From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and Waiting Periods for Men
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:18:35 GMT

<1ijbsaINNr2k@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>><1i7uatINN7ph@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>
>>>><1i4ul0INNjf6@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>
>>You would like to enforce a two-year waiting period for men to
>>get married.  (Or even to have sex again, but this would undoubtedly
>>trigger a moral outcry from you, against those "repeat offenders.")
>
>I don't know where you got the idea that I am in favor of a waiting period
>for men to get married.  For the record, I am not.

I'd like to clear up just what you mean, for the record.


>>Otherwise, how can a man be sure that a child of his has not been born 
>>and that a paternity suit is not in process?
>
>What does this have to do with his subsequent marriage?  I know of no 
>prohibition against defendants in court becoming married.  (In fact, the
>media seems to delight in stories along the lines of "jaibird weds -- bride
>kissed through bars".)

As I wrote,

>>Certainly, we must allow nine months for the pregnancy, a year
>>for the woman to consider her choice about the paternity suit
>>(and solidify the custody decision in her favor) -- or even
>>just for notification (she is a burdened single parent, after all);
>>plus the usual 90-day period for service of legal documents.


Are you against *effective* hindrances to abortion?  That is,
do you support the Supreme Court's view that certain things
like spousal notification may effectively be a burden, even though 
in theory they are not, and certainly are not in all cases?


Your suggestion that a man should search all birth records in every 
city in the world in order to verify he's not a father, coupled with
your opinion that a woman should be freely able to hide a pregnancy
and surprise a man with a suit if or when she desires,  seem to me 
to be very effective and unequal burdens on men.  

Your position requires a waiting period *in practice*, regardless
of whether it is stated in law.


>>>And if the child is born then the father *is* obliged to support. Regardless
>>>of what he feels/wants/can afford.
>>
>>What about what his wife/children feel/want/can afford -- when he gets
>>married a year after the condom broke and then the "victimized woman"
>>decides to sue for paternity?
>
>As I recall, the vow is "for better or worse".  There isn't (usually) 
>any clause excepting child support for previously-conceived children.

What, you don't like an abortion law requiring spousal notification?  
As I recall, the wife took her vow "for better or for worse."  Where 
was the clause that said her husband has no right to know about his 
unborn children?

And, in the case at hand (2-year waiting periods for full information), 
the children of the marriage took no such vow.  You would strip
them of their rights.

Finally, don't ignore that under your proposed standard, neither
the husband nor the wife would have any way of knowing about these
"previously-conceived children" without waiting a couple of years.

(In fact, at the time of the marriage, such a "previously-conceived"
child may indeed be just an abortable fetus, not a legal person -- hence,
your "vow" is not quite what it appears to be, in general.  A spouse who
wanted a divorce after suddenly discovering the other spouse had children 
would not be breaking the spirit of the vows, IMO.)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky soc.men:22457 alt.feminism:6985