From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 01:24:42 GMT

In article <Bz4LCE.Dry.1@cs.cmu.edu> Deborah_Brown@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu writes:
>rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:
>>  Deborah_Brown@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu writes:
>>  >
>>  >David writes:
>>  >>  Deborah writes:
>>  >>  > David writes:
>>  >>  >> > David writes:
>>  >[....]
>
>>  >>  ....If she decides to have the child against the man's wishes
>>  >>  and she makes the man pay child support, then he is liable to pay child
>>  >>  support for at least 18 years.  That is not power?????  What the hell is
>>  >>  it then?
>>  >-----
>>  >Responsibility.
>>  >-----
>>	That is a double standard.  The woman has state-mandated responsibility
>>  only to herself.  The man has state-mandated responsibility to the woman and
>>  child.  Therefore, the woman has state-mandated power over that man.
>-----
>The woman has state-mandated responsibility only to HERSELF?? What,
>you've never heard of a woman being arrested for child neglect? 

Only if she VOLUNTARILY takes custody of the child, thus implicitly agreeing
not to neglect it.

>For child abuse? 

Again, child abuse is a renege of a VOLUNTARY responsibility associated
with taking custody of a child.

>Some states are going so far as to prosecute pregnant
>women who use drugs and/or alcohol. 

Hmmmm.... This is a little trickier, but I'm going to stick my neck out a
little here:

	If the woman has intentions of carrying the child to term, and 
	endangers the fetus in this manner, she violates the voluntary
	responsibility she has taken on.

	If the woman intends to abort, but her fetus is close to the
	point where it might not be legal to abort (e.g. the fetus is
	close to viability) then if she endangers the fetus in this
	manner, I can see a rationale for prosecuting her, since her
	actions MIGHT result in a disabled child.

	If a woman intends to abort, and her fetus is nowhere near the
	point where it might be illegal, then I can see no justification
	for laws against fetal endangerment. However, there would have to 
	be good evidence that she DID in fact intend, before the "offense"
	occurred, to abort in that timeframe, otherwise she could just 
	suddenly "decide" to abort in order to avoid prosecution.
	
>I don't know how you figure the
>state does not impose responsibility on the mother.

Well, in all the cases I've analyzed above, the state holds the mother to
post-conception commitments that she makes VOLUNTARILY. Wrt the man, however,
it's INVOLUNTARY responsibilities that are imposed on him. That's why it's
fair to characterize this as male oppression.

>>	I would not have proposed such a contract if the state-mandated
>>  laws were fair and gave the same amount of power and responsibilities
>>  to both men and women in the reproductive arena.
>-----
>Oh, I absolutely don't deny that the contract TRIES to equalize the
>"power".  The point it, you have not shown why it is just that the
>"power" be equalized.
>
>There are three relevant time periods: (1) before and up to
>conception; (2) between conception and birth; and (3) from birth
>forward.
>
>With respect to (1): at this time, both parties clearly have equal
>power with respect to reproductive decisions.  They can choose not to
>have sex.  If they choose instead to have sex, they know that there is
>always the possibility of conception.
>
>With respect to (2): at this point, only the woman can decide whether
>to become a parent, since only she can make the decision to abort.
>Now, setting aside for the moment whether or not abortion OUGHT to be
>an alternative, the fact is that presently it is a legal option.
>Granted, it is an option which only the mother can exercise, and the
>father has no power or control over.  I know that this really ticks
>you off, but I'm afraid that's just the way it is.  I think you are
>probably aware of my personal feelings about abortion. Nevertheless,
>the right of a WOMAN to have an abortion has been declared to be
>constitutionally protected, based on the WOMAN's right to privacy
>(that is, her right to make private decisions about the termination of
>her pregnancy).  The fact is, there simply is no parallel right of the
>father to decide what to do with the woman's body, and no logical
>reason that there should be.  Thus, the right of a woman to decide to
>abort is NOT based on some right she has the determine "whether to be
>a parent" -- that is simply the RESULT of her right to determine
>whether her body will continue to carry the baby.

But you are making a HUGE assumption here -- you are assuming that the
decision whether to give birth to a child, and the decision of how to
assign the FINANCIAL LIABILITY for that child's support are inseparably the 
same decision. That is the way it is viewed currently, but us reformers are 
proposing a bifurcation of the issue into biological choices, on the one 
hand, and financial choices, on the other. I agree that the woman should have 
the right to abort. I have argued for that right long and hard in 
talk.abortion. But, I see no reason why it should follow from that, that she 
should get absolute power not only to assign HERSELF the financial liability 
of the child's support, but to assign HIM the liability as well. I think the 
liability determination should be made, by a neutral party, based on regular 
negligence standards.

>With respect to (3): once the baby is born, it is the responsibility
>of the parents to support it.  Both parents should be equally
>responsible.  

Why? They are not equally "responsible", in the sense of having equal
input into the causal process leading to the creation of the child, so
why should they be equally "responsible", in the sense of having equal
financial liability? What you have described is a legal aberration. You
are refusing to accept that "responsibility", in the first sense, should
equate to "responsibility" in the second sense.

>If BOTH parents
>agree to relinquish all parental rights (give the baby up for
>adoption) then they are BOTH released from their parental
>responsibilities.  

Random thought: why not change that first "BOTH parents agree" to an "EITHER 
parent agrees"? Or, to put it another way, abolish the whole idea of 
"non-custodial parent".

>But if the baby is not given up for adoption,
>responsibility for supporting the child ought not to fall on society;
>it ought to remain with the parties whose actions resulted in the
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>birth.  
 ^^^^^

Precisely! Here is the key phrase. The issue here is making people responsible 
for their actions. The only thing you seem to be missing is that the law 
treats INaction, under certain circumstances, as EQUALLY tortious as actions 
are. This is one of those circumstances. Her INaction, in failing to abort, 
makes her significantly more liable for child support, when we apply 
established principles of negligence.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: soc.singles