rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (09/24/86)
In article <1037@dadla.UUCP> rob@dadla.UUCP (Rob Vetter) writes: >In article <969@tekigm2.UUCP> jimb@tekigm2.UUCP (Jim Boland) writes: >>In article <598@rosevax.UUCP> vickyb@rosevax.UUCP (Vicky) writes: >>> >>> This seems highly >>> unfair to me. That she has the *choice* to control her own >>> destiny by either keeping the child or not, but he has *NO* choice >>> what-so-ever. > >>I am a male and I disagree with you. It does not matter if the girl got >>pregnant by an accident or on purpose. The point is it takes two to tango >>and both are responsible if she gets pregnant. Even if she promised she >>were safe and fooled him. The point is that she is the mother and he is >>the father. Both are responsible for that child, wanted or not. > > I have to agree, with Jim. Actually, "he" does have a couple > of choices. > He can choose a she that will listen to his wishes before making > a decision, and he can choose not to sleep with that person. >Rob Vetter True situation: Man, during intitial sexual encounters uses protection but is told by woman that she is on the pill. Relationship continues, with the man taking precautions during the "placebo days" but the woman taking the pill on a regular basis. Man even checks the "dispenser" to make sure she hasn't forgotton, or simply stopped. Woman starts flushing pills down the toilet to appear protected, but is in fact not protected. Woman gets pregnant, doesn't tell boyfriend for several weeks, and breaks off relationship. Then she tells him she's pregnant and that he will have to pay child support. Ex-boyfriend is in college, one year from graduation. Does he have a choice? Should he have a choice? Fortunately, this story had a happy ending. A man who really wanted to be a father was convinced that the child was his (even though his relationship with her started six weeks too late), married the girl, and father, mother, and child are all doing fine. It is said that truth is stranger than fiction. This is certainly the case here. Why did she want to get pregnant? I don't know. Why did she break off the relationship before telling him? I don't know. Why did the "father" go along? I don't know. There are other, equally strange "true stories" that are equally confusing. Remember them before making a "pat statement" that "all men have a choice". I would agree that under "normal" circumstances, a man does have a choice. Under "normal circumstances" there are no hidden agenda, no deceptions, and no selfish motives. The problem comes when a man is ignorant, a woman thinks "child support" will give her freedom from an unpleasant situation (parents, poverty, loneliness). When this happens, there are no absolutes.
monam@tekecs.UUCP (Mona McLaughlin) (09/25/86)
> True situation: > Man, during intitial sexual encounters uses protection but is told by > woman that she is on the pill. Relationship continues, with the man > taking precautions during the "placebo days" but the woman taking the > pill on a regular basis. Man even checks the "dispenser" to make sure > she hasn't forgotton, or simply stopped. Woman starts flushing pills > down the toilet to appear protected, but is in fact not protected. > > Woman gets pregnant, doesn't tell boyfriend for several weeks, > and breaks off relationship. Then she tells him she's pregnant and > that he will have to pay child support. Ex-boyfriend is in college, > one year from graduation. Does he have a choice? Should he have a choice? > Admittedly this sounds very unfair to the man who appears to have no choices. "Child Support" seems to be unfair to men in some cases and unfair to women in other cases (like when they don't get any). The only way a man can feel totally safe from this type of situation is to abstain, because if he goes to court it will not be "Man against Woman" - it will be "Man against Welfare of Child" and the man will not win. In other words, the law is not saying that the woman deserves child support, it is saying that the CHILD deserves child support. While *I* would not like to be a man in this type of situation, I seriously doubt if this would have made it impossible for this man to finish his education. Child support is usually awarded based on the man's income at that time, and I'm sure he could find a way to finish his last year of college, despite those payments. This is not to say that I think this situation is FAIR, it just means that that is how the laws tends to see things. Mona, Tektronix
matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (09/27/86)
Hey there, swingin' bachelors! If your woman fools you on the birth control matter and you don't want to pay child support, you *do* have an alternative. Sue for custody! If you can substantiate the claim of deception you probably can make a good case. _____________________________________________________ Matt University crawford@anl-mcs.arpa Crawford of Chicago ihnp4!oddjob!matt Boys, you have ALL been selected to LEAVE th' PLANET in 15 minutes!!
andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (10/08/86)
Rex's story about entrapment seems to suggest the following set
of rules, which have been forming in my mind through this discussion.
I am assuming we have choice on abortion, no flames on that please.
if (man was responsible for pregnancy, through deception, coercion,
etc., or if there was an agreement to have a child)
then
{
if (woman wants child)
then
she should be able to force man to pay child support
else
she can have an abortion
}
else /* ie. mutual irresponsibility, deception by woman, etc. */
{
if (man does not want child)
then
he should be able to, before abortion becomes unsafe, declare
himself unwilling to pay child support (and forfeit his rights
to see the child?) ;
if (man has made such a declaration)
then
{
if (woman still wants child)
then
she can have it but not have any right to sue man
else
she can have an abortion
}
}
No flames on my programming style please!
One thing I wonder about is whether, if the man doesn't want to
pay child support, he should have to forfeit his rights to see the
child. I think he probably should. I'm also not sure about the case
of planning -- if the man changes his mind, maybe he should have the
right to make the stated declaration before the second trimester.
I fully realize that this may result in the man "effectively"
making the woman have an abortion if her economic condition makes
sole support of a child unviable. I think this is OK, but that is
assuming that the effect of forcing the man to pay child support for
18 years is going to be more devastating than the effect of encouraging
the woman to have an abortion. (Exceptions should be made, of course,
in case of medical unviability of abortion.)
--Jamie.
...!seismo!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
"At the sound of the falling tree... it's 9:30"rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (10/11/86)
In article <427@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: > > Rex's story about entrapment seems to suggest the following set >of rules, which have been forming in my mind through this discussion. >I am assuming we have choice on abortion, no flames on that please. A law expressed as an algorythm, excellent Idea. >if (man was responsible for pregnancy, through deception, coercion, > etc., or if there was an agreement to have a child) Needs clarification. A little too ambiguous. >then >{ > if (woman wants child) > then > she should be able to force man to pay child support > else > she can have an abortion >} >else /* ie. mutual irresponsibility, deception by woman, etc. */ >{ > if (man does not want child) > then > he should be able to, before abortion becomes unsafe, declare > himself unwilling to pay child support (and forfeit his rights > to see the child?) ; > > if (man has made such a declaration) > then > { > if (woman still wants child) > then > she can have it but not have any right to sue man > she can support it herself, or get financial aid from state. > else if(woman does not want, or cannot carry to term) > she can have an abortion else woman can carry baby, put up for adoption, in exchange for sufficient money to pay for all expenses, plus money for education. > } >} > > No flames on my programming style please! > > One thing I wonder about is whether, if the man doesn't want to >pay child support, he should have to forfeit his rights to see the >child. I think he probably should. No, if he wants visitation, he should pay support. Some men do put children up for adoption by the mother's husband, when the woman gets married. They get the same restrictions as a woman putting a baby up for adoption, with the exception of knowing who at least one of the parents are. >I'm also not sure about the case >of planning -- if the man changes his mind, maybe he should have the >right to make the stated declaration before the second trimester. Planning is not as unclear as the issue of ignorance, device failure (condom breakage), or similar unplanned, blameless pregnancies. One more case for encouraging both partners to take protective measures. > I fully realize that this may result in the man "effectively" >making the woman have an abortion if her economic condition makes >sole support of a child unviable. There are still other alternatives. Welfare, student financial aid, and similar "public" aid. O.K. as an interim solution, but not fun for mother, child, or state. Also, adoption could be made a more attractive alternative. How about a "sex insurance" fund. Those who have pre-marital sex can pay into the fund. >I think this is OK, but that is >assuming that the effect of forcing the man to pay child support for >18 years is going to be more devastating than the effect of encouraging >the woman to have an abortion. (Exceptions should be made, of course, >in case of medical unviability of abortion.) You mean if an abortion is unviable because she's already had three, that the man should still be forced to pay? Again, adoption is a valid option, and could be made more attractive. >--Jamie. >...!seismo!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews >"At the sound of the falling tree... it's 9:30"