From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Date: 21 Dec 1992 13:08:36 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <BzLB81.2n1@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>In article <1gie2pINN1q2@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>So why not apply some affirmative action to this problem, as feminists are
>wont to do in the work arena?

Scuse, please, but how does a society apply affirmative action to an unwanted
pregnancy?

>Does >that< proposal meet with your support?  

Haven't seen a proposal yet.  Please feel free to offer one.  If you are
interested in my opinion, please include an economic analysis.

>>In many cases, society expects a man to help pay for that food
>>and housing, but absent the man, it STILL expects it of women.
>
>Unless she decides to adopt the kid out, in which case she doesn't have to
>support anyone.

Well, absent the man, she can 'adopt the kid out'.  If, however, there is
a man in the picture, known to be the father, she doesn't get to unilaterally
'adopt out' the child.  His wishes count, too.

This is one of those places where mixing the scenarios makes things very
muddy.

1.  In the case of a pregnant woman who knows who the father is, and has
his consent, she can 'adopt out' the child at birth.  But that's because
she has his consent.

2.  In the case of a pregnant woman who doesn't know (or who won't reveal)
who the father is, she can 'adopt out' the child at birth.  In this case,
no unwilling male is held hostage for his pocketbook.  (however, there's
a kid running around in the world who doesn't' know who his real dad is,
and there's a dad running around in the world who doesn't even know he has
a kid, which *I* consider to be something of a crime, but so what....)

3.  Int the case of a pregnant woman who knows who the father is, and 
doesn't have his consent to 'adopt out' the child, she and he have a
discussion they have yet to hold, and a resolution they have yet to come
to.  And it can get pretty ugly.  And they both have rights and duties
up to the point that they come to the resolution and make it work.

And, of course, there are a passle of scenarios where the split of 
responsibilities and duties arises well after the child is born, and 
the situations that are particular to the three parties involved.


>>Child support, on the other hand, for the support of children, and is
>>separate and distinct from alimony.
>Right.  So why does there have to be no accounting provided of how the money
>was spent?

Heck, why should it?  The red tape wouldn't be worth the cost.  Of course,
you also note that there is no accounting provided for the monies the 
custodial parent puts out.  Nor is there accounting provided for alimony
in the cases where it is awarded.  Mostly because it's a matter of personal
finances, which has been pointed out to you before.  Why do you keep asking?

>In EVERY other case under the law a custodian of funds for a third party has
>a fiduciary responsibility to keep track of and account for every thin dime
>that is spent for the beneficiary of those funds.  

Bull.


>>>Every generally accepted principle in accounting and law says that if you
>>>are the custodian of a thing, and that thing (or person) requires upkeep,
>>>you must keep records to substantiate that the funds you receive and spend
>>>for that upkeep are really spent on what they should be and are not
>>>converted to your own personal benefit and use.
>>
>>And horseshit for a third time.
>>
>>This is true when we are talking of a corporation, who has fiduciary duties
>>to shareholders and/or must account for expenditures when claiming exemptions
>>for business expenses.  It holds true where multiple interests have reason
>>to concern themselves with the finances of a public trust.
>>
>>It does not hold true in personal finances, and never has.  The "sole" 
>>exception is hardly child support -- the exception is ALL personal finances.
>>
>>These arguments are sieves.
>
>Nonsense.
>
>If I am a >legal< custodian of someone else's funds, personal or otherwise,
>and am being directed to do so by a court (which is EXACTLY what a CP/NCP
>relationship is) then I am required to keep detailed records.  PERIOD. 

Well, you ain't.  If you are a custodial parent you are not legal custodian
of their funds, you are their PARENT, and parents aren't required to keep
such records, period.

When my dad gives stock to my daughter, I'm supposed to keep track of it,
and cover the IRS obligations in her name, because I'm the parent.  But
when I buy her shoes, the IRS doesn't much care.

>Do not obfuscate the issue by claiming that "personal" finances are exempt.
>Once you land in court your finances aren't personal any longer.

Well, then, there's your solution.  Every one in the country can take his
partner to court and sue them so that their finances aren't personal any
longer.  Great idea.

I have yet to see an idea proposed on this thread that doesn't cost more
than it saves.  Which means it's a loser with the voters.


Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism