NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/feminism/4911

Text File | 1992-11-24 | 5.8 KB | 128 lines

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!news.ils.nwu.edu!lynch
From: [e-mail] (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: abortion
Sender: [e-mail] (Mr. usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:04:33 GMT
Lines: 114

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>>>Yes, but it is your *choice* to tell the father, and your *choice* to listen to
>>>>what he wants....I believe this is how *most* hoorable people, in *most*
>>>>cases would behave.
>>>
>>>I agree. It is also my choice to grab a knife and shove it in
>>>someone's back. It is also my choice to get drunk every night.
>>>It is also my choice to lie. It is also my choice to accuse someone
>>>of rape (perjury). It is also my choice to practice insider trading.
>>>It is also my choice to drive my car off a bridge if I'm unhappy.
>>>It is also my choice to rape someone. Anyone can do anything they
>>>want that they are physically able to do.
>>
>>All of which are ILLEGAL.  Not informing the father is legal.
>
>A) You didn't say people who behave in a LEGAL fashion - you said
>   people who behave in an HONORABLE fashion.
>
>B) Getting drunk every night, lying outside of court, and suicide
>   are to my knowledge legal (love to know how they prosecute
>   dead people :-)
>
>C) I wasn't looking for examples of ILLEGAL behaviour - I was giving
>   examples of DISHONORABLE behaviour.

Ooops.  Ok, I skimmed the list, and they're not ALL illegal.  My point was that
many of these 'honorable' things are legislated.  Exactly what can and can't
be legislated is way too complex for me to comprehend, but it seems to me that
a father's choice to not have to pay should be legislatable because currently
another person can make a decision that will *greatly* affect his material
welfare for an extended period of time.


>>>>Needless to say, others might do things a little differently...
>>>Naturally.  The world is full of people who choose to act in
>>>violent and/or destructive and/or hateful ways.
>>Yes.  And that's why we have laws and courts and police and suchlike.
>
>True. But often there are teachings about "right" and "wrong" that
>don't have much to do with the legal system. Rita Mae Brown wrote
>that "Decency is public. Morality is private." - that's kinda what
>I'm getting at, that 'decency' is what we do to look good to others
>and 'morality' is what we do to look good to ourselves. Something
>like that. Tangential, in any event.

Separating these things is seldom clear-cut.  So-called blue laws are a clear
example of places where the answer seems especially unclear.

>>>>For a personal example, try to think of somebody you know who *wouldn't* tell
>>>>the father...
>>>IE, a total and complete shithead?  Or a rape/abuse victim? Or
>>>the girlfriend who's lover has told her repeatedly that he doesn't
>>>want any more kids, and who's told me that if she gets pregnant,
>>>she'll get an abortion and may not even tell him?
>>
>>All of these are valid examples.  Know anybody like the first?
>
>Yup.  IMO, the second is very valid, the third...hmmm. If you
>were her lover, would you want to be told?
So should not the father have some legal protection from the first?  [Assume
that the father may not know her well enough in the beginning to know she is
'a total and complete shithead'.]

We have agreed about the second from day 1.  [Actually, if a woman *wanted* to
bring a rapist's fetus to term and sock him with *all* the bills and *no*
rights, it would seem apropos to me.

As for the 3rd, yes, *I* would want to know.  However, it's entirely possible
that there are men who wouldn't want to know, and I have no idea how to 'save'
them from finding out in any reasonable manner if father notification were law.
Just to turn it around, if he *doesn't* want to know, what's to stop her from
telling him anyway?

>>>:> I guess the point I'm trying to make is that while yes, anyone
>>>can do anything that they want to do and are physically capable of
>>>doing, that there are limits imposed by society and/or self.
>>
>>There are NOT limits posed by society at this time about notification.
>
>LEGAL limits, no. SOCIAL limits...depends on the subgroup
>of society you live in. In mine, it's required except for
>rape or if he's already stated, repeatedly, that he would
>want an abortion, or if he's unknown/unlocatable.

So a man simply has to depend on a mother's social values while a woman can
legally [try to] track down a father...

>Yours?
I'd like to think that every woman I know would tell me in such an event...but
it's certainly not any sort of guarantee.  I'm hardly infallible in judgment of
others.

>As for whether there SHOULD be legal limits...I'd agree
>with it except in cases of rape/abuse/unknown/unlocatable.
>Would I require that this be done through the state? No.
I cannot resolve the apparent contradiction of should be _legal_ limits with
not requiring that it be done through the state.  What other entity can impose
legal limits?


>>>If we had sex and I got pregnant, I could probably not tell you.
>>And would that be just?
>
>I think not.
>
>>>Problem with dealing with humans is that it does require some trust.
>>Another is that one that seems trustworthy might not be.
>
>Agreed.
--
"TANSTAAFL"     Rich [e-mail]