From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?
Date: 14 Dec 92 09:59:45 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com said:
# >hpzg0650@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Hale P Zengingonul) writes:
# >#     I agree with Kevin here. Why should anybody pay for a kid he didn't
# >#  want? If abortion was available to the mother of course.It is the mother
# >#  who wanted to have the child, and she should be the individual who would
# ># take care of the child alone.
# >
# >Lemme see if I can 'splain it...
# 
# Ok, 'Ricky'. :-)
# 
# >Here's what women can do to avoid having children they don't want:
# [options deleted]
# >Here's what men can do to avoid having children they don't want:
# [options deleted]
# 
# >This about covers it for each gender.  For both men and women, the
# >options are slim for people who fail to avoid having children they
# >don't want.
# >
# >I don't think it should be easy for men or women to abandon their
# >children to the hands of the other natural parent just because the
# >steps they took to avoid having children they don't want failed.
# >
# >Do you?
# 
# No.  But then that doesn't appear to be exactly what Hale was talking
# about.  If a man has made it clear to his 'mate' that he doesn't want 
# children, and uses appropriate contraception, then why should he be
# responsible for any resulting children?  If the woman didn't want children
# either then the man should help pay for an abortion.  But, if the woman
# decides *she* wants children then why should he be held responsible for
# her decision?

I disagree.  I can't read from what Mx. Zengingonul wrote whether the
situation you describe above is what he was referring to.  I could
just as easily take what he wrote as evidence that he didn't think men
should have to support any unwanted children they sire no matter what
the circumstances surrounding their conception were -- if the father
doesn't want them, they're the mother's responsibility.

I agree with the sentiment that men who take every step available to
them to avoid reproducing, and who make it clear to their sex partners
that they do not wish to reproduce, are getting the Main Shaft when
their partners ignore their reproductive wishes and choose not to
abort an unplanned pregnancy.

However, the rules of the game are dictated to men by anatomy.  The
sad fact of the matter is that the truth in situations like you
describe is rarely evident in the controversies revolving around
whether requirements for child support payments are appropriate.

I see no way to remove the need for family courts to arbitrate such
conflicts.

# Now, "what about the child"?  Well, since the woman in this scenario has
# opted to keep the fetus and have children against the man's wishes she
# should be completely responble for all financial needs.  If she can't
# provide for a child that she wants then she should be having children and
# that child should be removed from an incompetent parent.

I'll assume you meant to write "shouldn't" and not "should" above.

I think the last sentence is overly general, and that otherwise the
only criticism I can offer is that it's awfully rare when such a case
comes up and it's just as rare that there is no dispute over who
communicated what and when in those cases.

Allow me to muddy up the contrived scenario somewhat:  we know how the
man is thinking in your scenario; what has the woman done?  Suppose
she employed contraception, and told her sex partners up front that
she would not have an abortion except to save her life and refused to
commit to putting any unwanted children up for adoption.  The
`accidental pregnancy' in the scenario described comes about... How do
you propose to resolve a dispute that might arise between them over
whether the natural father is liable for child support?

My answer is: that's a job for a judge.

Some might complain that too many judges are sexist screwheads who all
ought to be strung up by their short hairs, dried, compressed and sold
for manure, and I'd be inclined to agree.  Men frequently get served
more than their fair share of torment and persecution from the family
court system.  It's a shameful disgrace.  Is the problem with the law?
I don't think so.  I think the problem is the judges.

I would oppose measures that would strip the State of its power to
order child support payments in cases where it is appropriate.  I
refuse to entertain seriously the idea that child support payments are
*never* an appropriate judicial decision in a paternity suit.

What are you asking me, anyway?  It seems to me like I'm being asked
to have sympathy for an honest, moral man deceived by a scheming,
deceitful woman into thinking the risk of having children he doesn't
want is much less than it really is.  If that's the case, where can I
mail it?  Requiring child support payments of such men is a terrible
injustice.

# A poor analogy:  If you drive a woman friend to a mall are you responsible
# for half the cost of anything she buys there?  I mean, you *knew* there
# was a possibility she might buy something even though you made it clear
# that you didn't want to buy anything.  Maybe she told you she just wanted
# to look around but changes her mind.  Do you feel that you should be
# liable for half her expenses?

Yup.  I agree.  It's a poor analogy.  We're not talking about shoes
here -- we're talking about children.  In fact, I find the analogy
somewhat irritating because it reminds me of the stench that permeates
this whole controversy, that of the odious notion (at least I find it
odious -- your mileage may vary) that children are a commodity to be
bought and sold like rugs.

# Note: I obviously wouldn't code anything as ambiguous as this into law.

It would come as a shock to me if you said you would, Mr. Storga.

Ambiguity is the domain of judges anyway.

Have I responded satisfactorily, or do you think I haven't explained
my reaction to what Mx. Zengingonul wrote well enough.  In sum, he
asked why any [man] should have to pay for a kid he doesn't want, and
I provided an answer, which was boiled down in the last paragraph to:

``I don't think it should be easy for men or women to abandon their
children to the hands of the other natural parent just because the
steps they took to avoid having children they don't want failed.''

I feel that competent family court judges can keep this from happening
without requiring radical legislative action -- like the elimination
of mandatory child support payments.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``I guess the government that robs its
| J H Woodyatt              |  own people earns the future it is
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  preparing for itself.''
+---------------------------+                             -- Mark Twain
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity