From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 01:49:45 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


db>In article <Bu4F34.DwJ@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
dk>In article <1992Sep4.160722.22559@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:

dk>I believe that Will is not anywhere near the norm.  I think the majority of
dk>men would not respond in the same fashion as Will would.  For these men,
dk>I would hope that the woman would go to them and discuss the options 
dk>rationally.  However, since men such as Will exist, I believe we must not 
dk>pass legislation that would force a woman to be put at Will's mercy.  
dk>The price for such legislation is just to damn high.

db>We return to "PRECISELY!"  If the woman doesn't want to inform her
db>husband, she can break the legally binding marriage contract (which 
db>exacts certain costs from him in exchange for supporting certain vested
db>interests, and vice versa) and divorce him.  

I'm not a legal expert, but I would be very surprised if the marriage
contract included some sort of full disclosure agreement.  If it does, 
I oppose it.  If the woman doesn't want to inform her husband, she
doesn't inform her husband.  
 
db>It might not be so bad to have a clause saying notification is 
db>not necessary if the woman can reasonably demonstrate it would put 
db>her life in danger, but such a clause permitting her a release from 
db>part of her obligations in the marriage contract should be her burden 
db>to prove.  It should not be +presumed+ that notification puts a woman's 
db>life in danger.

Why not?  It would seem if the couple is communicating, then no legislation
is needed.  If there is a communication break down, a potential reason
for the break down could be a violent husband such as Will.  

db>Why should we repress the "majority of men" because of instances 
db>"not anywhere near the norm"?  

Why should we put the burden of proof on the woman?  Let the woman 
decide for herself what she wants to inform her husband of.  Keep
legislation out of it.  For couples that communicate, legislation
is a waste and for couples that don't communicate, legislation can
be very dangerous.  I just don't see the advantage of this legislation,
and I see the potential for people such as Will reacting violently.  
 
In a previous post you said regarding Will Steeves threat:

db>Whether this is literal or not, you and I don't know; we'd have to
db>ask Mr. Steeves how he meant it.  If it is literal, and it says
db>Mr. Steeves is a "walking time bomb," then it is probably better
db>to correct the system that pushed him into that position and to 
db>provide some avenue of help for him (eg. therapy) than to resort 
db>to such intelligent repartee as insulting him personally.
 
I'll make you a deal.  You worry about the system that drove Will
Steeves to such inappropriate behavior.  I'll worry about the poor
unfortunate woman that may get tied up with a creep such as Will
Steeves.  My feeling is that regardless of the system, Will Steeves
is going to find an excuse for his inappropriate behavior.  This 
time it was the woman not giving him the proper respect in informing 
him of an abortion in what he considers a reasonable time frame.  
Next time it may be some other lack of showing respect.  

db>Don Beaver

Dan King
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA