From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipUlations..
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 02:52:55 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <By3898.5yq@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.020633.129698@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <By0u8w.Mv0@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov18.221554.37953@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>In <1992Nov13.171159.15074@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>In article <1bk0euINN4lg@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Horseshit.  The man has *no* legal obligation until a child is born.
>>>>>
>>>>>Horseshit yourself, Adrienne:
>>>>>
>>>>>MCLA 722.712. Child born out of wedlock; liability of parents
>>>>                     ^^^^
>>>>>
>>>>>       Sec. 2. (a) The parents of a child so born out of wedlock are liable
>>>>                                           ^^^^^^^
>>>>>       for the necessary support and education of the child. They are also
>>>>>       liable for the child's funeral expenses. The father is liable to pay
>>>>>       such expenses in connection with HER PREGNANCY as the court in its
>>>>>       discretion may deem proper. (Emphasis mine).
>>>>
>>>>You proved Adrienne's point - *no* obligation until *after* the child is
>>>>born.  The fact that he [maybe] has to pay expenses incurred *before* the
>>>>child was born does not alter the fact that there is no legal obligation
>>>>until *after* the child is born.
>>>
>>>Your 16-year-old child decides to drive your car into a store,
>>>doing $10,000 damage.  Are you liable for damages?
>>>
>>>Your 16-year-old child drives your car.  Are you liable for damages?
>>>
>>>Would you say that your right _not_ to pay for someone else's actions
>>>has been restricted, even before any damages occur?
>>
>>This has nothing to do with anything quoted above, does it?
>
>Why would you side-step?

I'm not side-stepping, Don.  It seems to me that your two questions were
unrelated to anything quoted above, and so I'd delete the previous material
before answering.  If you think they *are* related, then (a) I shouldn't
delete it, and (b) I'd like you to explain how, since I don't see it.

> Refer to Adrienne's "Horseshit" line.

That line says "The man has *no* legal obligation until a child is born. "
This is consistent with what Kevin posted, which discusses liability *after*
birth.

>Your girlfriend decides to have your child, requiring $10,000
>in ob/gyn expenses.  Are you liable?

According to what Kevin posted, not until *after* birth.

>Your girlfriend is two months pregnant.  Are you liable?

I certainly hope so.  :-)

Seriously - I don't know what the law states, but according to what Kevin
posted above, I don't legally have to pay anything until after the
child is born, at which point a court could declare that I had to
(retroactively) pay some pregnancy expenses.

>Would you say that your right _not_ to pay for someone else's actions
>has been restricted, even before any expenses are incurred?

Not really; I'm paying for my actions in getting her pregnant.

(And to answer your original question, I don't really know, since I don't
have any kids, but I assume my insurance would cover it, so I wouldn't
personally be liable,)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48922 soc.men:19700 alt.dads-rights:2665