From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Purported Contract for Studs'n'Sluts (Was: Re: Pre-Sex Contract)
Keywords: sex, agreement, legal, contract
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:10:58 GMT

In article <19418@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>In article <1992Nov26.025827.14220@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com 
>(Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>In article <19412@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) 
>>writes:
>
>>>. . .  But why is the desire "not to be a
>>>father" any more worthy of legal protection than the desire
>>>"to be a father"?   [Matt Rosenblatt]
>
>>*BOTH* choices should be respected and protected, as much as this is possible
>>without violating the woman's fundamental rights, or, in the language of the
>>recent _Casey_ case, imposing an "undue burden" on her. Trouble is, the 
>>desire to _not_ become a father receives absolutely no weight currently.
>>[Kevin Darcy]
>
>Not so!  Once a man has conceived a child, his right not to become a
>father receives precisely as much weight as his right to become a father,
>viz., as much weight as the woman carrying the child feels like giving it.
>She does not even have to tell him she's pregnant, until after the child
>is born and she wants support money.

And you see nothing wrong with this? Seems like one gender has all the 
control and all the choices between conception and childbirth, but then
demands gender-blind "equality" once the child is born. This so-called 
"equality" is just a shell game. And it's fixed. Time to break it up.

>The recent _Casey_ case is the current state of the law, as much as the
>long line of cases and statutes requiring a man to support his biological
>child.   Mr. Darcy is saying that he approves of one aspect of current law
>("fundamental rights"), but not another.  

I don't think it's appropriate to put a price on forced continuation of
pregnancy, Rosenblatt, and I think you're pretty cold if you think 
property rights are anywhere near as "fundamental" as the right to bodily 
autonomy.

>>The system is stacked towards the production of illegitimate children. 
>>[Kevin Darcy]
>
>A system that absolves Studs of the responsibility for supporting 
>their illegitimate children either has to provide an alternate means
>for their support, or to let them go without support.  

Incorrect. You are overlooking the fact that, by statute, there are TWO 
support-providers, not just one. If the male support-provider is "absolved",
as you say, then the More Responsible Party then becomes the sole support-
provider. The child still receives support, in other words.

>The second
>alternative is unconscionable and, in any event, unlikely ever to be
>enacted by a humane people.  

Agreed.

>The first alternative means that the
>Slut will still get as much money as she would have got from her Stud
>under the current system, but that money will come from the taxpayers.

Not necessarily: the CP may be quite capable of providing all the support 
without any help. 

>So whatever monetary incentive she presently has to bear her child 
>will continue to be there.

Wrong. Currently, a woman can produce children against the father's
wishes and obtain support for them without having to put her own income 
and assets on the chopping block FIRST. Putting the More Responsible Party 
on the "front line" of liability would no doubt prove to be a powerful 
disincentive for her to produce those illegitimate children.

>>It is this imbalance in the law which gives rise to this flood of 
>>reform proposals.  [Kevin Darcy]
>
>I disagree.  I believe, as I have previously written, that what is
>giving rise to these ill-conceived proposals is nothing more than a
>combination of the hedonistic pursuit of consequence-free sexual pleasure,
>and ENVY at the current state of the law which allows a woman to get out
>of having to support her child by doing away with him before he is born.
>To any man who ENVIES a woman this "right," I say, "Too bad, Mac.  You
>should have been born a girl."

Yeah, well, I could just as easily respond that women "envy" men because the
Maternal Instinct is usually far less resistible and controllable than the
Paternal Instinct.

But I wouldn't, because it's little more than sexist inflammatory rhetoric. 
Oh, but please don't let me stop _you_ from blathering about "Studs 'n 
Sluts", Rosenblatt -- you're almost entertaining at times...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.bio,alt.activism,rec.backcountry