From: forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: University of Minnesota
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:56:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.152507.17089@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>Xref: news.cis.umn.edu soc.women:18432 alt.abortion.inequity:4929 talk.abortion:46119 alt.feminism:3691 soc.men:18454
>Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
>Path: news.cis.umn.edu!umn.edu!spool.mu.edu!decwrl!decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!payner
>From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
>Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
>Message-ID: <1992Nov4.152507.17089@netcom.com>
>Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
>References: <1992Nov3.132252.29571@cbnews.cb.att.com> <1992Nov3.144311.17433@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> <1d80jsINN746@gap.caltech.edu>
>Distribution: na
>Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 15:25:07 GMT
>Lines: 45
>In article <1d80jsINN746@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (r l taylor) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Nov3.132252.29571@cbnews.cb.att.com> lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Nov2.212103.12012@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>
>>>>>The legislation was for -spousal- notification. And if my wife was pregnant,
>>>>>and it was not my child, I would think that I would have a right to know.
>>
>>>>One question. Why would you have a right to know that the child your
>>>>wife was carrying was not yours? Does she not control her own body?
>>
>>>Just a wild guess:  Maybe he actually believed that bit in the wedding
>>>ceremony about "forsaking all others".  Maybe he feels that breaking that
>>>"archaic" vow is reason to end the marriage.  Maybe he doesn't want to be
>>>deceived into thinking it's his child if it's not.  Maybe he doesn't want
>>>to raise another man's child as his own.  Maybe if/when the marriage ends,
>>>he doesn't want to financially support another man's child for 18 years.
>>>Maybe he wants to father children of his own.  Maybe he doesn't want them
>>>to suffer because he's supporting another man's child.  Could it be?  Nah,
>>>who could possibly be so outdated?
>>
>>>Sure, she controls her own body...but certain choices should not grant her
>>>control over his wallet.  If she chooses to carry another man's child, she
>>>should accept the possible consequences and the full responsiblity for her
>>>choice.  I didn't notice Rich saying he would force her to take any given
>>>course of action.  But, since her actions have an impact on him, I agree
>>>that he has a right to know that it's not his child.
>>
>>That's nice.  You've gien us lots of reasons why you'd *like* to know.
>>But you havent given us any justification for your belief that you have
>>a *right* to know.
>                                                     -- Michal   
>
>You missed that part about the husband being assumed the father of
>the wife's children, and his having full legal and financial responsibility
>for the child? 
> 
>Rich

Not to argue with your excellent point, but fatherhood itself is the right. 
---------

Eric Forbis      forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men