From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 01:57:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.190139.11562@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>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.  

That doesn't address the point, Larry. I'm not saying that a man has a 
financial obligation even if there is no paternity award (analogous to the
credit card bill); I'm saying that the man's financial obligations are 
_incurred_ prior to when they are _assigned_. It's a retroactive debt. 

>According to the ruling you posted
>previously, the man has no financial obligation unless a child is born.

Learn the difference between "unless" and "until", Larry. It's a contingent
debt -- contingent on the birth of the child -- but one which is considered
to be incurred prior to the contingency. Insurance policies are the same way,
if you think about it -- the contingency upon which the debt rests (fire,
auto accident, or whatever) occurs AFTER the beginning of policy coverage,
but the debt is considered, for most if not all purposes, to have been 
incurred by the insurance carrier at the very beginning of the policy term.

Oh, and there's a difference between "rulings" and "statutes"...

>>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; 

Huh? Are you claiming a woman is liable for child support even if there is no
child born?

>...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.

Wrong, Larry. A paternity award doesn't "incur" the man's debt, it just
"determines" or "assigns" it. The debt was previously incurred when he had 
sexual intercourse, and retroactively applied after the child was born.

>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 grossly misinterpreted what I posted. There is nothing in the statute
which supports your interpretation.

>>>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."  

The two effects (i.e. severance of financial liability, physical removal of 
the fetus) are separable effects, therefore it is perfectly valid to say that 
the woman who aborts or chooses not to abort, under the current laws, 
exercises two legal rights, not just one. Equity demands that the man should 
be given a parallel to one of those rights -- the right to sever his 
financial liability to the (potential) child, in the same manner as the woman
can exercise this same right.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,alt.women,soc.men,misc.legal