From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: The EVIL Conspiracy behind this "Men's Choice" thing...
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 06:49:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.231325.6466@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.170809.700@rotag.mi.org>
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1i7vsoINN86l@gap.caltech.edu>
>>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>
>>>The only choice the woman has that the father doesn't is the choice
>>>to abort the foetus 
>
>>She also gets the choice to discharge her support obligations via the same 
>>act. She gets both a biological choice AND and an economic choice, rolled 
>>into one. Equity demands that the man be given parallel choices, insofar as 
>>they apply to him, i.e. the economic choice, but obviously not the biological 
>>one.
>
>Hm.  If equity demands that, then equity also demands that the man be
>tortured during the woman's pregnancy if they agree to have a child.

Counter-productive. Seeing him be tortured doesn't HELP her suffering any.
I would, however, support the idea that if a couple decides to have a child,
that she should have the right to demand reimbursement from him, because she
bears a greater burden during pregnancy. Put a price on the lost wages, 
the discomfort, the pain, the emotional distress, the medical costs etc. etc. 
and have him pay her back. Sure, there is no EXACT translation between money
and physical suffering, but this is the best way the law knows how to even
the score, without increasing the aggregate physical suffering of the
principals.

>>If not that, then at least folks should get the chance to determine 
>>their respective support obligations BY CONTRACT, free from state 
>>interference as long as the child's rights are preserved.
>
>Agreed, as long as the *default* condition is that both parents
>support the child (until someone else agrees to assume thje
>responsibilities -- in an adoption, for example).

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "default". You mean, in the
presence of a contract, both parents should _still_ be responsible for
the support, directly or indirectly? Then what is the use of the contract?
Or, do you mean, in the _absence_ of a contract? If the latter, why not make 
the contract the "default" condition, as long as it's generally considered to 
be fair and just and equitable? That would eliminate the need for paperwork 
right near the height of passion. :-)

>>If not that, then
>>at a BARE MINIMUM, the law should look at the elements of fraud, 
>>coercion and/or misrepresentation which are causing many men to become
>>ensnared in child support obligations.
>
>If you can find a case where it's not just his word against hers, I
>agree.  But what can you do with a complaint that "she told me she was
>on the Pill"?

Some times there are witnesses to the representations or promises made. 
Remember, if paternity child support is considered a strictly civil, rather 
than a "quasi-criminal" matter (as it is today), the fraud, coercion or 
misrepresentation need not be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt"; only the
easier "upon a fair preponderance of the evidence" burden of proof need be
met. From a prevention standpoint, affidavits could be made out prior to the
sex act (which I'm sure wouldn't be any more difficult to implement than 
your contract approach). What bothers me, quite apart from the implementation 
problems of _proving_ fraud, deception etc., though, is that even in the rare 
cases where such elements ARE provable, the law turns a deaf ear anyway. Hence
I can't dig up any examples where a judge or jury has even been given a CHANCE
to weigh evidence of contraceptive fraud or misrepresentation. And I think 
this bleak state of affairs causes many men to adopt the defeatist attitude 
of "since I don't have any recourse, no matter WHAT she answers, I won't even 
bother asking her about birth control", which ends up _causing_ a lot more 
"accidents", and thus compounding the problem of unsupported and under-
supported illegitimate kids, which the law presumably exists to alleviate.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.child-support