From: Deborah_Brown@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women,soc.men,ba.singles,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Date: 12 Dec 92 02:51:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bz4LCE.Dry.1
	<Byr6yx.39u.1@cs.cmu.edu> <1992Dec11.010918.19811@netcom.com>
Organization: CWRU School of Law (guest at CMU)

rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:
>  Deborah_Brown@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu writes:
>  >
>  >David writes:
>  >>  Deborah writes:
>  >>  > David writes:
>  >>  >> > David writes:
>  >[....]
>  >>  >>
>  >>  >>	why would you leave or have him leave?
>  >>  >-----
[....]
>  >-----
>  >No, I think he is insensitive and irresponsible because of his view
>  >(as evidenced by the contract) of what HE thinks would be acceptable
>  >outcomes to an unplanned pregnancy.
>
>	If they both signed the agreement, then they both share the same
>  view about sensitivity and responsiblity.
-----
Pay attention to your own question.  You asked "why would you leave or
have him leave?" in response to another poster who said that she would
do so upon being PRESENTED with the contract.  I was explaining why
_I_ would do the same -- upon being presented with the contract.
Thus, the question and answer have NOTHING to do with a situation
where the contract has been signed by both parties.  While your above
statement may be true, it is hardly a response to my comment, since it
has nothing to do with the question originally asked.
-----
[....]
>  >

>  >>  ....If she decides to have the child against the man's wishes
>  >>  and she makes the man pay child support, then he is liable to pay child
>  >>  support for at least 18 years.  That is not power?????  What the hell is
>  >>  it then?
>  >-----
>  >Responsibility.
>  >-----
>	That is a double standard.  The woman has state-mandated responsibility
>  only to herself.  The man has state-mandated responsibility to the woman and
>  child.  Therefore, the woman has state-mandated power over that man.
-----
The woman has state-mandated responsibility only to HERSELF?? What,
you've never heard of a woman being arrested for child neglect? For
child abuse? Some states are going so far as to prosecute pregnant
women who use drugs and/or alcohol. I don't know how you figure the
state does not impose responsibility on the mother.
----
>
>	You still have not shown how the contract does not try to equalize
>  the power.
>
>	I would not have proposed such a contract if the state-mandated
>  laws were fair and gave the same amount of power and responsibilities
>  to both men and women in the reproductive arena.
-----
Oh, I absolutely don't deny that the contract TRIES to equalize the
"power".  The point it, you have not shown why it is just that the
"power" be equalized.

There are three relevant time periods: (1) before and up to
conception; (2) between conception and birth; and (3) from birth
forward.

With respect to (1): at this time, both parties clearly have equal
power with respect to reproductive decisions.  They can choose not to
have sex.  If they choose instead to have sex, they know that there is
always the possibility of conception.

With respect to (2): at this point, only the woman can decide whether
to become a parent, since only she can make the decision to abort.
Now, setting aside for the moment whether or not abortion OUGHT to be
an alternative, the fact is that presently it is a legal option.
Granted, it is an option which only the mother can exercise, and the
father has no power or control over.  I know that this really ticks
you off, but I'm afraid that's just the way it is.  I think you are
probably aware of my personal feelings about abortion. Nevertheless,
the right of a WOMAN to have an abortion has been declared to be
constitutionally protected, based on the WOMAN's right to privacy
(that is, her right to make private decisions about the termination of
her pregnancy).  The fact is, there simply is no parallel right of the
father to decide what to do with the woman's body, and no logical
reason that there should be.  Thus, the right of a woman to decide to
abort is NOT based on some right she has the determine "whether to be
a parent" -- that is simply the RESULT of her right to determine
whether her body will continue to carry the baby.

With respect to (3): once the baby is born, it is the responsibility
of the parents to support it.  Both parents should be equally
responsible.  I have never said, nor do I know of anyone else in this
thread who has done so, that the father should bear 100% of the
financial responsibility.  But is SHOULD be a joint responsibility of
the biological parents.  This is the "default" value.  If BOTH parents
agree to relinquish all parental rights (give the baby up for
adoption) then they are BOTH released from their parental
responsibilities.  But if the baby is not given up for adoption,
responsibility for supporting the child ought not to fall on society;
it ought to remain with the parties whose actions resulted in the
birth.  Just for the record, I _don't_ think that the mother should
have a "default" right to full physical custody.  The father should
have equal opportunity to assert his right to full, or joint custody,
and of course should receive full custody (absent a showing of
unfitness) should the mother not want custody at all.  In any case,
the MOTHER should be required to pay her share of the child's support
when the father has physical custody.  Just so you don't get the
misconception that I'm TOTALLY against equalizing the power......
-----
--
Debbie
____________________________________________________________________________
Deborah M. Brown | debbie@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu | dmb11@po.cwru.edu     |
_________________|_________________________________|_______________________|