From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Summary: Responsibilities based on Status and Actions, not just Consent.
Keywords: sex, agreement, legal, contract
Date: 8 Jan 93 14:01:55 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <6669@pdxgate.UUCP> a0cb@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (Chris Bertholf) writes:

>matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:

>>Funny thing, though:  Neglecting one's children, failing to support
>>them -- that's also a crime.  . . . If the "Fornication Contract" is 
>>unenforceable because it entails the commission of the crime of "Male 
>>Choice," the "Pre-Sex Contract" is equally unenforceable because it 
>>entails the crime of child neglect.  And that's as it should be.
>>[Matt Rosenblatt]

>The funny thing is that, on the one hand you seem to support a
>womans right to choose, but on the other, you do not support a
>mans right to choose.  [Chris Bertholf]

I suppport an equal right to choose for both men and women.  That 
means that a woman should have the same right to choose not to be 
a parent that a man presently has.  A man has the right to refrain
from sexual intercourse; refraining from sexual intercourse will
keep him from becoming a parent.  If he engages in sexual intercourse,
he has the right to employ the most effective means of birth control
he is willing to use.  And if he fails to use birth control, or if
the birth control he uses fails and he conceives a child, he has no
more right to choose.  That's all the "right to choose" a man deserves,
and it ought to be enough "right to choose" for a woman, too.

>Please, in understandable, non-emotional terms, explain why you believe
>men should NOT have the right to choose, why our consent to sexual
>relations implies a consent to childbearing, and why one person (the
>man) should be held responsible for the other persons decisions, if
>that decision was made after an agreement NOT TO BEAR CHILDREN was
>executed.  [Chris Bertholf]

I do not believe that "consent to sexual relations implies a consent
to childbearing."

There are many on the net who believe that the only things someone
ought to be responsible for are things to which he has consented.
I, on the other hand, believe that in addition to whatever responsibilities
people may *consent* to, they also have responsibilities based on their 
*status* or on their *actions*.

In the case at hand, I believe that a man's duty to support his
child exists independently of whether he consented to become a parent.
The duty depends only on the father's *status* as the child's flesh-and-
blood parent, and on his *actions* in performing the act of sexual 
intercourse that conceived the child.  I see no reason why his lack 
of consent should excuse him from responsibilities which are the 
consequences of his actions and his status.   (Think about it: does 
a man's lack of consent to taxes mean he doesn't have to pay them?)

>Also, if you can, explain why it is you think that men should
>be subjected to financial slavery, when they rarely get custody, are
>easily subjected to 'legalized kidnapping' when the woman (with the
>custody rights) choses to move to a locale that makes it difficult or
>impossible for the man to get to, . . .  [Chris Bertholf]

I don't go along with 'legalized kidnapping.'  I believe that a father
has just as much right to custody as a mother.  When someone is a parent,
he loses some of his absolute freedom to do whatever pleases him -- as
the Chicago parents who vacationed in Mexico and left their two girls
alone at home are finding out.  If I were writing the laws, I would
restrict the freedom of a custodial parent to do *anything* that would
interfere with the parental (part-time custody and visitation) rights
of the non-custodial parent or the rights of the children to grow up
in regular contact with both their parents.  Unlike many, I am quite 
comfortable with the idea of restricting adults' freedom and pleasure 
in order to avoid harm to their children.  I am not comfortable with
today's divorce laws, which seem to have been enacted with the idea
of maximizing the self-fulfillment and "personal growth" of parents,
*especially mothers*, at their children's expense.

>. . . and why I should be in any way
>responsible for a choice which I did not make, had no choice 
>in making, . . .  [Chris Bertholf]

Why not?  The kid had no choice about whether to be born, and he
needs support, and we're not gonna let him starve.  Of all the people
on Earth, it is his parents who are the best candidates for having
to support him, because if they had not engaged in the act of sexual
intercourse which conceived him, he would not have been born and he
would not now be in need of support.

Weren't American fathers responsible for supporting their children
in 1955?  Was it wrong then?  Why should it be wrong now?

>. . . and have no legal recourse against (for now).   [Chris Bertholf]

There's a difference between choosing to make something happen, and
taking the risk that it might happen.  No one chooses to get into
an auto accident, but if I get behind the wheel I am taking the risk
that I may cause an accident.  I can choose not to drive, and that
amounts to a definite, effective choice never to cause an accident.
But when I choose to get behind the wheel, I am choosing to take
the risk of causing an accident, and if in fact I cause one, the law
will hold me responsible for the consequences of the risk I chose
to take.

>Somehow, I see the issues of CHOICE and RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CHOICES
>ONE MAKES as intertwined.  If I am responsible enough to discuss it
>before sexual relations and it is agreed that we will not have children,
>then the only one responsible for the child should be the mother, if she 
>chooses to have a child that is the product of my seed against my will,
>and against OUR agreement.   [Chris Bertholf]

Why should people's only responsibilities be for the CHOICES they have
made?  When society decides that poor people need food to survive, the
majority enacts tax laws, and each citizen is responsible for obeying
those laws and paying his taxes even if he, on his own, would not have
CHOSEN to provide the poor with food.  The law says that he must pay 
taxes because of his *status* as a resident of his State and country,
not because of any choice he has made.  Does Chris Bertholf believe
that only those who agree to pay taxes should be responsible for
paying them?

In the same way, the law says that a man must support his children
because of his *status* as their father.  The requirement to support
one's children makes as much sense as the requirement to pay taxes,
and I support both requirements.

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus"
Newsgroups: misc.legal