A secular debate about abortion

[Gallstones]

How about this?

The woman gets to decide if she will gestate to term.

Both get to decide on adoption.

If she decides to keep the child and has no agreement with the father prior to the point that abortion is no longer an option, then she can not compel unwilling participation or expect contribution. The father sacrifices parental rights in this case. And since she bears the physical and financial burden she does not owe the father any compensation.

If the father wants the child himself he can collaborate with the mother or compensate her for the physical and financial burdens of pregnancy and childbirth. In the latter case the mother would sacrifice parental rights--unless there has been some other agreement between the two regarding her level of participation and contributions expected.

I hate being fucking ignored.

I'm going to the movie--True Grit--then, who the fuck knows.
But, I offered a valid idea--so what the fuck?

I win!

Next!

Sorry, didn't mean to ignore you. Enjoy True Grit, it's one outstanding remake.

I don't have a problem with anything except the "The woman gets to decide if she will gestate to term" part.

Which takes us right back to the argument about whether a woman should be legally relieved of her personal responsibility and accountability for creating a child.

I suspect that most pro-abortion people will never agree that a woman can be obliged to gestate a child to term, no matter how irresponsible she was in getting pregnant, under any circumstances whatsoever. So, there's not much left to discuss in that regard, is there?

I doubt there's even a middle ground to be discussed about a woman being required to gestate a fetus to term after fetal viability has been reached, as Roe v. Wade clearly states is within the power of the state.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

I am not pro-abortion. But I do not think that males should presume to dictate what a woman can and can not do with a fetus she does not wish to gestate regardless of the circumstances of it's conception.

At some point the male has to stand aside and stake no claims.
IMO that is the during the early days--first trimester.

So, although I am not pro-abortion, I am vehemently pro-woman's choice.
When you are subject to the burden of pregnancy, gestation, childbirth and infant/child care--then I will feel that you have a voice on the topic that is equal in merit to mine.

If you want children, make sure the women you have sex with are informed and willing to participate with you in that.

If you do not want children insure that you can not, even resorting to surgery to be certain.

How do you justify being careless in your own sexual comportment while trying to enforce some kind of consequences--as punishment, or just desserts--on your partners when those "consequences" manifest?

It is really fucking simple---don't have sex with women you do not want to have children with.

It's really fucking simple --- don't have sex with men if you do not want to risk having to gestate a baby to term.

Women claim sovereignty over their wombs, as well they should, so why is a man any longer responsible for what she invites him to put there, in any way whatsoever?

It's one or the other, ladies. Either you get to claim sovereign reproductive rights, in which case you can do what you want with the contents of your womb, but have absolutely no claim on the man, or you make a claim upon the man and thereby sacrifice a degree of sovereignty over your womb.

Pick one.

Question--tit for tat, fairness and equality---can we decide who has to undergo a vasectomy, for example? Which of the male reproductive organs do women get to assert some measure of sovereignty over, by way of fair trade? We might be willing to take more than one.

I have another idea, how about this--always use a condom and always take it with you?

RE where you say this

It's really fucking simple --- don't have sex with men if you do not want to risk having to gestate a baby to term.

No. Once can do both. Tubal ligation and sex with men and/or women. It is not either/or.

[Seth]

Question--tit for tat, fairness and equality---can we decide who has to undergo a vasectomy, for example? Which of the male reproductive organs do women get to assert some measure of sovereignty over, by way of fair trade? We might be willing to take more than one.

The fairness and equality issue has been resolved. Women have full legal sovereignty over who puts what into their womb. That was not always the case. Back in the day when husbands had "marital rights" and could have forcible sex with their wives, abortion was, in my view anyway, fully justified because the insemination and creation of a baby was involuntary on the woman's part. The same rationale applies to rape.

But that case no longer obtains in the US, and even a married woman need not consent to sex with her husband, and her husband commits rape if he forces her to have sex against her will.

Women have therefore obtained all the "fairness and equality" they could possibly hope for or obtain; they have achieved absolute sovereignty over their womb and who has access to it.

Therefore, if they allow men to make gifts of semen into their wombs, it's done with their full consent and full and complete understanding of the risks involved. This means that the semen becomes their property and they may not impose conditions on the giving of the gift on the giver. They can refuse delivery, but once they accept delivery, the gift belongs to them and the giver has no remaining legal liability for it, in particular he should have no future legal liability for the woman's combination of that semen with her fertile egg or the resulting child, because his gift is not a child, it's just semen, and the woman has full control over whether that semen is used to fertilize her egg. She can use many methods of preventing fertilization and indeed may kill the child at will right up to the instant before birth. This plenary control of her womb and what goes into, and comes out of it should be enough to legally absolve the man of any and all responsibility or liability.

Sadly, it's not. At the moment, the dearth of "fairness and equality" lies against the man, whose gift of semen can be misused by the woman to incur financial and parental liability upon him without his consent or knowledge.

I have another idea, how about this--always use a condom and always take it with you?

Don't like condoms. They desensitize the penis and diminish the pleasure involved. Why should men have to wear condoms? It's not their problem if the woman gets pregnant, it's hers. That's what "reproductive rights" means. The right to control what goes in, and the duty to deal with what comes out.

It's really fucking simple --- don't have sex with men if you do not want to risk having to gestate a baby to term.

No. Once can do both. Tubal ligation and sex with men and/or women. It is not either/or.

Sure, a man can sterilize himself if he wishes to do so, but he cannot be required to do so. So long as the woman invites him insider her, all the rights, and all the risks of doing so are fully upon her, because she can refuse to allow him inside, and she can condition his entry in any way that pleases her, so long as she does it up front and with due notice.

Women's liberation liberated men as well. Now that it's up to women whether they have sex or not, it's no longer obligatory that men take precautions to prevent pregnancy or STD's.

That's "fairness and equality."

[Gallstones]

I have another idea, how about this--always use a condom and always take it with you?

Don't like condoms. They desensitize the penis and diminish the pleasure involved. Why should men have to wear condoms? It's not their problem if the woman gets pregnant, it's hers. That's what "reproductive rights" means. The right to control what goes in, and the duty to deal with what comes out.

It's really fucking simple --- don't have sex with men if you do not want to risk having to gestate a baby to term.

No. Once can do both. Tubal ligation and sex with men and/or women. It is not either/or.

Sure, a man can sterilize himself if he wishes to do so, but he cannot be required to do so. So long as the woman invites him insider her, all the rights, and all the risks of doing so are fully upon her, because she can refuse to allow him inside, and she can condition his entry in any way that pleases her, so long as she does it up front and with due notice.

Women's liberation liberated men as well. Now that it's up to women whether they have sex or not, it's no longer obligatory that men take precautions to prevent pregnancy or STD's.

That's "fairness and equality."

The tubes I was referring to were fallopian, not vas deverens.

Are you seriously saying that disease prevention need not be a concern for men?
It is worth it to you to risk herpes and HIV and hepatitis and gonorrhea.....?
Do you feel that the man has any ethical obligation to avoid transmitting disease to his partners?

Let me see if I have this, the woman gets to "condition entry"---and requires a condom. A reasonable expectation, and wise as well. You would refuse?
Do you want the conditions before you take your pants off, or is it not an inconvenience to have to put them back on again after you get the disagreeable conditions? And what kind of women are you going to "date" who you don't expect would make a condom conditional? IMO I'd think they'd be the ones you should be most inclined to use one with.

[Seth]

I have another idea, how about this--always use a condom and always take it with you?

Don't like condoms. They desensitize the penis and diminish the pleasure involved. Why should men have to wear condoms? It's not their problem if the woman gets pregnant, it's hers. That's what "reproductive rights" means. The right to control what goes in, and the duty to deal with what comes out.

It's really fucking simple --- don't have sex with men if you do not want to risk having to gestate a baby to term.

No. Once can do both. Tubal ligation and sex with men and/or women. It is not either/or.

Sure, a man can sterilize himself if he wishes to do so, but he cannot be required to do so. So long as the woman invites him insider her, all the rights, and all the risks of doing so are fully upon her, because she can refuse to allow him inside, and she can condition his entry in any way that pleases her, so long as she does it up front and with due notice.

Women's liberation liberated men as well. Now that it's up to women whether they have sex or not, it's no longer obligatory that men take precautions to prevent pregnancy or STD's.

That's "fairness and equality."

The tubes I was referring to were fallopian, not vas deverens.

Thanks for the clarification.

Are you seriously saying that disease prevention need not be a concern for men?
It is worth it to you to risk herpes and HIV and hepatitis and gonorrhea.....?
Do you feel that the man has any ethical obligation to avoid transmitting disease to his partners?

Whether a man wishes to risk STD's is up to him. He's a free individual, and if he chooses such risks, I'm fine with that. As for an "ethical obligation," in the philosophical context I'm using, an STD is no different than a pregnancy. The woman has absolute control of her reproductive organs, so she is absolutely responsible for what goes into and out of them.

Let me see if I have this, the woman gets to "condition entry"---and requires a condom. A reasonable expectation, and wise as well. You would refuse?

Not me. But it's a negotiation, don't you see? The woman wants something, and the man wants something. They each decide how much they want from the other person and how much risk they are willing to take to get it, and what they are willing to exchange to obtain it. It's up to the individual to look out for his or her own interests, including health and safety. Since the woman can refuse entry if the man refuses to comply with the conditions precedent to the act, if she does not object or set conditions, she accepts the risks and the consequences thereof.

Do you want the conditions before you take your pants off, or is it not an inconvenience to have to put them back on again after you get the disagreeable conditions? And what kind of women are you going to "date" who you don't expect would make a condom conditional? IMO I'd think they'd be the ones you should be most inclined to use one with.

It's not about me, it's about sexual politics and contract negotiations. Women today want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the man to be responsible for everything, from birth control to condoms to child support, and yet they also want to keep all control of everything, including the products of conception and the health implications and burden the man with them without his consent.

That's neither fair nor equitable.

Either women are in sovereign control of their wombs, in which case men need not take precautions regarding sexual congress because they are entering by invitation and as a guest it's not their responsibility to clean up after the party, or women surrender a degree of sovereignty in order to participate in a contract-based sex act which may burden them with duties and obligations, in which case the man is obliged to perform his side of the contract as specified, and the woman hers.

It's one or the other, I'm afraid...or should be.

[Gallstones]

I'll be back.

[Gallstones]

As I said...

Are you seriously saying that disease prevention need not be a concern for men?
It is worth it to you to risk herpes and HIV and hepatitis and gonorrhea.....?
Do you feel that the man has any ethical obligation to avoid transmitting disease to his partners?

Whether a man wishes to risk STD's is up to him. He's a free individual, and if he chooses such risks, I'm fine with that. As for an "ethical obligation," in the philosophical context I'm using, an STD is no different than a pregnancy.

Indeed he does have the freedom to choose what he will risk. Refusing a condom is evidence of profound ignorance. That may not be a deal breaker for some. He may have other attributes that make desirability dominate over good sense. Such carelessness, IMO, makes him a skank and definitively out of the running. No deal.

The woman has absolute control of her reproductive organs, so she is absolutely responsible for what goes into and out of them.

Your error is in using an absolutist term like "absolute". No she does not have absolute control or governance. We hope she does, in practice essentially most will as far as the circumstances of their life go; but although the odds are in an individual woman's favor, odds are not guarantees. She can have her sovereignty forcibly removed, against her will and without her consent.

Let me see if I have this, the woman gets to "condition entry"---and requires a condom. A reasonable expectation, and wise as well. You would refuse?

Not me. But it's a negotiation, don't you see?

This is what I see, a mood killer. That is what I see.

The woman wants something, and the man wants something.

At that point in time, I think they both pretty much want the same something.

They each decide how much they want from the other person and how much risk they are willing to take to get it, and what they are willing to exchange to obtain it. It's up to the individual to look out for his or her own interests, including health and safety.

Indeed.

Since the woman can refuse entry if the man refuses to comply with the conditions precedent to the act, if she does not object or set conditions, she accepts the risks and the consequences thereof.

I'm having a really hard time finding a way to see any arousal potential in this negotiation scenario. Perhaps one just has to be there?

Seriously; doesn't (and hasn't) the negotiation really occur during the early stages of dating or acquaintanceship? That's when the talking should be going on right? Hammer all this out at that point--you'd know where the fuck you/it was going and can pull out before the increased awkwardness of "no fucking way how do I get out of this" is reached. Assuming we are talking about the dating situation and not the one night stand, that is.

Do you want the conditions before you take your pants off, or is it not an inconvenience to have to put them back on again after you get the disagreeable conditions? And what kind of women are you going to "date" who you don't expect would make a condom conditional? IMO I'd think they'd be the ones you should be most inclined to use one with.

It's not about me, it's about sexual politics and contract negotiations. Women today want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the man to be responsible for everything, from birth control to condoms to child support, and yet they also want to keep all control of everything, including the products of conception and the health implications and burden the man with them without his consent.

Whoa! They! There is no They.

That's neither fair nor equitable.

Thinking. Something about this isn't going down easy, like a case of cognitive indigestion.

Either women are in sovereign control of their wombs, in which case men need not take precautions regarding sexual congress because they are entering by invitation and as a guest it's not their responsibility to clean up after the party, or women surrender a degree of sovereignty in order to participate in a contract-based sex act which may burden them with duties and obligations, in which case the man is obliged to perform his side of the contract as specified, and the woman hers.

It's one or the other, I'm afraid...or should be.

Promise me this world where one has to negotiate--defend oneself from--interpersonal relationships will never exist.

You seem to be issuing women an ultimatum.
Isn't it enough that people be informed, that each know what they will and will not accept, what they do and do not want, communicate that with persons in a need--or having the right--to know?

This negotiation idea is exsanguinating all the best of what can be had from a quality sexual relationship.

[surreptitious57]

One - unless the intention is pro-creation, then it should be a given that whenever sex occurs, precautions are taken. The onus is more upon the part of the woman since she can get pregnant as well as contract disease. Obviously in the case of the man, only the latter applies. Nevertheless, this should not provide them with a reason to abrogate personal responsibility. References to the insensitivity of prophylactics should fall on deaf ears. No rubber, no sex. As a safe alternative, non-penetrative methods may be considered.

Two - the vast majority of abortions are carried out for social reasons, that is where there is no medical justification for termination. This I believe is wrong. All these could be put up for adoption. The biological mother would abrogate responsibility on point of birth. Abortion should only be granted in three specific situations: if the woman has been raped - if the life of the mother is endangered at any point during her pregnancy - if the foetus is so mentally or physically disabled that it's quality of life will be be severly lacking. In the United States, there are anti-abortionists who themselves have had terminations - sometimes out of state to avoid recognition - and subsequently carried on campaigning against it. That theu apparently seem unfazed by this cognitive dissonance is rather perplexing and sad.

Three - if a woman decides to have her child, then it is imperative that the man is financially responsible for it, even if the two do not share an address or have a relationship. This should stiill apply even if the child will be with a step parent as well who may be capable of bearing the financial burden. Over here in the United Kingdom, if a woman has no regular partner, she can name any man as the biological father. As soon as the child is born, the man will have regular deductions from his salary / benefit. If he disputes this, he has to take a paternity test. This takes between six to eighht weeks and he also has to pay for it as well. If it has subsequently been proved that he is not the father, then he will be compensated fully. But there is no reason as to why he should be paying before paternity has been formally identified. Especially when it can rest on a woman whose powers of recall are less than exemplary.

[Gallstones]

You are taking us backwards surreptitious.

[Seth]

As I said...

Are you seriously saying that disease prevention need not be a concern for men?
It is worth it to you to risk herpes and HIV and hepatitis and gonorrhea.....?
Do you feel that the man has any ethical obligation to avoid transmitting disease to his partners?

Whether a man wishes to risk STD's is up to him. He's a free individual, and if he chooses such risks, I'm fine with that. As for an "ethical obligation," in the philosophical context I'm using, an STD is no different than a pregnancy.

Indeed he does have the freedom to choose what he will risk. Refusing a condom is evidence of profound ignorance. That may not be a deal breaker for some. He may have other attributes that make desirability dominate over good sense. Such carelessness, IMO, makes him a skank and definitively out of the running. No deal.

Well, I would certainly hope so. That's just good judgment on the part of anyone. But there's no accounting for taste in matters sexual, which is why we have STD's in the first place.

The woman has absolute control of her reproductive organs, so she is absolutely responsible for what goes into and out of them.

Your error is in using an absolutist term like "absolute". No she does not have absolute control or governance. We hope she does, in practice essentially most will as far as the circumstances of their life go; but although the odds are in an individual woman's favor, odds are not guarantees. She can have her sovereignty forcibly removed, against her will and without her consent.

Ah, well, we're not talking about rape here, so let me dispose of the rape issue immediately. Any man that attempts to insert himself without invitation and permission should be killed, as quickly as possible in every instance, by anyone who happens to be aware of the goings on.

So, please don't use the rape situation as an excuse to argue that women do not have sovereign control over their bodies. We are talking about LEGAL sovereignty, not physical self-defense against attack. Every person is at risk for sexual attack, including men, women and children, so everyone is equal in that regard, although certainly the statistical prevalence of female rape is higher.

Let me see if I have this, the woman gets to "condition entry"---and requires a condom. A reasonable expectation, and wise as well. You would refuse?

Not me. But it's a negotiation, don't you see?

This is what I see, a mood killer. That is what I see.

Well, that's generally what contract negotiations are, they tend to put a damper on the original enthusiasm over the potential benefits of the deal by pointing out the various negative issues which might arise that need to be dealt with. It's called "using good judgment."

But, nobody is REQUIRING the woman to engage in complex negotiations, she's perfectly entitled to bend over and spread 'em and say "Mount up, cowboy" without a second thought. However, if she chooses that course of action, she has not recourse or cause for complaint for what might happen as a result, now does she?

The woman wants something, and the man wants something.

At that point in time, I think they both pretty much want the same something.

Not necessarily. And therein lies the problem. The man may want an orgasm, but the woman may want a child, or vice versa. Or they both may want an orgasm, but the unintended consequence is a child. That's why knowing what the agreement is up front is important.

Since the woman can refuse entry if the man refuses to comply with the conditions precedent to the act, if she does not object or set conditions, she accepts the risks and the consequences thereof.

I'm having a really hard time finding a way to see any arousal potential in this negotiation scenario. Perhaps one just has to be there?

Who said anything about arousal? I'm talking about consequences. Women can do what they like. They can fall on their backs and spread their legs to anyone passing by without so much as a "by-your-leave" or they can have their legal firm standing by to offer a 50 page contract before they open the Altar of Venus. It's entirely up to them. All I'm saying is that THEY are completely, totally, and utterly responsible for the consequences of their actions, whatever those consequences might be. Just like jumping off a cliff without a parachute, women no longer get to say "Hey, bad idea, I want a do-over." They are free to say yes or no or place conditions on coitus, and as a result they have to live, or die, by their choices, just like everybody else does in every other situation we face as individuals.

You pays your nickle, you takes your chances. It's just that simple.

Seriously; doesn't (and hasn't) the negotiation really occur during the early stages of dating or acquaintanceship? That's when the talking should be going on right? Hammer all this out at that point--you'd know where the fuck you/it was going and can pull out before the increased awkwardness of "no fucking way how do I get out of this" is reached. Assuming we are talking about the dating situation and not the one night stand, that is.

Of course it does, and should. That's responsible and prudent sexual practice. My point is that MY burden and obligation as regards such considerations are somewhat different than YOUR considerations in that regard. I don't get pregnant, so that's not one of my concerns. I can get an STD, so prudence dictates that I take precautions or place trust in my partner's representations regarding her health. But since I don't have a womb, pregnancy is nor, or at least should not be in a just world, of any concern to me.

You do have a womb, and therefore you have an added consideration that I do not. That's a function of biology that is your problem, not mine, and since you have every legal right to deny entry or place conditions on entry, what happens is nobody's business but your own, unless you have a contractual agreement to the contrary that's valid and enforceable prior to the delivery. Something as simple as "Baby, if you knock me up, we're in it together till the kid turns 18, right?" with an affirmative answer in reply does the job.

But participating in the sex act with no express contractual obligations stated leaves both parties free of obligations after the fact, in a just society.

Do you want the conditions before you take your pants off, or is it not an inconvenience to have to put them back on again after you get the disagreeable conditions? And what kind of women are you going to "date" who you don't expect would make a condom conditional? IMO I'd think they'd be the ones you should be most inclined to use one with.

It's not about me, it's about sexual politics and contract negotiations. Women today want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the man to be responsible for everything, from birth control to condoms to child support, and yet they also want to keep all control of everything, including the products of conception and the health implications and burden the man with them without his consent.

Whoa! They! There is no They.

They, as in "those women who enjoy the freedoms of sexual liberation but who also want to enjoy the benefits of paternalism as well."

That's neither fair nor equitable.

Thinking. Something about this isn't going down easy, like a case of cognitive indigestion.

Pointing out to women that they can't morally or ethically act like they are delicate princesses entitled to deference and protection by their knights in shining armor who must pay obeisance and grovel at their feet and pander to their every whim and caprice and be strong, independent liberated women who get to do whatever they want with their sovereign wombs at the same time tends to discomfit many women. Either women are truly liberated and sovereign individuals who are both in control of and responsible for their reproductive and sexual practices, or they are dependent upon paternalistic protections and advantages like mandatory child support, alimony and suchlike and are no longer completely in control of their own lives. Naturally, many women want the best of both worlds. They want to be paternalistically protected should their sexual activities go wrong and they become saddled with a child, whether it means the right to have an abortion without the consent of the father or whether they may keep the child an impose a burden of care on the father without his consent. They want to have relief from the burden of their own sexual behavior in every circumstance, and they want to deny their own ultimate responsibility for what goes into and comes out of their wombs and have at least part of that burden shifted to others.

My claim is that morality and ethics demands that they stand up and be sovereign women and accept all responsibility for their own bodies, which they have worked long and hard to achieve in law.

Either women are in sovereign control of their wombs, in which case men need not take precautions regarding sexual congress because they are entering by invitation and as a guest it's not their responsibility to clean up after the party, or women surrender a degree of sovereignty in order to participate in a contract-based sex act which may burden them with duties and obligations, in which case the man is obliged to perform his side of the contract as specified, and the woman hers.

It's one or the other, I'm afraid...or should be.

Promise me this world where one has to negotiate--defend oneself from--interpersonal relationships will never exist.

You seem to be issuing women an ultimatum.
Isn't it enough that people be informed, that each know what they will and will not accept, what they do and do not want, communicate that with persons in a need--or having the right--to know?

This negotiation idea is exsanguinating all the best of what can be had from a quality sexual relationship.

This is a philosophical exegesis intended to point out the moral and ethical conflicts in our society today regarding sexual politics. Nothing prevents women from creating healthy sexual relationships, I merely maintain that when things go wrong for them, because of their own poor judgment or misbehavior, they should not be permitted to shift the blame or the burden to others. They should stand up on their hind legs and accept that they made a mistake and they should live with the consequences of that mistake without blaming others or expecting others, or society, to relieve them of the burden of their error.

Nobody offers men that sort of relief, and society has always, throughout history, levied a disproportionate burden upon men when it comes the products of careless sexual behavior by insisting that they then have a duty to protect and provide for both the woman and the child. This burden was a just one when men also had the right to force a woman to become pregnant in marriage. That situation no longer obtains, however, and so the burden should fade away. With true female legal sovereignty, all of the responsibilities associated with her body should accrue only to her.

Nothing in this concept precludes or prevents women and men from forming intimate relationships in which each agrees to take on obligations and burdens, it merely says that absent an agreement, the woman may not impose burdens using the law without the consent of the man. This is only fair and just, since she now has complete control over her body.

[Seth]

Three - if a woman decides to have her child, then it is imperative that the man is financially responsible for it, even if the two do not share an address or have a relationship. This should stiill apply even if the child will be with a step parent as well who may be capable of bearing the financial burden. Over here in the United Kingdom, if a woman has no regular partner, she can name any man as the biological father. As soon as the child is born, the man will have regular deductions from his salary / benefit. If he disputes this, he has to take a paternity test. This takes between six to eighht weeks and he also has to pay for it as well. If it has subsequently been proved that he is not the father, then he will be compensated fully. But there is no reason as to why he should be paying before paternity has been formally identified. Especially when it can rest on a woman whose powers of recall are less than exemplary.

Why should the man be responsible AT ALL for the products of her womb? He has zero legal or practical control over it. Unless he agreed in advance to create and support a child, his sperm gift is a gift absolute and the woman cannot legally condition the giving of that gift in any way. She can either accept it or refuse it, but once she accepts it, it's hers and she cannot make a claim upon the man if she chooses to use it to procreate.

If I give you a car, and you accept it, and then you drive it into a bridge abutment and get hurt, you cannot make a claim against me based on the fact that I gave you the car. It's your car, you're responsible for how it's operated. If you're not a good driver who is prepared to operate it properly and safely, you should not drive the car. But if you do, and you do so carelessly, how am I responsible for your careless driving?

Why should a gift of sperm into a woman's vagina be treated any differently? If I deposit a gift of sperm at her invitation, it's hers. She can kill it, prevent it from reaching her womb, or do whatever she wants with it. She can even get an abortion if she waits too long to deal with it. Under what theory of equity in the law am I to be held responsible for 18 years of child support for her careless womb operation?

[Gallstones]

Oh my, this is going to take some time. BBL

[Seth]

Oh my, this is going to take some time. BBL

An eternity, is my guess...

[Gallstones]

Oh my, this is going to take some time. BBL

An eternity, is my guess...

• 

[egbert]

The concern for "unborn babies" simply does not go far enough, as it completely ignores the fate of "unfertilized children."
Human sperm and eggs are ALIVE, and, well, HUMAN. The sacredness, or at least sanctity of human life is unarguable. The murder rate of these defenseless "unfertilized children" exceeds even Pol Pot or Kissinger's fantasies.
Masturbation, spinsterhood, celibacy,and nunnery are the chief causes of these horrible deaths by dehydration, exposure, or drowning in toilets, and criminalizing of this wholesale slaughter is much overdue.
Sex was designed for reproduction, and this result of the wanton disregard of the imperative "go forth and multiply" has turned the world's bedrooms and bathrooms into killing fields.

[Gallstones]

As I said...

Are you seriously saying that disease prevention need not be a concern for men?
It is worth it to you to risk herpes and HIV and hepatitis and gonorrhea.....?
Do you feel that the man has any ethical obligation to avoid transmitting disease to his partners?

Whether a man wishes to risk STD's is up to him. He's a free individual, and if he chooses such risks, I'm fine with that. As for an "ethical obligation," in the philosophical context I'm using, an STD is no different than a pregnancy.

Indeed he does have the freedom to choose what he will risk. Refusing a condom is evidence of profound ignorance. That may not be a deal breaker for some. He may have other attributes that make desirability dominate over good sense. Such carelessness, IMO, makes him a skank and definitively out of the running. No deal.

Well, I would certainly hope so. That's just good judgment on the part of anyone. But there's no accounting for taste in matters sexual, which is why we have STD's in the first place.

No, sexual indiscretion is not the reason there are STDs. There are STDs because it was an exploitable survival niche for organisms serendipitously poised to take advantage of it.

The woman has absolute control of her reproductive organs, so she is absolutely responsible for what goes into and out of them.

Your error is in using an absolutist term like "absolute". No she does not have absolute control or governance. We hope she does, in practice essentially most will as far as the circumstances of their life go; but although the odds are in an individual woman's favor, odds are not guarantees. She can have her sovereignty forcibly removed, against her will and without her consent.

Ah, well, we're not talking about rape here, so let me dispose of the rape issue immediately. Any man that attempts to insert himself without invitation and permission should be killed, as quickly as possible in every instance, by anyone who happens to be aware of the goings on.

My immediate reaction is one of homicidal intent. I don't see this being considered acceptable by society at large though.

So, please don't use the rape situation as an excuse to argue that women do not have sovereign control over their bodies. We are talking about LEGAL sovereignty, not physical self-defense against attack. Every person is at risk for sexual attack, including men, women and children, so everyone is equal in that regard, although certainly the statistical prevalence of female rape is higher.

Fine. Since I can not remain rational or reasonable when the topic of rape is discussed it is better for me to stay away from such discussions.

Let me see if I have this, the woman gets to "condition entry"---and requires a condom. A reasonable expectation, and wise as well. You would refuse?

Not me. But it's a negotiation, don't you see?

This is what I see, a mood killer. That is what I see.

Well, that's generally what contract negotiations are, they tend to put a damper on the original enthusiasm over the potential benefits of the deal by pointing out the various negative issues which might arise that need to be dealt with. It's called "using good judgment."

But, nobody is REQUIRING the woman to engage in complex negotiations, she's perfectly entitled to bend over and spread 'em and say "Mount up, cowboy" without a second thought. However, if she chooses that course of action, she has not recourse or cause for complaint for what might happen as a result, now does she?

If we are to consider the feasibility of making this negotiation legally binding , how do you see it playing out? Download a document template from LegalZoom? Include a Notary? I think a checklist format would be the most efficient.

The woman wants something, and the man wants something.

At that point in time, I think they both pretty much want the same something.

Not necessarily. And therein lies the problem. The man may want an orgasm, but the woman may want a child, or vice versa. Or they both may want an orgasm, but the unintended consequence is a child. That's why knowing what the agreement is up front is important.

Yes, knowing what the agreement is up front is important. In order for that to happen communication has to be happening. In order for communication to happen there has to be adequate levels of trust and confidence. IMO, most people can't pull that off in the one night stand involving strangers.

Those that are disinclined, due to lack of willingness or lack of ability, to engage in that level of communication are going to be taking risks that those who are more conscientious will not. If one is in the habit of seeking casual sex with different partners, one is at increased risk of encountering one of these individuals even if one is otherwise conscientious. I think, that if one is not looking for commitment, then it would be better and safer to have regular partners one is familiar with, and with whom one has already invested the time and effort in communication so everyone knows what everyone else's conditions are. That supplies variety, emotional connection for quality, and everyone is informed and on board. That would be my preferred scenario anyway. And once in awhile, add a new one to the cadre, after a proper vetting of course.

Since the woman can refuse entry if the man refuses to comply with the conditions precedent to the act, if she does not object or set conditions, she accepts the risks and the consequences thereof.

I'm having a really hard time finding a way to see any arousal potential in this negotiation scenario. Perhaps one just has to be there?

Who said anything about arousal?

Uhm, me. I'm not going to go forward with any arrangement if the negotiations kill the mood. End of need to negotiate if that occurs.

I'm talking about consequences. Women can do what they like. They can fall on their backs and spread their legs to anyone passing by without so much as a "by-your-leave" or they can have their legal firm standing by to offer a 50 page contract before they open the Altar of Venus. It's entirely up to them. All I'm saying is that THEY are completely, totally, and utterly responsible for the consequences of their actions, whatever those consequences might be. Just like jumping off a cliff without a parachute, women no longer get to say "Hey, bad idea, I want a do-over." They are free to say yes or no or place conditions on coitus, and as a result they have to live, or die, by their choices, just like everybody else does in every other situation we face as individuals.

Now we get to the neglected consequence--a child, an involuntary third party. This is a topic about abortion not just dating. I, as an individual, can't just ignore that there is now an involuntarily involved and vulnerable third party. Abortion removes that complication. But if the woman--being of the conscientious and caring bent--decides to gestate to term, then the child is set up for a risk the parents don't have to assume and that could affect the child's entire existence. One for whom there was no opportunity to negotiate terms. Single parenting is less than optimal for raising children. If our children are our future, then we should want them raised under optimal conditions so they are sound in mind and body. I find abandonment by one parent to be very discomforting.

But, no one should be coerced into being responsible for a child they did not plan and are not able or willing to support. It is a no-win situation all around. And the more of these situations that are created, the more children there are that may need public money for their support--so men and women who have never conceived children, or who have but are caring for them have to pay for those that aren't.

As it currently exists, it is fathers who have the easier means for abandoning their children anyway without having made any negotiation of terms.

You pays your nickle, you takes your chances. It's just that simple.

For both parties--not just the women--both.

Seriously; doesn't (and hasn't) the negotiation really occur during the early stages of dating or acquaintanceship? That's when the talking should be going on right? Hammer all this out at that point--you'd know where the fuck you/it was going and can pull out before the increased awkwardness of "no fucking way how do I get out of this" is reached. Assuming we are talking about the dating situation and not the one night stand, that is.

Of course it does, and should. That's responsible and prudent sexual practice. My point is that MY burden and obligation as regards such considerations are somewhat different than YOUR considerations in that regard. I don't get pregnant, so that's not one of my concerns. I can get an STD, so prudence dictates that I take precautions or place trust in my partner's representations regarding her health. But since I don't have a womb, pregnancy is nor, or at least should not be in a just world, of any concern to me.

You do have a womb, and therefore you have an added consideration that I do not. That's a function of biology that is your problem, not mine, and since you have every legal right to deny entry or place conditions on entry, what happens is nobody's business but your own, unless you have a contractual agreement to the contrary that's valid and enforceable prior to the delivery. Something as simple as "Baby, if you knock me up, we're in it together till the kid turns 18, right?" with an affirmative answer in reply does the job.

But participating in the sex act with no express contractual obligations stated leaves both parties free of obligations after the fact, in a just society.

What justice for the unplanned children who come into being when precautions are breached? That is the crux isn't it, not whether one party does or does not want a partner facilitated orgasm?

Do you want the conditions before you take your pants off, or is it not an inconvenience to have to put them back on again after you get the disagreeable conditions? And what kind of women are you going to "date" who you don't expect would make a condom conditional? IMO I'd think they'd be the ones you should be most inclined to use one with.

It's not about me, it's about sexual politics and contract negotiations. Women today want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the man to be responsible for everything, from birth control to condoms to child support, and yet they also want to keep all control of everything, including the products of conception and the health implications and burden the man with them without his consent.

Whoa! They! There is no They.

They, as in "those women who enjoy the freedoms of sexual liberation but who also want to enjoy the benefits of paternalism as well."

Have any thoughts on how many women fit this description. Maybe some men are attracted to the type and so see them everywhere while being oblivious to those women who are not this way at all. I would expect your them to be found in higher numbers in the twenty and thirty somethings.

That's neither fair nor equitable.

Thinking. Something about this isn't going down easy, like a case of cognitive indigestion.

Pointing out to women that they can't morally or ethically act like they are delicate princesses entitled to deference and protection by their knights in shining armor who must pay obeisance and grovel at their feet and pander to their every whim and caprice and be strong, independent liberated women who get to do whatever they want with their sovereign wombs at the same time tends to discomfit many women.

This never needed to be pointed out to me. I figured the situation out early. Also, it isn't the girl children who are fostering this meme--it is a parent, treating them and training them to think this way.

Either women are truly liberated and sovereign individuals who are both in control of and responsible for their reproductive and sexual practices, or they are dependent upon paternalistic protections and advantages like mandatory child support, alimony and suchlike and are no longer completely in control of their own lives.

These paternalistic protections are not for the benefit of the woman, they are to benefit the child. The child exists, it is deserving of much that must be paid for and much that is free but can't be coerced or acquired by garnishment of wages.

Naturally, many women want the best of both worlds.

Naturally? You hold some unattractive, underlying assumptions of women as a group.

They want to be paternalistically protected should their sexual activities go wrong and they become saddled with a child,

A child isn't an STD, it is a person. No one is saddled with a child--abort or give up for adoption.

...whether it means the right to have an abortion without the consent of the father or whether they may keep the child an impose a burden of care on the father without his consent. They want to have relief from the burden of their own sexual behavior in every circumstance, and they want to deny their own ultimate responsibility for what goes into and comes out of their wombs and have at least part of that burden shifted to others.

They may not have had any intentions of finagling themselves some kind of free ride at some unwilling guy's expense. There may simply have been a breach of precautions and be of the type that would not choose abortion. Their concern and goal after that may be to want the best for the child, even if the only contribution they can get for it is financial support from the father.

My claim is that morality and ethics demands that they stand up and be sovereign women and accept all responsibility for their own bodies, which they have worked long and hard to achieve in law.

Yes, and not to be considered lightly or taken for granted. But there are moral and ethical concerns involved when there are children. Women raising children alone, and their children, are known to suffer disadvantages attributable to that circumstance. It is all well and good that we stand up for sovereignty and autonomy--but what kind of society are we building when we treat children as collateral damage to imprudent behaviors?

Either women are in sovereign control of their wombs, in which case men need not take precautions regarding sexual congress because they are entering by invitation and as a guest it's not their responsibility to clean up after the party, or women surrender a degree of sovereignty in order to participate in a contract-based sex act which may burden them with duties and obligations, in which case the man is obliged to perform his side of the contract as specified, and the woman hers.

It's one or the other, I'm afraid...or should be.

Promise me this world where one has to negotiate--defend oneself from--interpersonal relationships will never exist.

You seem to be issuing women an ultimatum.
Isn't it enough that people be informed, that each know what they will and will not accept, what they do and do not want, communicate that with persons in a need--or having the right--to know?

This negotiation idea is exsanguinating all the best of what can be had from a quality sexual relationship.

This is a philosophical exegesis intended to point out the moral and ethical conflicts in our society today regarding sexual politics. Nothing prevents women from creating healthy sexual relationships, I merely maintain that when things go wrong for them, because of their own poor judgment or misbehavior, they should not be permitted to shift the blame or the burden to others. They should stand up on their hind legs and accept that they made a mistake and they should live with the consequences of that mistake without blaming others or expecting others, or society, to relieve them of the burden of their error.

OK, now I'm pissed off. You are putting all responsibility on women, if there are errors or breaches of precautions they are her fault, she should suffer the consequences alone.


I may have to leave this for a bit. I'm losing perspective.

Nobody offers men that sort of relief, and society has always, throughout history, levied a disproportionate burden upon men when it comes the products of careless sexual behavior by insisting that they then have a duty to protect and provide for both the woman and the child. This burden was a just one when men also had the right to force a woman to become pregnant in marriage. That situation no longer obtains, however, and so the burden should fade away. With true female legal sovereignty, all of the responsibilities associated with her body should accrue only to her.

Nothing in this concept precludes or prevents women and men from forming intimate relationships in which each agrees to take on obligations and burdens, it merely says that absent an agreement, the woman may not impose burdens using the law without the consent of the man. This is only fair and just, since she now has complete control over her body.