From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Summary: Drew gets justly flamed.
Date: 10 Sep 92 23:59:57 GMT
     <18jk0fINN96c@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) writes:
>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:

>>>Then why IS it treated as negligence?  Remember, what kind, and whethe or
>>>not contraception was used by the man, he is still liable for child
>>>support payments if the woman has the baby.

>>Because our legal system is based on an outmoded principle that the
>>man is always and solely responsible in such cases.  Good enough?

>No, sorry, not good enough.

>Why is it that folks always write about child support as if a man pays it
>and a woman incurs no liability whatsoever?  What do you think those women
>who struggle to find jobs, who need daycare, and who depend quite desperately
>on the help of their families to watch the little one while they work are
>DOING with that money?

>Are either of you fellows aware that BOTH parents are "liable" for child
>support?  Do either of you fellows have a *clue* about the WOMAN's obligations?
>Doesn't look like it here.  

No, it doesn't.  I have to admit -- Stevens' arguments had me completely
flummoxed, and I was flailing.

[Note to Holtsinger, Chaney, and all other quoters out of context: His
arguments had me flummoxed because of their incredible lack of concern
for women, not because of their overwhelming validity.  I want THAT on
the record.]

I got suckered in because -- just for a minute -- he almost sounded reasonable.
However, having spent more time thinking about it...

I think that, if the mother decides to keep the child, the father should
have to pay child support.  If the mother decides to turn the child over
to the father, the mother should have to pay child support.  If the mother
wants to abort, she gets one -- ideally, the father would concur, but his
views aren't paramount.  If the father wants to get an abortion, but the
mother doesn't, then here's where I founder.

It doesn't seem fair to make the father pay for the support of a child he
didn't intend to create IF he took reasonable precautions.  OTOH, it
certainly isn't fair to force the mother to undertake all the support of
the child.  I'm not sure how to resolve this -- if the mother doesn't 
want the child, she need not keep it, whether through aborting it or
giving it up for adoption, but the father doesn't have that option.
I'd be interested in hearing other people's perspectives on this, either
in email (though my mail spool is swamped right now) or on the net.

Ms. Regard, I didn't mean to come off as callous, and I truly am sorry
that's how I ended up sounding.  However, this is an issue that I
haven't thought about as thoroughly as I should (he said needlessly
:-) ), so I'm bound to misstep here and there.  This isn't meant as
an excuse, just an explanation.  Please DO post in reply; I'm interested
in hearing your perspective.

-- 
"Me and you, a two man crew, 
 side by side we are united,
 we will never be divided...."
                                                  Au revoir, *ma* cherie.
                                                  (Sorry, kiddo.)