home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.feminism
- Path: sparky!uunet!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!castor.cs.psu.edu!beaver
- From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
- Subject: Re: Child Support
- Message-ID: <By4Iy6.56M@cs.psu.edu>
- Keywords: abortion
- Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: castor.cs.psu.edu
- References: <1992Nov12.222219.18930@midway.uchicago.edu> <Bxo3I1.C8A@cs.psu.edu> <1992Nov15.033613.6739@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 15:27:42 GMT
- Lines: 81
-
- In article <1992Nov15.033613.6739@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
- >In article <Bxo3I1.C8A@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
- >>In article <1992Nov12.222219.18930@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
- >
- >jjj>>[Hypothetical legal system of Jen's deleted.]
- >>>
- >>>Remember, we're talking about a hypothetical system here.... one in
- >>>which fathers are given a "choice".... To have that "choice", they
- >>>have to *express* it, in a legally binding format.
- >>
- >>If you require this, then you would have to require that men
- >>be *informed*, as well. When?
- >
- >My hypothetical legal system REQUIRED that the man be informed...I
- >assumed something like within 2 weeks of the woman being informed.
-
- I really do like your proposal, Jen. When I've considered it,
- I've run up against this problem: it requires that women who
- intend to have an abortion must inform the "father." Otherwise
- a woman could always hold out that she wanted to have an abortion,
- and avoid informing the "father."
-
- There seem to be a lot of people who object to notifying the "father."
-
-
- >[I also assumed massive legal penalties to her if she didn't inform
- >him and could not produce valid reason why not - ie proof that she
- >made a reasonable effort to find him and could not, rape, incest,
- >abuse, etc].
-
- This falls right into place with the PA law that was overturned
- in PP vs. Casey, and even the PA law was extremely weak (it required
- the wife merely to write that there was a valid reason).
-
-
- >>Your argument seems even to support banning abortion after
- >>four months, say -- because a woman has had enough time to
- >>think and to decide, and has even demonstrated a willingness
- >>to continue despite the physical conditions.
- >
- >I also wonder about Rini's arguement.
-
- >>I'm skeptical of your assumptions about the default desires
- >>of women as evidenced by continuing a pregnancy.
- >
- >As the one who suggested woman-as-sole-parent in the first place,
- >I meant it as something to reduce paperwork, okay?
-
- Okay, I made a bad assumption about your intent. Sorry.
-
- I think that Rini tended to legitimize the idea that continuing
- with a pregnancy is evidence of a desire to parent, something that
- I might say makes some common sense, but which really shouldn't be
- the basis for law.
-
-
- > And I did not
- >choose JOINT parenthood as default (this if for unmarried couples
- >- for married couples I suggested joint as default) BECAUSE I did
- >not WANT a man to be saddled with parenthood if he didn't choose
- >it.
- >
- >(IE, what I thought you would like, Don. But I'm not you, obviously.)
-
- I think that the father should have equal parenting rights (and
- responsibilities) as the mother, which he can terminate with the
- same freedom of choice as the mother.
-
- I am joyously saddled with parenthood, and I would joyously become
- saddled with more, but I would be reluctant to become a distant uncle
- to a child resulting from a broken condom. (That doesn't mean I'd say,
- "abort!", either.) I think that all persons should have the same
- (or equivalent) rights and choices about becoming parents.
-
- The "last clear chance" principle is negated by providing men
- the option to decline parenthood, not by requiring a declaration
- that they do accept parenthood.
-
- Don
- --
- beaver@cs.psu.edu Opinions from the PC-challenged
-