From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
X-To: DAN KING
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Followups-To: alt.abortion.inequity
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:08:00 GMT

dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes..
DK> ws>In article <1992Oct20.225628.28756@zooid.guild.org> <goid@zooid.guild.org
DK> ites:
DK> db>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes in soc.men:

DK> db>[Writes about I assume the Pennsylvania legislation about
DK> db>Spousal Notification]

DK> db>    A woman is not required to notify her husband if
DK> db>   (1) her husband is not the father,
DK> db>    (2) her husband, after diligent effort, cannot be located,
DK> db>    (3) the pregnancy is the result of a spousal sexual assault that has
DK> db>    been reported to the authorities
DK> db>    (4) the woman has reason to believe that notifying her husband is
DK> db>    likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her by him
DK> db>    or by another individual.

DK> ws>So, I ask  (Not a flame) .... Dan, Keith, Drieux, Larry, Susan :  Did you
DK> ws>know that this provision was in the law?  (This is not a flame...  How ma
DK> ws>times do I have to say that?  (-: )  Or, if you did, what did you base yo
DK> ws>judgement upon?  Did you believe that it "isn't much of a choice"?

DK> I generally oppose stupid laws.  Even if I agree with the supposed
DK> intent of a law, I tend to disagree with it if it is stupid.
DK> So rather jumping right in and answering your above question I
DK> have a question about this law.  What precisely is this law
DK> trying to accomplish?  It just seems the loopholes are big
DK> enough, that any women who wanted to could get around this
DK> law, and those that don't want to get around this law, don't
DK> need it.  So what, besides placating pro-lifers, is this law
DK> attempting to accomplish?


Ideally, I would like to be able to give men the same amount of ability to
make "choices" as women currently have.  While the above hardly placates "pro
choicers" *or* "pro-lifers" (because of the multiplicity of loopholes), I
must not deny that this ideal is *hardly* in the minds of the more radical
"pro-life" people who are out there.

Still, it seems as though you do not so much oppose the law because it is
"sexist," but rather that it is stupid for having too many loopholes, which
brings me to my next question, which is admittedly somewhat of a dilemma -
Would you rather attempt to make the law "less stupid" by plugging up some
of the loopholes, or would you rather scrap it altogether?  The first case
would come closer to giving men the ability to choose to leave the marriage,
but might be perceived as threatening women, while the second would put men
back in a situation where they would have no knowledge of the true status of
the marriage (and yes, I consider a disagreement over wanting childen, to be
signficant enough to warrant full disclosure ; "no knowledge is no choice"
...which is exactly what Planned Parenthood said about the "Gag Rule").  Both
courses of action seem to be equally disadvantageous.

To attempt to balance things out, I'd like to make the following suggestions:

- Toss out loophole (1).  Why?  Considering that a woman effectively knows when
  her husband has fathered a child out of wedlock (ie., a sudden drain upon the
  husband's income...), and therefore has a leg up with respect to suing for
  divorce and gaining a better status before the courts (ie., as the party who
  has been wronged by the father's adultery...)

- (2) should be kept, although there should be some sort of standard of proof as
  to what constitutes a "diligent effort".

- (3) should DEFINITELY be kept.  In such a case, the probability of danger to
  the woman has been totally established without a doubt.

- (4) needs more work.  I think that there should be more than just "I think
  he'll hurt me" to justify leaving the father in the dark.  But then the
  question becomes one of "how do we know that the threat is valid?".  Do we
  take the woman's feeling at face value, or do we attempt to ascertain from
  previous charges for violent crimes, the probability that such behaviour
  is more probable?  There has to be a way to balance the woman's feeling
  of impending danger with the "right to know".

Any ideas on this?  I'd love to get some feedback on this, but again, any
flamers are cordially invited to please send all flames to alt.flame.  Thanks.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * "Data, I thought you were dead!"   "No, Sir. I rebooted!"
Newsgroups: soc.men