From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice (Not!)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:53:24 GMT

In article <695@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <Bz87p8.JFG@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>#In article <502@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>##Sigh.  I was right.
>##
>##Some of prefer to be allowed to live at least parts of our lives
>##without state interference.  
>#
>#So do men.  
>
>Obviously the man who said "Why not?" disagrees with you.  I know
>several more who do, as well.  When I said, "Some of us" I wasn't
>referring to women only.  
>
>#So repeal the child support laws and make this a pure
>#contractual issue, with the rights and responsibilities falling where they
>#should, on the person who makes the choice -- the woman.
>#
>#Now, you have no state interferance.  If you choose to sleep with a man, and
>#wish to bear a child if you get pregnant, get a contract signed first that
>#says he's willing to pay <x> if you're single, or that custody and finances
>#will be handled as <y> if you are married and split up.
>
>Who enforces the contract, Denninger?  
>
>#Otherwise, what you're really saying is that you want all the advantages in
>#this situation, as I suspected.
>
>Oh, really?  I was discussing having everything codified.  You've made
>the leap to this meaning that I want all the advantages in a child
>support situation.  That's an interesting leap, since I'm not ever
>going to be in the that situation.  Of course, from what I've seen
>of your articles, you seem to believe everyone is as obsessed by 
>child support as you are.
>
>##That's my problem - it's not the same standard.  You might try re-reading
>##what I wrote.  I don't think that many women would deny a child a
>##relationship with his or her father if the man agreed to it, regardless
>##of any previous agreements.  You automatically assumed that I would
>##do this.  I doubt that I could.  
>##
>##Even if the woman did try to stop any such meeting, the child will
>##eventually grow up and be independent.  It's possible that a
>##relationship with the father might occur then.
>##
>##There is nothing that is analogous to abortion.  Granting men the
>##right to refuse to pay child support will not make things equal.
>##That was all I was saying.  
>#
>#Sure it will.  It will mean that women, if they want a man's cooperation,
>#will have to secure it contractually or "be nice" as they may choose,
>#instead of being able to beat men over the head with "child support" and
>#"dead beat dads".
>
>I guess that you don't want to read what I wrote.  The alternative
>is that you don't understand it.
>
>Would a man who failed to honor his contractual abligations be
>considered a deadbeat dad?  Does it matter - you specified no
>state involvement above, so there's no way to enforce these
>contracts.  It sounds to me as if you want all the advantages
>(a relationship with your child, the right to support that child
>at your whim, etc.) but no real responsibilities.

Susie, legislation (the option you are defending) is a more intense form of 
"state interference" than mere judicial enforcement of common law obligations 
(the option reformers are proposing). What we have currently is essentially no 
different than a "contract" situation, except that legislators, rather than
private citizens, have stipulated all the terms of the "contract", and the 
principals are assumed to have "signed" the contract when they engage in 
sexual intercourse, even if their true intentions might have been very 
different. The contract approach to paternity child support reform pushes the 
idea that the principals should have the FREEDOM to negotiate their own terms 
and conditions and should have the FREEDOM to engage in sexual intercourse 
even without "signing" any contract whatsoever, if that is their wish. Why are
you so unwilling to let people live their lives they way they see fit? Why do
you think legislators have any business shoehorning people into contracts they
might not agree with?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion