From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Maternity/paternity insurance
Summary: Insurance means the pooling of risks.
Keywords: Hard as the Rock of Gibraltar
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:03:35 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1993Jan10.005556.14650@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
(Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1i7ut8INN7q6@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu 
>(Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>>>In article <1i50iqINNjvu@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal 
>>>Leah Peri) writes:

>>>>>Hey, that's what we need: paternity/maternity insurance!  Then we 
>>>>>wouldn't have to argue about forcing abortion, or withholding child 
>>>>>support from children, or insulting with contracts.  Why hasn't 
>>>>>someone thought of this yet?

>>>>This is rich!  Would we require all men to carry such insurance?

>>>How about all women?  I think that's at least as an appropriate 
>>>requirement.

>>Sure.  All men.  And all women (of childbearing age).  Fair enough.

Even married men and women who *want* to have children?  Why should 
they have to pay premiums to insure against a desired outcome?  Why
should a couple who want ten children be *able* to purchase this kind
of insurance?  If I were a Stud or a Slut, I wouldn't want my premiums
going to cover people like that.

What about men and women who believe in chastity and don't engage
in Studs'n'Sluts free-wheeling sex?  After all, automobile liability
insurance is not required of all people of driving age, only of 
drivers and motor vehicle owners.  Someone who does not drive and 
has no motor vehicle does not have to buy auto insurance.

What about homosexuals?  Are they supposed to pay premiums to 
subsidize Hetero Hedonism?

>The "pre-sex" contract which has been proposed >>IS<< an insurance contract,
>according to the legal definition, i.e. "a contract whereby, for a stipulated
>consideration, one party undertakes to compensate the other for loss on a 
>specific subject by specified perils" (Black's, 5th Ed.).   [Kevin Darcy]

The "Pre-Sex Contract" may be an "insurance contract" according to the
technical legal definition, but the common conception of insurance 
involves the pooling of risk.  Ten thousand Studs pay premiums into
a common fund, and actuaries determine that (say) only four hundred 
of them will impregnate their Sluts in any one year.  Given the Federal
child support "guidelines," which are based on the parents' incomes,
it ought to be possible for the actuaries to set appropriate premiums
(which will also have to be based on the policy-holders' incomes) to
provide for supporting the children of the unlucky Studs'n'Sluts.

One caution about liability insurance:  If the liability exceeds 
the amount of the insurance policy, the one liable has to pay 
the difference out of his own pocket.  A jury is not supposed
to know how much insurance the defendant has, and a friend of mine
wound up paying over $40,000 out of his own pocket to a motorcyclist
who hit my friend's car, for fear that a jury might buy the cyclist's
story and award hundreds of thousands of dollars over and above the
limit of my friend's insurance coverage.

Still, if some entrepreneurs want to form a

     "Fornicator's Fund Mutual Insurance Company,"

or a

     "Traveler's Salesman (& State Farmer's Daughter) Insurance Company,"

or see to it that the Love-'em-and-leave-'em Lancelots and their pregnant
Guineveres are 

     "In Good Hands with Allstud,"

who can stop them?

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY

     
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton