NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/women/22017

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-02 | 5.9 KB

Xref: sparky soc.women:22017 soc.men:21993 alt.feminism:6708 talk.abortion:53842
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!The-Village!waterbed
From: [e-mail] (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP News Poster)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 04:37:53 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Lines: 110
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] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) 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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Unsupported assertion.  Why?  A woman retains the right NOT to legally
>>>>>>dissolve all ties, but to REMOVE the fetus from her body.
>>>>>
>>>>>However, the EFFECT of a successful abortion is NOT ONLY to remove the
>>>>>biological dependency, but to also remove the associated financial obligation
>>>>>as well. If we parallel the latter, and it would result in more equity.
>>>>
>>>>Minor quibble - there is no financial obligation prior to birth.
>>>
>>>We've had this discussion before, Larry. Saying that there is no financial
>>>obligation before birth is like saying that there I have no financial
>>>obligation for my credit card purchases until the bill arrives from the bank,
>>>gas company, department store or wherever. True, there is no STATEMENT OF
>>>ACCOUNT, until the bill arrives, but the charges are incurred well before
>>>then.
>>
>>Not really - you have a financial obligation for your credit card purchases
>>whether or not the bill shows up.
>
>That doesn't address the point, Larry. I'm not saying that a man has a
>financial obligation even if there is no paternity award (analogous to the
>credit card bill); I'm saying that the man's financial obligations are
>_incurred_ prior to when they are _assigned_. It's a retroactive debt.

Again you miss the point - the retroactive debt is *conditional* on the birth
of a child.  If no child results, then there will be no paternity award, and
so no legal financial obligation for the man even though the same expenses
were incurred by the woman as in the case when there *is* a paternity award.

>>According to the ruling you posted
>>previously, the man has no financial obligation unless a child is born.
>
>Learn the difference between "unless" and "until", Larry.

OK, unless *and* until.  My point stands.

>It's a contingent debt -- contingent on the birth of the child

If you understand this, then why are you arguing with me?

>>>Similarly, there is no formal "billing" of pregnancy/child-support costs
>>>until a child is born, and the paternity award is made, but that doesn't mean
>>>the charges aren't INCURRED before the child is born.
>>
>>The charges are incurred by the woman whether or not a child results;
>
>Huh? Are you claiming a woman is liable for child support even if there is no
>child born?

Huh?  Are you claiming that a woman doesn't have to pay her doctor's bills
for prenatal care if she miscarries?

>>...the
>>man is only obligated to pay a portion of those charges if a child results
>>and a paternity award is made.  If no child results, then there is no
>>paternity award, and therefore no financial obligation for the man even
>>though charges were incurred by the woman.
>
>Wrong, Larry. A paternity award doesn't "incur" the man's debt,

I didn't say it did.  Pregnancy-related charges are incurred by the woman
during the course of the pregnancy.  If no child results then there is no
financial obligation for the man even though charges were incurred by the
woman.

>>Note that I'm not making any claims as to legal principle here; I'm simply
>>basing this on a citation that you yourself have previously posted.
>
>You grossly misinterpreted what I posted. There is nothing in the statute
>which supports your interpretation.

Perhaps you didn't read it...

>>>>You're assuming a "right to terminate her financial liability"; it seems
>>>>to me that preventing any such liability from coming into being is a side
>>>>effect of preventing any child from being born.
>>>
>>>It's an effect, nonetheless, and that's all that matters. Whether it's one
>>>of the "main" effects or a "side" effect is just a matter of arbitrary
>>>semantics.
>>
>>If you agree that it's an effect of a right, and not a right itself, then
>>it's *not* "just a matter of arbitrary semantics."
>
>The two effects (i.e. severance of financial liability, physical removal of
>the fetus) are separable effects,

How do you separate them before birth?

>therefore it is perfectly valid to say that
>the woman who aborts or chooses not to abort, under the current laws,
>exercises two legal rights, not just one. Equity demands that the man should
>be given a parallel to one of those rights -- the right to sever his
>financial liability to the (potential) child, in the same manner as the woman
>can exercise this same right.

The woman exercises her right to remove the fetus from her body; the man has
the same right to remove the fetus from *his* body if it is in there.

The only "right to sever financial liability" that I know of is the "right"
to put the kid up for adoption.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), [e-mail] (Internet)