From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:29:49 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <VIXIE.92Jul26161023@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>I regret that this article must be a flame.
>
>jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:
>>   No man should be dehumanized by the removal
>>   of his "Right To Not Support".  Be that 
>>   financial support to minor children anything
>>   else.  Slavery should be outlawed!
>
>Slavery is outlawed.  Child support is not, in and of itself, slavery.

Only because our beloved legislators have an affinity for calling a spade a 
shovel. A thorn by any other name pricks as deeply. 

>There is no "right not to support".  What we have in the United States
>amounts to an inconsistent and incomplete "right to be left alone".
>We all have the right to keep our zippers zipped.  If we don't, there
>are consequences.  

PHYSICAL consequences, yes. BIOLOGICAL consequences. What is at issue, 
however, are man-made, unnatural, FINANCIAL consequences, and their 
(purported) justifications. Don't confuse the two.

>The right of the child to be supported supercedes
>any choice you might like to make  ...

Yes, a child has a right to be supported. Then the question becomes "what
individual or group is assigned the corresponding duty to support it?"

That's the question here. Our position is that in many cases it is blatantly
unfair, and yes, ENSLAVEMENT to extract the bulk of the child support from
the genetic father, if he was defrauded, coerced, etc. or if his explicit,
unequivocal wish to not become a parent was arbitrarily overridden by the
mother.

>... because you had a choice, and the child did not.

Choice? You make a mockery of the word. The man is presented two choices:

	A) Allow Big Brother to control his sex life to the point of 
	   mandated abstinence

	B) Risk 18+ years of economic enslavement

A choice, yes. But one made under considerable duress. An unconscionable 
and unacceptable choice, in a supposedly civilized and enlightened society.

>>     This forced relationship between a man and 
>>   a child will only be a source of abuse -- 
>>   like babies in garbage cans.
>
>Both parents had a choice.  Sexual intercourse has well-understood risks.

Driving a car has "well-understood risks". Walking down the street has
"well-understood risks". Eating, breathing, sleeping. All of these have 
"well-understood risks". Yet normally this understanding-of-risks doesn't 
result in a complete surrender of rights. Paternity child-support is the 
exception, not the rule.

>The child, as I said above, had no choice.  I respect and would fight
>for your right to be left alone -- your zipped is your personal property
>in your personal space and noone but you should be allowed to unzip it.
>But once you have done that you have taken responsibility for any kids
>born as a result, and I will fight even harder for their right to be
>supported than for your right to have been left alone -- had you chosen
>that.

The "right to be left alone" subsumes the right to concensual sex without 
excessive government interference. You are defending excessive governmental
interference in the sex lives of private citizens. I conclude that you are
an enemy of the "right to be left alone", Mr. Vixie, in that you seem 
extremely willing for the government to control (economically) when and
whether people's zippers are open or closed.

>>     Every human should have the choice of who
>>   he will or will not support!!
>
>No.  Every human has a choice of who he will or will not *create*.
>Deception and error are irrelevant to this.  

Because Paul Vixie said so???

How come fraud, deceit, coercion, duress etc. are valid factors for 
consideration in virtually every other area of civil law, but not in this 
one? When you make such a glaring exception to the common law, I think the 
burden is on you to JUSTIFY such an exception, Mr. Vixie. I eagerly await 
that justification...

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky soc.men:13476 talk.abortion:28231