From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Second try - Reprodu (1)
X-To: KARL DENNINGER
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 05:23:00 GMT

karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes...
KD> After much head-scratching, and thought, I have modified the proposal I
KD> would like to present to Bill Clinton and the US Legislature to modify the
KD> current sexist state of national reproductive policy.

Okay... I'm ready for it...

KD> What I envision is a law which provides all of the following:


KD> 1)      Provides a declaration of a woman's right to choose up to fetal
KD>         viability whether or not to have an abortion -- as a federal
KD>         law.  Not on privacy grounds (as RvW was based) -- but on reproducti
KD>         freedom grounds -- the right to choose when or if to bear children.

Okay with me...


KD> 2)      Maintains the right of a woman to cede rights to a child at birth,
KD>         placing said child for adoption with public or private agencies.
KD>         Should a woman attempt to exercise this right the man involved may
KD>         choose to prevent the adoption by immediately assuming the
KD>         responsibilities and rights of parenthood with regard to the infant,
KD>         gaining full and unabridged custody and parental rights.

Good, I like this too...


KD> 3)      Provides the right for a >man< to cede the rights and
KD>         responsibilities of a child in utereo up to the time of birth,
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
KD>         effectively mimicing the "adoption" process which a woman can go
KD>         through should she choose to bear a child yet not care for same.


Why up to the time of birth, rather than the time of viability?  Indeed, if
you were to implement *this* solution, when a man chooses *after* viability,
to not care for the child, the woman is left holding the bag.  Remember that
in an adoption situation, the man has the "right of first refusal," but is
*not* the person assumed to be holding the bag if the woman chooses not to
raise the child.  However, if a man were to make the choice, as outlined
above, the woman *would* be the one who was assumed to be a parent.  Also,
it eliminates the possibility that the woman *might* choose not to bring
the child into the world, if she knew that his/her father did not wish to
be involved in his/her life.

In other words, what I am saying is - Please reconsider changing this
requirement *back* to "up to the time of viability," since the process
which you envision, is *not* truly analogous to adoption, for the reasons
which I cited above.


KD> No state may pass law restricting abortion before fetal viability, with a
KD> lower cap of the 12th week of pregnancy even as technology advances.  Furthe
KD> no state may attempt to attach parental responsibility to any person who has
KD> followed these declarative steps as set out in law and has declined
KD> responsibility.

Good!



KD> For children who are born, the law shall be modified as follows:
KD>
KD> 1)      Provides a declaration that in custody cases, and in the event of
KD>         a split of a present-case family unit, that both parties will be
KD>         presumed to be equally capable of parenting, and that the split
KD>         shall be 50-50 with regards to custody and responsibility.  Further,
KD>         the default support award shall be >zero< (since both parents have
KD>         the responsibility half the time, they both inherently bear half the
KD>         costs).  In particular, repeal the "tender years" doctrine at
KD>         the federal level and require proof by preponderance of the
KD>         evidence that a parent is >unsuitable< -- not "less suitable" --
KD>         before the default custody split of 50-50 is modified.

Good!


KD>         Further, should one parent choose to move away from the original are
KD>         where the divorce took place, the parent which decides to move shall
KD>         bear the cost(s) of transporting the child(ren) involved to comply
KD>         with the custody decision.  In no case shall this movement by a
KD>         parent be grounds for modification of custody unless both parents
KD>         contractually agree.

Daring, but good.


KD> 2)      Provide a declaration that any allegation of abuse made by one
KD>         parent or another which is proven false and baseless shall be:
KD>         1)      A class X felony (similar to dealing narcotics)
KD>         2)      Immediately cause the accusing person to be ineligible to
KD>                 receive further custody of children in said dispute.

Good, and I am glad that you said "an allegation which proven to be false
and baseless".  This therefore, will not be a deterrent from reporting
legitimate cases of abuse.


KD> 3)      Provide that interference with custody arrangements of any kind
KD>         by a parent is grounds for immediate loss of custody of the child(re
KD>         affected, and is additionally a federal felony.  This is intended to
KD>         prevent situations where parents "impound" their children against a
KD>         court order or in the hopes of "swinging" a custody dispute.

A little extreme, but seemingly the *only* way to enforce access rights without
punishing the children indirectly.


KD> Anyone want to join in on this one and see if we can get some legislative
KD> action on this proposal at a federal level?

Yes, but only with the *very* crucial amendment to Section 1, #3.


KD> You can register your support for this proposal by sending electronic mail t
KD> repro-support@ddsw1.mcs.com

BTW, did you receive my submission?  I was expecting a confirmation of
receipt, but as one never came, I imagine that you either didn't get it, or
didn't want it (and given that what I sent you, was my "Open Letter to
Bill Clinton," and rather sarcastic as it was, I wouldn't blame you for
not wanting to send him this...)

BTW, I suggest that you put the repro-support address, *back* into your .sig.
It will save you from having to type it every time that someone asks for it!

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Can you do the Picard Maneuver in a Grand Am?
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.men,alt.feminism