From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Reproductive freedom (was: Re: Foetal removal)
Date: 19 Nov 1992 19:34:46 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

[long proposal and comments deleted]

some thoughts:

First, Iappreciate that you have taken people's comments into consideration.

The tract should be ammended to allow the woman to abort (after the 16 
weeks, regardless of the man's willingness to parent) if her life or
her health is seriously endangered.  

Perhaps the tract should be ammended to allow the "choices" to be
re-considered in the case where fetal test show that the foetus
is likely to have severe defects.  Perhaps not.  This opens a whole
new can of worms. Can the woman freely chose to get/avoid the tests?

>	2)	Inform the man and request his intentions as to parental 
>		responsibility.  Doing so is an >explicit< agreement to bear 
>		the child should the male respond that he is willing to accept
>		full responsibility for the potential child.

I don't like the *explicit* agreement for the following reason:  it
discourages communication.  If she even mentions the pregnancy 
to him then she is committed to bearing the child based on his
actions.  IE, she might feel discouraged from open discussion with him
unless she already knows his feelings.

>3)	Provides a declaration that in custody cases, and in the event of
>	a split of a present-case family unit, that both parties will be
>	presumed to be equally capable of parenting, and that the split
>	shall be 50-50 with regards to custody and responsibility.  

A 50-50 split may not be in the best interests of a very young infant.
nd perhaps hard on older children as well.  Also, at some age is the 
child allowed to choose one parent (rather than contining to shuffle
to and fro).

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

I'd like to allow a parent's movement to be cause for modification 
if it is decided (by court??) that shuffling to and fro is not in the
best interests of the child.  This whether or not both parents agree.

>4)	Provide a declaration that any allegation of abuse made by one
>	parent or another which is proven false and baseless shall be:
>	1)	A class X felony (similar to dealing narcotics)
>	2)	Immediately cause the accusing person to be ineligible to
>		receive further custody of children in said dispute.

I agree with (1,2) in cases where there is no shadow of doubt that
the allegations were made falsely and maliciously.  But there are
lots of cases where an allegation is made and investigated and it
is impossible to *conclusively* prove/disprove.  In these cases (1,2)
are too harsh.  They may discourage reporting of *suspected* abuse
cases to the appropriate authorities.

>6)	None of the above shall prevent parents who separate from drafting 
>	their own contractual arrangement for the care of their minor 
>	children if it is mutually agreeable to both parents.

... and adequately provides for the children.

>3)	It would provide that should a potential child be wanted by EITHER of 
>	its parents that it would have a home with said parent(s) in preference
>	to adoptive placement with any other person should it be born.


Need some provision to be made to allow disqualification of a parent
for unfitness.  With proper verifcation (court??), of course.

>4)	It would provide a strong incentive for women to be open and
>	up-front about pregnancy with their mates, lest they lose the right
>	to choose before discovering their mate's intentions.

See my comment above.  I believe this *not* to be the case, since you say
that a woman who discloses her pregnancy is  *explicitly* committed to 
continuing her pregnancy based on the man's "choice".  Once she discloses
her pregnancy she loses all "choice".  I see this as an incentive *not*
to disclose.

Would the government keep a record of the "notification of choice"
documents?  Would these be available in the public record (as are 
marriage licences)?  Keep in mind that for women these are pointers
to medical records, whereas for men they are not.

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights