From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:54:49 GMT

In article <1ha3qqINN26b@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.053750.21468@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes ...
>
>>Granted, women get their share of hardships.  But is the issue merely
>>a matter of getting even?  Is child support primarily punishment?
>
>The basis of child support law is to insure that children are supported,
>so that society as a whole does not have the burden of supporting children
>willy nilly.  

I submit that it fails to insure that result.

>This basis has been revealed, discussed, and basically stands
>right now as is.  You can claim it is 'punishment' if you like, you can
>claim that 'women' somehow have it in for 'men' if you like, but I'd
>suggest that your claims would have little basis in either the legal
>grounding of the current family services act or in the social constructs
>that lead to it and support it.

The "legal grounding" and "social constructs" that lead to the current
paternity child support laws were nothing more than legislative fiat,
Adrienne. Stop glorifying the whims of a bunch of lawmakers.

>The laws themselves are based upon certain assumptions about how our 
>society should and does function (not MERELY should, and not merely does,
>but both).  

The Michigan Paternity Act was passed in 1956. This was before wide use
of contraceptives, and well before RvW. I submit that the "assumptions"
upon which this legislation was based are completely irrelevant to the 90's,
and the law should be considered inoperative in accordance with _cessante
ratione legis, cessat et ipsa lex_.

>Now, you and I may observe instances in which the assumptions of the
>family services acts are violated, or don't apply, but that doesn't yet
>undermine the basic constructs within it.  

The basic concepts are obsolete and oppressive, and I'm sure that doesn't
help with its "acceptance" by its victims.

>The fact that some percentage
>of the population consists of 1 parent homes doesn't yet invalidate the
>notion that a family has a mom and a dad.  

An unwilling father who wishes to have nothing to do with his child isn't
a "father" in any meaningful sense, Adrienne. Yet the state forces him to
be a walking wallet for his genetic offspring. Why is that?

>The fact that wealth in our
>country is not evenly distributed doesn't yet make it a 'should' that
>children become the responsibility of only one parent.  

What does wealth distribution have to do with the deprivation of a man's
property without due process?

>Nor does the
>existance of orphans mean that the state wants to undertake the raising of
>all children, wholesale.

Then let the state, er, the people decide whether to support those children
or not. What do orphans with have to do with mandatory child support, by the 
way?

>Law is like this.  It generally follows the realities of life, rather 
>than leading it.  

I submit that the law has lagged far behind the "realities of life" in this
instance. RvW was handed down in 1973, and within, say 5 years, abortion
became safe and legal. That was 14, almost 15 years ago. But the paternity
laws have not caught up yet.

It generally takes some form of consensus, either in
>narrow lobbying efforts, or broad-based support which is revealed to the
>legislators, for change to occur.  And, generally, you can learn from
>your setbacks.  You want 'choice' for men?  Figure out how to talk about
>it without violating the principles of logic, for one.  

No principles of logic have been violated as far as I've seen.

>And how to measure it without violating the rules of evidence for another.

Some approaches to paternity child support reform have problems with proof,
and others don't. A generalization such as you make is therefore questionable
at best. The contract approach (which is what started this latest round of
debate) doesn't really have any more problems of proof than any regular
contract would...

								- Kevin