A secular debate about abortion

[lordpasternack]

Coito - there is already one glaring example of when established biological parenthood doesn't (always) lead to default liability for the child in question: gamete donation. Donating eggs or sperm. Doubtless it involves a lot of paperwork and a
few workings-around of bits of legislation - but the long and short of it is that it simply isn't as simple as "your biological child, your liability - end of story."

There are already contexts where rights and responsibilty are completely waived - in this case right at the outset, of course, and through a bit of working through legalities beforehand. But again, this liability is COMPLETELY waived, irrespective of the rights or presumed welfare of any resultant child(ren). If you're going to insist that it's a universal standard that children have a right to support from both (biological) parents - and the child(ren) should be the ultimate concern - then state some opinion with respect to gamete donors…

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, there are too many contenders for quotes for me to list them all, but I am a big fan of your "unconditional gift of sperm" argument. I almost want to make a sex film, just so I can use the title "A Gift of Sperm."

And as for LP's worries about a woman using that sperm against a man's wishes, well, there are many, many good reasons for sexually active men to wear condoms-- pregnancy prevention being one of the lesser of them. And if a man is concerned about the contents of said condom after the act, well, he doesn't have to leave it lying around, does he? He can take it with him, or flush it down the toilet, or...

Why thank you hadespussercats. Haven't gotten any counter-argument directed at that yet. It seems to have been largely ignored.

It's probably been ignored because it's a good argument, and difficult to counter.

Edited to Add: I see Seth has made an attempt-- I think you still came off on top of that encounter.

I'm now waiting to see if there is any response to the argument that by agreeing to have sex with a woman a man makes an implied contract to provide that woman with satisfactory performance and deliver the expected orgasm. Certainly, orgasms are more common and more expected from sex than pregnancy, so if anything it is easier to imply a contract to give an orgasm rather than an obligation to ceded dominion and control of a uterus for 9 months. So, the question becomes, if a guy has sex with a woman and fails to perform or fails to perform satisfactorily or to deliver her an orgasm, does she have a cause of action against him for either specific performance or money damages to compensate her for the loss of enjoyment associated with the failed sexual experience?

I'm sure some women might like to be able to have legal recourse when their guy comes home at 2am, smelling of booze and sporting wood, and proceeds to skip the foreplay, move straight in for a quick fuck, and then rolls over and proceeds to snore loudly while the woman is left without an orgasm. She does have his sticky mess, though, which according to Seth was so valuable to her that she was impliedly willing to risk complete loss of her sexual and procreation autonomy and to cede complete control of her reproductive organs, to the now snoring party....

Earlier in the thread, Seth made the decree that women would be wholly responsible for their own orgasm, of course, and the man is under no obligation to deliver any level of satisfaction in the sexual experience. So, he finds it completely reasonable to imply that a woman contractually trades her sexual and procreative autonomy to the man in exchange for his semen, whereas the man makes no implicit agreements at all other than to agree to fuck her. Hmmmm.....

[Warren Dew]

In some states, at least, paying someone to be a gestational surrogate is illegal. That leaves the option of going to states where that isn't an issue, but you have to agree it adds yet another layer of complication that can move fatherhood out of reach for those with fewer resources.

I understand your point about financial readiness on the part of fathers-to-be. An important difference,though, between un-medically-assisted and medically-assisted fatherhood, in financial terms, is that in the latter, the father needs to be able to come up with these vast sums up front, instead of paying for the child's support over the course of the offspring's childhood; also, that medically-assisted fathers not only need to be able to produce that money, but also the money required to support and raise the child after it's born.

And yes, any new technologies are likely to be even more expensive.

Mostly I'm proposing gestational surrogacy as an alternative to male pregnancy, which would most certainly be medically assisted, and for which facilities are unlikely to be available in all states. I don't think we have to wait for male pregnancy, because gestational surrogacy, combined with egg donation, fills that need today.

I certainly agree that traditional, medically unassisted pregnancy is more convenient for those people who can find a person of the opposite sex compatible enough to have a child together with. Of course, finding that person is a whole different bar to get over.

While it's true that a traditional pregnancy allows for payment over time without, say, managing to get a loan, that also means it allows for people to have children even if they have no reasonable expectation of being able to support or care for the child. While that's a fact of life - barring major infringements on personal rights - I think that it's less than ideal from a societal standpoint.

[Copyleft]

I think that there needs to be some objective, scientifically-determinable point in the development of a fetus at which it becomes, legally, a "person" endowed with rights.

Fair enough. I''m in agreement with the detectable-brainwaves approach as well. Sentience = personhood. Prior to that point of development, the fetus is not a person. It's a lifeform, certainly, and deserving of some level of regard for its welfare (much as a mouse or tree does)... but its standing is not comparable to that of a full-fledged person.

And in that, the Court didn't punt its responsibility at all. They explicitly discussed the demarcation point of viability as a useful guideline, helping to establish the concept of first trimester / second trimester / third trimester for further discussion. And I believe you'll find, in most U.S polls, that the majority of U.S. citizens are aware of that distinction and make use of it themselves in offering opinions on when abortion is more or less justified.

And while we're talking about technological advancement: I'm looking forward to the day when fetal extraction becomes a viable alternative to abortion. "You want to keep the fetus alive? Fine. We extract it from the woman who doesn't want it and store it in a jar until somebody decides to gestate and deliver it. It's still alive, but she's not forced to carry it around. Problem solved."

It would sure leave the religious bigots sputtering and spewing, and that's always fun.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito - there is already one glaring example of when established biological parenthood doesn't (always) lead to default liability for the child in question: gamete donation. Donating eggs or sperm. Doubtless it involves a lot of paperwork and a
few workings-around of bits of legislation - but the long and short of it is that it simply isn't as simple as "your biological child, your liability - end of story."

I've not made the assertion that "your biological child, your liability - end of story." That's the rule in Lousiana, absent adoption or sperm bank donation. Clearly, there are other examples - adoption, for example, where the biological parent is not financially responsible, and sure, egg and sperm donation - however, those are completely different things than what Seth is talking about.

What Seth is alleging is that there is or should be a contract implied by the mere fact that a man and woman have sexual intercourse that she is (a) ceding her own autonomy over her own uterus and must follow the man's instructions as to whether she will or will not have an abortion, or (b) if he wants the conceived entity aborted, then she must do so or the child when born has no legal entitlement to child support from him, and if he doesn't want the baby aborted she would pay him money damages if she goes ahead and aborts against his wishes - and if she has the baby for him when she doesn't want the baby, then he has dominion over her uterus for the 9 months.

I'm rejecting Seth's arguments because he has not established that the act of sex necessarily or even reasonably implies what he says it implies. To me, the act of sex - without any express agreements regarding procreation or what the parties will do about a fertilized egg - is an agreement to have sex only and that the man fully knows that if an egg is fertiilzed as a result, that the woman will have the only say in whether it every breathes air - and if it breathes air, he's on the hook.

If he jerked off into a cup at a sperm back, and legally donated his sperm, I think anyone would understand that the situation is worlds different and governed by laws specifically tailored to that situation.

There are already contexts where rights and responsibilty are completely waived - in this case right at the outset, of course, and through a bit of working through legalities beforehand. But again, this liability is COMPLETELY waived, irrespective of the rights or presumed welfare of any resultant child(ren). If you're going to insist that it's a universal standard that children have a right to support from both (biological) parents - and the child(ren) should be the ultimate concern - then state some opinion with respect to gamete donors…

Why? As you described - gamete donor situations involve a prior express agreement between the mother and the sperm bank - she signs papers and pays money - and the sperm donor - he gets paid for his sperm and signs written contracts. That's an express contractual thing involving no sexual contact at all other than the man whacking off. Normally in these situations, too, the identity of the father is not known to the mother or the resultant child. It's an anonymous donor, and unless they happen to one day pick the correct man off the street to conduct a paternity test there would really be no way to know who is the father anyway.

If a woman and a man entered into a prior agreement whereby the woman agreed X, Y and Z and the it was an EXPRESS agreement between them that he would be essentially donating sperm and having no involvement thereafter in any way and no financial liability, and then she later attempted to renege on that promise then the contract argument would be stronger because, quite simply, there actually would be a contract. However, that's different than arguing that the mere fact of sexual intercourse implies all the things Seth is saying it implies.

It seems to me that the if I meet a girl out and about and we hit it off, and then we decide to engage our passions and head back to a hotel room and knock boots for a while, and we say nothing else except for words of passion - we make no agreements on who has what say over what and how the finances will be handled if a pregnancy ensues - then I don't see as how one can imply that the woman has agreed to anything at all except the sexual liaison. And, sperm banks and lawful adoption excepted, if sexual congress results in a living, breathing child, then the rule is that the parents have to support it. Absent an agreement to the contrary, why should we imply that the man has no responsibility except that which he opts to accept post-fertilization and pre-birth?

[hadespussercats]

Coito, there are too many contenders for quotes for me to list them all, but I am a big fan of your "unconditional gift of sperm" argument. I almost want to make a sex film, just so I can use the title "A Gift of Sperm."

And as for LP's worries about a woman using that sperm against a man's wishes, well, there are many, many good reasons for sexually active men to wear condoms-- pregnancy prevention being one of the lesser of them. And if a man is concerned about the contents of said condom after the act, well, he doesn't have to leave it lying around, does he? He can take it with him, or flush it down the toilet, or...

Why thank you hadespussercats. Haven't gotten any counter-argument directed at that yet. It seems to have been largely ignored.

It's probably been ignored because it's a good argument, and difficult to counter.

Edited to Add: I see Seth has made an attempt-- I think you still came off on top of that encounter.

I'm now waiting to see if there is any response to the argument that by agreeing to have sex with a woman a man makes an implied contract to provide that woman with satisfactory performance and deliver the expected orgasm. Certainly, orgasms are more common and more expected from sex than pregnancy, so if anything it is easier to imply a contract to give an orgasm rather than an obligation to ceded dominion and control of a uterus for 9 months. So, the question becomes, if a guy has sex with a woman and fails to perform or fails to perform satisfactorily or to deliver her an orgasm, does she have a cause of action against him for either specific performance or money damages to compensate her for the loss of enjoyment associated with the failed sexual experience?

I'm sure some women might like to be able to have legal recourse when their guy comes home at 2am, smelling of booze and sporting wood, and proceeds to skip the foreplay, move straight in for a quick fuck, and then rolls over and proceeds to snore loudly while the woman is left without an orgasm. She does have his sticky mess, though, which according to Seth was so valuable to her that she was impliedly willing to risk complete loss of her sexual and procreation autonomy and to cede complete control of her reproductive organs, to the now snoring party....

Earlier in the thread, Seth made the decree that women would be wholly responsible for their own orgasm, of course, and the man is under no obligation to deliver any level of satisfaction in the sexual experience. So, he finds it completely reasonable to imply that a woman contractually trades her sexual and procreative autonomy to the man in exchange for his semen, whereas the man makes no implicit agreements at all other than to agree to fuck her. Hmmmm.....

Well... Hmmm.

I'm not generally a fan of the implied contract, and personally, I think it's an undue burden on a man who might suffer from ED or other sexual problems to be held legally liable for a woman's inability to achieve orgasm with him. On the other hand, I do think women have the right to expect a satisfying sexual experience from their partner-- and if that partner can't provide, that she'd be well-advised to move on. As for the foreplay-challenged or the otherwise selfish lover, I think gaining a reputation as a bad lay might be punishment enough...

Still, if we're talking about implied contracts, your theoretical is certainly just as valid as Seth's.

[Copyleft]

What Seth is alleging is that there is or should be a contract implied by the mere fact that a man and woman have sexual intercourse that she is (a) ceding her own autonomy over her own uterus and must follow the man's instructions as to whether she will or will not have an abortion, or (b) if he wants the conceived entity aborted, then she must do so or the child when born has no legal entitlement to child support from him, and if he doesn't want the baby aborted she would pay him money damages if she goes ahead and aborts against his wishes - and if she has the baby for him when she doesn't want the baby, then he has dominion over her uterus for the 9 months.

I'm rejecting Seth's arguments because he has not established that the act of sex necessarily or even reasonably implies what he says it implies. To me, the act of sex - without any express agreements regarding procreation or what the parties will do about a fertilized egg - is an agreement to have sex only and that the man fully knows that if an egg is fertiilzed as a result, that the woman will have the only say in whether it every breathes air - and if it breathes air, he's on the hook.

(My emphasis added.)

Which strikes me as an implied contract as well, frankly. But aside from that...

Yes, that is how things currently stand. I'm not sure that's a compelling argument for the RIGHTNESS of that situation, however. Awareness that "the law says X" is not the same as ceding your rights and agreeing to obey (or be bound by) that law. If the law says I cannot criticize my employer publicly, or wear a headscarf in school, I may well choose to do so publicly anyway and try to challenge and overturn that law. And the response of "You knew it was the law when you did it, so pay the penalty" is too simplistic a reaction.

The question of whether the current arrangement is truly just and equitable... and whether it should be modified if not... needs to be addressed.

[hadespussercats]

I think that there needs to be some objective, scientifically-determinable point in the development of a fetus at which it becomes, legally, a "person" endowed with rights.

Fair enough. I''m in agreement with the detectable-brainwaves approach as well. Sentience = personhood. Prior to that point of development, the fetus is not a person. It's a lifeform, certainly, and deserving of some level of regard for its welfare (much as a mouse or tree does)... but its standing is not comparable to that of a full-fledged person.

And in that, the Court didn't punt its responsibility at all. They explicitly discussed the demarcation point of viability as a useful guideline, helping to establish the concept of first trimester / second trimester / third trimester for further discussion. And I believe you'll find, in most U.S polls, that the majority of U.S. citizens are aware of that distinction and make use of it themselves in offering opinions on when abortion is more or less justified.

And while we're talking about technological advancement: I'm looking forward to the day when fetal extraction becomes a viable alternative to abortion. "You want to keep the fetus alive? Fine. We extract it from the woman who doesn't want it and store it in a jar until somebody decides to gestate and deliver it. It's still alive, but she's not forced to carry it around. Problem solved."

It would sure leave the religious bigots sputtering and spewing, and that's always fun.

Are people in persistent vegetative states not actually people, then? I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with this (I support euthanasia, as well), but it does introduce a bit of slippery-slope to your sentience=personhood distinction.

I also think fetal extraction is an interesting possibility-- still, it's unlikely the fetus could actually live, suspended in a jar, without some means of (probably expensive) life support-- or cryogenic preservation, like extra embryos kept at an IVF clinic. Who pays for this?

[hadespussercats]

In some states, at least, paying someone to be a gestational surrogate is illegal. That leaves the option of going to states where that isn't an issue, but you have to agree it adds yet another layer of complication that can move fatherhood out of reach for those with fewer resources.

I understand your point about financial readiness on the part of fathers-to-be. An important difference,though, between un-medically-assisted and medically-assisted fatherhood, in financial terms, is that in the latter, the father needs to be able to come up with these vast sums up front, instead of paying for the child's support over the course of the offspring's childhood; also, that medically-assisted fathers not only need to be able to produce that money, but also the money required to support and raise the child after it's born.

And yes, any new technologies are likely to be even more expensive.

Mostly I'm proposing gestational surrogacy as an alternative to male pregnancy, which would most certainly be medically assisted, and for which facilities are unlikely to be available in all states. I don't think we have to wait for male pregnancy, because gestational surrogacy, combined with egg donation, fills that need today.

I certainly agree that traditional, medically unassisted pregnancy is more convenient for those people who can find a person of the opposite sex compatible enough to have a child together with. Of course, finding that person is a whole different bar to get over.

While it's true that a traditional pregnancy allows for payment over time without, say, managing to get a loan, that also means it allows for people to have children even if they have no reasonable expectation of being able to support or care for the child. While that's a fact of life - barring major infringements on personal rights - I think that it's less than ideal from a societal standpoint.

Gestational surrogacy is generally still medically assisted, and still requires a woman's body and her consent. I'm theorizing about situations where the latter two are unnecessary-- not saying that male pregnancy is necessarily an ideal, or even necessarily a practical solution.

Standards of acceptable care for children vary, as do the finances necessary to provide that level of acceptable care. Does a good parent need to be able to send their child to college, or is being able to keep that child sheltered and fed, and generally out of harm's way, enough? I agree that society is better served when people only have the children they can adequately support, but I'm extremely wary of any policy that discriminates against people's right to reproduce because of financial class.

[Coito ergo sum]

What Seth is alleging is that there is or should be a contract implied by the mere fact that a man and woman have sexual intercourse that she is (a) ceding her own autonomy over her own uterus and must follow the man's instructions as to whether she will or will not have an abortion, or (b) if he wants the conceived entity aborted, then she must do so or the child when born has no legal entitlement to child support from him, and if he doesn't want the baby aborted she would pay him money damages if she goes ahead and aborts against his wishes - and if she has the baby for him when she doesn't want the baby, then he has dominion over her uterus for the 9 months.

I'm rejecting Seth's arguments because he has not established that the act of sex necessarily or even reasonably implies what he says it implies. To me, the act of sex - without any express agreements regarding procreation or what the parties will do about a fertilized egg - is an agreement to have sex only and that the man fully knows that if an egg is fertiilzed as a result, that the woman will have the only say in whether it every breathes air - and if it breathes air, he's on the hook.

(My emphasis added.)

Which strikes me as an implied contract as well, frankly. But aside from that...

It's not, though. It's a statute passed by the legislature of every jurisdiction of which I am aware, both American and British, and also was the case under common law rules for several hundred years. It's not an implied contract, it's not based on contract at all, and has nothing to do with an agreement between the parties, express or implied. It's a statutory obligation.

The legislature could repeal that law and replace it with a law that states, "If a woman has a child against the wishes of the man who impregnated her, then the man shall have no obligation to pay child support." However, that law would be a function of legislative authority and the political process, and would have nothing to do with whether the parties have agreed to anything, expressly or impliedly. It would just require a vote of 51% of the legislature. Whether it makes sense to you or me is beside the point.

Yes, that is how things currently stand. I'm not sure that's a compelling argument for the RIGHTNESS of that situation,

Certainly not. However, neither is the wrongness, if any, of the current situation an argument for the rightness of SETH'S argument.

however. Awareness that "the law says X" is not the same as ceding your rights and agreeing to obey (or be bound by) that law.

I would think that if I am aware of what the law says it is at least relatively more compelling than to say that a woman impliedly cedes X by the mere fact of having sex when the law doesn't say that's the case.

If the law says I cannot criticize my employer publicly, or wear a headscarf in school, I may well choose to do so publicly anyway and try to challenge and overturn that law. And the response of "You knew it was the law when you did it, so pay the penalty" is too simplistic a reaction.

The man is certainly free to make an equal protection or other constitutional argument when the State chases him down for child support. He can make a girl pregnant and then immediately upon finding out he can deliver her a written notice that he disclaims all responsibility, wants it aborted, and will not pay child support if she chooses to have it, and that it would violate equal protection of the law principles allow her the right to abort and not give him a corresponding right to metaphorically abort post fertilization. Right? If he wins, there will be no punishment - if he loses, and the court doesn't agree with his claimed right, then he will suffer the consequences. That's what always happens in constitutional cases where the state takes action against a person and the person claims it contravenes his individual liberties or rights.

That's not what Seth has argued, though. He has argued that there is some sort of contract being entered into. He says that the mother AGREES to cede her rights to the husband and the mother agrees that unless she acquires his express commitment to sign on to child support for a resulting baby, that she's on her own. He doesn't claim there is an express agreement - he claims there is an IMPLIED agreement, that is based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the consent to sexual intercourse - he thinks it follows form the fact of consent to intercourse, without anything more, that if the woman gets pregnant and wants an abortion that the man can direct her to have the baby or sue her for damages if she aborts - he thinks it also follows that she impliedly agrees by consenting to sex that if he after fertilization decides he doesn't want the baby to be born, that if she goes ahead with it, she will be solely responsible for it and he will have no financial responsibility. My argument is that the consent to sex does not imply what Seth says it implies.

The question of whether the current arrangement is truly just and equitable... and whether it should be modified if not... needs to be addressed.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But, do you think that consent to sex constitutes the contractual agreement Seth says it does?

[Warren Dew]

As for the name "Planned Parenthood"-- it refers to the virtue of people only becoming parents when they're ready to: an idea that encompasses not only abortions, but sexual education and outreach to men and women alike, as well as making available an array of contraceptives, from condoms to birth control pills to morning-after pills, that aim to reduce the incidence of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Not to mention political outreach and support for issues of reproductive freedom, for men and for women.

By the way, is it possible to donate to specific clinics? I can't bring myself to continue donating to the national organization after they came out in favor of a health care bill that circumscribed abortion rights, but I'd still like to support their nominal goal.

As for the argument that women should be able to terminate pregnancies simply because they do not want to become parents-- once the issue of bodily autonomy is taken out of the picture, the argument becomes much more difficult to maintain. After all, we've given extensive time towards discussing the issues of men in the same predicament, and we're generally far from endorsing that potential fathers-to-be have the right to force their partners to get an abortion if the women involved do not want to get one.

Wait, wait, wait - if we don't care about women's bodily autonomy, I don't see any problem with allowing potential fathers to require their partners to get an abortion. It seems to me the only argument against that approach is exactly women's bodily autonomy.

If we do care about women's bodily autonomy, which I think we all do, it seems to me that forcing some women to undergo an operation to have an embryo or fetus extracted is just as bad as forcing some women to have abortions.

Women who would behave that way are either hateful, or deluded, and I pity the men who unwittingly become involved with them. I agree that men who do not want to become fathers should take steps to protect themselves, and it would be great if condoms weren't the only relatively reliable, non-surgical option open to them.

Perhaps it's my bleeding heart conservatism showing, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they are "hateful, or deluded" in all cases. For example, if they entered into a marriage where both partners had a clear understanding that they were going to have children, and the man keeps the woman on the hook for years or decades by reinforcing that promise but delaying the event, until the woman's biological clock is running out to the point where she doesn't realistically have the time to get a divorce and find a different partner - in that case, I think the technique, while deceitful, is no worse than than what the man is doing to her. In the end, he may even be glad that she did it.

[Seth]

And as for LP's worries about a woman using that sperm against a man's wishes, well, there are many, many good reasons for sexually active men to wear condoms-- pregnancy prevention being one of the lesser of them. And if a man is concerned about the contents of said condom after the act, well, he doesn't have to leave it lying around, does he? He can take it with him, or flush it down the toilet, or...

Fair enough, but not all guys would necessarily be wary enough, and condoms may break or be deliberately sabotaged - by either partner. When men sabotage women's contraception of course it's FUCKING AWFUL that they're doing that to women. Women do it to men and it's the men's fault for not getting a vasectomy, and for ejaculating... 

Let's add another brick to the load: Let's say that a man and a woman have sex, and they agree beforehand to use contraception, and do. The man uses a condom, and it works properly, and he disposes of it in her bathroom wastebasket. Later, after he's left, she recovers the condom, extracts the semen, and injects it into herself, and becomes pregnant.

What rights does the man now have regarding the gestation, abortion or support for the child?

I believe in most states he would be liable for child support if the child is born, and he would not have the right to order her to have an abortion. See, for example, State v Frisard, a Louisiana case where a woman impregnated herself with a guy's sperm after blowing him (he ejaculated into a condom, she took the sperm, and injected into her uterus). http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of- ... 40516.html - basically, the rule in Louisiana is that a man is strictly liable for his semen. So, the best legal advise is to keep control of your condoms post orgasm. Just make sure you flush them or let them cool down without being in the sole possession of anyone else.

The Frisard case has been misinterpreted as being decided based on the the fact that any sexual contact with a woman makes a man responsible for her child. That's not it - the only issue for the court in Frisard was whether paternity was established. That's done based on a preponderance of the evidence and there was a paternity test indicating 99.94% chance of paternity - but, in Louisiana the test alone is insufficient to prove paternity as a matter of law - so, the court looks at all the facts and circumstances - there was the paternity test, a resemblance between the father and child, and testimony that sexual contact was had at the time of conception - so, taken together the facts indicate that he was the father. Once paternity was established, the father is liable for child support. End of story.

It would be interesting to see how the facts of this case would lie in civil court under a fraud or intentional infliction of emotional distress or other tort claim.

[lordpasternack]

But Coito - barring Seth's long-winded legalistic arguments (which I haven't followed word-for-word) - shouldn't the ultimate concern be for the welfare of the CHILD(REN), who deserves support from both legal parents - with the biological parents being the default legal parents - irrespective of any tacit, verbal or written agreements beforehand? You stated a few times that this is the case - that it's about the welfare and entitlements of CHILDREN, that default to their biological parents, whatever either parent may have agreed to beforehand. 

In my view, the only real qualitative difference between sperm donation and some cases of men having their sperm used against their wishes (where they may have to their knowledge been using adequate protection) - is the legal stuff set down prior to the event. If a guy ejaculates into a condom, which a woman then inseminates herself with without his knowledge/consent, I'd say that's qualitatively similar to a guy jacking into a cup in a sperm bank. The rest of the context is really window-dressing, I suppose to reinforce at some visceral level, the removal of sperm donation from the natural romantic/sexual context of giving baby gravy. I find no real good substantive ETHICAL reason to hold one man accountable and liable for any resulting child(ren) over the other. It's all just in the legal details, so far as I'm concerned.

As for agreeing to things beforehand - presumably the male also often has only the sexual liason in mind also. I'd never infer that that should give him any kinds of rights to interfere physically with the uterus of the woman if she becomes pregnant without his intent - but should that still automatically tie the man in to some parental obligation should the woman make a conscious decision to take the pregnancy to term, in the knowledge that this would not be his wish? 

Is consenting to sex, or not being watchful enough of one's semen, equivalent to consenting to parental responsibility? Should it be? Birth occurs a whole 3/4 of a year after the deed, which may or may not have involved implicit consent for semen to be in the vacinity of the vagina at all. They are quite separate events and processes, across quite a fair stretch of time - and there's no reason why one should NECESSARILY be inferred as implicit consent for the other, nor that such consent or lack thereof needs to be registered formally upfront. While the female isn't obligated (by law or circumstance) to retain the pregnancy to term, there is no clear reason why it would be ethically untenable (for either party) for the man to have some recourse to legally absolve himself of any resultant birth during that time. 

If we keep coming back to the resultant child(ren) and their rights and entitlements - well again, we already absolve gamete donors such obligations. Women are not allowed to call the sperm bank and ask to see their sperm donor if they've fallen on hard times and can scarcely manage to feed and clothe the child. The biological fathers of kids born from egg donation aren't allowed to contact their egg donor (even likely within the first year) and request that they help pay for child-maintenance. Either you state clearly that it isn't just about the kids and their rights after all, but also the circumstances and presumed consent to events by the respective biological parents - or you conclude that gamete donors should technically also be legally liable by default (though it would be difficult to enforce, due to anonymity, and discretion of clinics, and what have you) - and any other scenario where someone's genetic material is used (with or without knowledge or consent) to create a person is liable by default. 

[hadespussercats]

As for the name "Planned Parenthood"-- it refers to the virtue of people only becoming parents when they're ready to: an idea that encompasses not only abortions, but sexual education and outreach to men and women alike, as well as making available an array of contraceptives, from condoms to birth control pills to morning-after pills, that aim to reduce the incidence of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Not to mention political outreach and support for issues of reproductive freedom, for men and for women.

By the way, is it possible to donate to specific clinics? I can't bring myself to continue donating to the national organization after they came out in favor of a health care bill that circumscribed abortion rights, but I'd still like to support their nominal goal.

As for the argument that women should be able to terminate pregnancies simply because they do not want to become parents-- once the issue of bodily autonomy is taken out of the picture, the argument becomes much more difficult to maintain. After all, we've given extensive time towards discussing the issues of men in the same predicament, and we're generally far from endorsing that potential fathers-to-be have the right to force their partners to get an abortion if the women involved do not want to get one.

Wait, wait, wait - if we don't care about women's bodily autonomy, I don't see any problem with allowing potential fathers to require their partners to get an abortion. It seems to me the only argument against that approach is exactly women's bodily autonomy.

If we do care about women's bodily autonomy, which I think we all do, it seems to me that forcing some women to undergo an operation to have an embryo or fetus extracted is just as bad as forcing some women to have abortions.

Women who would behave that way are either hateful, or deluded, and I pity the men who unwittingly become involved with them. I agree that men who do not want to become fathers should take steps to protect themselves, and it would be great if condoms weren't the only relatively reliable, non-surgical option open to them.

Perhaps it's my bleeding heart conservatism showing, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they are "hateful, or deluded" in all cases. For example, if they entered into a marriage where both partners had a clear understanding that they were going to have children, and the man keeps the woman on the hook for years or decades by reinforcing that promise but delaying the event, until the woman's biological clock is running out to the point where she doesn't realistically have the time to get a divorce and find a different partner - in that case, I think the technique, while deceitful, is no worse than than what the man is doing to her. In the end, he may even be glad that she did it.

I think you can donate to specific clinics-- I'll check that out and get back to you.

I need to clarify-- I was not saying we don't care about women's bodily autonomy-- I'm talking about a theoretical scenario where women's bodies were not required for a fetus to develop. I also agree that forced fetus extraction is a terrible idea-- but if a woman is planning to get an abortion, she's planning on having a fetus extracted (unless we're discussing termination before the fetus stage-- which, for the purposes of discussion, I'm dismissing.) An abortion is the removal of the fetus and placenta from the womb. If that fetus needn't be destroyed in the process, and if the biological parents of said fetus are not held legally responsible for it in any way (for instance, if another couple wanted to adopt said fetus), I don't see how keeping the fetus alive is in any way an infringement on the woman's rights.

This is a bizarre situation, certainly-- but theoretically possible, and used to illustrate the primacy of arguing on the basis of bodily autonomy when discussing the current state of abortion rights.

I also agree with you that when a man and a woman marry with the understanding that they will have children together, and one of them decides after the ceremony that they don't want kids after all, or they can't commit to the sticking point to the time where the age/fertility of the woman begins to affect her possibility of having children at all, that this is an example of a betrayal of trust-- as I understand it, it's also generally considered grounds for divorce, not to mention possibly being an absolutely legitimate instance of breach of contract. Still, I don't think that gives one half of the couple the right to trick the other half into reproducing without consent.

[Seth]

No, I'm agreeing with Seth from the other direction. I don't suggest that the man should be granted a say in the woman's decision; I'm saying that his LACK of rights in the situation entail a commensurate lack of responsibility for the outcome. "Her choice (which is absolute) = her consequences."

And, on that issue, your and Seth's analysis forgets one interested party and renders that party, an actual living, breathing human being, irrelevant to the discussion. The child. If that child is born, he has not had any opportunity to waive the 1/2 of the child support that is supposed to come from one or the other of the parents. The child is simply stripped of the right to support from the father because the mother had the last possible chance to prevent the birth.

What child? We're discussing an unwanted pregnancy; no child exists in that situation, only a fetus. And a fetus has neither rights nor standing in the debate.

Once a child is born, then yes, it obviously has rights and deserves support. But an unwanted fetus has no rights and no particular value to look out for.

Er, that's the fallacy of "begging the question," since the purpose of the debate is to discuss when and if a fetus does or should have rights and standing.

actually it isn't... begging the question is assuming as true the fact which is actually being debated.

And, you added to the question the allegation that the mother should not have the right to demand ANYTHING from the father, INCLUDING CHILD SUPPORT. You can't now state that the debate is not about that. The obligation to pay child support doesn't attach until after the child is born. If it's not something you considered part of the issue, why did you bring it up? Essentially, you seem to want to make it about "saddling the father with unwanted responsibilities" when it suits you, but when it doesn't you now want to make it solely about "when and if a fetus does or should have rights and standing."

I was pointing out that whether or not a child has rights, in addition to whether a father has rights, is part of the debate as a rebuttal to the fallacious statement, "What child? We're discussing an unwanted pregnancy; no child exists in that situation, only a fetus. And a fetus has neither rights nor standing in the debate."