From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 14:44:23 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


db>In article <Bu8or2.2MK@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
dk>In article <1992Sep8.014945.6036@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:

dk>I'm not a legal expert, but I would be very surprised if the marriage
dk>contract included some sort of full disclosure agreement.  If it does, 
dk>I oppose it.  If the woman doesn't want to inform her husband, she
dk>doesn't inform her husband.  

db>I don't think there is any full-disclosure in any state, since the
db>Supreme Court would probably strike it down (as it just did w/rt
db>notification).  My point is that the benefits and liabilities are
db>partly explicit, partly implicit, and extremely variable from court
db>to court.  

So why must the woman break her marriage contract if she doesn't want
to inform her husband?  Seems all she has to do to not inform her 
husband is to not inform him.  Since nothing is specified in the
marriage contract that says they must inform each other of all
details, seems she doesn't have to break the contract.  

db>For example, child support is an explicit liability; unlike a single man, 
db>a husband is presumed father and therefore liable, often without any chance 
db>of rebuttal.  Spousal support is another (gender-misnomer) example.  
db>Notification isn't all that different, and it is consistent with 
db>a +traditional+ view of marriage.  

I don't believe your first statement is correct.  I believe the husband
does have an opportunity to prove he is not the father.  Perhaps your
complaint might be with the assumption, but I don't think you are 
correct about the husband not having his day in court.
 
Spousal support is gender nuetral.  Judges may grant it to the woman
more often than the man, but that is not a problem with the 
legislation, but rather a problem with the way judges may or may
not handle each case.  
 
A really couldn't care less about +traditional+ view of marriage.  
My concen is that all partys are treated as fairly as possible.  When
ever people bring up traditional as an argument, I know they have no
real valid arguments anymore.  Its much like bringing religious 
tennents into the argument.  As far as I'm concerned, they are both 
useless arguments.

db>So if we're going to force archaic regulations on married couples, then let's
db>be equal about it, at least, and preserve everyone's +traditional+ interests.  

How about we just stop forcing archaic regulations on married couples.
I've never understood this argument against abortion.  Since men are 
treated un-fairly regarding marriage and children, women should be treated
just as unfairly.  It just seems to me that the proper solution would 
be to make changes so that men are treated as fairly as women.

Again, I couldn't care less about +tradition+.  Tradition is often used
as an excuse for treating one group of people un-fairly.

dk>I'll make you a deal.  You worry about the system that drove Will
dk>Steeves to such inappropriate behavior.  I'll worry about the poor
dk>unfortunate woman that may get tied up with a creep ...

db>Sounds constructive; I'd agree.

dk>... such as Will
dk>Steeves.  ...

db>But I still don't know whether he was illustrating a point (and/or venting
db>anger) or being literal.  I do hope the former was the case (in which
db>case I'd say it was a matter of very poor judgement but not deserving of
db>exile), and I'd rather give the benefit of the doubt until I hear more.

I will not give Will the benifit of the doubt.  Will Steeves has threatened
to kill women that do not show him the proper respect.  I still have his
post if you would like me to re-post it so you can see this has not been 
taken out of context.  My opinion is that slime such as Will Steeves 
deserve exile.  We need to make the point that such inappropriate behavior
as Will has advocated will not be tolerated.  The important thing, IMHO,
is not Will's feelings, but protecting the poor woman that he will be
threatening with bodily harm.  Making excuses for his threats only condones
such behaviour.

db>Don

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion