From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:40:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan05.081339.4582@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1993Jan5.034836.5770@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan03.070026.2282@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>In <1993Jan3.034934.11018@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Jan02.044059.5171@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>>In <1993Jan1.015955.117@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What you contributed, Mark, while perhaps true, is irrelevant to the issue at
>>>>>>hand.
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, what Mark described is *exactly* what I've been talking about.
>>>>
>>>>Then you have done an absymal job of expressing yourself, Larry. In
>>>><1992Dec28.182701.28515@watson.ibm.com>, you said "...there is no financial
>>>>obligation prior to birth." Mark Cochran, on the other hand, has said, in
>>>><1992Dec29.210320.9276@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, "...there most certainly *is*
>>>>formal billing of pregnancy costs before any child is born". If those two
>>>>statements are compatible, it's certainly not obvious HOW...
>>>
>>>   Gack! What a moron! Look back through the articles of this thread ...
>>>   We were talking about a billing of the MAN. Sheesh.
>>>         Kevin Darcy, in <1993Jan3.034211.10923@rotag.mi.org>
>>
>>Precisely. Any way you look at it, Mark's statements and yours are
>>incompatible.
>
>There is no financial obligation on the part of the man prior to birth, even
>though the woman has costs that must be paid.
>
>>>There is no financial obligation on the part of the MAN, unless and until
>>>a child is born.
>>
>>Strike the "until", and you've got a deal, Larry. When the "unless" happens,
>>then the debt is retroactively incurred as of the time the man had sexual
>>intercourse.
>
>I think "incurred" is what's confusing you; stop interjecting it where it
>doesn't appear.
>
>>>Expenses are incurred by the WOMAN, for which *she* is
>>>billed, during the pregnancy,
>>
>>Fully billed, but, if a child is subsequently born, only _partially_ incurred
>>by her. The remainder is incurred by the man.
>
>Incurred by her, billed to her, and paid by her.  There is no certainty that
>a child will be born, that a paternity award will be made, or that the award
>will include reimbursement for pregnancy-related expenses.
>
>>>...but according to the statute you posted,
>>>any financial obligation on the part of the MAN (Gack!  You moron!) is the
>>>result of a paternity suit, which is conditional on the birth of a child.
>>
>>Conditional, yes. But once that condition is met, then the "incurrence" of
>>that debt is placed at the time of sexual intercourse, NOT the time of
>>paternity award.
>
>And until the condition is met, there is no obligation.  Why are you being
>so stubborn, Kevin?  Forget your strawman "incurrence".  There is no actual
>financial obligation until a child is born and a paternity award is made.

Your sentence is semantic nonsense until you supply the missing verb. 
Abstract nouns don't just "happen" -- something brings them into existence,
whether it be thought, action, relation, state or whathaveyou. What causes
the financial obligation to "be", Larry? I filled in the missing verb as 
"incur". If that was the wrong choice, please provide a better one.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: soc.women,sci.skeptic