From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Another right to not support?
Date: 22 Aug 92 00:55:15 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <stricher-150892111723@stayman.ocean.fsu.edu> stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>Janice Kendall wrote:
>                                                                         
>>> 1) A man should be able to figuratively abort the fetus ONLY while the women
>>>    can legally, physically do so (so if abortion is contitutionally banned,
>>>    the man can no longer figuratively abort).  He must inform the woman in
>>>    some sort of legal document that he is doing so during this period so 
>>>    she will know that she is going it alone if she continues the pregnancy.  
>>>    The man then gives up all parental rights and responsibilities.  He can 
>>>    not change his mind later and interfere in the life and choices of the
>>>    woman.
>                                                                         
>Char Aznabul responds:
>                                                                         
>> >This will require a notification of the man in question. Anyone care to
>> >speculate how that will go over with the pro-choice crowd that was irrate
>> >over notifying a *husband*? 
>
>> >This is perhaps the most touchy area in this entire debate. A woman can
>> >legally deprive a man of his children, and the children of their father,
>> >if they decide to go it alone and not tell him.
>                                                                         
>Janice Kendall wrote:
>                                                                         
>> You just flipped the situation here.  The issue I am responding to is men
>> being forced to pay support for children they claim to not have wanted.
>> You are talking about the issue of the man wanting the child.                                                                         
>                                                                         
>No, you misread (or I mistyped) what I meant. In order for a man to make
>the decision, he has to be told, correct? I think the man involved has the
>right to know, no matter what the woman decides. If the woman decides to
>abort, perhaps it's just as well he doesn't know. But maybe not. That's
>one possibility.
>                                                                         

 I don't think the man has a right to know if the woman feels the best
 action for her situation is to abort.

>What if our straw-woman goes ahead and bears the child, and doesn't notify
>the father (or name the father, for that matter) until *after* the fact?
>So much for his right to informed consent. Fait accompli, I think is the
>term.
>                                                                         

 Here I feel that if the woman made no attempt to notify the man of her
 pregnancy and decision to bear the child, then she made a choice to go
 it alone, and the man still has the choice to become a parent or to
 "give the child up for adoption" and terminate all parental rights
 and responsibilities.

 If the man pulls a "hit and run", and the woman tries but can not find
 him, then I'd say he's stuck (especially for women whose personal beliefs
 do not allow abortion).

 All laws and situations have sticky points, and this would sure be one
 that would still often end up in court.

>K'Char
>                                                                         
>                       
   
 Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall

		"Creativity overcomes violence."
				John Bradshaw on "Homecoming"