From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:33:02 GMT

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>In article <1gbmk8INN74p@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu 
>(Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>>I don't argue that he has to pay for a child just because he had sex.
>>I do, however, argue that he has to pay *if* a child is born, because 
>>it was *born* and has a right to be supported!

>Let's say that we have a situation where the father had notified the 
>mother in week four of the pregnancy that he does not want the child,
>but she decided to have it, and now she sues the father.

>There are (at least) two options:
>1) An unmarried mother and an angry father and a bitter fight 
>   to force him to *pay*.

>2) A forced adoption by a pre-screened couple.

>Michal, like most feminists, just loves option 1) and she fights 
>hard against option 2).

>So I have just one questions for her (and every one who is against 
>choice for men): what, in your opinion, is better for the *child*,
>option 1) or option 2)?

I feel that the choice of whether to have the child or not is ultimately up
to the mother.  The father can express his feelings, but he can not force her
to do one or the other.  I guess that makes me "against choice for men".

>Please try to give a clear answer.

Given that the mother wants to have the child but the father does not (and has
expressed that), the father can not be held financially responsible for the
child beyond the one-time cost of the abortion he wanted her to have.  At the
time, what is "best for the child" is irrelevant as the child does not truly
exist.  Once it is "too late" for an abortion, he can no longer attempt to
avoid responsibility by the "I wanted you to have an abortion" argument--if he
did not know about it, that is a different matter.  (This is my opinion, not
current legal views.)

If this were civil law policy, then the mother would not be likely to decide
to have the child unless she really wanted it and knew she could support it
on her own.  Then the child would be more likely to be given a loving home and
be provided for.  (ignoring adoption, which would remove financial
responsibility from *both* parents)  On the other hand, if the mother decides
to have an abortion then the child never exists, so you can not talk about what
is "best for the child".

The abortion would be at the father's expense, if he "wanted" her to have an
abortion.  If she decides to have an abortion and he *doesn't* want her to have
an abortion, then he can not be forced to pay for the abortion, but must
instead provide, up front, half of the cost of actual childbirth and any time
she would miss from work for continuing the pregnancy--which would usually
cover the cost of an abortion--AND must be willing to provide sole support to
the child after it was born (if that had been what she had chosen).

As for what *is* best for the child...well obviously it's for the child to be
born into a successful, loving family that won't ever have to worry about who
pays how much in support of the child, because the parents are together.
Unfortunately, this is an imperfect world and what is best for the child is
not always what happens.

>>							--  Michal

>Hillel                                           gazit@cs.duke.edu

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh