Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!aero-c!nadel From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: birth control failure? Message-ID: Date: 10 Jun 91 21:37:06 GMT References: 676071224@lime.cs.duke.edu> <9106062203.1796@mydog.UUCP> <676577065@lear.cs.duke.edu> Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator) Organization: Natural Language Incorporated Lines: 91 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org In-Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.EDU's message of 10 Jun 91 18: 14: 07 GMT Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org In article <676577065@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes: In article <9106062203.1796@mydog.UUCP> gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: >I may have missed something, but everyone in this discussion >seems to be forgetting that the claim against the father comes >not from the mother but from the child. 1) If the claim comes from the child, then why the *mother* gives it up in a case of artificial insemination? Do you think that the combination of two gametes is capable of signing forms? In that case, I'm surprised you're not vehemently arguing against abortion. The mother gives it up because she will act (legally) for the child until it is a legal adult, which will take many years. 2) If the claim comes from the child then why the man should be sued even when the woman has enough money? Because it is his child, too. Every child has two parents. Both are equally responsible for the child. They can go through legal contortions to eliminate the legal responsibility of one person or the other, but they each contributed to the creation of the child. Why a woman can not take a full responsibility for the result of her choice? Which choice? You are ignoring *many* possible situations in favor of just one. You seem to be imagining that women are running around forcing children on men all the time, and that this is the only important thing. In fact, the most important thing is that if a child *is* created, it will need to be taken care of for many years. I think that that is what the original poster meant in saying that the claim comes from the child - it is the child that needs the money. The child has an equivalent claim on the mother, by the way, but this whole line of argument seems to be based on the idea that the mother is raising the child, so I'm not talking about mothers being sued for support, although that would be equally reasonable. Why is it so bad if she will pay for her choice, but it is just fine if she charges someone else? Why is it so bad if he pays for his choice? If a man chooses to have sex with a woman, he has to consider the possibility that a child will result. If he does not wish to take this risk, he can avoid sex with women. If he wishes to attempt to avoid the risk, but still have sex, he can wear a condom or get a vasectomy (which is, by the way, *much* less painful and dangerous than an abortion). If the condom breaks, he can always sue the condom company for the child support, eh? Also, of course, he should check out Consumer Reports and find out about the brands with less failures. (Perhaps, though, the best solution is simply for women to avoid sex with irresponsible men.) 3) If the claim comes from the child, then why the support is by percentage of the father's income? Because if the father raised the child, he would spend a percentage of his income on it, right? That's what the mother does. E.g. Were the $1356 that Allen Wells was ordered to pay a child's support or an alimony? Who is Allen Wells? Anyway, alimony is a silly idea based on the concept that women should be supported by men. Child support is very different. The woman can at least get a job to support herself. Very few babies can do that. Or do you think that children should just starve, rather than impinging on the man's right to have a good time? >Hillel, and usually his >antagonists as well, persist in avoiding this point so they can >get on with the war between the sexes. I think that in practice women's rights come before child's right, and child's right before men's rights. You would think this. I won't argue it, but lots of people don't see it that way. Gordon persists in avoiding this point, but he tries to give moral and legal arguments why a break in condom (or a woman's lie about birth control) should destroy a man's life. It's not the break in the condom, it's the man's own stupidity. If he's so worried, let him get a vasectomy. If he's willing to take the risk of condoms, read CR to find out which ones are less likely to break. Why should a woman have to go through one of two dangerous procedures (abortion and pregnancy) because of a *man's* lie or a "break in condom"? *Everyone* involved needs to be responsible. Muffy