One More Time - Sex i

Will Steeves goid at io.org
Mon Sep 6 19:54:46 EST 1993

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism,misc.legal
Subject: Re: One More Time - Sex is NOT a Crime. Sex is NOT a Crime. Sex is NOT.

thf2 at kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
>In article <1993Aug15.184900.19731 at rotag.mi.org> kevin at rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darc
>>No particular division of that liability between parents is
>>specified, nor are the relevant factors enumerated which can be used to
>>determine that division between parents. The current implementation of
>>paternity child support is JUDGE-MADE, not an expression of the legislature.

>I would believe that to be false, given that the federal government has
>conditioned a good deal of funding of state programs on the creation of
>child support guidelines that limit that sort of discretion.

Of course, this sounds good in *principle*, but why are there so many wide
variations in child support orders in similar situations, then?  There might
be standards in effect, but the *final* standard does indeed rest with the
judge, and furthermore, even _if_ you don't like a particular judge's
decision, it is *your* responsibility to prove that the judge made a legal
error, by way of a *very* expensive appeal process, assuming that you are
even given leave to appeal.

>At any rate,
>given that complete judge-made discretion over child support tends to favor
>the father vis-a-vis guidelines drawn up to be fair to all parties
>concerned (source: Prof. Becker), I fail to see what relevance your
>statement has to the discussion.

Hmmm?  You claim that child support 'tends to favour the father'?  Why, how
could it?  Wouldn't it violate "the best interests of the child" if it
REALLY favoured fairness to fathers.  Courts have proven over and over again
that they are *only* interested in being 'fair' to children, and sometimes
even then, the doctrine of "the child's welfare" has been misused and
abused as a tool to punish men for having sex.  (see: _Seyer vs. Hermesmann_
for starters, not to mention the case which was recently posted about a man
being ordered to pay child support *after* the woman claimed that she became
pregnant through sex rather than through their artificial insemination
agreement - what's the big difference here?)

>>And I think it's time to acknowlege that the judicial social experiment is
>>a miserable failure

>It's not a judicial social experiment.  Repetition of this falsehood isn't
>going to make it true.

It *is* a judicial *experiment* when so many judges take so many liberties
with it!

>>I think forcing fatherhood on a man against his will, and
>>destroying his life & career goals via the crushing imposition of 18+ years of
>>child support, perhaps involving the humiliation of being sent to jail, having
>>one's wages garnished, and/or being tracked like a dog over state lines,
>>violates any number of "duties of care",

>Only by completely distorting the meaning of "duty."

How so?

>Deborah's already corrected you on your misuse of the phrase of "Last Clear
>Chance," and I've already corrected you on your misbelief that the father's
>duty is owed to the mother rather than to the child.  Either address those
>arguments or stop with this completely invalid line of reasoning.

What makes you *or* Deborah, authorities on legal terms, but not Kevin?  Kevin
may not be a lawyer, (but I believe that he may be ; his knowledge of the law
is greater than mine, but having said *that*, you _don't_ necessarily need a
law degree to know the origial basis of law, or individual concepts in law),
but for you to patronise Kevin in this way, in some misguided attempt to
attack his arguments by attacking his credibility, is disingenuous in the
extreme, and unbecoming of an accomplished legal scholar such as yourself.

Rather than claim intellectual superiority, why not pull out a legal text and
quote for us the *definition* of 'Last Clear Chance'?  If it is what I have
been lead to believe that it is, then Kevin *does* have a good point, even
if you disagree with his application of it.

>>What if the next child whose welfare mother refuses to name the father just
>>HAPPENS, by pure coincidence, to have more DNA similarities to _you_, Ted
>>Frank, than to anyone else whose DNA is on record?

>If I fathered the child, that's my problem.  If I haven't, then it's not.

Oh!  Really, now.  Then make DAMN sure that if you ever get married, you
can be *completely* sure that any children of the marriage actually *are*
yours.  Indeed, Ted, you of all people, should know what _in loco parentis_
means.  (For non-legal beagles - "in the place of the parent" - in plain
English, the judicial presumption that a child of the marriage was fathered
by the husband.  This has lead to a not-insignificant number of men finding
out that their children were not in fact, "theirs," but were still forced to
pay support, while the *real* father gets off scott free ... yet another
reason why the law's blind child-worshipping is misplaced).

So...even if you DON'T father a child, it may STILL be your problem!

Will Steeves, B.Sc. (Toronto, 1991), goid at io.org         "Neil Hull is GOiD"
Internex Online (formerly ZOOiD BBS), Toronto, Ontario   "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 363-3783/3784

"Vidi, Vici, Veni".
    - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.
    (Or, more likely: Cleopatra To Julius Caesar, 'next morning' :-) )

 * SLMR 2.1a * "Prime directive?  Who?  Me???"  - James T. Kirk

More information about the Mol-evol mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net