From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Keywords: abortion
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 15:27:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.033613.6739@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <Bxo3I1.C8A@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov12.222219.18930@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>jjj>>[Hypothetical legal system of Jen's deleted.]
>>>
>>>Remember, we're talking about a hypothetical system here.... one in
>>>which fathers are given a "choice"....  To have that "choice", they
>>>have to *express* it, in a legally binding format.
>>
>>If you require this, then you would have to require that men
>>be *informed*, as well.  When?
>
>My hypothetical legal system REQUIRED that the man be informed...I
>assumed something like within 2 weeks of the woman being informed.

I really do like your proposal, Jen.  When I've considered it,
I've run up against this problem:  it requires that women who
intend to have an abortion must inform the "father."  Otherwise
a woman could always hold out that she wanted to have an abortion,
and avoid informing the "father."

There seem to be a lot of people who object to notifying the "father."


>[I also assumed massive legal penalties to her if she didn't inform
>him and could not produce valid reason why not - ie proof that she
>made a reasonable effort to find him and could not, rape, incest,
>abuse, etc].

This falls right into place with the PA law that was overturned
in PP vs. Casey, and even the PA law was extremely weak (it required
the wife merely to write that there was a valid reason).


>>Your argument seems even to support banning abortion after
>>four months, say -- because a woman has had enough time to
>>think and to decide, and has even demonstrated a willingness
>>to continue despite the physical conditions.
>
>I also wonder about Rini's arguement.

>>I'm skeptical of your assumptions about the default desires 
>>of women as evidenced by continuing a pregnancy.
>
>As the one who suggested woman-as-sole-parent in the first place,
>I meant it as something to reduce paperwork, okay?

Okay, I made a bad assumption about your intent.  Sorry.

I think that Rini tended to legitimize the idea that continuing
with a pregnancy is evidence of a desire to parent, something that
I might say makes some common sense, but which really shouldn't be
the basis for law.


> And I did not
>choose JOINT parenthood as default (this if for unmarried couples
>- for married couples I suggested joint as default) BECAUSE I did
>not WANT a man to be saddled with parenthood if he didn't choose
>it.
>
>(IE, what I thought you would like, Don. But I'm not you, obviously.)

I think that the father should have equal parenting rights (and
responsibilities) as the mother, which he can terminate with the 
same freedom of choice as the mother.

I am joyously saddled with parenthood, and I would joyously become
saddled with more, but I would be reluctant to become a distant uncle 
to a child resulting from a broken condom.  (That doesn't mean I'd say, 
"abort!", either.)  I think that all persons should have the same 
(or equivalent) rights and choices about becoming parents.

The "last clear chance" principle is negated by providing men
the option to decline parenthood, not by requiring a declaration
that they do accept parenthood.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.feminism