NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/abortion/inequity/6277

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-04 | 3.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.claremont.edu!nntp-server.caltech.edu!peri
From: [e-mail] (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 4 Jan 1993 05:30:57 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 66
Distribution: na
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

[e-mail] writes:
>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.

It may be splitting hairs for the father, but I assure you that it is not
splitting hairs for the mother.  Birth is a matter of public record -- the
county keeps a registry of births and anyone is free to inspect at any time.
Pregnancy is a *private* medical condition of the mother -- just like any
other medical condition.  Father notification of *pregnancy* (as opposed to
*birth*) would violate the women's privacy on medical matters in a way that
has no parallel for adult men.

>> 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.

The effect on the man's pocketbook may be the same, but that does not mean
that it is the same through and through.  It has been avered on this
newsgroup that evil women conspire to bear children in order to stick men
with child support bills.  That argument is clearly fallacious, since it
is the *state* (rather than the mothers) that compel the men to pay support.

>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?

Yes, they do.  There is a case currently in the courts where a father is
suing to regain custody of a child that was given up for adoption without
his knowledge -- several years after the child was placed with its
adoptive family.  (Sorry, I don't have the reference handy.  It was on
Clarinews just before the holiday break.)

>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?

Good question.  Don Beaver and I have discussed this at great length.
I claim that, since full-term pregnancy is rather obvious and since
is a matter of public record, that the father's ignorance is no excuse
for his abandonment of the child -- he could have easily found out about
the birth if he'd cared to.  Don disagrees (but I decline to take it upon
myself to outline his position -- you can find it for yourself if you
backtrack a bit.)

--

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