From: forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: University of Minnesota
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 04:18:14 GMT

In article <8JRSBQFT@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>Xref: news.cis.umn.edu soc.women:18494 alt.abortion.inequity:4965 talk.abortion:46270 alt.feminism:3757 soc.men:18528
>Path: news.cis.umn.edu!umn.edu!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!hela.iti.org!cs.widener.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.cc.swarthmore.edu!auer
>From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
>Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
>Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
>Message-ID: <8JRSBQFT@cc.swarthmore.edu>
>Date: 5 Nov 92 08:58:28 GMT
>References: <1992Oct29.150706.26091@ils.nwu.edu> <3RLSB4B2@cc.swarthmore.edu> <forb0004.38.720666539@student.tc.umn.edu>
>Sender: news@cc.swarthmore.edu (USENET News System)
>Distribution: na
>Organization: Swarthmore College, PA
>Lines: 35
>Nntp-Posting-Host: ginger.cs.swarthmore.edu
>In article <forb0004.38.720666539@student.tc.umn.edu> forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis) writes:
>>In article <3RLSB4B2@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>>>From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
>>>Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
>>>Date: 1 Nov 92 23:17:18 GMT
>>>In article <1992Oct29.150706.26091@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>>>In article <1ckmjdINN5cp@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>MLP>A question for those support mandated husband notification:
>
>MLP>[material deleted]
>
>DSA>One must look at instances leaning more towards the first several cases I
>DSA>mentioned and at those more similar to the last example and way them in terms
>DSA>of estimated frequency of the former versus the latter.  Bearing this in mind
>DSA>one must than guess the relative consequences under father's notification and
>DSA>lack of father's notification and then decide based upon a merger of these two
>DSA>data which legal set-up is best.  My suspicion is that upon sufficient soul-
>DSA>searching you will come to agree with me _against_ father's notification.
>
>EF>We must judge father's rights under the supposition that they are rapists, 
>EF>etc.?
>
>Laws exist for when reason fails.  The case of the abusive or rapist father is
>the most critical in that it is the case wherein the most damage can be done.

Rape, etc., is committed by individual criminals. Unless you're willing to 
come out and declare all fathers guilty of rape, you have no case for using 
the actions of individual criminals to block legal action designed to 
recognize fatherhood.

>
>DSA>Does this mean that if I negate your assumption-assume that the class of 
>DSA>men isn't criminal, in other words- that you'd agree that there were no 
>DSA>valid reasons for not recognizing fathers?
>
>No.  There are other cases as well.  For instance, if the father is not the
>mother's husband, or if the father is incapable of raising the child (a tough
>call to make, but perhaps plausible in imaginable cases (drug-addiction,
>extreme youth,...)  If the father has abused the mother.
>
>-dave

I may not have worded the above clearly enough: by "recognizing fathers" I 
wasn't referring to individuals (who may well deserve to rot in prison), but 
to fathers as a general class. 
---------

Eric Forbis      forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.politics.theory,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.classics