NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/49178

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-22 | 6.3 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49178 alt.abortion.inequity:5268
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!news
From: [e-mail] (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipUlations..
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP News Poster)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 05:44:28 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Lines: 123
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: netslip63.watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>>>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Horseshit.  The man has *no* legal obligation until a child is born.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Horseshit yourself, Adrienne:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>MCLA 722.712. Child born out of wedlock; liability of parents
>>>>>>                     ^^^^
>>>>>>>       Sec. 2. (a) The parents of a child so born out of wedlock are liable
>>>>>>                                           ^^^^^^^
>>>>>>>       for the necessary support and education of the child. They are also
>>>>>>>       liable for the child's funeral expenses. The father is liable to pay
>>>>>>>       such expenses in connection with HER PREGNANCY as the court in its
>>>>>>>       discretion may deem proper. (Emphasis mine).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You proved Adrienne's point - *no* obligation until *after* the child is
>>>>>>born.  The fact that he [maybe] has to pay expenses incurred *before* the
>>>>>>child was born does not alter the fact that there is no legal obligation
>>>>>>until *after* the child is born.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your 16-year-old child decides to drive your car into a store,
>>>>>doing $10,000 damage.  Are you liable for damages?
>>>>>
>>>>>Your 16-year-old child drives your car.  Are you liable for damages?
>>>>>
>>>>>Would you say that your right _not_ to pay for someone else's actions
>>>>>has been restricted, even before any damages occur?
>>>>
>>>>This has nothing to do with anything quoted above, does it?
>>>
>>>Why would you side-step?
>>
>>I'm not side-stepping, Don.  It seems to me that your two questions were
>>unrelated to anything quoted above, and so I'd delete the previous material
>>before answering.  If you think they *are* related, then (a) I shouldn't
>>delete it, and (b) I'd like you to explain how, since I don't see it.
>
>
>Fair enough -- I'm sorry if I was accusative.

Fair enough yourself.  :-)

>It seemed as though you
>might have said "anything quoted above" to avoid the context in which
>"Horseshit" was declared:
>
>DB> The woman's unalterable obligation to support begins,
>DB> at the earliest, after the last legal moment to abort.
>DB> This is usually 6 or more months later than the moment
>DB> the man's rights are restricted.
>
>I suspect you might not have followed the preceding, deleted discussion
>about whether a man is liable before birth.  So I apologize if you said
>"anything quoted above" for those reasons.

I had read the preceding, but had no comment.  When I saw Kevin's erroneous
claim, I commented on that, without any recollection (or relationship) to
what had preceded it.

>>>Your girlfriend decides to have your child, requiring $10,000
>>>in ob/gyn expenses.  Are you liable?
>>
>>According to what Kevin posted, not until *after* birth.
>>
>>>Your girlfriend is two months pregnant.  Are you liable?
>>
>>I certainly hope so.  :-)
>>
>>Seriously - I don't know what the law states, but according to what Kevin
>>posted above, I don't legally have to pay anything until after the
>>child is born, at which point a court could declare that I had to
>>(retroactively) pay some pregnancy expenses.
>
>I see it differently:  the fact that I wouldn't *yet* be forced legally
>to pay anything doesn't mean I'm not yet liable.

If the birth was a foregone conclusion, then I'd agree.  If the fetus is
spontaneously aborted at 3 months, then no child is born, so the statute
Kevin quoted never comes into play.

>That was the point of my analogy:  I'm legally liable for the actions
>of my children, even before they've done any damages and even if they
>never do any damages.

But, to word it as did Adrienne, you have no legal obligation until after the
damage is done.  You're talking about a conditional liability; in this case,
*if* any damage is done, and in the preceding, *if* a child is born.

>>>Would you say that your right _not_ to pay for someone else's actions
>>>has been restricted, even before any expenses are incurred?
>>
>>Not really; I'm paying for my actions in getting her pregnant.
>
>Your liability for sex, when a condom breaks, could be $10,000?
>Even when there is a much simpler, legal, apparently safer, $300
>preventative, which only she can choose?
>
>In non-reproductive situations, it seems to me you'd be liable
>for up to $300 (or $150) of the costs.

I agree that the current situation is unfair, which is one reason I had
nothing to say on the thread until I saw a blatant error being posted.

>>(And to answer your original question, I don't really know, since I don't
>>have any kids, but I assume my insurance would cover it, so I wouldn't
>>personally be liable,)
>
>I'd be surprised, unless you were married to the woman.  Let me know --
>maybe I'll change insurers!  :-)

If I gave the kid permission to drive the car, I assume that I'd have
listed him on my insurance.  I'll check exactly what the facts are some
time between first thing Monday morning, and when I have a child of my own
who's going to be driving my car.  :-)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), [e-mail] (Internet)