From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Men and Abortion
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:21:13 CST

>In article <1992Nov4.142327.27388@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan >larsen) writes:
>In my usually too-roundabout fashion, I am trying to show that legislation 
>based on some arbitrary system of quantifying pain and emotional response 
>is not going to be effective.  Pain and betrayal cannot be prevented by 
>legislation.  Anger from such pain and betrayal can certainly be misplaced 
>and this is why it is important to sort out that anger.  I do think that 
>conjuring up new rules and laws in response to emotions *alone* is not 
>good social or legal policy.


 Then Susan and I agree that sexual harrassment laws and various other
discrimination laws that inflict arbitrary systems of quantifying pain
and emotion are also bad social and legal policy. 

 Discrimination is wrong, but legislation is not good policy. 

 Legal father notification on abortion is stupid policy.
 Abortion is wrong, making it illegal is stupid policy.
 Not supporting your children is wrong, mandating outrageous guidelines and
  automatic garnishment is stupid policy.
 Legal wife notification on husband vasectomy's is wrong. Legislating notification
  is bad policy.
 legal spousal notification on loans is stupid policy.
 Courts determining "best interest of children" is stupid. A soon to be 
  divorced person doesn't need the court to tell them what is. 
 Divorce is wrong, but granting a guarenteed standard of living for the
  custodial parent is stupid policy. 
 Single teenage mothers is wrong, it is bad community policy to encourage
  more.
 Single teenage NCPs are absurd. Are schools handing out the 'financial 
  spread sheets (consequences of supporting li' Suzy) with condoms or
  are they distributing bedsheets and ribbed condoms only?

 
 I agree with your logic Susan. Now when in hell will it apply to the
rights of NCPs. 

>Susan writes:

>It seems to me that any system of father notification regarding pregnancy 
>and intent to abort is doomed to run into all sorts of problems with 
>respect to patient-doctor confidentiality, rights to procure medical 
>treatment/procedures, the rights of marrieds vis-a-vis the rights of 
>singles, etc.  Since there is no father involvement with fetal life 
>except for the initial sex act, and since all the "investment" in the 
>fetus is made by the mother, I can see no *logical* argument that a 
>father, married or not, has a say-so in a woman's pregnant state. Yes, 
>I've read the arguments in this thread and I remain unconvinced that 
>fathers have any sort of legal right to notification of intent to abort.
>I would say that if a woman values her relationship to the father and if 
>she is a "good person" she will discuss it with the father, but legally, 
>no.

 Then you must agree that a women who chooses to keep the "babe in swaddling
clothes" has no right to claim child support. It could also apply to
exhusbands whose ex-wives claimed they had nothing to do with the kid
after the child was born. YIPEE!!!! Visitation is still in place because
momma still needs a babysitter. Sarcasm was thick there, but the first
sentence I'll hold too. I'm an NCP who must support his children. But
I'll clarify it by saying the current guidelines are ABSURD. If momma
wants to retain her standard of living don't divorce OR let a father
who wants his children retain custody. If momma wants a divorce 
regardless of the financial consequences with child support guidelines
designed to ASSIST momma in the children's BASIC needs, momma should
get the divorce she wants. Same for daddy. WOMEN's advocate groups
and the Hillary lawyer types who disguise their selfish women's power
trip by claiming the LOVE of children are nothing more than lying
asses. They claim victim even when drowning in diamonds and pearls.
They claim child support when they mean momma support. 

 Susan, your beginning to use logic that I support. Spousal notification
is absurd for abortions, loans or vasectomy's. Guarenteed standard
of living for single mothers (teenagers or divorcees) is absurd. 
Women have the pill and abortion, and they still scream for SUPPORT
money, government or Eddy, tom dick harry or whatever the hell that
guys name was! I get the impression with this thread it doesn't matter
who the hell banged her, as long as she is married the Ol' man is
going to pay, but he sure as hell won't know whose tab he's picking
up.