From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: whats bugging who?
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:54:06 GMT

In <BzA1BF.GpL@news.iastate.edu> txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu (Angela KAY Rolling) writes:

>>It's not a dearth of procreation that's bugging this 
>>group. It's a reluctance to pay for their progeny.

>It's not a reluctince to pay for their progeny, it's not having a chouce
>as to wether or not to deal with the progany.
>It's that the woman makes the decision for both.
>It's that if she want's the child he has to pay.
>It's that she can say->I know you don't want the child but I do and I can't
>aford all the expensis of raising this child but I'm going to have it any
>way so you danm well beter pay up. or I'm haveing this child even if you
>dont want it so you beter pay even thou I can aford it by my self I see no
>reason to lower my income that much<-
>It's that if she doesnt want to raise the child she can abort or put it up
>for adoption.
>It's that if she decides to put the child up for adoptin he has to prove that
>he can provide for the child if he wants it.

>Elf-Kin

OK. It is obvious from the case histories here that the law is an ass. Now,
how do we get some changes made. Since President-elect Clinton has said
that the government is going to look into delinquent child support, it
strikes me that we all could better spend our time writing to him, rather
than arguing with each other here.

Although my divorce was quite civilized, I have seen here (and know of
others) where things were not so civilized. These cases have affected
both men and women and it seems that even with a reasonably competent
lawyer, it is still mainly up to the judges and referees. Perhaps the
laws are poorly written, or perhaps it is blatant predjudice on the
part of judges and referees.

Example: A father's support payments do not change if he ends up in
a lower paying job. This was apparently put in to prevent disgruntled
fathers from *deliberately* taking a lower paying job (why in hell he
would is beyond me). Given today's economy, the chances of this happening
to any one of us is hardly of our choosing and the law should reflect
that fact.

Equality of choice. As I posted earlier (did it ever get out?) it seems
to me that the law was written pre Roe v Wade and was merely designed
to prevent society from having to foot the bill for raising such
children. Since I have hangups about one or two night stands, the 
problem of some woman deciding to carry "our" child to term and handing
me the bill never occured. However, society changes and such things do
occur. While the idea of pre-coital agreements strikes me as rather
absurd, perhaps such things need to be. I guess that if I am pro-choice
for women it is fair to be pro-choice for men. This still leaves the
problem of raising the child of such an encounter. We have little
chance of passing some law that says a single mother will only be
permitted to carry to term if she is financially independent. I mean
once we start down some of these paths we will wind up with a book
of family law that will run to 24 volumes.

The only thing that is clear at the moment is that we sure as hell have
a long way to go in interpersonal relationships - I guess I was damned
lucky to find my present wife - or maybe the selective attitudes my
parents imparted work.

So, maybe the law is an ass, but until it changes it strikes me that
anyone who indulges in casual sex is playing with fire and may get
burned. Kind of like playing Russian Roulette. To those of you who
got burned in the divorce courts, my sympathy. To those who play
RR, well?

So I'll fire up my trusty 386 at home and start writing to P-e Clinton.
Will it have any effect? I don't know, but I do know that if I don't
write it sure won't have any effect.

A rather long $0.02, I'm afraid :-/.

REB

Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:5980 misc.legal:21440 talk.abortion:52236