NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/men/22081

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-03 | 3.4 KB

Xref: sparky soc.men:22081 alt.abortion.inequity:6275 alt.feminism:6778
Path: sparky!uunet!newsflash.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!ac.dal.ca!01fortec
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 3 Jan 93 23:47:02 -0400
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Lines: 66


This is my first time on this group, but it looks interesting. I'm assuming
that the discussion centers on American law, but I'm pretty sure that
Canadian law runs parallel. (any Canadians on this group, feel free to correct
this error in assumption, if it exists).

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
> [e-mail] (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>requiring a woman to notify anyone of
>>>her pregnancy is a violation of her privacy.
>
>>Its not a violation of her privacy if you intend the result of her actions,
>>and the result of that pregnancy, to impact on SOMEONE ELSE'S financial
>>future.
>
> It is not the pregnancy that affects "someone else's" financial future.
> It is the birth.
>

Splitting hairs. If the lady is pregnant and intends to bring the pregnancy
to term, then any prospective action on behalf of the child will affect the
financial future of the father. The plus/minus 8 months of warning might not
mean much to many, but would allow the father time to set up some kind of
financial plan prior to being saddled with the costs. He could also cut and
run. This, however, doesn't seem to matter on how much warning he gets, but
is more determined by the person he is.

>>Women should be free to keep from men the fact that they are pregnant,
>>presumably to keep them from influencing their decision on whether or not to
>>bear the child.
>
> At this point the men has no *legal* way to force the woman's decision
> on whether of not to bear the child.  So what good does it do to
> legislate that the woman must tell him about the pregnancy?  (Besides
> the obvious questions of enforceability of such legislation....)
>
Enforceability hasn't really been a hamper to the passing of a law in the
past. I don't see why it would now or in the future.

>>However, those same women should be able to bill the man for the result of
>>>her decision<, without his input, and without his concern.
>
> Strictly speaking, it is not the woman that bills the man.  Child support
> is ordered by the state on behalf of the child.
>
Comes out to the same thing, really. It is rare that the state initiates
action on behalf of a child without the word from someone.

> --
>
>                                                 --  Michal
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Of course there's no reason!


And on that note, a question: does the father have the legal right to sue
for custody/visiting rights/anything else with regards to the child? Seems
to me that plopping a child support suit out of left field leaves an
implied state of abandonment on the father, even though he didn't know the
score until the writ. Would this leave him at a disadvantage in court?

Joe
[e-mail]