From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:39:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.222949.28786@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
>Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
>Date: 27 Jul 92 22:29:49 GMT

>In article <VIXIE.92Jul26161023@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>>I regret that this article must be a flame.
>>
>>jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:
>>>   No man should be dehumanized by the removal
>>>   of his "Right To Not Support".  Be that 
>>>   financial support to minor children anything
>>>   else.  Slavery should be outlawed!
>>
>>Slavery is outlawed.  Child support is not, in and of itself, slavery.

>Only because our beloved legislators have an affinity for calling a spade a 
>shovel. A thorn by any other name pricks as deeply. 

>>There is no "right not to support".  What we have in the United States
>>amounts to an inconsistent and incomplete "right to be left alone".
>>We all have the right to keep our zippers zipped.  If we don't, there
>>are consequences.  

>PHYSICAL consequences, yes. BIOLOGICAL consequences. What is at issue, 
>however, are man-made, unnatural, FINANCIAL consequences, and their 
>(purported) justifications. Don't confuse the two.

>>The right of the child to be supported supercedes
>>any choice you might like to make  ...

>Yes, a child has a right to be supported. Then the question becomes "what
>individual or group is assigned the corresponding duty to support it?"

>That's the question here. Our position is that in many cases it is blatantly
>unfair, and yes, ENSLAVEMENT to extract the bulk of the child support from
>the genetic father, if he was defrauded, coerced, etc. or if his explicit,
>unequivocal wish to not become a parent was arbitrarily overridden by the
>mother.

>>... because you had a choice, and the child did not.

>Choice? You make a mockery of the word. The man is presented two choices:

>        A) Allow Big Brother to control his sex life to the point of 
>           mandated abstinence

>        B) Risk 18+ years of economic enslavement

>A choice, yes. But one made under considerable duress. An unconscionable 
>and unacceptable choice, in a supposedly civilized and enlightened society.

>>>     This forced relationship between a man and 
>>>   a child will only be a source of abuse -- 
>>>   like babies in garbage cans.
>>
>>Both parents had a choice.  Sexual intercourse has well-understood risks.

>Driving a car has "well-understood risks". Walking down the street has
>"well-understood risks". Eating, breathing, sleeping. All of these have 
>"well-understood risks". Yet normally this understanding-of-risks doesn't 
>result in a complete surrender of rights. Paternity child-support is the 
>exception, not the rule.

>>The child, as I said above, had no choice.  I respect and would fight
>>for your right to be left alone -- your zipped is your personal property
>>in your personal space and noone but you should be allowed to unzip it.
>>But once you have done that you have taken responsibility for any kids
>>born as a result, and I will fight even harder for their right to be
>>supported than for your right to have been left alone -- had you chosen
>>that.

>The "right to be left alone" subsumes the right to concensual sex without 
>excessive government interference. You are defending excessive governmental
>interference in the sex lives of private citizens. I conclude that you are
>an enemy of the "right to be left alone", Mr. Vixie, in that you seem 
>extremely willing for the government to control (economically) when and
>whether people's zippers are open or closed.

>>>     Every human should have the choice of who
>>>   he will or will not support!!
>>
>>No.  Every human has a choice of who he will or will not *create*.
>>Deception and error are irrelevant to this.  

>Because Paul Vixie said so???

>How come fraud, deceit, coercion, duress etc. are valid factors for 
>consideration in virtually every other area of civil law, but not in this 
>one? When you make such a glaring exception to the common law, I think the 
>burden is on you to JUSTIFY such an exception, Mr. Vixie. I eagerly await 
>that justification...

>                                                                - Kevin
I agree with Paul on this one, except that he overlooks the fact that the 
law must treat minors, in particular small children, as not independent 
rational agents, capable of looking out for themselves.  They are dependent, 
and as such have a right to depend on their parents, for this is just an 
extension of the right to life. The issue has nothing whatever to do with 
interferring with people's sex lives. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Bell                                    Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc                   You can force any entertainment
P.O. Box 833875                                 on a people except the consistent
Richardson, TX 75083-3875                       pursuit of a topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------