From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Pre-conception contract
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:59:29 GMT
Keywords: conception sex contract child support abortion

In article <1992Aug21.062124.2344@cis.ohio-state.edu> fabian@gecko.cis.ohio-state.edu (anjanette louise fabian) writes:
)	I posted this idea to alt.politics.clinton when the abortion debate
)was raging, but I think I'll post it here too.
)
)	The idea is to avoid the "She killed my child!" "I'm stuck supporting
)a child I don't want!"  cries of the fathers.  How?  By specifying in a 
)preconception contract the responsibilities of both parents.

Unfortunately current law won't support such a contract.  What would happen
today is that the 'best interests of the child' as interpreted by the judge
would prevail.  This would probably be custody to the mother, support
payments made by the father.

)  This would
)include whether abortion is an option and the financial and child rearing
)responsibilities.  If the mother agrees to carry a child to term, she could
)be reimbursed for her medical expenses, loss of income due to incapacitation
)or complications, "damages" due to restriction of activities and mental and 
)emotional stress.  I think that surrogates get around 15 to 20 thousand dollars
), and they are willing and prepared as opposed to a woman who is not prepared
)for the ordeal.  If you look at a worst case scenario where a woman is
)bedridden and possibly hospitalized,  and she loses her job as result and
)has no insurance: well, well, well.... welcome to the million dollar baby!

There are several problems here:

1)  Not everyone who wants a kid has $15-20,000 dollars.  People will 
continue to have kids anyway, most likely.

2)  People who do have that sort of money will not want to expose themselves
to that sort of liability.

3)  Such contracts will probably be worthless in practice - there's a general
tendency in US law to go 'lawsuit happy' and allow people to collect for
things they've specifically disclaimed.

4)  Similar to 3 above, if the mother decides she can't go through with
an abortion, the court is very unlikely to force one on her, even if they
act before the baby is born which is unlikely (and it's even more unlikely
for everything to be settled during the time an abortion is medically safe).
In short, such contracts won't be worth the paper they're printed on without
radical changes in the practice of US law.

5)  Such contracts would probably be most likely to be implemented in a
marriage setting in any event.

)	The idea in that case is to fairly compensate the women for an ordeal
)that is not easy or pleasant, provide proper prenatal care and to discourage 
)people from thinking they can recoup costs by selling the child.

Actually, I *would* like to see enforcable contracts for who gets custody in
a married couple, and what sort of child support is paid, that well be held
valid unless there is *proof* that the contract is *very* bad for the
children - not just some vague feeling that 'customary' practice of giving
the kid to the mother must be best for the child because it's traditional.

There'd be some limits as to what could be agreed to and enforced, but a
strong presumption that a reasonable contract that met the needs of the child
and was not unduly unfair to any of the parties involved would be enforced
would be a good thing, IMO.

As far as 'million dollar' babies go, I doubt that would do anything for
anyone but the lawyers, who'd take 2/3 off the top.  Though a new industry
in 'faking childbirth problems for $$$$' might arise :-(.