From: dennisp@kpc.com (Dennis Preston)
Subject: Re: Another right to not support?
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Inc, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 21:42:31 GMT

In article <stricher-150892111723@stayman.ocean.fsu.edu> stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>Janice Kendall wrote:
>                                                                         
>>> 1) A man should be able to figuratively abort the fetus ONLY while the women
>>>    can legally, physically do so (so if abortion is contitutionally banned,
>>>    the man can no longer figuratively abort).  He must inform the woman in
>>>    some sort of legal document that he is doing so during this period so 
>>>    she will know that she is going it alone if she continues the pregnancy.  
>>>    The man then gives up all parental rights and responsibilities.  He can 
>>>    not change his mind later and interfere in the life and choices of the
>>>    woman.
>                                                                         
>Char Aznabul responds:
>                                                                         
>> >This will require a notification of the man in question. Anyone care to
>> >speculate how that will go over with the pro-choice crowd that was irrate
>> >over notifying a *husband*? 
>
>> >This is perhaps the most touchy area in this entire debate. A woman can
>> >legally deprive a man of his children, and the children of their father,
>> >if they decide to go it alone and not tell him.
>                                                                         
>Janice Kendall wrote:
>                                                                         
>> You just flipped the situation here.  The issue I am responding to is men
>> being forced to pay support for children they claim to not have wanted.
>> You are talking about the issue of the man wanting the child.                                                                         
>                                                                         
>No, you misread (or I mistyped) what I meant. In order for a man to make
>the decision, he has to be told, correct? I think the man involved has the
>right to know, no matter what the woman decides. If the woman decides to
>abort, perhaps it's just as well he doesn't know. But maybe not. That's
>one possibility.
>                                                                         
>What if our straw-woman goes ahead and bears the child, and doesn't notify
>the father (or name the father, for that matter) until *after* the fact?
>So much for his right to informed consent. Fait accompli, I think is the
>term.
>                                                                         
>K'Char
>                                                                         
Both versions of this thread have been kicked well past death. 
For men: If you don't want a kid, don't screw.
for women: If you don't want a kid, don't screw.

For both: Children are wonderful. I am an NCP who adores his child.
          Right now he's taking his net.nap. *ALL children deserve
            the *BEST* care that can be given to them, REGARDLESS
            OF THE PARENT'S INTENTION. WHAT THE HELL DID THE KID DO
          TO DESERVE *NON-CARE*?

D
P.S. I'm pro choice, but grudgingly.

D
D
          TO DESERVE THIS KIND OF DEBATE? 
>