>know anyone who would think a boy was gay just because he'd been
>molested? I don't. 

A good friend of mine works with young boys who have been, among other
things, sexually molested by men in their family.  By whatever
mechanism, these boys *do* tend to internalize the idea that they are
"gay" because of what happened to them.  Indeed, one of the most 
common therapy themes is "just because you've been involved in an
[involuntary] homosexual sex act does not imply you're homosexual."

rini
Xref: sparky soc.men:18785 soc.women:18973 alt.abortion.inequity:4908 talk.abortion:46937 alt.feminism:3842
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: compromise
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:36:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <Bx8wxx.6Dz@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1da49nINNnl2@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>
>>>Choose a point that marks a time when the pregnancy becomes more
>>>than a private matter....
>>>It would be illegal to interfere with the privacy of women and their
>>>doctors when no evidence of life or no evidence of sustainable life
>>>existed in the woman.  Therefore women would be guaranteed the right 
>>>to choose to terminate a pregnancy without any roadblocks....
>>>once evidence of life or sustainable life exist, the state has a
>>>compelling interest to equally protect the lives of both the mother
>>>and child.  Therefore, no abortions could be performed after that point,
>>>except in life-threatening cases.
>>
>>Congratulations!  You've just lined out the basic idea behind Roe v Wade.
>
>Not at all.

Hrmm...  It seems like the basic idea behind Roe v. Wade to me, though I am no
legal scholar.

>Roe v. Wade *allowed* the state to decide to prevent abortions 
>after viability, because of a compelling interest.
>
>It did not say that the state *must* prevent abortions after viability,
>or must deduce that its "compelling interest" *requires* banning abortions.
>
>Any state in the Union can permit an abortion on the day before birth.
>
>"Pro-choicers" sweep this under the rug.  It's not so politically pleasant.
>(Although it is politically correct.)

We don't sweep it under the rug, we are quite happy about it.  We would be
happier if there were even fewer restrictions upon abortion roghts.

I resent the quotation marks around "pro-choicers".  Let me explain why.

Pro-choicers are for a woman's right to choose.  This is our motivation.  The
quotation marks seem to imply hypocrisy.  There is no hypocrisy at all,
merely a difference in priorities.

We could put pro-life in quotes to demonstrate our chagrin at your
trammeling over a woman's right to choose.  (I do not do so, as I do not
wish to be contentious merely for the sake of being contentious.)  This
gives me a slim region of moral superiority in which to request you show
our side similar respect.

I am perhaps unusual among pro-choicers in that I can respect people's
pro-life values though I disaggree and would fight there legislative attempts
fiercely.  Do not use this coy insinuation; it is insulting and
destructive.

-dave
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:41:18 GMT

In article <1dcagmINNh00@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>My point is that the mother may know who the father is, but not tell.
>>>She may just say it's a good male friend.  She may say it's Dan Quayle.
>>>She may say it's Santa Clause.  How are you going to tell who it really
>>>is?  Are you going to subject women to amniocentesis (or some other test)
>>>which introduces risk to both the woman and the foetus?  Are you going 
>>>to keep a genetic bank with identifying information on all the men in 
>>>the world, so you can check who matches the foetus?  What if the woman/man
>>>don't *want* to be tested??
>
>>You have already answered your nonsensical data-base question:  When Dan Quayle
>>or Santa Claus are informed of their paternity, they can then make an
>>intelligent response, which may well include insisting on proof of paternity.
>
>(1)  How do you propose to test Santa Clause?

I'm sure the legal system will find a way to deal with this.

>(2)  Say the woman doesn't know, or won't tell, what do you do then?
>Torture her until she 'fesses up?

No, the last time I checked torture was illegal.  There are a variety of legal
penalties that could be applicable.
I'd appreciate serious questions, btw.  You're getting serious answers.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men