NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/talk/abortion/36051

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-11 | 3.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!caen!sdd.hp.com!nobody
From: [e-mail] (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 11 Sep 1992 07:50:32 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Lines: 55
Distribution: usa
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andrew Hackard) writes:
>[e-mail] (Adrienne Regard) writes:

Boy, does this fellow know how to write an "Oops, I goofed" reply or what?!?

>>Why is it that folks always write about child support as if a man pays it
>>and a woman incurs no liability whatsoever?

(other 3 scenarios covered):
>If the father wants to get an abortion, but the
>mother doesn't, then here's where I founder.
>It doesn't seem fair to make the father pay for the support of a child he
>didn't intend to create IF he took reasonable precautions.  OTOH, it

Agreed.  However, what we are dealing with here is a social paradigm so that
the taxpayers don't have to get involved.  For most situations in our society,
there are certain default or assumed conditions, because you have to have
default or assumed conditions in order for the society to continue to function.
Too many variations mean bookkeeping itself would be overwhelming.

One of those default conditions is that parents pay for their children.
Now, it is also a facet of society that parents who *cannot* pay for their
children receive help from the society -- which is where the taxpayers come
in.  MOST taxpayers would prefer to pay less tax than more, so they are
logically seeking conditions which lower the bill.  Right now, as a result
of our cultural heritage, both parents pay for their kids.  In the third
scenario, where the father does not want a child, and the mother has it any-0
way, the only real practical alternative to what we have today is to soak
the taxpayer for some form of support.  Which isn't likely to go over big
with the taxpayer.  Therefore, I don't think there's much hope for change
until we've seen a few more centuries of 'broken families' which is in itself
a cultural alteration that may make the notion of *one* parent being respon-
sible, more palatable to our society.

>Please DO post in reply; I'm interested
>in hearing your perspective.

This is the encapulated version of my response -- they go over this issue
every six months or so in soc.women and/or soc.men if you are interested.
There are lots of schemes proposed, but I've never seen one that I figured
the taxpayers would buy, so it's a pretty empty discussion, seems to me.
I don't think this one is solvable in the short term -- I think it will take
some major rewriting of our recent cultural history to change.  First, it
will take SURVIVAL by the 'broken' families, which either means better pay
for women (where have we heard that one before?), more equitable custody
awards (where have we heard that one before?), or a completely different
tax structure that enables 1-wage-earner families with kids to compete in
the marketplace with 2-wage-earner families without kids.  Right now, too
many of these 'broken' families are below the poverty line.  Not very many
able bodied dads are going to get off the hook with that economic reality
staring us all in the face.

Adrienne Regard