From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Father Notification
X-To: LINDA BIRMINGHAM
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:07:00 GMT

Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes...
LB> In article <1992Oct26.183347.14941@jetsun.weitek.COM> Nadja Adolf says:
LB> >In article <1992Oct24.012054.1902@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves writes:
LB> >>
LB> >>Do you see anyone disagreeing with this, Nadja?  However, the husband shou
LB> >>not be the wife's property, either, and with many Canadian provinces and
LB> >>American states disallowing divorce because of a man's distress over an
LB> >>abortion, and his subsequent belief that the two partners have differing
LB> >goals
LB> >>and should separate, this is *exactly* how the husband is treated.
LB> >
LB> >Most US states permit divorce for irreconcilable breakdown of the
LB> >marriage, or for mental cruelty. In such states the wife's having
LB> >an abortion permits the husband grounds for divorce.

LB> I'm not sure what Mr. Steeves is talking about when
LB> he refers to Canadian provinces.  The Divorce Act of
LB> 1985 declared marriage breakdown as the sole ground
LB> for divorce.  The Act defines four reasons for breakdown:
LB> 1) separation for not less than one year, 2) adultery,
LB> 3) physical cruelty and 4) mental cruelty.  The Act
LB> applies to all Canadians.

(I don't recall the law that well, but is there not also "irreconcilable
differences?  Can you please confirm?  Thanks)


LB> Number 1 is the most common reason for divorce in
LB> this country and is often referred to as No Fault
LB> divorce.  In 1986 91% of Canadian divorces were
LB> obtained for reasons of separation (Stats Can).

Please allow me to explain...  I was referring to a book published by WLEAF,
(aka "LEAF") entitled "Women and the Law" (I believe that this was the title?)
where the authors claimed victory because they had succeeded in preventing a
man from obtaining a divorce on the grounds of the mental anguish he suffered
after his wife's abortion.

In the particular case, I believe that he was attempting to use the reasoning
of "mental cruelty," which even *I* think is too strong.  However, I *do*
believe that a disagreement over having children *should* be a grounds for
divorce, although on the justification of "irreconcilable differences" rather
than "mental cruelty".  I make this distinction, because the latter seems to
imply that the woman *maliciously attempted* to hurt him through her actions.
Perhaps this *might* have been the situation in the above case, but I seriously
doubt that any more than a minority of such cases involve *intentional* cruelty,
as opposed to the man *feeling* that he has been done wrong.  This distinction
allows for a no-blame ("no-fault") approach, rather than blaming the woman.
(I have a feeling that this is behind WLEAF's gloating over this particular
court decision ; still, I think that they were extremely insensitive in
seemingly denying that men *do* feel pain in such situations).

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * On a clear disk you can seek forever
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc