A secular debate about abortion

[Gallstones]

On a roll Seth, you're on a roll.

Misogyny can be fun!

Misandry too.

Even misanthropy can be a lark!!

I do more of that, as a matter of fact. Generalizing enables one to insult and discomfit more than one group at a time. It's efficient and saves time and effort that a person can then channel into doing other things.

[Warren Dew]

You're begging the question. We all know that the current legal presumption is that the father has certain responsibilities that the law imposes on him irrespective of his consent, but the purpose of this discussion is not to simply state how things are, but to discuss how things SHOULD be, and why.

Since we're discussing how things should be, if the woman ends up being unable to care for the child, why should the burden fall to random taxpayers rather than to the father?

Or should the kid just be allowed to starve, if no one volunteers to take care of it?

[Seth]

You're begging the question. We all know that the current legal presumption is that the father has certain responsibilities that the law imposes on him irrespective of his consent, but the purpose of this discussion is not to simply state how things are, but to discuss how things SHOULD be, and why.

Since we're discussing how things should be, if the woman ends up being unable to care for the child, why should the burden fall to random taxpayers rather than to the father?

Or should the kid just be allowed to starve, if no one volunteers to take care of it?

That's an entirely different question. The consequences to the child when an abortion is procured are final and absolute; it dies. That must be balanced against the ethical and moral structures of society regarding the care of children who cannot be supported by their parents for whatever reason, from parental incapacity or disinterest to their death, rendering the child to be an orphan.

Certainly it's my position that if society is going to interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion, then society undertakes some, or even theoretically all of the burden of caring for and raising that child if the mother is not willing to do so. But that's a minor consideration because society already has systems and policies in place that relieve the mother of the burden of caring for the child after delivery. It's called "adoption." Any woman in the US, and most other civilized countries, can surrender a child, even years after birth, for adoption. So yes, the state, and the People, do already accept the burden of caring for unwanted children.

In balancing the interests of the child, therefore, one must look at the consequences of abortion to the child, which is death, and perhaps agonizing death, or the care of the state and continued life.

If that's the balance you want to acknowledge, then the answer is perfectly clear; it's morally justifiable to impose upon the woman the duty of gestating the fetus through delivery, with the state taking custody of the child at birth, rather than allow her to kill the child, which is a final and irrevocable act that destroys a human life.

On that basis, abortion should be entirely outlawed except when the life of the mother is at stake.

[surreptitious57]

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?

One - your analogy is wrong. If you sell me a car, then I am completely responsible for it. If I subsequently have an accident, then I - and only I - am liable. However that most clearly does not apply in the case of fathering a child because you are legally responsible for it for the next eighteen years. Biologically it is just as much yours as the mother's. Half it's chromosomes are from you. That child will always be yours. You cannot sell it or absolve responsibility for it in the way you would for a vehicle.

You're begging the question. We all know that the current legal presumption is that the father has certain responsibilities that the law imposes on him irrespective of his consent, but the purpose of this discussion is not to simply state how things are, but to discuss how things SHOULD be, and why.

The car analogy is apt in that respect because like the car, the sperm is an unconditional gift, and the woman's acceptance of the gift without preconditions absolves the giver of all responsibility for the future use or effects of the gift, in the same way as the unconditional acceptance of the gift of a car cannot impose a burden or duty upon the giver. It's important to note, however, than in gift law, while a receiver may not impose conditions on the giver against his will and still accept the gift (the receivers only option is to return or reject the gift), a gift-giver CAN impose legally-binding conditions on that gift. In other words, the man could legally bind the woman by saying, "I'm going to come inside you, and if you get knocked up, it's not my problem and I ain't paying for the kid." Under current gift law jurisprudence (leaving aside the existing parental responsibility laws for the sake of argument) that would be a legally binding condition, and the woman's only recourse would be to tell him NOT to deposit his sperm inside her.

Two -if you do not wish to father a child, then why not accept responsibility and take precaution ?

Because with the assumption of absolute sovereignty over her womb, the woman also assumes absolute liability and absolute responsibility for what goes into and comes out of it, which means that the man, once invited to leave a gift of sperm insider her womb, has no further obligations for its use or its products, any more than he is responsible if the woman runs down a crowd of school children with the car he gave her.

The defence you previously offered - regarding prophylactics - is not acceptable.

Not acceptable to whom? Women? Fuck 'em. They asked for legal sovereignty of their wombs, and they got it. It's their problem now, not ours.

Sex doesn't automatically have to involve penetration. If however you are that desperate for it, then you should have zero problem in wearing one. It really is that simple.

If the man is willing to take the risk of getting an STD, why should he? Condoms reduce sensation and impair his sexual pleasure.

It does seem rather bizarre that a man who has no intention of accepting personal responsibility should be far more concerned about the sensitivity of his penis than anything else - hence his insistence on not wearing a rubber.

Does it? It's no more bizarre than a woman not wanting to take birth control pills (and still enjoy having sex) because she doesn't like how they affect her comfort and pleasure.

Since the advent of complete female vaginal legal sovereignty, men have been completely freed from having to be concerned about anything but their own safety and pleasure, because it's up to the woman to protect herself from STD's and pregnancy, not his. Now he can choose to wear a condom, and might well do so if it enhances his chances of getting a little pussy, but from the moral standpoint, it's not his problem any longer. If the woman has concerns about barebacking, she can simply refuse to have sex. Pretty simple and elegant solution, isn't it?

Amazing, truly amazing ! Are you seriously suggesting that you are prepared to be lumbered with eighteen years of responsibility merely to have a better orgasm ? Furthermore, are you prepared to run the risk of contracting a variety of sexually transmitted diseases too ? Either take responsibility or don't have unprotected sex. End of.

The point of this philosophical exegesis is to point out that ethically and morally men should NOT be "lumbered with eighteen years of responsibility" for not wearing a condom because they have been freely invited to leave a gift of sperm in the woman's vagina, and from there on out, it's the woman's responsibility to deal with the consequences of that gift.

As to STD's, that's a risk men have a perfect right to take if they think the pussy's hot enough to justify it.

One - I would challenge your assumption that the depositing of sperm is an unconditional gift. This argument appears to be constructed around the belief that the man should have an orgasm and immediatedly after that, any complications arising are exclusively the woman's concern. Where do you entertain the notion that it is unconditional in the first place ? Even if there is mutual agreement on this, it still does not absolve the man of responsibility if the woman becomes pregnant. That is how it is and how it should be. I would go even further and turn your assumption on it's head and say that in no circumstance should the depositing of sperm be unconditional. There may be no consequences - such as pregnancy or disease - but there is no guarantee unless precautions are taken. No Seth, your convenient denial of personal responsibility is unacceptable, both legally and morally. Let us instead operate from the principle that the depositing of sperm is totally conditional and not the opposite as you would have it in your Utopian ideal.

Two - so men should only be concerned with their own safety and pleasure and be prepared to run the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease if they so wish ? Notice any contradiction in there ? What happens if the sexually transmitted disease in question happens to be AIDS ? Is it really worth a very slow painful death just to have a better orgasm ? And no, this is not scaremongering - this actually happens. Your entire raison d'etre amounts to wanting to have unprotected sex when ever, where ever without the slightest consideration for the consequences as long as you come. You are going to have to do a lot better than that. Until you can, I have no more to say as I can see us going round and round in circles.

Three - you may of course be playing devil's advocate - which is something you have admitted to - in order to provoke debate. But it is far more practical just to be honest and advance arguments you actually believe in. Are you suggesting that your actual opinions on all subjects are so bland that no one would engage with you unless you adopted alternative ones ? You are an interesting character to say the least. But this one has run it's course as far as I concerned, whether you are being honest or not. See you around. Enjoyed the sparring, but time to move on.

[Coito ergo sum]

[

You're begging the question. We all know that the current legal presumption is that the father has certain responsibilities that the law imposes on him irrespective of his consent, but the purpose of this discussion is not to simply state how things are, but to discuss how things SHOULD be, and why.

They shouldn't be the way you suggest, because if it is, then if I get a woman pregnant I will have not be able to assert parental rights. If my sperm was an unconditional gift because nobody said anything about it one way or the other (and I've never had sex with a woman and discussed beforehand the extent of my parental involvement if the fucking resulted in a 9 months down the road), then no matter what I wanted, I wouldn't be able to see my child, except at her pleasure. I couldn't bear to have a child of mine deprived of my fatherhood because the mother accept my cum as an "unconditional gift."

Naturally, if I want to be able to assert parental rights irrespective of the mother's consent, then equity would require that I also have parental responsibilities asserted against me. It's simple, and it's fair.

Moreover, once a baby is born that is of my genetic material and a mother's genetic material, it is fair that we, who created the child, take care of the child and support it. It's certainly nobody else's business. Adequate provision could be made in the law for the extreme circumstances of women saving cum in rubbers and impregnating themselves, or the like. But, in general, if two people create a baby, then it ought to be their ...well...baby. "It's your baby," is an apt cliche' here.

Further, a baby ought to have parents, and it is quite common, if not nearly universal, that at some point in growing up that child will wonder who "daddy" is, and wonder why daddy didn't love him or her enough to stick around. The child will suffer an emotional trauma because of this. Why didn't daddy want me? - a common refrain. It's no consolation to a five or 10 year old child that "mommy was a bitch and wouldn't abort you like I wanted when you were in the womb - she chose to have you, so you're her baggage now, little Janie... I didn't want to have to pay for you and I exercised my right to disavow your existence." Little Janie isn't likely to be comforted by that fact, and even if it is the mother's fault, little Janie is still going to feel abandoned and unloved by her father. Only a cold, callous, son-of-a-bitch could consider that irrelevant.

[Seth]

One - I would challenge your assumption that the depositing of sperm is an unconditional gift. This argument appears to be constructed around the belief that the man should have an orgasm and immediatedly after that, any complications arising are exclusively the woman's concern. Where do you entertain the notion that it is unconditional in the first place ?

If the man doesn't condition it, it's unconditional. I believe that earlier in the thread someone cited an actual case where a man sued a woman for having a child without his permission, and the court ruled that the sperm was an unconditional gift, and therefore he had no control over what she did with it. You can search back if you like.

If the woman invites the man to ejaculate inside her, and he does so, he is granting her an unconditional gift of his sperm.

Earlier we discussed the case of an English woman who was deliberately and with malicious intent having sex with random blokes in pubs using pre-sabotaged condoms because she wanted to get pregnant but didn't want to pay the fees associated with a sperm bank. I posited that this might be considered theft and fraud on her part, since the wearing of a condom demonstrates a specific intent NOT to give the semen to the woman for her use.

On what basis would you conclude that, absent a prior agreement or a condom, that a man ejaculating inside a woman is anything but his giving her his sperm unconditionally?

Even if there is mutual agreement on this, it still does not absolve the man of responsibility if the woman becomes pregnant. That is how it is and how it should be.

Why? Because it's convenient and satisfactory to the woman? What moral and ethical argument do you make, beyond a bald assertion of female self-interest, that justifies imposing any duty on a man merely because he ejaculated insider her at her invitation?

I would go even further and turn your assumption on it's head and say that in no circumstance should the depositing of sperm be unconditional.

Well, were I a woman, I would probably agree that I would not allow a man to unconditionally ejaculate inside me, but then again, I'm not, and it's the woman's responsibility to make sure that the conditions of the contract upon which she permits a man to ejaculate inside her are set forth, preferably in writing, before the act is permitted. If, on the other hand, she does not come to a "meeting of the minds" with the man prior to inviting him insider her and allowing him to ejaculate, she cannot unilaterally impose conditions upon the man after the fact. That's not how contracts work. In that case, she's allowed him to ejaculate inside of her without conditions, and therefore his sperm is an unconditional gift to her, and she's responsible for what happens to and with it.

In the past, the most common form of socially-approved contract for sex was called "marriage," and women didn't allow men inside them AT ALL until the contract for both sex and procreation, and the responsibilities for raising children were agreed upon and ratified by the marriage contract.

It's hardly the fault of men that women have decided to "liberate" themselves sexually and now choose to engage in sex without a contract.

There may be no consequences - such as pregnancy or disease - but there is no guarantee unless precautions are taken.

Yup, absolutely true. That militates for women being responsible and careful in who they allow inside them, and under what conditions. But it's not the man's problem any longer, because women are no longer compelled to allow men to impregnate them. The choice to have sex or not is entirely theirs, and so is the responsibility for the operation of their womb.

No Seth, your convenient denial of personal responsibility is unacceptable, both legally and morally. Let us instead operate from the principle that the depositing of sperm is totally conditional and not the opposite as you would have it in your Utopian ideal.

Why? Because it's convenient for women to be permitted to have their cake and eat it too? If women want to condition entry to their vagina, that's fine with me, that's what women's lib is all about. But the burden is off the man to take precautions BECAUSE the woman can deny him entry. It's her womb, let her operate it as she pleases and not try to dump the burden of her misbehavior or promiscuity on someone else who has not agreed in advance to accept that burden. That's the consequences of sexual liberation, my dear. Freedom comes with responsibility.

Two - so men should only be concerned with their own safety and pleasure and be prepared to run the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease if they so wish ? Notice any contradiction in there ? What happens if the sexually transmitted disease in question happens to be AIDS ?

They may get sick and die. So what? It's their choice to make.

Is it really worth a very slow painful death just to have a better orgasm ?

Dunno. Maybe. If Charlize Theron had AIDS, but was willing to fuck me three times a day till I die of it, I might be willing to make that choice. It all depends on how much I value my own life versus how badly I want to have sex.

And no, this is not scaremongering - this actually happens. Your entire raison d'etre amounts to wanting to have unprotected sex when ever, where ever without the slightest consideration for the consequences as long as you come. You are going to have to do a lot better than that. Until you can, I have no more to say as I can see us going round and round in circles.

You need to look at this in the broader philosophical context. This is a discussion about sexual politics, not a statement of personal sexual practice.

Three - you may of course be playing devil's advocate - which is something you have admitted to - in order to provoke debate.

Wow, the nickle finally dropped...

But it is far more practical just to be honest and advance arguments you actually believe in.

What fun would that be?

Are you suggesting that your actual opinions on all subjects are so bland that no one would engage with you unless you adopted alternative ones ?

I'm an interlocutor. It's what I do. It's all I do. And I absolutely WILL NOT STOP until the subject is dead! :deadhorse:

You are an interesting character to say the least. But this one has run it's course as far as I concerned, whether you are being honest or not. See you around. Enjoyed the sparring, but time to move on.

Have a good day!

[Seth]

[

You're begging the question. We all know that the current legal presumption is that the father has certain responsibilities that the law imposes on him irrespective of his consent, but the purpose of this discussion is not to simply state how things are, but to discuss how things SHOULD be, and why.

They shouldn't be the way you suggest, because if it is, then if I get a woman pregnant I will have not be able to assert parental rights.

That's already the case. She can kill your child at will, right up to the instant before birth.

If my sperm was an unconditional gift because nobody said anything about it one way or the other (and I've never had sex with a woman and discussed beforehand the extent of my parental involvement if the fucking resulted in a 9 months down the road), then no matter what I wanted, I wouldn't be able to see my child, except at her pleasure. I couldn't bear to have a child of mine deprived of my fatherhood because the mother accept my cum as an "unconditional gift."

By what right do you paternalistically demand the right to impose your will on the sovereign womb of a woman? It's hers, and she can do whatever she wants with what comes out of it, or so women's lib claims.

Naturally, if I want to be able to assert parental rights irrespective of the mother's consent, then equity would require that I also have parental responsibilities asserted against me. It's simple, and it's fair.

Yes, so long as the contract is a meeting of the minds and an agreement on the terms, mutual obligations and duties can be imposed.

Moreover, once a baby is born that is of my genetic material and a mother's genetic material, it is fair that we, who created the child, take care of the child and support it. It's certainly nobody else's business. Adequate provision could be made in the law for the extreme circumstances of women saving cum in rubbers and impregnating themselves, or the like. But, in general, if two people create a baby, then it ought to be their ...well...baby. "It's your baby," is an apt cliche' here.

The baby is comprised of your genetic material and the mother's genetic material from the moment the parental chromosomes align along the spindle apparatus, about 24 hours after fertilization of the egg. Why shouldn't you be able to assert your rights at that point?

Further, a baby ought to have parents, and it is quite common, if not nearly universal, that at some point in growing up that child will wonder who "daddy" is, and wonder why daddy didn't love him or her enough to stick around.

Different issue.

The child will suffer an emotional trauma because of this. Why didn't daddy want me? - a common refrain. It's no consolation to a five or 10 year old child that "mommy was a bitch and wouldn't abort you like I wanted when you were in the womb - she chose to have you, so you're her baggage now, little Janie... I didn't want to have to pay for you and I exercised my right to disavow your existence." Little Janie isn't likely to be comforted by that fact, and even if it is the mother's fault, little Janie is still going to feel abandoned and unloved by her father. Only a cold, callous, son-of-a-bitch could consider that irrelevant.

Oh, it's highly relevant, I agree. And what's more, it's highly relevant from the moment that the zygote is formed, and a new, unique, living human being is created until that individual dies.

Shall we circle back to that argument again?

[Coito ergo sum]

[

You're begging the question. We all know that the current legal presumption is that the father has certain responsibilities that the law imposes on him irrespective of his consent, but the purpose of this discussion is not to simply state how things are, but to discuss how things SHOULD be, and why.

They shouldn't be the way you suggest, because if it is, then if I get a woman pregnant I will have not be able to assert parental rights.

That's already the case. She can kill your child at will, right up to the instant before birth.

Sure, but what is not already the case is that once it's born, she can't legally keep me out of the child's life. I have a right to file a paternity suit and compel her to give me time sharing and even sue for sole custody if I think I have a basis. In your world I would not have that right because I gave her my cum unconditionally and therefore if she made a baby out of it then that's her business, and whether she let's me in on fatherhood would be her call. If she doesn't, i'm fucked. And, the mother could then condition my involvement on anything she wanted - there would be no "child support guidelines" and if the mother said - "I condition your involvement with the child on payment to me of $1,000,000," well - so be it, right? It's her baby.

[

If my sperm was an unconditional gift because nobody said anything about it one way or the other (and I've never had sex with a woman and discussed beforehand the extent of my parental involvement if the fucking resulted in a 9 months down the road), then no matter what I wanted, I wouldn't be able to see my child, except at her pleasure. I couldn't bear to have a child of mine deprived of my fatherhood because the mother accept my cum as an "unconditional gift."

By what right do you paternalistically demand the right to impose your will on the sovereign womb of a woman? It's hers, and she can do whatever she wants with what comes out of it, or so women's lib claims.

I don't. My right is only in relation to the born child. Paternity actions aren't filed until after a child is born.

[

Naturally, if I want to be able to assert parental rights irrespective of the mother's consent, then equity would require that I also have parental responsibilities asserted against me. It's simple, and it's fair.

Yes, so long as the contract is a meeting of the minds and an agreement on the terms, mutual obligations and duties can be imposed.

I'm talking about the situation where nothing is discussed, and we just have sex, no terms are negotiated. I ejaculate inside her and she gets pregnant. In your world, if the baby is born, I have zero right to compel visitation, sue for custody and get time sharing, and be involved in the decisions effecting that child's life, right? That is what you're saying - that's what I believe should NOT be.

[

Moreover, once a baby is born that is of my genetic material and a mother's genetic material, it is fair that we, who created the child, take care of the child and support it. It's certainly nobody else's business. Adequate provision could be made in the law for the extreme circumstances of women saving cum in rubbers and impregnating themselves, or the like. But, in general, if two people create a baby, then it ought to be their ...well...baby. "It's your baby," is an apt cliche' here.

The baby is comprised of your genetic material and the mother's genetic material from the moment the parental chromosomes align along the spindle apparatus, about 24 hours after fertilization of the egg. Why shouldn't you be able to assert your rights at that point?

You asked what we thought "should" be the case. I told you.

I've already explained why I think I shouldn't be able to assert my rights at the fertlization stage - because during that time period it's in the mother's womb and I don't presume to trump the rights of the mother to her womb. However, if the baby is ultimately born, then I ought to be able to be its dad. Why shouldn't I?

Further, a baby ought to have parents, and it is quite common, if not nearly universal, that at some point in growing up that child will wonder who "daddy" is, and wonder why daddy didn't love him or her enough to stick around.

Different issue.[/quote]

No - it isn't. It's inextricably tied to your issue, because in your "unconditional gift of sperm" world, I lose all right from the moment of ejaculation on. I can't be held financially accountable, in your world, but likewise I can't assert rights over the fetus or the born baby. So, if the mother is a bitch and wants to rake me over the coals for $1,000,000 or she won't let me see my daughter ever - well, that's the breaks for me, right? Unconditional cum gift, right? Care to answer that?

Stop arguing so evasively. Directly address that point. Yes or no. Do I or do I not - after an unconditional gift of cum, have the right to compel custody, visitation, etc., over the born child that resulted from the semen? If so, how to you reconcile that with the unconditional gift argument you base your assertions on?

[

The child will suffer an emotional trauma because of this. Why didn't daddy want me? - a common refrain. It's no consolation to a five or 10 year old child that "mommy was a bitch and wouldn't abort you like I wanted when you were in the womb - she chose to have you, so you're her baggage now, little Janie... I didn't want to have to pay for you and I exercised my right to disavow your existence." Little Janie isn't likely to be comforted by that fact, and even if it is the mother's fault, little Janie is still going to feel abandoned and unloved by her father. Only a cold, callous, son-of-a-bitch could consider that irrelevant.

Oh, it's highly relevant, I agree. And what's more, it's highly relevant from the moment that the zygote is formed, and a new, unique, living human being is created until that individual dies.

You continue to avoid the issue. You've occupied the territory that if a man and woman have sex without saying a word to each other, the semen is an unconditional gift of cum, and the woman can do what she wants with it. Therefore, if she makes a baby with it, then that's her call and her responsibility 100%. Once you take that ground, how do you argue that the father can unilaterally opt to demand and force that he have custody, visitation or time sharing? He gets to revoke his unconditional gift and then put conditions on it?

[

Shall we circle back to that argument again?

Once you address the issue I raised, sure. Your dodging.

[camoguard]

I think the sperm injection that starts the fetus constitutes a parental interest if the child is delivered. Extra procedures need to be raised if a parent is to be deemed unfit or in the possible scenario where a woman wants to be pregnant and be the sole parent. Or vice versa where the woman is the carrier of a child for which no care is expected after term.

The period between starting the fetus and live birth is up to the mother because it's a bun in her oven. The oven has sovereignty.

Because we like humans and little potential humans, we provide extra services so that mothers have more options than just aborting their buns. But I will argue that the quality of life of an adult outweighs the quality of life of a preborn because the preborn isn't already a citizen that pays taxes, it's going to be a suck on society for approximately eighteen years assuming it's that viable.

I like people more than that, but this is about legal divisions.

[Seth]

[

You're begging the question. We all know that the current legal presumption is that the father has certain responsibilities that the law imposes on him irrespective of his consent, but the purpose of this discussion is not to simply state how things are, but to discuss how things SHOULD be, and why.

They shouldn't be the way you suggest, because if it is, then if I get a woman pregnant I will have not be able to assert parental rights.

That's already the case. She can kill your child at will, right up to the instant before birth.

Sure, but what is not already the case is that once it's born, she can't legally keep me out of the child's life. I have a right to file a paternity suit and compel her to give me time sharing and even sue for sole custody if I think I have a basis. In your world I would not have that right because I gave her my cum unconditionally and therefore if she made a baby out of it then that's her business, and whether she let's me in on fatherhood would be her call. If she doesn't, i'm fucked. And, the mother could then condition my involvement on anything she wanted - there would be no "child support guidelines" and if the mother said - "I condition your involvement with the child on payment to me of $1,000,000," well - so be it, right? It's her baby.

Again, you're begging the question. We know how it is. I'm making the argument that the status quo ante is unfair and unjust.

[

If my sperm was an unconditional gift because nobody said anything about it one way or the other (and I've never had sex with a woman and discussed beforehand the extent of my parental involvement if the fucking resulted in a 9 months down the road), then no matter what I wanted, I wouldn't be able to see my child, except at her pleasure. I couldn't bear to have a child of mine deprived of my fatherhood because the mother accept my cum as an "unconditional gift."

By what right do you paternalistically demand the right to impose your will on the sovereign womb of a woman? It's hers, and she can do whatever she wants with what comes out of it, or so women's lib claims.

I don't. My right is only in relation to the born child. Paternity actions aren't filed until after a child is born.

Why? Why shouldn't paternity actions accrue with the fetus in utero?

[

Naturally, if I want to be able to assert parental rights irrespective of the mother's consent, then equity would require that I also have parental responsibilities asserted against me. It's simple, and it's fair.

Yes, so long as the contract is a meeting of the minds and an agreement on the terms, mutual obligations and duties can be imposed.

I'm talking about the situation where nothing is discussed, and we just have sex, no terms are negotiated. I ejaculate inside her and she gets pregnant. In your world, if the baby is born, I have zero right to compel visitation, sue for custody and get time sharing, and be involved in the decisions effecting that child's life, right? That is what you're saying - that's what I believe should NOT be.

You should have the absolute right to disclaim such liability if you choose to do so. If you don't, well, the matter becomes more legally complex. I'm discussing the philosophical aspects of women's liberation and their claim to absolute sovereignty of their wombs. Libbers argue that they have an absolute right to kill your child at will while in utero, and all I'm saying is that if they are going to assert reproductive sovereignty in that regard, in so doing, they also accept absolute reproductive liability, and men are, or should be, completely freed of any responsibility whatsoever that they do not voluntarily undertake. If a woman can disclaim liability for getting pregnant by having an abortion, men can disclaim liability if the woman chooses NOT to have an abortion. That's only fair.

[

Moreover, once a baby is born that is of my genetic material and a mother's genetic material, it is fair that we, who created the child, take care of the child and support it. It's certainly nobody else's business. Adequate provision could be made in the law for the extreme circumstances of women saving cum in rubbers and impregnating themselves, or the like. But, in general, if two people create a baby, then it ought to be their ...well...baby. "It's your baby," is an apt cliche' here.

The baby is comprised of your genetic material and the mother's genetic material from the moment the parental chromosomes align along the spindle apparatus, about 24 hours after fertilization of the egg. Why shouldn't you be able to assert your rights at that point?

You asked what we thought "should" be the case. I told you.

I've already explained why I think I shouldn't be able to assert my rights at the fertlization stage - because during that time period it's in the mother's womb and I don't presume to trump the rights of the mother to her womb. However, if the baby is ultimately born, then I ought to be able to be its dad. Why shouldn't I?

Upon what principled, reasoned argument do you disclaim responsibility for the child in utero and grant the woman absolute control prior to birth, and then turn around and claim rights after birth? Should you not claim rights at all times, if your claim is to be valid? Why wouldn't the woman say, "all you did was make a gift of sperm to me, you didn't support me or help me or do anything at all during the pregnancy, who the fuck are you to come along now and demand parental rights? Where where you when my ankles were swollen and my hemmhroids were pounding and I needed ice cream and pickles? Fuck you, you arrogant prick, it's MY baby!" Why wouldn't it be perfectly fair for her to say this?

Further, a baby ought to have parents, and it is quite common, if not nearly universal, that at some point in growing up that child will wonder who "daddy" is, and wonder why daddy didn't love him or her enough to stick around.

Different issue.[/quote]

No - it isn't. It's inextricably tied to your issue, because in your "unconditional gift of sperm" world, I lose all right from the moment of ejaculation on. I can't be held financially accountable, in your world, but likewise I can't assert rights over the fetus or the born baby. So, if the mother is a bitch and wants to rake me over the coals for $1,000,000 or she won't let me see my daughter ever - well, that's the breaks for me, right? Unconditional cum gift, right? Care to answer that?

The point is that if it's an unconditional gift, you should be permitted to disclaim all responsibility for the child. Yes, that means that you might not get parental rights, but you should have thought of that, and made the gift of sperm conditional BEFORE you fucked her. Your responsibility to make sure a meeting of the minds occurs before the act is as strong as hers is. You snooze, you lose.

Stop arguing so evasively. Directly address that point. Yes or no. Do I or do I not - after an unconditional gift of cum, have the right to compel custody, visitation, etc., over the born child that resulted from the semen? If so, how to you reconcile that with the unconditional gift argument you base your assertions on?

What part of "unconditional" is unclear to you? Yes, if you don't condition the gift ("If you get pregnant and keep the child, I get parental rights, okay?") then you don't get to impose conditions later, just the same as the woman.

[

The child will suffer an emotional trauma because of this. Why didn't daddy want me? - a common refrain. It's no consolation to a five or 10 year old child that "mommy was a bitch and wouldn't abort you like I wanted when you were in the womb - she chose to have you, so you're her baggage now, little Janie... I didn't want to have to pay for you and I exercised my right to disavow your existence." Little Janie isn't likely to be comforted by that fact, and even if it is the mother's fault, little Janie is still going to feel abandoned and unloved by her father. Only a cold, callous, son-of-a-bitch could consider that irrelevant.

Oh, it's highly relevant, I agree. And what's more, it's highly relevant from the moment that the zygote is formed, and a new, unique, living human being is created until that individual dies.

You continue to avoid the issue. You've occupied the territory that if a man and woman have sex without saying a word to each other, the semen is an unconditional gift of cum, and the woman can do what she wants with it. Therefore, if she makes a baby with it, then that's her call and her responsibility 100%. Once you take that ground, how do you argue that the father can unilaterally opt to demand and force that he have custody, visitation or time sharing? He gets to revoke his unconditional gift and then put conditions on it?

Nope. He's just fucked if he wants to be a parent and didn't make arrangements to that effect in advance. Unconditional means unconditional.

[Gallstones]

I think I, being one of the womb people, can sum this quandary up using one assertion---unless I choose to gestate to term, butt the fuck out.

[Coito ergo sum]

[

You're begging the question. We all know that the current legal presumption is that the father has certain responsibilities that the law imposes on him irrespective of his consent, but the purpose of this discussion is not to simply state how things are, but to discuss how things SHOULD be, and why.

They shouldn't be the way you suggest, because if it is, then if I get a woman pregnant I will have not be able to assert parental rights.

That's already the case. She can kill your child at will, right up to the instant before birth.

Sure, but what is not already the case is that once it's born, she can't legally keep me out of the child's life. I have a right to file a paternity suit and compel her to give me time sharing and even sue for sole custody if I think I have a basis. In your world I would not have that right because I gave her my cum unconditionally and therefore if she made a baby out of it then that's her business, and whether she let's me in on fatherhood would be her call. If she doesn't, i'm fucked. And, the mother could then condition my involvement on anything she wanted - there would be no "child support guidelines" and if the mother said - "I condition your involvement with the child on payment to me of $1,000,000," well - so be it, right? It's her baby.

Again, you're begging the question. We know how it is. I'm making the argument that the status quo ante is unfair and unjust.

You continue to dodge. Dude - that ISN'T how it is. That's the way you suggest it would be, based on your "unconditional gift." Read it again.

The status quo is that if I make a woman pregnant and she has the baby, I can sue for paternity, custody, visitation, time sharing, the whole ball of wax. If what you are saying comes to pass, then I won't have that right because my gift of cum was unconditional, and she can do what she likes with it. FFS, dude.

[

If my sperm was an unconditional gift because nobody said anything about it one way or the other (and I've never had sex with a woman and discussed beforehand the extent of my parental involvement if the fucking resulted in a 9 months down the road), then no matter what I wanted, I wouldn't be able to see my child, except at her pleasure. I couldn't bear to have a child of mine deprived of my fatherhood because the mother accept my cum as an "unconditional gift."

By what right do you paternalistically demand the right to impose your will on the sovereign womb of a woman? It's hers, and she can do whatever she wants with what comes out of it, or so women's lib claims.

I don't. My right is only in relation to the born child. Paternity actions aren't filed until after a child is born.

Why? Why shouldn't paternity actions accrue with the fetus in utero?

Stop dodging. I pointed out that by YOUR LOGIC, if the cum gift is unconditional, then she can do as she pleases, which means, in your world, you can't be forced to pay. But, it ALSO means, logically, that after the baby is born, you wouldn't have any right to assert parental rights. Capice? Can you at least acknowledge that?

If we propose that paternity actions accrue in utero, then if you have rights in utero, you would also have the corresponding responsibilities in utero. You can't have it both ways, can you?

And, I've answered your question before - I think we shouldn't have paternity rights to the unborn because it hasn't been born yet, and it it's in the mother's womb, which means that her right to bodily integrity has to trump my rights. You're free to disagree - but, you asked me why, and I answered you straight out. Now do me the fucking courtesy of a straight answer to my questions too, please.

[

Naturally, if I want to be able to assert parental rights irrespective of the mother's consent, then equity would require that I also have parental responsibilities asserted against me. It's simple, and it's fair.

Yes, so long as the contract is a meeting of the minds and an agreement on the terms, mutual obligations and duties can be imposed.

I'm talking about the situation where nothing is discussed, and we just have sex, no terms are negotiated. I ejaculate inside her and she gets pregnant. In your world, if the baby is born, I have zero right to compel visitation, sue for custody and get time sharing, and be involved in the decisions effecting that child's life, right? That is what you're saying - that's what I believe should NOT be.

You should have the absolute right to disclaim such liability if you choose to do so. If you don't, well, the matter becomes more legally complex.

Answer the question, will you? What do you mean, more complex? You think that because a guy shoots off inside a woman without agreeing to a support order beforehand that a man can "disclaim if he chooses to," but if he doesn't choose to..... then what? He gets the best of both worlds? He can disclaim, or compel parental rights at his option? By what twisted logic and twisted concept of equity is that equitable?

I'm discussing the philosophical aspects of women's liberation and their claim to absolute sovereignty of their wombs. Libbers argue that they have an absolute right to kill your child at will while in utero, and all I'm saying is that if they are going to assert reproductive sovereignty in that regard, in so doing, they also accept absolute reproductive liability,

And, then you have to necessarily accept what follows from there - that if they accept that absolute reproductive liability, then they have absolute rights to what has been reproduced. Yes?

and men are, or should be, completely freed of any responsibility whatsoever that they do not voluntarily undertake. If a woman can disclaim liability for getting pregnant by having an abortion, men can disclaim liability if the woman chooses NOT to have an abortion. That's only fair.

Are you abandoning your "unconditional gift of sperm" argument now? Because that's something you argued - you said that because it's an unconditional gift, she can't make you pay for it down the road, and you even set up detailed analogies about cars and how if I give you a car you can't make me pay for it down the road, right? That's the issue here - if you are using that analogy, then I also can't decide to drive the car, or wash it, or care for it, or fix it (unless you let me). Right?

Now clarify - are you sticking with the unconditional gift argument, or do you abandon it?

[

Moreover, once a baby is born that is of my genetic material and a mother's genetic material, it is fair that we, who created the child, take care of the child and support it. It's certainly nobody else's business. Adequate provision could be made in the law for the extreme circumstances of women saving cum in rubbers and impregnating themselves, or the like. But, in general, if two people create a baby, then it ought to be their ...well...baby. "It's your baby," is an apt cliche' here.

The baby is comprised of your genetic material and the mother's genetic material from the moment the parental chromosomes align along the spindle apparatus, about 24 hours after fertilization of the egg. Why shouldn't you be able to assert your rights at that point?

You asked what we thought "should" be the case. I told you.

I've already explained why I think I shouldn't be able to assert my rights at the fertlization stage - because during that time period it's in the mother's womb and I don't presume to trump the rights of the mother to her womb. However, if the baby is ultimately born, then I ought to be able to be its dad. Why shouldn't I?

Upon what principled, reasoned argument do you disclaim responsibility for the child in utero and grant the woman absolute control prior to birth, and then turn around and claim rights after birth? [/quote]

I don't disclaim "responsibility," I acknowledge that I do not have the right to meddle with it while it is attached to another person.

I claim rights after birth because of the ancient legal principle, rooted in the common law, that a man is the father of his born children, and that he is obligated to support the children he fathers. You claim to be interested in the law - that concept is 1,000+ years old in English and Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence.

Should you not claim rights at all times, if your claim is to be valid? Why wouldn't the woman say, "all you did was make a gift of sperm to me, you didn't support me or help me or do anything at all during the pregnancy, who the fuck are you to come along now and demand parental rights? Where where you when my ankles were swollen and my hemmhroids were pounding and I needed ice cream and pickles? Fuck you, you arrogant prick, it's MY baby!" Why wouldn't it be perfectly fair for her to say this?

In YOUR world it would be - because she would have had that right to tell you to fuck off from the moment you ejaculated. That's the end of your right, unless she agreed to terms with you allowing parental rights. If no agreement was reached, as you argued, it would be presumed to be an unconditional gift and you are off the hook and she can do what she wants with it. So, if you're not around during the pregnancy - or even if you ARE offering help during the pregnancy - she would still be able to tell you to fuck off. That's the logical extension of your argument on unconditional gifts of cum.

Further, a baby ought to have parents, and it is quite common, if not nearly universal, that at some point in growing up that child will wonder who "daddy" is, and wonder why daddy didn't love him or her enough to stick around.

Different issue.

No - it isn't. It's inextricably tied to your issue, because in your "unconditional gift of sperm" world, I lose all right from the moment of ejaculation on. I can't be held financially accountable, in your world, but likewise I can't assert rights over the fetus or the born baby. So, if the mother is a bitch and wants to rake me over the coals for $1,000,000 or she won't let me see my daughter ever - well, that's the breaks for me, right? Unconditional cum gift, right? Care to answer that?

The point is that if it's an unconditional gift, you should be permitted to disclaim all responsibility for the child.[/quote]

If it's an unconditional gift, you have no right to assert any dominion over it after the gift is given. You give me a car unconditionally. You have no right to come back 9 months from now and claim the right to drive it, repair it, wash it, or otherwise care for it, and if I take the car and rebuild it and turn it into something else, you can't later come by and say, now that it's something else, I want to be involved with it. Can you?

Yes, that means that you might not get parental rights, but you should have thought of that, and made the gift of sperm conditional BEFORE you fucked her. Your responsibility to make sure a meeting of the minds occurs before the act is as strong as hers is. You snooze, you lose.

And, that's the state of affairs that I am stating "shouldn't" be. You asked us to say what we think the state of affairs should be. I told you. I don't think your scenario sounds good AT ALL. Why? Because if I impregnate a woman and she has the baby, then I would like to be that baby's father. But, that's just me. I'm more concerned with being excluded from fatherhood against my will than to skate out on monetary obligations to my child. Moreover, I have been having sex with women regularly for over 25 years - it is simply not practical or even human to discuss custody and support orders prior to banging a chick. So, it's that impracticality that I base my opinion that your world would be a horrible one to live in, and I don't think it improves things.

Stop arguing so evasively. Directly address that point. Yes or no. Do I or do I not - after an unconditional gift of cum, have the right to compel custody, visitation, etc., over the born child that resulted from the semen? If so, how to you reconcile that with the unconditional gift argument you base your assertions on?

What part of "unconditional" is unclear to you? Yes, if you don't condition the gift ("If you get pregnant and keep the child, I get parental rights, okay?") then you don't get to impose conditions later, just the same as the woman.

Then that's why your state of affairs shouldn't be, IMHO. It would be a horrible world to live in if we had to discuss those things prior to banging. One - you'd have to put it in writing, or everybody would be testifying to 'different recollections' about what was said, and normally only 2 people are in the room (although sometimes more are there). So, your proposing that it would be better to have to negotiate contracts before banging. I don't.

Plus, I think your state of affairs does not adequately take into account the CHILD'S rights and needs. A father or a mother shouldn't be able to disclaim their obligations to their BORN children.

So - let me propose an alternative. A mother can disclaim liability from conception to birth, but not after. So can the father. He can disclaim liability WHILE THE CHILD IS IN UTERO, but not after. Once the child is born, neither can disclaim. Call that "option three."

[

The child will suffer an emotional trauma because of this. Why didn't daddy want me? - a common refrain. It's no consolation to a five or 10 year old child that "mommy was a bitch and wouldn't abort you like I wanted when you were in the womb - she chose to have you, so you're her baggage now, little Janie... I didn't want to have to pay for you and I exercised my right to disavow your existence." Little Janie isn't likely to be comforted by that fact, and even if it is the mother's fault, little Janie is still going to feel abandoned and unloved by her father. Only a cold, callous, son-of-a-bitch could consider that irrelevant.

Oh, it's highly relevant, I agree. And what's more, it's highly relevant from the moment that the zygote is formed, and a new, unique, living human being is created until that individual dies.

You continue to avoid the issue. You've occupied the territory that if a man and woman have sex without saying a word to each other, the semen is an unconditional gift of cum, and the woman can do what she wants with it. Therefore, if she makes a baby with it, then that's her call and her responsibility 100%. Once you take that ground, how do you argue that the father can unilaterally opt to demand and force that he have custody, visitation or time sharing? He gets to revoke his unconditional gift and then put conditions on it?

Nope. He's just fucked if he wants to be a parent and didn't make arrangements to that effect in advance. Unconditional means unconditional.

Then that's why your proposal sucks, IMHO.

[camoguard]

I agree with Gall and a few others. Also, I don't call the gift of semen unconditional.

There are two different sets of issues going on that make the rules of what happens during pregnancy different than the rules of what happens once a child is born the way I evaluate this subject. On one hand, I think society has spoken and I agree that all people involved in conceiving a child have the default burden of care. The well fare of the child is up to them and they can be found negligent in some circumstances for failing to provide care. This is all well and good and uncontested by me.

The second issue is the asymmetrically divided miracle of life problem since the woman clearly invests more material of her person and is more greatly affected by the process of carrying a child. What the mother eats affects the health of a baby, yet in most contexts there is no legal standing mandating what people eat and certainly it doesn't matter what the father eats. Other behaviors of the mother affect the health of the baby and yet the father can make a variety of decisions that don't have direct consequences on the health of the baby in the womb. So the issue in a nutshell is what are the rules for making sense of this condition.

The mother clearly has the physical responsibility regardless of what rules we might want to make from an ethical perspective. If the child is going to live and be healthy, the mother must play along in voluntary and involuntary ways. As far as I'm concerned, the rights of the baby at this point are no greater than the rights of a kidney or an elbow. Normal people in average circumstances would not sacrifice their organs. But if they did, it's their organ. If you are going to cancel out of parenting, that's the time to do it. The use of abortion as the simplest form of birth control is ludicrous for a variety of reasons but if a person were to be so bold and twisted, I'd say they were within their rights.

The other things interfering with the abortion debate but often sidelined are our cultural impressions of the roles of men and women as well as what a proper child raising union looks like (i.e. hetero marriage). Men typically out earn women and before that, men were the only workers (not exclusively but as a major pattern in our culture). Therefore, when there is a division of labor over a child, the man is the only one that could have been expected to provide the money. Women were home laborers, they should provide the care. This idea isn't even just sexist in favor of men if you ask the average divorced father. It's just rooted in legal precedent.

I mentioned marriage because it's one of many factors that can prevent other potential parents from adopting. Adoption is often included in the abortion debate as an alternative to the default parenting scheme. Check out the blurb Who Can Adopt for a quick refresher. Many people who could become parents legally by having hetero sex and who would care for kids as expected of parents (i.e. not creeps) simply cannot adopt. This does several things at once. It lowers the pool of replacement parents, and it calls into question new ethical questions. A would be mother is pregnant with a child and she feels strongly against traditional marriage. Knowing that an adoption agency heavily favors married (and therefor hetero) people as adopters, who should decide if the fetus belongs to the mother or if the state should intervene because it gives the fetus a better chance? Again, I say the choice is the mother's but for this I use a bit of an analogy to make my decision. We let parents raise their children with a variety of freedom over their diet, their quality of life, their religion, and their education. Parents can raise poorly fed, miserable, fundamentalist morons. Why shouldn't we allow pregnant mothers the right to abort? If she can't figure out how to provide the correct quality of life, how can she judge who can? In this case, the state can't make such a determination either because it is my opinion that the state doesn't do a good job determining quality of life problems now. Nor should it. The state and the corresponding public's interest simply cannot be satisfied. For this reason, I will accept the choice of the mother.

[Seth]

Again, you're begging the question. We know how it is. I'm making the argument that the status quo ante is unfair and unjust.

You continue to dodge. Dude - that ISN'T how it is. That's the way you suggest it would be, based on your "unconditional gift." Read it again.

Dude, it's a philosphical debate, not a court hearing.

The status quo is that if I make a woman pregnant and she has the baby, I can sue for paternity, custody, visitation, time sharing, the whole ball of wax. If what you are saying comes to pass, then I won't have that right because my gift of cum was unconditional, and she can do what she likes with it. FFS, dude.

Yup, exactly, unless you make prior arrangements. You should make prior arrangements ANYWAY.

[

If my sperm was an unconditional gift because nobody said anything about it one way or the other (and I've never had sex with a woman and discussed beforehand the extent of my parental involvement if the fucking resulted in a 9 months down the road), then no matter what I wanted, I wouldn't be able to see my child, except at her pleasure. I couldn't bear to have a child of mine deprived of my fatherhood because the mother accept my cum as an "unconditional gift."

By what right do you paternalistically demand the right to impose your will on the sovereign womb of a woman? It's hers, and she can do whatever she wants with what comes out of it, or so women's lib claims.

I don't. My right is only in relation to the born child. Paternity actions aren't filed until after a child is born.

Why? Why shouldn't paternity actions accrue with the fetus in utero?

Stop dodging. I pointed out that by YOUR LOGIC, if the cum gift is unconditional, then she can do as she pleases, which means, in your world, you can't be forced to pay. But, it ALSO means, logically, that after the baby is born, you wouldn't have any right to assert parental rights. Capice? Can you at least acknowledge that?

I have, several times. Shall I say it again? "If you don't make arrangements in advance conditioning your gift of sperm on parental rights should a child result, you're just fucked, and you should be just fucked for being an ignorant twit who probably wouldn't make a good father anyway." Is that clear enough for you? I place high value on personal responsibility and accountability, and I see no reason why, if you go about spraying sperm everywhere, that should automatically endow you with parental rights.

[

Naturally, if I want to be able to assert parental rights irrespective of the mother's consent, then equity would require that I also have parental responsibilities asserted against me. It's simple, and it's fair.

Yes, so long as the contract is a meeting of the minds and an agreement on the terms, mutual obligations and duties can be imposed.

I'm talking about the situation where nothing is discussed, and we just have sex, no terms are negotiated. I ejaculate inside her and she gets pregnant. In your world, if the baby is born, I have zero right to compel visitation, sue for custody and get time sharing, and be involved in the decisions effecting that child's life, right? That is what you're saying - that's what I believe should NOT be.

You should have the absolute right to disclaim such liability if you choose to do so. If you don't, well, the matter becomes more legally complex.

Answer the question, will you?

I just did.

What do you mean, more complex? You think that because a guy shoots off inside a woman without agreeing to a support order beforehand that a man can "disclaim if he chooses to," but if he doesn't choose to..... then what?

One disclaims liability if the woman seeks to impose liability without one's prior consent. On the other hand, if he does not ACCEPT responsibility for the potentiality of his gift, ahead of time, expressly and preferably in writing, stating that he is asserting parental rights should a child be created, then he's fucked, because the woman is not compelled to recognize a parental right as a part of any condition upon which the semen was gifted. You snooze, you lose. Estopple. Failure to negotiate the conditions of the gift ahead of time estops the man from asserting parental rights against the woman's consent later. At the same time, if the woman does not condition the giving of the gift ahead of time by gaining consent to parental liability in advance, preferably in writing, then she's well and truly fucked, and the man can disclaim any later assertion of liability. That's full equality and good contract law.

I'm discussing the philosophical aspects of women's liberation and their claim to absolute sovereignty of their wombs. Libbers argue that they have an absolute right to kill your child at will while in utero, and all I'm saying is that if they are going to assert reproductive sovereignty in that regard, in so doing, they also accept absolute reproductive liability,

And, then you have to necessarily accept what follows from there - that if they accept that absolute reproductive liability, then they have absolute rights to what has been reproduced. Yes?

Yup. Unless they agree to something else. A consensual agreement, at any stage of the events, is always appropriate.

and men are, or should be, completely freed of any responsibility whatsoever that they do not voluntarily undertake. If a woman can disclaim liability for getting pregnant by having an abortion, men can disclaim liability if the woman chooses NOT to have an abortion. That's only fair.

Are you abandoning your "unconditional gift of sperm" argument now? Because that's something you argued - you said that because it's an unconditional gift, she can't make you pay for it down the road, and you even set up detailed analogies about cars and how if I give you a car you can't make me pay for it down the road, right? That's the issue here - if you are using that analogy, then I also can't decide to drive the car, or wash it, or care for it, or fix it (unless you let me). Right?

See above. It all depends on whether there was a contract formed and what the contract provides for. The default situation is that each person is completely responsible for their own body and none other, including both responsibility for and rights to or in what goes into or comes out of their body.

Now clarify - are you sticking with the unconditional gift argument, or do you abandon it?

No, I'm not abandoning it. Unless otherwise specified, a gift of semen to a woman is unconditional. It has no conditions regarding use, and no rights in the gift remain after it has been given, and therefore the giver may make no claim for return of the gift or authority over it or its products. If I give you 20 dollars as a gift, and you use it to buy a lottery ticket that wins you 200 million dollars, I cannot claim part of your winnings merely because you bought the ticket with my gift. Likewise, if I give you 20 dollars and you use it to hire a prostitute and get AIDS and die, you cannot make a claim against me for damages merely because I gave you a gift that you misused or that harmed you.

Should you not claim rights at all times, if your claim is to be valid? Why wouldn't the woman say, "all you did was make a gift of sperm to me, you didn't support me or help me or do anything at all during the pregnancy, who the fuck are you to come along now and demand parental rights? Where where you when my ankles were swollen and my hemmhroids were pounding and I needed ice cream and pickles? Fuck you, you arrogant prick, it's MY baby!" Why wouldn't it be perfectly fair for her to say this?

In YOUR world it would be - because she would have had that right to tell you to fuck off from the moment you ejaculated. That's the end of your right, unless she agreed to terms with you allowing parental rights. If no agreement was reached, as you argued, it would be presumed to be an unconditional gift and you are off the hook and she can do what she wants with it. So, if you're not around during the pregnancy - or even if you ARE offering help during the pregnancy - she would still be able to tell you to fuck off. That's the logical extension of your argument on unconditional gifts of cum.

Yup. Which militates for you being careful where and in whom you deposit your semen.

Yes, that means that you might not get parental rights, but you should have thought of that, and made the gift of sperm conditional BEFORE you fucked her. Your responsibility to make sure a meeting of the minds occurs before the act is as strong as hers is. You snooze, you lose.

And, that's the state of affairs that I am stating "shouldn't" be. You asked us to say what we think the state of affairs should be. I told you. I don't think your scenario sounds good AT ALL. Why? Because if I impregnate a woman and she has the baby, then I would like to be that baby's father. But, that's just me.

You should have thought of that before you started thinking with your cock.

I'm more concerned with being excluded from fatherhood against my will than to skate out on monetary obligations to my child.

Sucks to be you, I guess. If you were more careful about where you deposited your sperm, you wouldn't have that problem. But the fact that you were promiscuous and sprayed your sperm all about and knocked up some chick you bent over a dumpster outside some sleazy bar ought not give you any rights to the child, because you obviously weren't very concerned about what happened to your sperm at the time, so you should be estopped from making a claim later. You give the gift of sperm, you're not entitled to control over it anymore.

Moreover, I have been having sex with women regularly for over 25 years - it is simply not practical or even human to discuss custody and support orders prior to banging a chick.

Ah, well, expediency is not a valid argument. I don't care that your hard dick is doing the thinking for you, the whole point is that the law should not relieve you of your liability for being guided by your cock any more than the law should relieve you of your liability for allowing your temper to explode, resulting in you beating someone to death. You are responsible for your actions, including where your cock is at ALL TIMES, nobody else. The law ought to be constructed so as to ENCOURAGE careful and thoughtful consideration of the natural and ordinary consequences of banging chicks, not absolve or diminish your personal accountability. That's just good social policy. That's why it used to be a crime to commit adultery, or to have premarital sex for that matter. The law judged that the evils and wrongs of promiscuity, particularly its negative effects on children, outweighed your personal desire for consequenceless pleasure.

It's easily demonstrated that laws that encourage and facilitate promiscuity and the destruction of the family structure are incredibly harmful to everyone involved, including the taxpayers, as welfare and the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program pre-Clinton proved without any doubt whatsoever. Whole generations of black children have grown up without fathers and proper family structure because of the rules of the AFDC program, and that has mired those same generations in crime, violence, drugs and dependence.

Thus, it's a social evil for the law to facilitate or encourage promiscuity or liberty from the consequences of promiscuous sex, and that includes both birth control and abortion, and the law should correct that social ill.

So, it's that impracticality that I base my opinion that your world would be a horrible one to live in, and I don't think it improves things.

How about you just keep your dick in your pants, where it belongs, until you are prepared to live in an exclusive monogamous family relationship with someone you want to raise children with? What's so hard about that?

[/quote]

Stop arguing so evasively. Directly address that point. Yes or no. Do I or do I not - after an unconditional gift of cum, have the right to compel custody, visitation, etc., over the born child that resulted from the semen? If so, how to you reconcile that with the unconditional gift argument you base your assertions on?

What part of "unconditional" is unclear to you? Yes, if you don't condition the gift ("If you get pregnant and keep the child, I get parental rights, okay?") then you don't get to impose conditions later, just the same as the woman.

Then that's why your state of affairs shouldn't be, IMHO. It would be a horrible world to live in if we had to discuss those things prior to banging.

Why? Because then you wouldn't be able to bang chicks as easily? Sorry, that's bad public policy.

One - you'd have to put it in writing, or everybody would be testifying to 'different recollections' about what was said, and normally only 2 people are in the room (although sometimes more are there). So, your proposing that it would be better to have to negotiate contracts before banging. I don't.

Yup. It's called "getting married." Used to be the standard practice, and society was much better off when it was.

Plus, I think your state of affairs does not adequately take into account the CHILD'S rights and needs. A father or a mother shouldn't be able to disclaim their obligations to their BORN children.

That's an entirely different argument, although I note that they can do so today, simply by turning the child over for adoption.

So - let me propose an alternative. A mother can disclaim liability from conception to birth, but not after. So can the father. He can disclaim liability WHILE THE CHILD IS IN UTERO, but not after. Once the child is born, neither can disclaim. Call that "option three."

Better, but not optimal. At least your alternative has the benefit of creating firm standards and time limits, which is compatible with the concept of equitable estopple.

[

The child will suffer an emotional trauma because of this. Why didn't daddy want me? - a common refrain. It's no consolation to a five or 10 year old child that "mommy was a bitch and wouldn't abort you like I wanted when you were in the womb - she chose to have you, so you're her baggage now, little Janie... I didn't want to have to pay for you and I exercised my right to disavow your existence." Little Janie isn't likely to be comforted by that fact, and even if it is the mother's fault, little Janie is still going to feel abandoned and unloved by her father. Only a cold, callous, son-of-a-bitch could consider that irrelevant.

Oh, it's highly relevant, I agree. And what's more, it's highly relevant from the moment that the zygote is formed, and a new, unique, living human being is created until that individual dies.

You continue to avoid the issue. You've occupied the territory that if a man and woman have sex without saying a word to each other, the semen is an unconditional gift of cum, and the woman can do what she wants with it. Therefore, if she makes a baby with it, then that's her call and her responsibility 100%. Once you take that ground, how do you argue that the father can unilaterally opt to demand and force that he have custody, visitation or time sharing? He gets to revoke his unconditional gift and then put conditions on it?

Nope. He's just fucked if he wants to be a parent and didn't make arrangements to that effect in advance. Unconditional means unconditional.

Then that's why your proposal sucks, IMHO.

Keep your dick out of women's vaginas and it won't be a problem, now will it?

[Gallstones]

So nobody is going to challenge me eh?

Cowards.

It's cause you know I'm right, isn't it?



Yay me!