Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!rutgers!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb
From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women
Subject: Re: Entrapment
Message-ID: <503@cci632.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 11-Oct-86 14:25:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: cci632.503
Posted: Sat Oct 11 14:25:11 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 12-Oct-86 05:12:52 EDT
References: <406@cci632.UUCP> <427@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: rb@ccird2.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY
Lines: 92
Keywords: teenage pregnancy
Xref: watmath soc.singles:463 soc.women:307
Summary: Clarifications.

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"