Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...

From: [email-masked] (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 07:19:34 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>[email-masked] (Rich Payne) writes:
>>The two issues that come
>>up are infidelity (grounds for divorce still, I believe) and the fact
>>that the husband is automatically assumed to be father of the child, and
>>assumes full responsibility. 
>
>These are real problems, and deserve solutions.
>(1) make "irreconcileable differences" the *only* cause for divorce in
>	in the eyes of the law

What, and deny the "abuse, alcoholism, adultery etc. (there are 12 valid
grounds for divorce in Ohio) screw the other guy" approach to divorce?
What would we do with all these judges?

>(2) get rid of the assumption of the husband's paternity

This one is a classic.  Michal has argued at length that notifying the
spouse of a woman getting an abortion is a violation of the
sanctimonious right of a woman to destroy anything that becomes
entangled between her legs.  Now, she presents an interesting resolution
to the argument.

Think about this for a moment.  If we get rid of the assumption of a
husband's paternity, then wouldn't we have to test every child of every
divorce in the US to determine paternity?  After all, we wouldn't want
any fathers paying child support for a child over which he has no
rights, now would we?  Every child, of every divorce, and, of course,
every father, would have to be tested to see if they are even remotely
related.  Ah, a grand solution.

Given that some blood test study (in think it was in the UK during the
70s) determined that 1 out of 3 children tested under such sweeping
conditions is not the biological offspring of a father, who thought he
was indeed the father, you've just dumped 33% of the children of
divorces off the child support roles.  Oh, and given fathers a great
weapon in divorce court....  As the judge might say, "Well, it is
obvious from the blood and DNA tests that John Doe here is not the
father of little Michey, even though he thought he was, and that you,
Jane Doe, are surely guilty, unequivocably, of adultery.  Therefore, I
find against the plaintiff and for the defendent in this divorce suit."

Oh, I guess I understand why you'd want (1) & (2) above--inseperable.
Even so, who would pay the child support--all these non-dads?  No can of
worms, no Pandora's box--this one.

Michal, do I detect that you are all for women, mothers etc. etc., but
frankly can't see that men have any intellectual rights in this
regard?  Does that mean that women are the sole human procreators?
That seems to be your attitude and approach.  Well, fine.  Have all the
children you want, by yourself, and support them--by yourself.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
[email-masked] 

P.S.  My understanding of the part of the PA law that was not upheld by
the Supreme Beings is that the mother did not have to notify her
husband if she believed, and did not have to present any evidence to
that effect, that she would be harmed in any way, shape or form as a
result of notifying her husband.  Basically, any woman that wanted to
NOT notify her husband of her abortion could claim possible future
victim status and the husband would not be notified.  That makes this
one of the weakest statutes I've ever heard--forced notification of
the father--uh, unless the mother doesn't want to.

And for this, we've been at one another for months.

Next Topic: