From: JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu (Jennifer Brown)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: You want to win(Men's rights and Women's rights).
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:49:33 GMT
 <1992Apr13.194939.8956@noao.edu> <1992Apr13.203829.19036@news.nd.edu>
 <1992Apr14.035659.21977@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Organization: Penn State University


  You'll notice that this article is extremely pro-woman.
  "Fathers must do this."
  "Mothers given the choice."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <1992Apr14.035659.21977@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, pciszek@isis.cs.du.edu
(Paul Ciszek) says:
>
>I would say that fathers would have to be required to support the child.
>Yes, some men will disappear or avoid earning any money.  The fact that
>there have always been neglect, abuse, and abandonment by parents of either
>gender, whether the children were once wanted or not, does not really change
>the nature of the argument.
>
>Breaking things down into three basic situations:
>
>Neither parent wants the child:  Both parents are legally responsible for the
>child until they can locate someone else who is willing to take custody.

I would drop them off on the front step of the orphanage.

>If this party is willing to assume complete financial and legal responsibility
>for the child, the parents are relieved of any future liability-- or
>privlidges-- towards the child.  If the child ends up a ward of the state,
>the father should definately by required to provide some ammount of support;
>whether the mother has any financial liability in addition to being required
>to carry the child to term, I will leave to other net.pundits.

Only the father, eh?  The mother gets off scot free?  Question:  "Is she
its parent?  Is the father its parent?  Now, what's the difference?"
Also, if the father is responsible after birth, do you also think that
with this being the case, the father "should definitely" get all custody
of the children?  You should, because you're implying that the father is
always responsible and the mother is only responsible for birth...

>One parent wants the child:  This parent would receive custody unless they
>had been convicted of murder or something.  A non-custodial father would
>have to pay child support, and again I leave the matter of maternal support

Again, the father must take responsibility.  Regardless of whether he had
a choice of wanting the baby or not.  Hence, the mother should also have
no rights in deciding if she wants anything to do with the child after
its born.  This would be like making abortion illegal to her.  But still
if the father wants custody, the mother MUST pay to him.
(See why it sounds biased to let women off the hook?)

>payments open.  If the non-custodial parent wants visitation rights, etc.,
>this should be settled early on.  Whether the non-custodial financial
>obligation can be permanently removed by agreement between the two parents
>is another interesting issue; I would say, though, that if the custodial
>parent dies the other parent would have an obligation again.

Why is this?  Should I have responsibility to take care of my friend's
baby if she dies, just because I baby-sat once?  If the *child* is
getting no support from one parent (agreed upon, mind you), then why
should the parent suddenly be forced to pay support when the other isn't?
This is as though the one parent went back on his/her word.  Or decided
to contradict the legal binding of what they said.

>Both parents want the child:  This would end up looking a lot like present
>day divorce court.  I think that fathers should be given equal consideration
>as potential parents in this case.  In any case, the legality of abortion
>would not affect this situation too much.

Oh! Non-biased statement!

From what you've said, legality has nothing to do with it.  You just give
up the child to another couple, OR if you're the man, pay to the woman.
That's exactly what's happening today.  The man still has no choice, except
that he could have the woman keep the pregnancy full term, and then take
custody of the child.  That's one thing that can't be done today.  That's
the only benefit of making abortion illegal, to the parents.  You're still
making the man pay for anything and everything.  But not the woman.

If you think that making the woman carry full term is punishment enough
to her, why don't you talk to some of the women who had easy births?
They may say that birthing was a joy!  Not a punishment.  Yet, you'd
still let them off the hook of paying for their child.

Someone's mind is screwed on backwards.  And it's not mine.
-Jennifer
Newsgroups: alt.personal,soc.women,soc.singles,alt.fan.q