From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:01:39 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Dec29.031344.19977@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.182701.28515@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <1992Dec24.181349.2692@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1hb1i8INNf40@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Unsupported assertion.  Why?  A woman retains the right NOT to legally
>>>>dissolve all ties, but to REMOVE the fetus from her body.
>>>
>>>However, the EFFECT of a successful abortion is NOT ONLY to remove the
>>>biological dependency, but to also remove the associated financial obligation
>>>as well. If we parallel the latter, and it would result in more equity.
>>
>>Minor quibble - there is no financial obligation prior to birth.
>
>We've had this discussion before, Larry. Saying that there is no financial
>obligation before birth is like saying that there I have no financial
>obligation for my credit card purchases until the bill arrives from the bank,
>gas company, department store or wherever. True, there is no STATEMENT OF
>ACCOUNT, until the bill arrives, but the charges are incurred well before
>then.

Not really - you have a financial obligation for your credit card purchases
whether or not the bill shows up.  According to the ruling you posted
previously, the man has no financial obligation unless a child is born.

>Similarly, there is no formal "billing" of pregnancy/child-support costs
>until a child is born, and the paternity award is made, but that doesn't mean
>the charges aren't INCURRED before the child is born.

The charges are incurred by the woman whether or not a child results; the
man is only obligated to pay a portion of those charges if a child results
and a paternity award is made.  If no child results, then there is no
paternity award, and therefore no financial obligation for the man even
though charges were incurred by the woman.

Note that I'm not making any claims as to legal principle here; I'm simply
basing this on a citation that you yourself have previously posted.

>>You're assuming a "right to terminate her financial liability"; it seems
>>to me that preventing any such liability from coming into being is a side
>>effect of preventing any child from being born.
>
>It's an effect, nonetheless, and that's all that matters. Whether it's one
>of the "main" effects or a "side" effect is just a matter of arbitrary
>semantics.

If you agree that it's an effect of a right, and not a right itself, then
it's *not* "just a matter of arbitrary semantics."  You're not drawing
parallel rights, you're taking a side effect of a right and declaring that
the effect should be a right in and of itself.  (Ignore for the moment
whether or not it *should* be a right; don't you agree that this is not
a parallel situation?)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.women