NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/talk/abortion/47054

Text File | 1992-11-08 | 12.2 KB | 244 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!spool.mu.edu!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: STEVE wants it both ways:
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Who, me???
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 19:25:56 GMT
Lines: 233

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>[e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>
>
>>>Thus, the law makes my beliefs moot.  If I accept the law,
>>>then I can no longer accept coercion of male child support, since child
>>>support from the male is posited on the belief that the male is in some
>>>way responsible for the existence of a child.
>
>>Do you deny that the man's actions are part of a causal chain leading to
>>the existence of a "child", by any definition of "child" one chooses?
>>Do you deny that "but for" the man's actions, the child would not exist?
>>That is sufficient basis for leveraging some type and/or degree of legal
>>liability.
>
>Yes, if I were a supporter of legal abortion, I *MUST* deny that the man's
>actions "caused" the existence of a child in any sense, since no child
>exists at conception, ...

And thus you sink further and further into the abyss of illogic, Kellmeyer.
It is perfectly possible to cause something that does not exist. Creating and
setting a timebomb, for instance, indisputably may _cause_ an explosion, even
though the explosion doesn't exist at the time of creation or setting.
You're a History major, right? Did the causes of World War II not exist
before war actually broke out?

>...and only the woman can choose to create a child by
>giving birth.  The "chain of events" argument still places the man in
>the position of nothing more than a supplier of raw material.

His voluntary actions, along with hers, and a bunch of other involuntary
biological stuff, caused the creation of a child. In legal terms, the child
would not exist "but for" his actions. That is a _prima facie_ basis for
liability.

>It is quite possible for the man to be an anonymous
>sperm donor, and to incidentally have had a one-night stand with the same
>woman who later received chose to be inseminated with anonymous sperm that
>happened to belong to this man.  Does the act of sex implicate the man in
>child support?

Ultimately, that would depend on how the artificial insemination agreement and
anonymous sperm donorship agreement were worded. Assuming normality, I expect
that the man would be off the hook, since the sperm ejaculated in that act of
sex didn't cause pregnancy, and the sperm which _did_ cause the pregnancy were
covered by the legal agreements mentioned above, which hold him harmless from
paternity child support liability. The two elements, a) conception and b) the
lack of the woman's voluntary assumption of liability, have to coincide IN THE
SAME ACT for the man to be held liable, Kellmeyer. In this case, _neither_ act,
i.e. neither the sex act, nor the attempt artificially inseminate, has _both_
elements. Therefore, the man cannot be held liable, as far as I can tell.

>Since she consented to sex, since she had post-coital
>contraception available, it is obvious that any pregnancy which occurred
>is due strictly to her decision to allow such a pregnancy to occur.
>She could easily have taken post-coital contraception if she chose.

She does NOT generally have "post-coital contraception" available to her,
Kellmeyer. You have not proven that the so-called "morning-after pills" are
in widespread use. Typically, her ONLY way of terminating the pregnancy
early is via abortion.

Now, I agree that the option of abortion should, given fair laws, usually
result in increased child support liability if she declines it for no
overriding medical reason. But, at the same time, I think this is one of
many factors to be considered in the overall determination. The man is at
least partially responsible too, and his negligence/fraud/coercion should be
considered. If, for example, he KNEW that she had serious moral qualms with
abortion, and neither of them bothered with contraception, then obviously he
has acted negligently. If he told her that he was sterile, when he wasn't,
then he is guilty of fraud, and could probably be socked with a civil suit
for mental suffering as well as the paternity child-support. Finally, if he
raped her, I think he (or his estate) should be automatically liable for
100% of the child support, if she decides to keep the child. So, you see,
Kellmeyer, I am not in favor of ABOLISHING paternity child support, as you
keep parodying. In some rare cases, I would actually INCREASE the man's share
of paternity child-support, compared to what the law mandates now. I just
want to make the law fair and strong, instead of the blind, one-size-fits-all
laws we have now, which many men (and quite a few women) loathe and despise.

>>>Yet RvW expressly states
>>>that there is no child whose existence warrents state intervention until
>>>the third trimester at the very least.  Since no child exists at the point
>>>of having sex, and this is the last point at which the man has any contact
>>>with the procreative process, ...                                  ???????
>
>>What the hell are you talking about? "Contact with the procreative process"?
>>The "procreative process" is an unbroken chain of causality going back, if
>>one wants to be pedantic about it, billions of years.
>
>And by your reasoning about "chain of causality" this means every estate of
>every dead person is liable for child support of all progeny, however far
>removed, since that progeny would not exist, if not for the existence
>of the (great-great-great-great-great) grandperson.

Well, Kellmeyer, since you asked, there *ARE* cases where grandparents have
been held liable for paternity child-support. But, normally, the law only
goes one generation back. The point is, the law _could_ draw the line of
causality anywhere it wishes: it _chooses_ to draw the line at the
participation of the man in the sex act. In any case, it doesn't _have_ to
draw the line at "when a child comes into existence", as Steven Kellmeyer
insists it must. And, even if it did, since most pro-choicers will tell you
that a "child" doesn't exist until the fetus leaves the mother's body, then
your bizarre, twisted theory of child support at best makes all midwives/
obstetricians liable for child support, and the parents not liable at all.
Is that what you intended?

>> Certainly it's no
>>stretch of law to trace it back as far as a few minutes or days prior to
>>conception. Where do you get this bizarre notion of "contact" anyway? In
>>what court opinion did they use the word in this context? Does a doctor need
>>to be in "contact" with an appendix when it ruptures, in order to be held
>>responsible for malpractice?
>
>No, he needs to be in contact with, and treating, the patient whose appendix
>ruptured if he is to be held liable.  If he just happened to examine her
>nine months before, and it ruptures over half-a year later without her ever
>seeing him again, he cannot possibly be held for malpractice.

Doctors are sued on a daily basis for bad diagnoses they make which don't
manifest themselves for months after the fact. Maybe ruptured appendices are
a bad example, since I believe those tend to happen with little or no
advance notice, but what about a form of cancer which slowly kills someone
over the course of many years? If a doctor screwed up a diagnosis, and six
months later, the cancer was found, but it was too late to operate, are you
saying that the first doctor is imdemnified because of some supposed "lack of
contact" with the patient? Patently absurd, Kellmeyer. Don't ever go into law.
Keep your day job.

>> Does a pop-bottle manufacturer need to be in
>>"contact" with a bottle when it explodes, in order to be held responsible
>>for manufacturing defects? This "contact" theory is a crock of shit, IMO.
>
>Well, the pop-bottle manufacturer has created a finished product.

And is therefore no longer in "contact" with the product, but can still be
held liable for damages resulting from its explosion. QED.

>Better
>to ask if the syrup manufacturer (raw material) can be held liable for the
>pop-bottle explosion (the man supplies the raw material - syrup, while the
>woman finishes production - bottler).

The syrup manufacturer is no longer in "contact" with the product, either,
so the answer is STILL "contact is not necessary for liability to attach".
QED.

It seems that your "contact" theory of liability has been thoroughly
refuted, Kellmeyer. May we bury it now?

>>>...the man cannot be viewed as anything more than
>>>a supplier of raw material.
>
>>He is a causative agent in her pregnancy. And quit with the ridiculous
>>"manufacturing" terminology, will you? I've already proven, in misc.legal,
>>that pregnancy does not qualify as "manufacturing", according to any current
>>legal definition either of us can dig up.
>
>You've proven nothing except that the legal definition of manufacturing has
>not yet caught up with bio-manufacturing (e.g. insulin manufacture through
>yeast gene manipulation).

As I said, Kellmeyer, pregnancy does not qualify as "manufacturing", according
to any >>CURRENT<< legal definition known to us. You can talk about future
definitions all you want, but please acknowledge that your argument about
pregnancy being equivalent to "manufacturing", and thus subject to
manufacturing-related statutes, and precedents, is based purely on SPECULATION,
not on any _current_ legal basis.

>Pregnancy is, according to pro-abort arguments, arguably a type of
>bio-manufacture.

Please cite an instance where any "pro-abort" [sic] has equated pregnancy to
"bio-manufacturing".

>>>The woman manufactures a child, the man has nothing to do with it.
>
>>He is a causative agent in her pregnancy. That is significantly more than
>>"nothing to do with it", as far as legal liability goes.
>
>Pregnancy has nothing to do with child.

Pregnancy is a precondition of childbirth, is it not?

>Ask an abortionist.  The doctor who
>performs IVF is just as involved as the man who has a one-night stand, yet
>the doctor cannot be held for child support.

The woman in this case voluntarily accepts the child-support burden herself
when she agrees to the IVF procedure, and thus holds the doctor and donor
(and everyone else, for that matter) harmless from liability. How many times
do I need to tell you this before it sinks in, Kellmeyer? SHE VOLUNTARILY
ACCEPTS THE LIABILITY. How stupid can you be?

>>>By RvW logic, no man can ever be held to be
>>>a father - even adoption merely provides legal rights, it does not make him
>>>a biological co-creator.
>
>>Please quote a passage from RvW -- any passage you want -- or any of its
>>associated precedents, or any interpretations and/or commentaries of said
>>abortion precedents from the scholarly literature which declares that,
>>legally, there is no biological connection between the man and the child, or
>>that, legally, the man "does not help create" the child. Vague,
>>unsubstantiated assertions don't suffice anymore, Kellmeyer. You've more
>>than used up your quota of "benefit of the doubt". From now on, I want
>>authoritative legal cites, preferrably in Blue Book style, but I'll take
>>whatever style of legal cite you can provide.
>
>Please check Illinois statutes on anonymous sperm donation and IVF.

You said "RvW logic", Kellmeyer. Here are your choices of authority:

    o  RvW itself

    o  Associated precedents (federal jurisdiction, preferrably SC)

    o  Scholarly interpretations or commentaries of the above

Sorry, but "Illinois statutes on anonymous sperm donations and IVF" don't
_ipso facto_ qualify as "RvW logic", in my book.

>You
>will find that not only is the biological father non-existent, he CANNOT
>exist, according to legal definition.  The statute specifically excludes
>the anonymous donor from EVER being able to establish a parent-child
>relationship under ANY circumstances whatsoever.

That has nothing to do with RvW, does it? If you disagree, please identify
the doctrinal connection, citing legal authorities as you go.

                                - Kevin