From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Impact of the absent father
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 13:51:24 GMT


cliff@buster.stafford.tx.us (Cliff Tomplait) writes:

>drac@uumeme.chi.il.us (Bruce Maynard) writes:
>>Hear, hear. It constantly amazes me that so many take it as reasonable that
>>the father "just naturally" must pay for the kid(s) upkeep, often seemingly
>>with no rational basis. I fail to understand why it seems to be carved in 
>>granite that the mother always has custody of the kid(s), ...

>The rational basis is the court system and the manner in which fathers are
>routinely abused.

Rational basis is the court system?  I assume, given the rest of the post,
that this is a reply laced with sarcasm.  After all, consider some of the
other procreational decisions handed down by the "rational" court system:

 * For those of you who think genetics has something to do with parenthood-
   * The birth mother, not the egg donor, is considered to be the mother in
     law for purposes of deciding custody.
   * Anonymous sperm donors, by law, have absolutely no right to ever contest
     for the custody of a child created with their sperm.
   * The recent Tennessee case involving 8 frozen embryos had the judge ruling
     that a man has a right to "choose not to be a father".  This despite the
     fact that the man had clearly taken narrowly defined procreative steps to
     BECOME a father.
   * The current rationale behind legal abortion asserts that the man does
     nothing more than supply raw materials.  He creates, at most, a 
     fertilized egg.
   * The woman is the ONLY one who creates a child, since she alone has the
     right to decide whether or not to go forward with the production process.
   * Despite the fact that men are currently not child-creators in any 
     rational sense of the word, since they cannot do anything but supply
     raw material for someone else's child manufacturing (see Tennessee court
     decision, anonymous sperm donor, surrogate mother, and legal abortion
     rationales above) they are held liable for 18 years of child support.
     That is, men are subsidizing a production decision over which they have
     no control, and in which they have no part.  The law effectively treats
     them as raw material suppliers, but with the full legal liability 
     normally reserved only to manufacturers of finished goods.  If you think
     this sort of talk is cold and detached, remember that I speak only of
     a mass of cells, a cancer, a pseudo-wart, i.e. a fertilized egg in
     modern parlance.  This is the rationale that guides the courts before
     the baby cries in the delivery room.  Once the child exists, this 
     "rational" court views what was formerly just a cancerous growth as
     having always been a child, so that the man can be held fiscally 
     responsible for it.  I do not mean to generate flame-bait.  I am
     trying to be as lawyer-like and legally rationale as the vaunted court.

>Notes:  You know, I really do try to keep my voice down.  I don't often post
>and really try to read and digest before responding.  However, there are days
>and weeks (like this one) where I am AGAIN reminded (by my beloved former
>spouse) just how few rights I really have and am presented with another set
>of threats.

>Only 11 more years.

>Cliff
>father of Kenneth (age 7)
>victim of Harris County (Texas) "family" court system
>fuck lawyers!


Steve Kellmeyer