From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Date: 5 Jan 93 04:36:37 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <1993Jan03.191250.6295@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1993Jan3.135552.11886@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan02.043753.4844@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>In <1993Jan1.015705.29920@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec29.190139.11562@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>>In <1992Dec29.031344.19977@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>>In article <1992Dec28.182701.28515@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>>>>In <1992Dec24.181349.2692@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>>>>In article <1hb1i8INNf40@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Unsupported assertion.  Why?  A woman retains the right NOT to legally
>>>>>>>>>dissolve all ties, but to REMOVE the fetus from her body.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>However, the EFFECT of a successful abortion is NOT ONLY to remove the
>>>>>>>>biological dependency, but to also remove the associated financial obligation
>>>>>>>>as well. If we parallel the latter, and it would result in more equity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Minor quibble - there is no financial obligation prior to birth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We've had this discussion before, Larry. Saying that there is no financial
>>>>>>obligation before birth is like saying that there I have no financial
>>>>>>obligation for my credit card purchases until the bill arrives from the bank,
>>>>>>gas company, department store or wherever. True, there is no STATEMENT OF
>>>>>>ACCOUNT, until the bill arrives, but the charges are incurred well before
>>>>>>then.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not really - you have a financial obligation for your credit card purchases
>>>>>whether or not the bill shows up.
>>>>
>>>>That doesn't address the point, Larry. I'm not saying that a man has a
>>>>financial obligation even if there is no paternity award (analogous to the
>>>>credit card bill); I'm saying that the man's financial obligations are
>>>>_incurred_ prior to when they are _assigned_. It's a retroactive debt.
>>>
>>>Again you miss the point - the retroactive debt is *conditional* on the birth
>>>of a child.  If no child results, then there will be no paternity award, and
>>>so no legal financial obligation for the man even though the same expenses
>>>were incurred by the woman as in the case when there *is* a paternity award.
>>
>>Larry, the topic of discussion is child support.
>
>No, the topic is "parallel situations".

In the context of child support, yes.

>>If there is no child, there is no child support, and thus no discussion.
>
>But there are still charges incurred by the woman (including the cost of the
>abortion if she gets one, and any medical expenses incurred prior to that).
>There is no financial obligation on the part of the man unless and until a
>child is born.

"Unless". But once the debt is assigned, it is assigned at the time of sexual
intercourse, and therefore _before_ the birth of the child. Therefore it is
incorrect to say "until a child is born".

>>>>>According to the ruling you posted
>>>>>previously, the man has no financial obligation unless a child is born.
>>>>
>>>>Learn the difference between "unless" and "until", Larry.
>>>
>>>OK, unless *and* until.  My point stands.
>>
>>Wrong. The man incurs debt PRIOR to the birth of the child, unless the
>>birth doesn't occur. There is no "until".
>>
>>>>It's a contingent debt -- contingent on the birth of the child
>>>
>>>If you understand this, then why are you arguing with me?
>>
>>Because you didn't limit yourself to saying "child support is a contingent
>>debt" or "child support attaches, unless the woman miscarries or aborts".
>>You went and introduced chronology, by saying "there is no financial
>>obligation prior to birth". That innocuous-looking word "prior" actually
>>drags along with it a whole baggage-load of preconceptions about the
>>sequentiality of chronological events -- sequentiality that the law
>>gingerly violates when it assigns debts retroactively.
>>
>>Moral of the story: pick your words carefully.
>>
>>>>>>Similarly, there is no formal "billing" of pregnancy/child-support costs
>                                                ^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>>until a child is born, and the paternity award is made, but that doesn't mean
>>>>>>the charges aren't INCURRED before the child is born.
>>>>>
>>>>>The charges are incurred by the woman whether or not a child results;
>>>>
>>>>Huh? Are you claiming a woman is liable for child support even if there is no
>>>>child born?
>>>
>>>Huh?  Are you claiming that a woman doesn't have to pay her doctor's bills
>>>for prenatal care if she miscarries?
>>
>>Those charges are not covered under our topic of discussion, Larry, which
>>is paternity child support liability. Why do you insist on trying to
>>introduce irrelevancies?
>
>See the word "pregnancy" that I highlighted above?  You wrote that, Kevin.
>If it's an irrelevancy, it was introduced by you.  

The topic of discussion is what the man incurs and/or gets billed for, Larry. 
There was nothing irrelevant about my use of the word "pregnant", since men 
can get billed for pregnancy costs (but only AFTER the child is born, I 
believe). Your attempt to bring in bills between a doctor and the pregnant 
woman, however, IS off-topic and irrelevant.

>>>>>...the
>>>>>man is only obligated to pay a portion of those charges if a child results
>>>>>and a paternity award is made.  If no child results, then there is no
>>>>>paternity award, and therefore no financial obligation for the man even
>>>>>though charges were incurred by the woman.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong, Larry. A paternity award doesn't "incur" the man's debt,
>>>
>>>I didn't say it did.  Pregnancy-related charges are incurred by the woman
>>>during the course of the pregnancy.  If no child results then there is no
>>>financial obligation for the man even though charges were incurred by the
>>>woman.
>>
>>You said "there is no financial obligation [...] prior to birth".
>
>No, I said "there is no financial obligation prior to birth".

Precisely. Do you understand the function of an ellipsis? I doesn't literally
represent anything you typed -- it's just a "placeholder" for a missing piece
of information.

>>Was I wrong to fill in the missing verb or verb phrase (that I've
>>now marked with an ellipsis) with "incurred"? If so, what verb or
>>verb phrase did you mean?
>
>You were wrong to assume *anything* was missing.  The verb in that sentence
>is "is".  It's a perfectly gramatical sentence, like "There is no life
>after death".  

I never said it was syntactically incorrect, Larry. 

Semantically, however, to say "a financial obligation exists for X" implies 
"X has incurred a financial obligation", does it not? If so, then I was 
correct to read the verb "incurred" where I have shown an ellipsis above.

>Please don't assume things I didn't say and then argue
>against that; it wastes everyone's time and makes you look foolish.

Please don't spout ambiguous drivel and then complain when people 
interpret it in ways that refute your argument.

>>>>>Note that I'm not making any claims as to legal principle here; I'm simply
>>>>>basing this on a citation that you yourself have previously posted.
>>>>
>>>>You grossly misinterpreted what I posted. There is nothing in the statute
>>>>which supports your interpretation.
>>>
>>>Perhaps you didn't read it...
>>
>>I read it all right, Larry. It says nothing about _when_ the man's liability
>>is incurred.
>
>Again, "incurred" is your word.  

"Incurred" is implicit in the term "financial obligation". How can someone
have a financial obligation, unless they have "incurred" it? It's a _sine qua
non_.

>If you'll recall, you posted that statute
>in response to Adrienne Regard's assertion that there was no financial
>obligation on the part of the man prior to birth.  You disagreed with her,
>but the statute you posted showed that she was correct, since the paternity
>award (which *can* include pregnancy-related expenses) is conditional on
>the birth of a child.  I was simply trying to remind you of this when you
>started talking about paralleling the removal of financial obligations.

Given that a child is born, the man incurred a financial obligation when he 
had sexual intercourse, Larry. The point at which the debt is ASSIGNED, and
the point at which it is INCURRED, need not be the same point. In this case,
the law assigns the debt retroactively.

>>>>therefore it is perfectly valid to say that
>>>>the woman who aborts or chooses not to abort, under the current laws,
>>>>exercises two legal rights, not just one. Equity demands that the man should
>>>>be given a parallel to one of those rights -- the right to sever his
>>>>financial liability to the (potential) child, in the same manner as the woman
>>>>can exercise this same right.
>>>
>>>The woman exercises her right to remove the fetus from her body; the man has
>>>the same right to remove the fetus from *his* body if it is in there.
>>
>>Okay...
>>
>>>The only "right to sever financial liability" that I know of is the "right"
>>>to put the kid up for adoption.
>>
>>Duh. Abortion => no kid => no child support liability. Looks like a severance
>>to me (actually, I think "discharge" is the more correct term)...
>
>"Duh" yourself.  That severs financial responsibility, but the question at
>hand is, does she have a *right* to sever financial responsibility.  

Currently, her right to sever financial responsibility happens to be 
comingled with her right to physically terminate her pregnancy. Legally, it 
need not be so. They can, and IMO should, be treated as completely separate 
rights.

>(See
>above, where I wrote "You're assuming a 'right to terminate...".)  She has
>a *right* to remove the fetus; is the termination of financial
>responsibility for child support a *right* in and of itself, or merely a
>side-effect of the right of removal?  

Abortion exercises two rights in a single action. Both rights-assertions are 
"effects". Your attempt to relegate one to a mere "side effect" is an 
arbitrary choice on your part.

>If you're talking about paralleling *rights*, the distinction is important.

Indeed. It is important to distinguish that the woman who aborts currently
exercises two rights, not just one, and that a man who wishes to sever HIS
financial obligations is being denied a right that the woman has been granted, 
NOT by the laws of biology (as many around here keep claiming), but by an
obsolete view of family roles enacted into statutes by the legislators who 
held them, in many cases, well over a generation ago.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: soc.women