NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/women/22062

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-03 | 8.5 KB

Xref: sparky soc.women:22062 soc.men:22043 alt.feminism:6748 talk.abortion:53938
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Who, me???
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 13:55:52 GMT
Lines: 164

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] 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.

Larry, the topic of discussion is child support. If there is no child, there
is no child support, and thus no discussion. We thus PREsuppose (as distinct
from simply supposing), in all of these discussions, that a child has been
born. Given that, it makes no sense to say "there is no financial obligation
prior to birth", because by the very nature of paternity child support, the
man has retroactively incurred his debt at the time he has sexual intercourse,
approximately 9 months before the (presupposed) birth of the child.

Retroactivity kinda makes a mess of ordinary, everyday language, but once
one realizes that child support issues are ALWAYS viewed from the post-birth
viewpoint, i.e. that the birth of the child is a GIVEN, then it makes perfect
sense to think of the man as incurring debt at the time of sexual intercourse,
rather than at the time the paternity award is made.

>>>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.

Wrong. The man incurs debt PRIOR to the birth of the child, unless the
birth doesn't occur. There is no "until".

>>It's a contingent debt -- contingent on the birth of the child
>
>If you understand this, then why are you arguing with me?

Because you didn't limit yourself to saying "child support is a contingent
debt" or "child support attaches, unless the woman miscarries or aborts".
You went and introduced chronology, by saying "there is no financial
obligation prior to birth". That innocuous-looking word "prior" actually
drags along with it a whole baggage-load of preconceptions about the
sequentiality of chronological events -- sequentiality that the law
gingerly violates when it assigns debts retroactively.

Moral of the story: pick your words carefully.

>>>>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?

Those charges are not covered under our topic of discussion, Larry, which
is paternity child support liability. Why do you insist on trying to
introduce irrelevancies?

>>>...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.

You said "there is no financial obligation [...] prior to birth". Was I
wrong to fill in the missing verb or verb phrase (that I've now marked with
an ellipsis) with "incurred"? If so, what verb or verb phrase did you mean?

>>>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...

I read it all right, Larry. It says nothing about _when_ the man's liability
is incurred.

>>>>>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?

The woman's child support liability could, in theory, be waived, even if she
decided to keep the child. Likewise, in theory, the woman could be held
responsible for child support even if she aborted (it wouldn't be support
for THAT child, of course, but she could still be assigned the child
support of some OTHER child in lieu of the one she aborted). Unlike the
fanciful wishes of some to change the laws of biology, these things COULD be
done. The only reason we don't do them is because there is no discernible
social value to such legislative changes. But, child support indemnification
and physical removal ARE separable effects.

>>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.

Okay...

>The only "right to sever financial liability" that I know of is the "right"
>to put the kid up for adoption.

Duh. Abortion => no kid => no child support liability. Looks like a severance
to me (actually, I think "discharge" is the more correct term)...

                                - Kevin