NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/misc/legal/21800

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 3.4 KB | 71 lines

Newsgroups: misc.legal
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: RU486
Organization: Who, me???
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:16:17 GMT
Lines: 59

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>(Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew Rosenblatt)
>>writes:
>
>>>The same goes for a man who has moral convictions against using RU486
>>>to terminate his girl-friend's unwanted (by him!) pregnancy.
>>>[Matt Rosenblatt]
>
>>Without her consent, you mean? Since when are people allowed to make risky
>>changes to other people's body chemistry without their consent? "Moral
>>conviction" or no "moral conviction", this is chemical assault & battery
>>you're proposing, and the state has every right to forbid it on social
>>policy grounds.   [Kevin Darcy]
>
>That means that the State has every right to force a man who has
>conceived a child to become a father.  And that being so, why
>should the State not have every right to force that man to *act*
>like a father and support his child?

It's regrettable enough that he has to become an involuntary father because
of someone else's whim, Rosenblatt. What you propose is to add injury to
insult by making him pay for the "privilege" of becoming an involuntary
father. Why not horsewhip him too? How dare that uppity fornicator, to
insist that he has property rights, eh? Let's teach 'im a lesson he'll
never forget! <CRACK!> <CRACK!> <CRACK!>

I say, let him become an involuntary biological father, and let him go
in peace, if that's what he wants. To entangle him in a mandated financial
relationship with the child is not likely to do him any good, nor in the
long run do I think his embitterment and/or destruction is going to do his
offspring much emotional good either. Sometimes, I fear, the law ends up
unintentionally trading a child's _psychological_ standard of living for
a material one. That's a raw deal for a kid, IMO.

>Moreover, even if the State does forbid men from using RU486 to
>terminate unwanted pregnancies, that's not going to keep all men
>from using it in spite of the State.  Does Mr. Darcy have any idea
>how desperate a man might become when he's facing at least eighteen
>years of child support payments for a child he *does not want* and
>whom he conceived during a one-night stand?

Ah, I see. Your "solution" is to create a desperate situation _ex nihilo_,
and look the other way while the desperadoes commit dangerous and criminal
acts. Is this sane social policy?

>Right now, the State requires men to support their children, with
>legal penalties for those caught not doing so.  And yet, far too many
>children go without support, because so many men disregard that law.

Just laws tend to get obeyed more than unjust ones, Rosenblatt. This is a
useful fact to keep in mind when addressing any kind of enforcement problem.
Another useful fact to keep in mind is "marginal benefit" -- when the cost
of enforcing a law designed to save the taxpayers' money EXCEEDS the savings
that are realized, it's time to review whether the law is really of any use.

                                - Kevin