From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 03:09:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.014945.6036@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
>db>In article <Bu4F34.DwJ@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>dk>In article <1992Sep4.160722.22559@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
>dk>I believe that Will is not anywhere near the norm.  I think the majority of
>dk>men would not respond in the same fashion as Will would.  For these men,
>dk>I would hope that the woman would go to them and discuss the options 
>dk>rationally.  However, since men such as Will exist, I believe we must not 
>dk>pass legislation that would force a woman to be put at Will's mercy.  
>dk>The price for such legislation is just to damn high.
>
>db>We return to "PRECISELY!"  If the woman doesn't want to inform her
>db>husband, she can break the legally binding marriage contract (which 
>db>exacts certain costs from him in exchange for supporting certain vested
>db>interests, and vice versa) and divorce him.  
>
>I'm not a legal expert, but I would be very surprised if the marriage
>contract included some sort of full disclosure agreement.  If it does, 
>I oppose it.  If the woman doesn't want to inform her husband, she
>doesn't inform her husband.  

I don't think there is any full-disclosure in any state, since the
Supreme Court would probably strike it down (as it just did w/rt
notification).  My point is that the benefits and liabilities are
partly explicit, partly implicit, and extremely variable from court
to court.  

For example, child support is an explicit liability; unlike a single man, 
a husband is presumed father and therefore liable, often without any chance 
of rebuttal.  Spousal support is another (gender-misnomer) example.  
Notification isn't all that different, and it is consistent with 
a +traditional+ view of marriage.  

So if we're going to force archaic regulations on married couples, then let's
be equal about it, at least, and preserve everyone's +traditional+ interests.

>db>It might not be so bad to have a clause saying notification is 
>db>not necessary if the woman can reasonably demonstrate it would put 
>db>her life in danger, but such a clause permitting her a release from 
>db>part of her obligations in the marriage contract should be her burden 
>db>to prove.  It should not be +presumed+ that notification puts a woman's 
>db>life in danger.
>
>Why not?  It would seem if the couple is communicating, then no legislation
>is needed.  If there is a communication break down, a potential reason
>for the break down could be a violent husband such as Will.  

Or, the woman could be a cruel and vicious person who aborted a
sensitive man's "child," and waited a year to hurt and taunt him
with the news.  No, that in itself is not justification for
full-information.  Violation of a spouse's expectation of children
is IMHO grounds for appropriate regulation (compare laws relating to
divorce for sterility/impotence).

>db>Why should we repress the "majority of men" because of instances 
>db>"not anywhere near the norm"?  
>
>Why should we put the burden of proof on the woman?  Let the woman 
>decide for herself what she wants to inform her husband of.  Keep
>legislation out of it.  For couples that communicate, legislation
>is a waste and for couples that don't communicate, legislation can
>be very dangerous.  I just don't see the advantage of this legislation,
>and I see the potential for people such as Will reacting violently.  

Fine, let's permit individually-written contracts.

>db>Whether this is literal or not, you and I don't know; we'd have to
>db>ask Mr. Steeves how he meant it.  If it is literal, and it says
>db>Mr. Steeves is a "walking time bomb," then it is probably better
>db>to correct the system that pushed him into that position and to 
>db>provide some avenue of help for him (eg. therapy) than to resort 
>db>to such intelligent repartee as insulting him personally.
> 
>I'll make you a deal.  You worry about the system that drove Will
>Steeves to such inappropriate behavior.  I'll worry about the poor
>unfortunate woman that may get tied up with a creep ...

Sounds constructive; I'd agree.

>... such as Will
>Steeves.  ...

But I still don't know whether he was illustrating a point (and/or venting
anger) or being literal.  I do hope the former was the case (in which
case I'd say it was a matter of very poor judgement but not deserving of
exile), and I'd rather give the benefit of the doubt until I hear more.

>db>Don Beaver
>Dan King

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35215 alt.flame:12557 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:373