From: slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:10:39 GMT
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <1992Sep9.133442.26763@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>Susan Larsen writes...
>SL> In article <1992Aug23.154305.17933@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Wi
>SL> teeves) writes:
>SL> >SB> In article <1992Aug4.133641.27209@news.nd.edu>, slarsen@berlin.helios.n
>SL> u
>SL> >SB> san larsen) writes:
>SL> >SB> >
>SL> >SB> > I applaud the fathers, who in their search for legal justice,
>SL> >SB> > never lose sight of the needs of their children.  And who would
>SL> >SB> > never conceive of casting their own children as villians in the
>SL> >      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>SL> >SB> > custodial melodrama.
>SL> >
>SL> >However, I *would* consider it hypocritical for a person to be of the belie
>SL> >that Pro-Female Choice advocates do not think that they are casting unborn
>SL> >children as villains, but that Pro-Male Choice advocates *are* doing so.
>SL> >
>
>SL> I think I see the point you are trying to make, here.  So I will just have
>SL> to say that I fundamentally disagree with equating "unborn" children with
>SL> "born" children.
>
>
>You have misinterpreted my viewpoints, Susan.  I no more equate "unborn"
>and "born" children, any more than you do.

I am sorry.  I re-read your statement a few more times and this time I 
*really* do think I have grasped it.  (pardon me)

>However, given that fact, it is my humble and considered opinion that men
>should have as much "right to choose" as women ... *during pregnancy*.  This
>view clearly does not equate born children with unborn children, therefore.

Yes, I agree with the concept of male choice.

>I too, would be upset with a man knowingly leaving his own child, *after*
>birth *and* after having the opportunity to tell the mother his own personal
>wishes in the matter.  (However, I would not say this, if the mother had not
>notified him until *after* the child was born ; I consider this to be in the
>manner of scoundrels, but I do not know whether I would consider the man to
>be similarly able to absolve responsibilities where he had had no opportunity
>to be made aware of them until after the fact).

Your parenthetical remarks present a very thorny situation.  In fact, I 
think it comes up more often than a lot of folks would guess.  I personally
am aware of at least two women who gave birth without notifying the fathers.
Their motives were to remove the biological father *completely* 
from the lives of the children.  One cited general irresponsibility on the 
part of the father, the other cited the father's violent tendencies.  I 
would not envision either of these women ever pursuing these men for support.

But this brings up what I consider fundamental ethical problems: does 
the child have a right to know her/his father?  Does the father have a right
to know (or be aware of) his biological children?  

There are many very practical reasons for a child to know her/his father, 
not the least of which is medical history.   

There are practical reasons for a father to have knowledge of his children, 
too.  These children could make claims against the father's estate, for 
example.

I would hate to see a situation created in which deceitful 
women could conceal a pregnancy and then collect child support while 
honest, forthright women could end up raising a child without the benefit 
of child support.

>We aren't really as far apart as you think, Susan.

You are right on that.  Thank you for your patience in clarifying this.

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.rape,alt.child-support