From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 03:56:49 GMT

In article <1eb9ucINNjb0@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.064942.26959@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>I don't usually bother responding to Kevin, but he's so incorrect in this
>instance that I am making an exception.  I won't bother responding to future
>issues in this thread, but it is important not to get these things mixed up.
>
>>What you describe is fraud, Adrienne. A criminal act. The man has been misled 
>>into forsaking birth control, and therefore the risk has been brought upon
>>the woman BY HER OWN ACTIONS. Do you condone this behavior? Would you SUBSIDIZE
>>this behavior, if it were your wallet on the line?
>
>This statement is not correct.
>
>The woman in an act of sexual intercourse has not undertaken a contractual
>obligation to use birth control.  

Not necessary for a showing of legal "fraud".

(Note: the man has not undertaken a contractual obligation to pay paternity
child support, either).

>She has not certified her knowledge in u using it correctly, 

Not necessary for a showing of legal "fraud".

>...and she CLEARLY has not caused him through anything 
>other than his own laziness to 'forsake birth control'.  

I see, her criminal fraud is 100% excusable, but his alleged, presumed,
generalized "laziness" in not using a method of birth control which, as far 
as he can tell, is *REDUNDANT*, is punishable by 18+ years of financial 
ruination. And you don't think that's just a teensy weensy bit slanted 
there -- like to the point of being damned near VERTICAL? Do you realize
that taking out a murder contract on one's lover or divorced spouse is in 
many ways _significantly_ less burdensome than paying 18+ years of child
support, and that a growing number of men are awakening to this reality,
and choosing to exercise that "option"? Do you still think there's no
"problem" here? Are you still going to sit around on your ass and wait
for The Holy Statistics to fall from Heaven before you hear the call for 
child support reform? What does it take to wake you from your smug 
complacency?

Getting back to the fraud scenario, what if she not only claims to be on the 
pill, but refuses to have sex with him if he insists on wearing a condom? 
Doesn't that get us back to the old "you could have always abstained" crap 
that we flame to a cinder when a pro-lifer spouts it? Why should I tolerate 
the same crap from a pro-(female-)choicer? It still smells the same no matter
the source.

And, please tell me, why is it that fraud is perfectly-valid grounds for 
voiding almost any kind of legal obligation *EXCEPT* paternity child support? 
Why does society tacitly condone this form of fraud, but not all of the other 
forms? After all, the only people who get burned by fraud on, say, real estate 
deals, are the "lazy" ones, right? Only "lazy" people get burned by mail-order 
fraud or wire fraud, right? Only "lazy" people get burned by bad checks or 
counterfeit money, right?

NOT!

>People lie.  We all know this.  We *all* know this.  Therefore, relying
>upon the word of another person is AUTOMATICALLY stupid.  That's where
>the whole growth of the legal industry sprang from.

But punishing the victim just bandaids the problem. To fix the problem at its 
root, the incentive for lying must be removed. Otherwise, these "accidents"
will keep on happening, over and over and over and over and over and over.
The children who are being used as pawns will pay the price. The men whose
lives are destroyed will pay the price. For men who die, or leave the country,
or go underground, in order to avoid paying child support, the welfare rolls
will pay the price. Finally, our GNP and our workforce's productivity and
health will suffer, and we'll ALL pay the price. Yes, even the happily-
married-with-children folks. Even the sterilized or infertile or post-
menopausal folks. Even you, Adrienne, in spite your inability to see HOW. What 
you don't know CAN hurt you.

>Now, if you want to be a disingenuous idiot, go ahead.

Content, please?

>But don't go telling other people that you can sue for fraud in an unen-
>forceable situation, because that's doing people who would (be stupid
>enough to) listen to you a GRAVE disservice.

So much for the unenforceable situations. What about the enforceable ones?
Or do you just glibly assume that reproductive fraud is impossible to prove 
in each and every case? How convenient.

								- Kevin