From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:21:51 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1993Jan9.194018.12290@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan05.081339.4582@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <1993Jan5.034836.5770@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan03.070026.2282@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>In <1993Jan3.034934.11018@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>in <1992Dec28.182701.28515@watson.ibm.com>, you said "...there is no financial
>>>>>obligation prior to birth." Mark Cochran, on the other hand, has said, in
>>>>><1992Dec29.210320.9276@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, "...there most certainly *is*
>>>>>formal billing of pregnancy costs before any child is born". If those two
>>>>>statements are compatible, it's certainly not obvious HOW...
>>>>
>>>>   Gack! What a moron! Look back through the articles of this thread ...
>>>>   We were talking about a billing of the MAN. Sheesh.
>>>>         Kevin Darcy, in <1993Jan3.034211.10923@rotag.mi.org>
>>>
>>>Precisely. Any way you look at it, Mark's statements and yours are
>>>incompatible.
>>
>>There is no financial obligation on the part of the man prior to birth, even
>>though the woman has costs that must be paid.
>>
>>>>There is no financial obligation on the part of the MAN, unless and until
>>>>a child is born.
>>>
>>>Strike the "until", and you've got a deal, Larry. When the "unless" happens,
>>>then the debt is retroactively incurred as of the time the man had sexual
>>>intercourse.
>>
>>I think "incurred" is what's confusing you; stop interjecting it where it
>>doesn't appear.
>>
>>>>Expenses are incurred by the WOMAN, for which *she* is
>>>>billed, during the pregnancy,
>>>
>>>Fully billed, but, if a child is subsequently born, only _partially_ incurred
>>>by her. The remainder is incurred by the man.
>>
>>Incurred by her, billed to her, and paid by her.  There is no certainty that
>>a child will be born, that a paternity award will be made, or that the award
>>will include reimbursement for pregnancy-related expenses.
>>
>>>>...but according to the statute you posted,
>>>>any financial obligation on the part of the MAN (Gack!  You moron!) is the
>>>>result of a paternity suit, which is conditional on the birth of a child.
>>>
>>>Conditional, yes. But once that condition is met, then the "incurrence" of
>>>that debt is placed at the time of sexual intercourse, NOT the time of
>>>paternity award.
>>
>>And until the condition is met, there is no obligation.  Why are you being
>>so stubborn, Kevin?  Forget your strawman "incurrence".  There is no actual
>>financial obligation until a child is born and a paternity award is made.
>
>Your sentence is semantic nonsense until you supply the missing verb.

I already explained that there was no missing verb, Kevin.  Didn't you
read that part before you deleted it?  I even gave you an example to help
you understand it.

>Abstract nouns don't just "happen" -- something brings them into existence,
>whether it be thought, action, relation, state or whathaveyou. What causes
>the financial obligation to "be", Larry?

The child.

>I filled in the missing verb as "incur".

There is no missing verb.

>If that was the wrong choice, please provide a better one.

"Is".  "There *is* no financial obligation prior to birth."
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.dads-rights