From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 19:12:50 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1993Jan3.135552.11886@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan02.043753.4844@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <1993Jan1.015705.29920@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec29.190139.11562@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>In <1992Dec29.031344.19977@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>In article <1992Dec28.182701.28515@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>>>In <1992Dec24.181349.2692@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>>>In article <1hb1i8INNf40@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Unsupported assertion.  Why?  A woman retains the right NOT to legally
>>>>>>>>dissolve all ties, but to REMOVE the fetus from her body.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>However, the EFFECT of a successful abortion is NOT ONLY to remove the
>>>>>>>biological dependency, but to also remove the associated financial obligation
>>>>>>>as well. If we parallel the latter, and it would result in more equity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Minor quibble - there is no financial obligation prior to birth.
>>>>>
>>>>>We've had this discussion before, Larry. Saying that there is no financial
>>>>>obligation before birth is like saying that there I have no financial
>>>>>obligation for my credit card purchases until the bill arrives from the bank,
>>>>>gas company, department store or wherever. True, there is no STATEMENT OF
>>>>>ACCOUNT, until the bill arrives, but the charges are incurred well before
>>>>>then.
>>>>
>>>>Not really - you have a financial obligation for your credit card purchases
>>>>whether or not the bill shows up.
>>>
>>>That doesn't address the point, Larry. I'm not saying that a man has a
>>>financial obligation even if there is no paternity award (analogous to the
>>>credit card bill); I'm saying that the man's financial obligations are
>>>_incurred_ prior to when they are _assigned_. It's a retroactive debt.
>>
>>Again you miss the point - the retroactive debt is *conditional* on the birth
>>of a child.  If no child results, then there will be no paternity award, and
>>so no legal financial obligation for the man even though the same expenses
>>were incurred by the woman as in the case when there *is* a paternity award.
>
>Larry, the topic of discussion is child support.

No, the topic is "parallel situations".

>If there is no child, there is no child support, and thus no discussion.

But there are still charges incurred by the woman (including the cost of the
abortion if she gets one, and any medical expenses incurred prior to that).
There is no financial obligation on the part of the man unless and until a
child is born.

>>>>According to the ruling you posted
>>>>previously, the man has no financial obligation unless a child is born.
>>>
>>>Learn the difference between "unless" and "until", Larry.
>>
>>OK, unless *and* until.  My point stands.
>
>Wrong. The man incurs debt PRIOR to the birth of the child, unless the
>birth doesn't occur. There is no "until".
>
>>>It's a contingent debt -- contingent on the birth of the child
>>
>>If you understand this, then why are you arguing with me?
>
>Because you didn't limit yourself to saying "child support is a contingent
>debt" or "child support attaches, unless the woman miscarries or aborts".
>You went and introduced chronology, by saying "there is no financial
>obligation prior to birth". That innocuous-looking word "prior" actually
>drags along with it a whole baggage-load of preconceptions about the
>sequentiality of chronological events -- sequentiality that the law
>gingerly violates when it assigns debts retroactively.
>
>Moral of the story: pick your words carefully.
>
>>>>>Similarly, there is no formal "billing" of pregnancy/child-support costs
                                                ^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>until a child is born, and the paternity award is made, but that doesn't mean
>>>>>the charges aren't INCURRED before the child is born.
>>>>
>>>>The charges are incurred by the woman whether or not a child results;
>>>
>>>Huh? Are you claiming a woman is liable for child support even if there is no
>>>child born?
>>
>>Huh?  Are you claiming that a woman doesn't have to pay her doctor's bills
>>for prenatal care if she miscarries?
>
>Those charges are not covered under our topic of discussion, Larry, which
>is paternity child support liability. Why do you insist on trying to
>introduce irrelevancies?

See the word "pregnancy" that I highlighted above?  You wrote that, Kevin.
If it's an irrelevancy, it was introduced by you.  Moral of the story:
pick your words carefully.

>>>>...the
>>>>man is only obligated to pay a portion of those charges if a child results
>>>>and a paternity award is made.  If no child results, then there is no
>>>>paternity award, and therefore no financial obligation for the man even
>>>>though charges were incurred by the woman.
>>>
>>>Wrong, Larry. A paternity award doesn't "incur" the man's debt,
>>
>>I didn't say it did.  Pregnancy-related charges are incurred by the woman
>>during the course of the pregnancy.  If no child results then there is no
>>financial obligation for the man even though charges were incurred by the
>>woman.
>
>You said "there is no financial obligation [...] prior to birth".

No, I said "there is no financial obligation prior to birth".

>Was I wrong to fill in the missing verb or verb phrase (that I've
>now marked with an ellipsis) with "incurred"? If so, what verb or
>verb phrase did you mean?

You were wrong to assume *anything* was missing.  The verb in that sentence
is "is".  It's a perfectly gramatical sentence, like "There is no life
after death".  Please don't assume things I didn't say and then argue
against that; it wastes everyone's time and makes you look foolish.

>>>>Note that I'm not making any claims as to legal principle here; I'm simply
>>>>basing this on a citation that you yourself have previously posted.
>>>
>>>You grossly misinterpreted what I posted. There is nothing in the statute
>>>which supports your interpretation.
>>
>>Perhaps you didn't read it...
>
>I read it all right, Larry. It says nothing about _when_ the man's liability
>is incurred.

Again, "incurred" is your word.  If you'll recall, you posted that statute
in response to Adrienne Regard's assertion that there was no financial
obligation on the part of the man prior to birth.  You disagreed with her,
but the statute you posted showed that she was correct, since the paternity
award (which *can* include pregnancy-related expenses) is conditional on
the birth of a child.  I was simply trying to remind you of this when you
started talking about paralleling the removal of financial obligations.

>>>>>>You're assuming a "right to terminate her financial liability"; it seems
>>>>>>to me that preventing any such liability from coming into being is a side
>>>>>>effect of preventing any child from being born.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's an effect, nonetheless, and that's all that matters. Whether it's one
>>>>>of the "main" effects or a "side" effect is just a matter of arbitrary
>>>>>semantics.
>>>>
>>>>If you agree that it's an effect of a right, and not a right itself, then
>>>>it's *not* "just a matter of arbitrary semantics."
>>>
>>>The two effects (i.e. severance of financial liability, physical removal of
>>>the fetus) are separable effects,
>>
>>How do you separate them before birth?
>
>The woman's child support liability could, in theory, be waived, even if she
>decided to keep the child. Likewise, in theory, the woman could be held
>responsible for child support even if she aborted (it wouldn't be support
>for THAT child, of course, but she could still be assigned the child
>support of some OTHER child in lieu of the one she aborted).

[This strikes me as nonsense, but this was an aside anyway, so I won't
pursue it.]

>>>therefore it is perfectly valid to say that
>>>the woman who aborts or chooses not to abort, under the current laws,
>>>exercises two legal rights, not just one. Equity demands that the man should
>>>be given a parallel to one of those rights -- the right to sever his
>>>financial liability to the (potential) child, in the same manner as the woman
>>>can exercise this same right.
>>
>>The woman exercises her right to remove the fetus from her body; the man has
>>the same right to remove the fetus from *his* body if it is in there.
>
>Okay...
>
>>The only "right to sever financial liability" that I know of is the "right"
>>to put the kid up for adoption.
>
>Duh. Abortion => no kid => no child support liability. Looks like a severance
>to me (actually, I think "discharge" is the more correct term)...

"Duh" yourself.  That severs financial responsibility, but the question at
hand is, does she have a *right* to sever financial responsibility.  (See
above, where I wrote "You're assuming a 'right to terminate...".)  She has
a *right* to remove the fetus; is the termination of financial
responsibility for child support a *right* in and of itself, or merely a
side-effect of the right of removal?  If you're talking about paralleling
*rights*, the distinction is important.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)