A secular debate about abortion

Holy Crap!
Post Reply
Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: A secular debate about abortion

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Feb 07, 2011 7:14 pm

lordpasternack wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote: This woman, while in my opinion a psychologically imbalanced whore, is the owner of her vagina and if she wanted to fuck for kicks 20 times a month with 20 different men, I really can't see as how the law ought to stop her or compel her to get an abortion.
Well, she isn't a whore, because she's getting no recompense for her sexual favours... (Makes you wonder why she didn't think of trying that route, though!) Also, it should be said that there are many, many whores/pornstars/whatever out there behaving far more responsibly than this young woman. Let's not insult whores by calling this woman one, and implicitly comparing their sexual conduct and attitude to child-rearing.
I also wonder why the article didn't discuss her career and income.  If she alleges she is ready to become a mother and willing to accept all the responsibility, I would surely like to see her back that up - what is her job?  How much money does she make?  Fucking nut bag....  this is where my emotions run a bit toward Seth-ville on this issue....I almost want this chick's tubes tied - dingbat.
The article says she's an "assistant office manager" - whatever that means and whatever salary it denotes.
Well, she is a whore because she engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse. Receipt of money is not a necessary part of the definition. Also, she is only fucking for what she feels is personal gain. She wouldn't fuck them for any reason if she didn't have personal gain - that thing she values is worth money. She's getting free loads of cum, for example, that she otherwise would have to buy at the sperm bank. But, nevertheless, fucking for money makes one a whore, but also fucking promiscuously for fun or for no reason also makes one a whore.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not insulting anyone, except this dingbat woman. I like pornstars, and the fact that they're whores doesn't bother me in the least.

Ah, I missed the assistant office manager job. Well, she's in England, so I don't know what they get paid there. Here you can get one for about $10 an hour, give or take. So, it's as I suspected. This chick says she's ready to accept all the responsibilities, but she does not include among those responsibilities the responsibilliy to actually pay for everything the child needs. For that, she'll find some other suckers to write the checks. That'll be "society" -- and "society" didn't even get to fuck the dirty slut. Well...wait....given the number of guys she's had to fuck in order to still not be pregnant despite her best efforts, by the time she's done she may well have sampled a preponderance of the UK's penises by the time she's finished...so maybe it's not so wrong for society to foot the bill after all.... :hilarious:

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: A secular debate about abortion

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Feb 07, 2011 7:30 pm

Seth wrote: What should happen is that she should be arrested and charged with attempted criminal fraud.
The problem is in the details of what criminal fraud actually is.

Attempted fraud means that no fraud has yet occurred, and the odds of any police officer going and arresting someone for attempting to defraud a person is pretty slim. If the dollar figures at issue are large than the police might get involved, but they'll usually set up a sting and catch the scheme in the act. No resources will be allocated to chase down gold-diggers or baby-whores, I think you'll probably agree.

Moreover, there will be a question of proof. How will you secure a conviction for fraud when she isn't even intending on getting any money from the men she's fucking? She's fucking them for free, and her goal is to not see them again, ever and they would never know that the child even existed. There is no monetary loss intended there, and no monetary gain on the part of the scheming broad.

Don't get me wrong - I agree with you that she's a reprehensible figure - a waste of life, based on the article. But, I don't think what she's doing can be fairly characterized as criminal fraud, or even civil fraud.

Seth wrote: She's attempting to make some poor sod legally liable for a child by using fraud and deceit.
According to the article, she's not attempting to make him legally liable. She's attempting secure a baby and have nothing else to do with the guy.
Seth wrote:
And this is a good reason for MEN to be sexually responsible as well, which in her community seems to be the case. Guys, NEVER EVER use a condom supplied by the woman.
Absolutely good advice. Bring your own condom.
Seth wrote:
Perhaps she needs to be committed for psychiatric care as well. I find it interesting that she's spent "a fortune" on piss-sticks, but won't pay the bill for a sperm bank. Absolutely an unethical and evil person, and one, given her narcissism, very likely should NEVER be allowed to have a child. She seems to want to be a "mum" in order to serve her own selfish needs, and that worries me.
It doesn't concern me much what she does, as long as I don't have to pay for it.

User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: A secular debate about abortion

Post by lordpasternack » Mon Feb 07, 2011 7:56 pm

Coito, I think we're talking cross-purposes, and I'm of course going to accuse you of being at fault for failing to understand me. :razzle: I'll return to the thread later to respond to your posts, when I've chewed them over in my mind a little to come to a way of articulating my points, and I'm no longer ready to pull my hair out over the apparent communication failure. :|
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: A secular debate about abortion

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:08 pm

lordpasternack wrote:Coito, I think we're talking cross-purposes, and I'm of course going to accuse you of being at fault for failing to understand me. :razzle: I'll return to the thread later to respond to your posts, when I've chewed them over in my mind a little to come to a way of articulating my points, and I'm no longer ready to pull my hair out over the apparent communication failure. :|
That's weird, cuz here I am thinking we're essentially in full agreement on the issue at hand. I am not sure what we're arguing about, actually, except perhaps nuances of the definition of the word "whore."

I think I understand you, and I think I agree with you, because I am not suggesting that men or women who donate gametes ought to be held liable for the progeny - however, I think that presupposes that they followed a legal framework for doing that, and didn't just go out and fuck, expecting that their subjective intention would be honored.

I am sorry you are pulling your hair out, or that I've frustrated you. I didn't mean to. Like I said, I think we're in basic agreement. I just don't think - even though I am a guy - that if I was out and about "sowing my wild oats" that I would be able to just "disclaim" my responsibility to support a child that might later be born just because I found out a woman was pregnant. I simply think that if I fuck a woman, and she gets pregnant from my sperm, and the baby is eventually born, that I would be on the hook. I couldn't imagine NOT being on the hook, unless we went through the procedures for adoption, or I was donating to a sperm bank, or some such formal process.

I don't think the "disclaimer" is a replacement or equivalent of abortion for the primary reason that with an abortion we have no baby ever. With a disclaimer, a child with interests and expectations and feelings will be out there. It's one thing to say: "mommy couldn't get pregnant so we worked with a gamete bank and mommy carried you for 9 months and gave birth to you - I am your mommy in all but the genetic sense and we don't know who donated the sperm" and it's quite another to say to a child "daddy and mommy had a magical night together, and mommy got pregnant, then daddy served mommy with a notice of disclaimer suggesting she abort you or the two of us would be on our own....he's over in the next town, and living his life - his name is John Smith - but, he wants nothing to do with you, and you're legally prohibited from seeing him because daddy's disclaimer was what they call a metaphorical abortion - to him, you've been aborted."

That's why I disagree with Seth.

User avatar
hadespussercats
I've come for your pants.
Posts: 18586
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:27 am
About me: Looks pretty good, coming out of the back of his neck like that.
Location: Gotham
Contact:

Re: A secular debate about abortion

Post by hadespussercats » Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:25 pm

Warren Dew wrote:
hadespussercats wrote:You have no stake in any of your arguments? Nothing of what you've said actually reflects your true beliefs regarding women, sex, abortion, or anything else?
Perhaps that's true-- though it sounds more like a get-out-of-jail-free pre-emptive strike in case you write something truly reprehensible or idiotic.
I tend to take Seth at face value. Of course, I rarely if ever consider anyone's writing "truly reprehensible" - that's reserved for actions. Usually accusations that ideas are "reprehensible" are substitutes for being open minded enough to consider the ideas logically - indeed it often seems like such accusations stem from fears, often unfounded, that the ideas are in fact correct.

In this particular case, perhaps Seth's opinions are still fluid, and he rightly trusts a robust discussion with multiple incompatible points of view to surface more of the relevant concerns than simply going with the most popular or most vocal opinions would.
hadespussercats wrote:Warren, your careful reading and efforts to ensure clarity in discussion are very much appreciated by this commenter. :D
Thanks. I will admit to the selfish motivation that it's easier for me to learn from a clear discussion than from a muddled one.
I learn more from a clear discussion than a muddled one, too-- that's why I've found the continuing inconsistencies and backtracking in Seth's arguments irritating.

I should point out, since my post reads far more irritated than I actually felt writing it, that I'm familiar with Seth's use of persona-- I read his introduction to himself and his style back when he joined the forum. But whether he's arguing from the point of a "character" or the so-called "authentic" him, I think it's important to respond to his writing in earnest-- after all, what use is a character if said character doesn't elicit honest response? Or, at least, a plausibly honest response-- for all any of you know, I could be a character, too.

No one cares about a play when none of the characters or actors therein read true.

And if his character can't argue coherently, that's the fault of the character's creator, no?
Out of the people that ever were, almost all of them are dead.
There are way more dead people, and you're all gonna die
and then you're gonna be dead for way longer than you're alive.
Like that's mostly what you're ever gonna be.
You're just dead people that didn't die yet.
--Louis C.K.
The green careening planet
spins blindly in the dark
so close to annihilation.

Listen. No one listens. Meow.

User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: A secular debate about abortion

Post by lordpasternack » Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:46 pm

Okay, Coito - briefly - my arguing is over whether a male (and possibly in the future, a female) should be able to reduce himself LEGALLY to the equivalent of a gamete donor after conception has taken place, and the person carrying the biological offspring is in the early stages of pregnancy and has a free choice to abort or go ahead.

ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING you have said thus far against this proposition has EXACT parallels in gamete donation, and I think the divorcing of intimate sexual context in gamete donation is relatively immaterial as to whether it should or shouldn't have certain implications.

What IS different, and actually important, I think, between the two scenarios is that in gamete donation a) legal terms are dealt with agreed to by both prospective biological parents (via the medium of the clinic) BEFOREHAND, and by corollary b) a woman only becomes pregnant via egg or sperm donation after she has heard and agreed to the terms set out. If she doesn't agree to the terms - which likely entail not being able to hold the gamete donor liable, and accepting attendant responsibilities herself, then she just doesn't accept, and no further action is required, and no consequences entailed for any actual pregnancies/offspring. Fine.

But here are a neat list of things that would appear, on the face of it, to be present in sperm donation - some of which also applicable to egg donation:

- The guy got an orgasm out of it.

- Once a baby is there, biological parents should just pay out.

- The child has a right to support from both biological parents irrespective. It's all about the child here.

- It's just fucked up/cold/callous to just disclaim responsibility for one's biological children no matter your circumstances, or the circumstances leading to the pregnancy. Again, it's for the child's interests here.

- It's not the child's fault if mamma didn't think things through properly before getting pregnant and taking it to term using the biological daddy's sperm, or if daddy never wanted the child/parental responsibility. Dad should still be accountable - for the child's sake.


These are some particular factors that are absolutely equivalent between sperm donation and traditional baby-making. If you are going to use these arguments as arguments for why men cannot disclaim themselves during traditional baby-making, then you must account for why you DO NOT wish them to apply in the case of sperm donors.

Is that clear enough? :dunno:
Last edited by lordpasternack on Mon Feb 07, 2011 11:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: A secular debate about abortion

Post by Seth » Mon Feb 07, 2011 11:02 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Seth wrote: What should happen is that she should be arrested and charged with attempted criminal fraud.
The problem is in the details of what criminal fraud actually is.

Attempted fraud means that no fraud has yet occurred, and the odds of any police officer going and arresting someone for attempting to defraud a person is pretty slim. If the dollar figures at issue are large than the police might get involved, but they'll usually set up a sting and catch the scheme in the act. No resources will be allocated to chase down gold-diggers or baby-whores, I think you'll probably agree.
The pragmatic question of whether law-enforcement resources will be allocated to pursue a crime is not relevant to the legal principles involved. In this case, as I point out below, if the woman commits theft, a crime, by sabotaging a condom so that she can steal semen without the man's consent, the man himself can place her under arrest and bring her before a judge.
Moreover, there will be a question of proof. How will you secure a conviction for fraud when she isn't even intending on getting any money from the men she's fucking? She's fucking them for free, and her goal is to not see them again, ever and they would never know that the child even existed. There is no monetary loss intended there, and no monetary gain on the part of the scheming broad.
Well, it could be simple fraud because she is obtaining semen by fraud or deceit by deliberately sabotaging condoms. Semen is a valuable product which the man produces and has a right to market, or not market. If he wears a condom, he is expressing his desire that his semen not be used for procreation without his permission. By sabotaging the condom, she is in effect stealing his semen, as someone else pointed out, in violation of his express intent to retain dominion and control of it. I think that qualifies as civil fraud, and probably theft as well.
Don't get me wrong - I agree with you that she's a reprehensible figure - a waste of life, based on the article. But, I don't think what she's doing can be fairly characterized as criminal fraud, or even civil fraud.
Yeah, I couldn't sustain that claim, though I still haven't searched the Restatement of Torts. But the theft argument would apply, I believe:

Colorado Revised Statutes, 18-4-401. Theft.

(1) A person commits theft when he knowingly obtains or exercises control over anything of value of another without authorization, or by threat or deception, and:

(a) Intends to deprive the other person permanently of the use or benefit of the thing of value; or

(b) Knowingly uses, conceals, or abandons the thing of value in such manner as to deprive the other person permanently of its use or benefit; or

(c) Uses, conceals, or abandons the thing of value intending that such use, concealment, or abandonment will deprive the other person permanently of its use and benefit; or

(d) Demands any consideration to which he is not legally entitled as a condition of restoring the thing of value to the other person.

(1.5) For the purposes of this section, a thing of value is that of "another" if anyone other than the defendant has a possessory or proprietary interest therein.
Seth wrote: She's attempting to make some poor sod legally liable for a child by using fraud and deceit.
According to the article, she's not attempting to make him legally liable. She's attempting secure a baby and have nothing else to do with the guy.
Problem is, she doesn't get to make that decision, the law does. Her ignorance of the law does not excuse her fraudulent actions.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: A secular debate about abortion

Post by Seth » Mon Feb 07, 2011 11:14 pm

hadespussercats wrote:
Warren Dew wrote:
hadespussercats wrote:You have no stake in any of your arguments? Nothing of what you've said actually reflects your true beliefs regarding women, sex, abortion, or anything else?
Perhaps that's true-- though it sounds more like a get-out-of-jail-free pre-emptive strike in case you write something truly reprehensible or idiotic.
I tend to take Seth at face value. Of course, I rarely if ever consider anyone's writing "truly reprehensible" - that's reserved for actions. Usually accusations that ideas are "reprehensible" are substitutes for being open minded enough to consider the ideas logically - indeed it often seems like such accusations stem from fears, often unfounded, that the ideas are in fact correct.

In this particular case, perhaps Seth's opinions are still fluid, and he rightly trusts a robust discussion with multiple incompatible points of view to surface more of the relevant concerns than simply going with the most popular or most vocal opinions would.
It's more that the ARGUMENTS are fluid. I respond to what is written. I may or may not have a central theme, and I have no problem with multiple threads within a particular discussion. That's why I can simultaneously argue that a woman's womb is sovereign territory while also arguing that the child, father and the State should have some say in the matter. As I said, it's an either/or argument: Either women are sovereign and men are absolutely absolved, or women (or the law) may claim obligation on the part of the father, and therefore they are not sovereign, because equity demands that where an obligation is imposed on the man, consideration be given to his rights, and that applies equally to the fetus and the State's interests.

I argue whichever of these two philosophical threads appears in a particular post. If someone argues that a woman's womb is sovereign, I argue that this position therefore militates for absolving men of any liability. If they argue that the father has obligations for the products of conception, I argue that this produces a reciprocal obligation on the part of the woman who thereby forfeits some of her sovereignty. And in both cases, where an abortion is desired, or where an abortion is not wanted, that the interests of the fetus, the father and the State may intrude upon and even override the woman's sovereignty.

Which thread I argue depends on what claims and arguments I'm rebutting.

If it's confusing to you, it may be because your thinking is insufficiently flexible to see the big picture, or both sides of the argument.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: A secular debate about abortion

Post by lordpasternack » Mon Feb 07, 2011 11:41 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:Well, she is a whore because she engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse. Receipt of money is not a necessary part of the definition. Also, she is only fucking for what she feels is personal gain. She wouldn't fuck them for any reason if she didn't have personal gain - that thing she values is worth money. She's getting free loads of cum, for example, that she otherwise would have to buy at the sperm bank. But, nevertheless, fucking for money makes one a whore, but also fucking promiscuously for fun or for no reason also makes one a whore.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not insulting anyone, except this dingbat woman. I like pornstars, and the fact that they're whores doesn't bother me in the least.
You know the interesting thought to explore here, though? If she had chosen to swap the local clubs for local hotel bars, and set out to snare men in the city on business instead of average lads, and charged them, say, £100 for the privilege of banging her (which is cheaper than average as decent hookers go) - if she had managed in this scenario to have scored the same result of 20 willing partners - she would have raised, lemme see: £2000. She could have had protected sex with the suckers and everything, and have raised almost enough from these horny guys to go get a sperm donation, through which she'd be protected against any STIs and would even be able to select attributes she'd like in her donor (and hence offspring)!

Hell, she doesn't even have to get physically involved with any guys. Even taking a short-term weekend job shaking her body in front of them would likely have been sufficient to raise those niggling funds:
Stringfellows lapdancer is a 'stranger' to the taxman

A lap dancer who is attempting to bring an unfair dismissal case against nightclub Stringfellows has been living as a ‘tax exile’ in her own country, it was claimed.

Nadine Quashie has never paid tax in her life and is a ‘stranger’ to Revenue and Customs, an employment tribunal heard.

The 27-year-old, who claims she was unfairly sacked from the London club, took home more than £1,000 on busy nights, working topless and in a G-string over 18 months, it was claimed.

Her garter was stuffed with pre-paid vouchers from clients, called 'heavenly vouchers', the tribunal was told, and on one night she made as much as £3,800.

Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/843970-stri ... z1DJqsl4VR
My emphases.

Some women are just so exploited, I could cry deep, searing, heartfelt tears of blood...
This chick says she's ready to accept all the responsibilities, but she does not include among those responsibilities the responsibilliy to actually pay for everything the child needs. For that, she'll find some other suckers to write the checks. That'll be "society" -- and "society" didn't even get to fuck the dirty slut. Well...wait....given the number of guys she's had to fuck in order to still not be pregnant despite her best efforts, by the time she's done she may well have sampled a preponderance of the UK's penises by the time she's finished...so maybe it's not so wrong for society to foot the bill after all.... :hilarious:
I don't have a penis - so not guilty, guv'nor! :lol:

Also, I've probably sampled more penis overall in my time than this woman has. May I also deem myself ethically entitled to draw from the public purse to fund my future child-rearing? :hehe:

As for those funds and my ideas for her raising them, though - they may just become apropos after the fact:

Image

:hehe:
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

User avatar
Iratus Ranunculus
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 12:06 am
About me: I am a giant nerd who likes frogs too much.
Location: Steers and Queers Indeed
Contact:

Re: A secular debate about abortion

Post by Iratus Ranunculus » Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:14 am

This is a general thread response. I have read a good number of the posts and synthesized the general points. The following will be presented in numbered sections.

1.1The moral status of a fetus

A logically consistent atheist cannot believe that something having human DNA and a metabolism somehow makes it worthy of any sort of moral consideration. At least not directly (more on that in a minute). This is because human DNA is not in any way special, the only thing separating it from the DNA of a chicken, lizard, or brewers yeasts, is the nucleotide sequence. Obviously, there are no intrinsically superior nucleotide sequences or anything like that in a universe in which there is no design.

What is really under discussion here is whether or not the zygote is a person. Which it is not. It has none of the properties of a person that would make it have worth under any coherent ethical system. In fact, over 80% of them will be miscarried anyway, most of them without mom ever knowing she had a zygote inside her.

Now, personness is not even all that important in the broad scheme of things, fundamentally for the same reason that human DNA is not a criteria.

What matters are general properties, and these will depend on what ethical system you are applying. I will go through the three biggest ones.

Natural Rights: In most formulations, the fetus has rights at some arbitrary point depending on the formulation. However, in no formulation of rights ethics is violation of someone else's rights (generally considered the initiation of force in the case of rights regarding one's physical person) acceptable. The mother did not strictly speaking ask the fetus to be there. She owns herself, and in just the same way as she can refuse sex even while during the act, and back that up with lethal force to defend her right to control her own body, so too can she use lethal force to expel the fetus, even if she had given it prior permission to exist. By it staying against her will it is initiating force.

Kantian Deontology: The categorical imperative requires that every sentient being (basically those that can pass a mirror test) must be treated as a end unto itself and not merely as a means to an end. A child cannot pass a mirror test until around the age of two. As a result it can be treated as a means to and end and be disposed of at will. There goes the fetus.

Utilitarianism: I will consider here two variants. Hedonistic and Preference. In hedonistic utilitarianism, Good is measured as the ratio of pleasure to pain or suffering, and is weighted by the capacity of the being(s) in question to experience either of these states. A fetus cannot feel pain, or experience pleasure until it is very late term, and its ability to comprehend these (and thus foresee future suffering or experience existential angst via fear) is very low even well into early childhood. By comparison the suffering of the mother if she does not want the fetus, and foresees a considerable degree of angst raising the child, is very high. Third parties have a decreased magnitude of suffering if they are opposed to abortion, consisting basically of being annoyed or outraged at an abstract concept, and they are largely canceled out by those with equivalent but opposite views on abortion. Thus, under hedonistic utilitarianism, the fetus has no direct expectation of having any more moral consideration assigned to it than we would attribute to a rock or chicken egg, and the mothers suffering will probably outweigh the net effect of the indirect consideration granted to those who oppose abortion.

By contrast, preference utilitarianism defines good as the ratio of realized preferences to unrealized preferences, with each preference for stakeholders weighed according to the strength of their held preferences and the relative effect that the consequences of the decision have on them. A fetus cannot hold a preference at all, because it lacks a mind. By contrast even a lizard can feel fear and obviously would prefer not to die. Mother obviously holds a strong preference and the decision impacts her greatly, while the strength of the preferences of third parties may be high, the decision does not impact them at all. This is because there are an infinite number of children that could potentially be born, and there is no way of knowing whether the impact on any one third party will be positive or negative. Think of it this way. Say your mom had a 2nd trimester miscarriage. Do you miss your unborn older brother? No. You dont know the difference.

As a result, there is no case to disallow abortion under any of these ethical systems.

1.2Obligations to Future Individuals

It can and has been argued that abortion should not be permitted because we have an obligation to secure the happiness of future persons, and this also implies that we have a responsibility to make sure that those future persons are born. This argument is a non-sequiter. While it is true that we have obligations to secure the happiness of future persons, it does not follow from this that we have an obligation to secure the existence of particular individuals. There are a number of reasons why this position is not tenable, and I will only give the most important one.

If we follow this line of reasoning, it would follow that we have the obligation to secure the future existence of all possible persons--by which I mean to say that we would be obligated to secure the existence of an infinite number of possible persons. A logical consequence of this is that no one could refuse heterosexual sexual intercourse because it would eliminate the chance that a person could be born from said sexual union. Certainly this position is completely absurd. As a result, it is better to say that we have an obligation to secure the future living conditions of future persons, but not to secure the existence of said persons.

2.1Obligations of Sexual Partners--Specifically addressing the main thrust of Seth's argument.

Something has come up in this thread regarding a proposed disparity in reproductive rights between men and women. This person, Seth proposes that the current system whereby women are permitted to abort a pregnancy and men are not, and whereby men are stuck on the hook for child rearing is unfair. Seth also claims that he is a nice guy who finishes last. The way he talks about women, I have concluded that this is [probably not true. I cannot be certain, but his rhetoric is that of a misogynist. If he does finish last is because no woman will go near him with a three meter aluminum rod after the second wave f feminism in the 1960s and 1970s. Rhetoric about how oppressed men are when they are forced to take responsibility for their profligate philandering is just not in vogue this century. However, to base my argument on this would be fallacious. Let us examine the fundamental issue of fairness.


Men have sexual intercourse for a number of minutes, ejaculate, and then—other than the risk of disease which per incident of intercourse is lower than women—bear no further biological risk of pregnancy. Depending on whether the fetus is brought to term, they may suffer financial risk if they do not wish to have the child. At most, barring the death or unfitness of the mother, the father need only provide 50% of the social aspects of child rearing, and often less.

Women have the potential to die in childbirth, and suffer a number of complications due to pregnancy both before and after they bring the child to term. The mother can abort the fetus, but if the fetus is brought to term will provide between 50 and 100 percent of the actual care of the child.

So, in short:

Father
0-50% child care
0-100% financial support if he sticks around
0-”50%” (it is often less than this depending on child support agreements) if he does not

If abort: none of these, except for being sad for a few weeks

Mother
50-100% child care
0-100% financial support
Extreme biological risk

If abort: None of these

If forced abort: None of these, but has basically been medically raped.

If denied abort: All of these, plus suffering due to having to carry a fetus she does not want to term, and then having the majority of the burden of raising it.

If we are to talk about fairness, who here has the greatest risk, and thus should be the one who primarily makes the decision? Who has the most to lose, essentially? The woman does.

Seth's argument is completely and utterly incoherent. It is disconnected from a place we call “reality”. If one wishes to talk about “taking responsibility for actions”, abortion is doing just that. But as Seth so well put it, life is not fair. Women have an option available to them by nature of being the sex which gives birth. Termination of the pregnancy. Men do not have this. To give men this option would by extension permit us to force other surgical procedures on people as part of an implied contract.

Seth phrases his argument in terms of “The woman wanting cock”. However, it is seldom the case that women do no have to be convinced to have sexual intercourse. Usually the male has to engage in some sort of display before he can mate. Much like the amphibians I study:

Image

Image

(Please disregard that both of those frogs are male)

The proper phrasing should be as follows:

“Guys, if you want pussy, you accept the risk that you will have to take responsibility for a child that the girl you banged wants to keep.”

Seth's argument sounds like the rhetoric of a petulant teenager, desperate to not have to take responsibility for their actions, and trying to lay them in whole on someone else. It takes two to tango. Biology and basic medical ethics have given women an option Seth does not have which seems to be one of the few fair things that exists in this universe. He has spent this thread winging about it, and casting about for ways to make himself, as a male, appear oppressed.

2.2Obligations to a Child

The above treats the matter of male and female rights as a two-body problem, only dealing with the moral issues arising from two persons. When and if a child is born however, a third term enters the moral calculus. The child.

It does not really matter what ethical system we choose to utilize. I tend toward utilitarianism, but for the sake of brevity, I will stipulate that this conclusion follows from all three of the major ethical systems I discussed in section 1.1. parents have a duty of care to their child. Moreover, all adults have a duty of care to children. It does not particularly matter which adults care for the child, but the responsibility of ensuring that someone does, falls to the biological parents. They took the set of actions which brought the child into the world, it is their responsibility to ensure that someone cares for it. Generally, that is them. This means that the biological father must at minimum financially support the child. This is the basis for the “best interests of the child” doctrine in US family law. Thus, the father cannot abdicate his responsibility unless someone else takes it over completely (adopts the child) thus transferring permanently the responsibility in a way less transient than even becoming the child's stepfather. If a divorce happens, the stepfather's responsibility toward his step-children ends.

So, what about cases of false paternity? Yes, there was deceit, or more likely, the mom just did not know. I can go into the complicated evolutionary biology of this (sperm competition etc) but I will not. The point is, the presumed father took initial legal and moral responsibility for the child. Presumably, they formed some sort of emotional bond. In these cases, the biological father did in fact fulfill his responsibility to ensure that someone takes care of the kid. The deceit inherent in cuckoldry is, with respect to the child, irrelevant. It is in the best interests of the child that the person who initially began caring for it, and whom it formed an emotional bond with continue to do so. The suffering faced by the child being abandoned by a parent they love and depend on outweighs the feelings of betrayal felt by the cuckolded father figure. They accepted this risk as well, when they began having sex with the mother.

Winging about it, and bewailing the unfairness of the situation does not change the moral responsibilities that fall on all parties involved.

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: A secular debate about abortion

Post by FBM » Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:21 am

There seems to be some pretty strong evidence to support the claim that legalized abortion reduces crime rates in a major way:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... n_on_Crime

The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime

John J. Donohue III
Stanford Law School; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)

Steven D. Levitt
University of Chicago; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); American Bar Foundation



Quarterly Journal of Economics


Abstract:
We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly 18 years after abortion legalization. The 5 states that allowed abortion in 1970 experienced declines earlier than the rest of the nation, which legalized in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. States with high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s experienced greater crime reductions in the 1990s. In high abortion states, only arrests of those born after abortion legalization fall relative to low abortion states. Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime.

JEL Classifications: J11, J13

Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: August 12, 1999
Suggested Citation

Donohue, John J. and Levitt, Steven D., The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime (2000). Quarterly Journal of Economics. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=174508 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.174508


Export to: BibTeX EndNote RefMan RefWorks Export Citation What's this?
Contact Information
John J. Donohue III (Contact Author)
Stanford Law School ( email )
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
United States
650-575-7166 (Phone)

National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
1050 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States

Steven D. Levitt
University of Chicago ( email )
1126 East 59th Street
Chicago, IL 60637
United States
773-834-1862 (Phone)
773-702-8490 (Fax)

National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
1050 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States

American Bar Foundation
750 N. Lake Shore Drive
Chicago, IL 60611
United States
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: A secular debate about abortion

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:43 pm

lordpasternack wrote:Okay, Coito - briefly - my arguing is over whether a male (and possibly in the future, a female) should be able to reduce himself LEGALLY to the equivalent of a gamete donor after conception has taken place, and the person carrying the biological offspring is in the early stages of pregnancy and has a free choice to abort or go ahead.

ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING you have said thus far against this proposition has EXACT parallels in gamete donation, and I think the divorcing of intimate sexual context in gamete donation is relatively immaterial as to whether it should or shouldn't have certain implications.
It doesn't "exactly" parallel gamete donation at all. The difference in gamete donation is that the donor is generally anonymous, no sexual intercourse occurs, and the parents buying the gamete material are legally on the hook as if they were the biological parents.

That's different from two people having sex, and a woman becoming pregnant, and then thereafter one or both of them disclaiming responsibility for the child if it's born. The father isn't anonymous, sexual intercourse occurs, and nobody else is stepping in to be legally on the hook as if they were the biological parents. That last bit is probably the most important part. The State's interest here is not to make sure that women and men behave properly - it's to make sure that children are taken care of - first responsibility ought to go to the parents (they're the ones who brought it into the world - why should the rest of us pay for it?) - after that, if they want to put the child up for adoption - or if they want to "preadopt" (which is basically what gamete donation is), then fine. That most certainly isn't "exactly parallel" to just everyone deciding to fuck around, get pregnant and then just "disclaim liability."

Maybe there could even be a legal mechanism for a woman and a man to arrange in advance that she is to be solely responsible and that all he is is a gamete donor. That would require, of course, some formalization of the arrangement beforehand. Once the horse has gotten out of the barn, however, it's a different matter.
lordpasternack wrote:
What IS different, and actually important, I think, between the two scenarios is that in gamete donation a) legal terms are dealt with agreed to by both prospective biological parents (via the medium of the clinic) BEFOREHAND, and by corollary b) a woman only becomes pregnant via egg or sperm donation after she has heard and agreed to the terms set out. If she doesn't agree to the terms - which likely entail not being able to hold the gamete donor liable, and accepting attendant responsibilities herself, then she just doesn't accept, and no further action is required, and no consequences entailed for any actual pregnancies/offspring. Fine.
And, I considered that important as well. Once Elvis has left the building, he's gone.

lordpasternack wrote: But here are a neat list of things that would appear, on the face of it, to be present in sperm donation - some of which also applicable to egg donation:

- The guy got an orgasm out of it.
My "orgasm out of the deal" comments were tongue in cheek. The intent was to illustrate that the rest of us AREN'T INVOLVED. If Jane Rottencrotch and Dick Hertz get together and make a baby - it ain't the rest of our business. So, the general real ought to be, you make it you bought it.
lordpasternack wrote:
- Once a baby is there, biological parents should just pay out.
Generally speaking, yes. They made it, they ought ought pay. Exceptions can be made where adequate provision for the support of the child is reasonably assured.

In that case in Ireland, however, a sperm donor WAS told to "pay out" when a lesbian couple who secured a child through a sperm bank broke up. So, word to the wise when donating sperm - check the law in your jurisdiction very carefully. It may not be worth the little money they pay you for the semen.
lordpasternack wrote:
- The child has a right to support from both biological parents irrespective. It's all about the child here.
Not all about - but, something about. Seth acknowledges the child's interest in living, and he acknowledges that from shortly after fertilization on. In the womb, the fetus feeds off the mother. After it's born, someone needs to buy it food, clothing and shelter. It ought to be the biological parents, unless there is a legal adoption, or the legalities for gamete donation are followed. Just "disclaiming" liability is not the same thing as or even close to abortion or gamete donation through a bank.
lordpasternack wrote:
- It's just fucked up/cold/callous to just disclaim responsibility for one's biological children no matter your circumstances, or the circumstances leading to the pregnancy. Again, it's for the child's interests here.
To ME, it's callous to disclaim responsibility for one's children, generally speaking. I understand, however, that people can have issues, and perhaps adoption is the best way to go sometimes. However, to simply disclaim responsibility without making other adequate provision for the child's welfare IS fucked up - cold - and callous - it would be like just leaving the child on the street.

Plus - if a baby is born and both parents "disclaim responsibility" who else gets to be the one who DOESN'T get to "disclaim responsibility?" SOMEONE has to take care of it, or it will die. Primary responsibility falls on the people who brought it into existence. I don't see how that's arguable.

Further, I'm hearing the sarcasm in the "Again, it's for the child's interests here." Well - doesn't the child have interests? Or, are they to be totally discounted? After all - the child is the one party who had no choice ever. The child is the one party who didn't get an option to "disclaim" anything.
lordpasternack wrote:
- It's not the child's fault if mamma didn't think things through properly before getting pregnant and taking it to term using the biological daddy's sperm, or if daddy never wanted the child/parental responsibility. Dad should still be accountable - for the child's sake.
Or, should dads just get to decide at any time from fertilization to birth whether they're "ready" to support what they helped create? If they choose, for whatever reason, or no reason at all, that they don't want anything to do with Junior, then they are off the hook for child support. And, if Junior wants to see daddy, well, we just tell Junior that "Daddy metaphorically aborted you, so while he lives one town over, until he decides to become a payor of child support, you are legally prohibited from doing anything daddy-son related - after all, you're "aborted" as far as he is concerned."

And, if the mother makes $10 an hour as an "assistant" to an office manager, and can't afford the diapers and food and shelter for the child - don't worry - it's o.k. - daddy wasn't "ready" - so until he is, the rest of us will all just chip in and foot the bill.
lordpasternack wrote:
These are some particular factors that are absolutely equivalent between sperm donation and traditional baby-making.
Gamete donation, the idea is that someone who is financially capable of supporting the child is signing on for the job. It's basically a pre-fertilzation adoption. That's a huge difference. In gamete donation, the decision is made pre-fertilzation, not post-fertilzation. It's not a mere "I'm not ready" disclaimer. It's an "I'm ready" positive assertion.
lordpasternack wrote:
If you are going to use these arguments as arguments for why men cannot disclaim themselves during traditional baby-making, then you must account for why you DO NOT wish them to apply in the case of sperm donors.

Is that clear enough? :dunno:
I have endlessly explained this - many times. Sperm donors are anonymous, give up their rights in advance, and donees fill out an application, get approved as candidates, and purposefully get pregnant taking on the obligations as parents if a child is born. This latter bit is the main concern of the State. Someone has to take care of the child, or it will die.

Sure SOME of the steps in the process of babymaking by gamete donation are sort of the same as some of the steps in the process of making babies in the normal fashion - but not all of them - and the really important parts are completely different.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: A secular debate about abortion

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:07 pm

Seth wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Seth wrote: What should happen is that she should be arrested and charged with attempted criminal fraud.
The problem is in the details of what criminal fraud actually is.

Attempted fraud means that no fraud has yet occurred, and the odds of any police officer going and arresting someone for attempting to defraud a person is pretty slim. If the dollar figures at issue are large than the police might get involved, but they'll usually set up a sting and catch the scheme in the act. No resources will be allocated to chase down gold-diggers or baby-whores, I think you'll probably agree.
The pragmatic question of whether law-enforcement resources will be allocated to pursue a crime is not relevant to the legal principles involved. In this case, as I point out below, if the woman commits theft, a crime, by sabotaging a condom so that she can steal semen without the man's consent, the man himself can place her under arrest and bring her before a judge.
LOL - not a chance.

She'd have him arrested for false arrest and kidnapping, after the police at the station where the guy dragged her stopped rolling on the floor laughing their asses off.

Police Officer, "Sir, what are you doing? Why do you have this woman bound and gagged?"
Man, "I am making a citizens arrest, sir."
Police Officer, "On what charge?"
Man, "Theft of my semen."
Police Officer, "How did she accomplish this?"
Man, "We had sex, and I ejaculated, and I think she sabotaged the condom. She got pregnant and says it's mine, so I'm sure that at least one sperm got through. She stole at least one sperm, and probably millions. My guess is that she stole a teaspoon full of my semen, at least."
Police Officer, "You bound and gagged a pregnant woman and brought her to the police station to make a citizens arrest over a teaspoon of sperm?"
Man, "Yes."

Seth wrote:
Moreover, there will be a question of proof. How will you secure a conviction for fraud when she isn't even intending on getting any money from the men she's fucking? She's fucking them for free, and her goal is to not see them again, ever and they would never know that the child even existed. There is no monetary loss intended there, and no monetary gain on the part of the scheming broad.
Well, it could be simple fraud because she is obtaining semen by fraud or deceit by deliberately sabotaging condoms. Semen is a valuable product which the man produces and has a right to market, or not market. If he wears a condom, he is expressing his desire that his semen not be used for procreation without his permission. By sabotaging the condom, she is in effect stealing his semen, as someone else pointed out, in violation of his express intent to retain dominion and control of it. I think that qualifies as civil fraud, and probably theft as well.
Semen is sold for next to nothing to sperm banks, and it's not that valuable. AT BEST - AT BEST - it's a misdemeanor. And, it probably isn't even that since he voluntarily ejected the semen into her knowing that condoms are not 100% effective. He'd certainly have to prove that the condom was, in fact, sabotaged in that instance. However, even if he could, there is no "fraud" going on here.

In any case, the thing about his expressed desire that his semen not be used for procreation without his permission. Don't add facts that aren't there. Nothing in the article said that the men EXPRESSED that desire. They may have HAD that desire, and it may have been "implicit" in the use of a condom, but that's not EXPRESS - express means verbal or written. And, just because someone implies that they have a certain desire doesn't mean everyone else has to respect that desire. Did she agree that she wouldn't use the sperm? If she made no agreement, then there's no agreement.

Civil fraud requires a material misrepresentation of fact on her part. She has to actually make a representation - that requires her to say something. She can't be held to have committed fraud unless she told him something that was false.
Seth wrote:
Don't get me wrong - I agree with you that she's a reprehensible figure - a waste of life, based on the article. But, I don't think what she's doing can be fairly characterized as criminal fraud, or even civil fraud.
Yeah, I couldn't sustain that claim, though I still haven't searched the Restatement of Torts. But the theft argument would apply, I believe:
Civil fraud absolutely, positively does not apply. You'd lose that lawsuit every time, and it wouldn't even get to trial. You have to plead fraud with particularity, including stating what the misrepresentation was, when it was made, who made it, how you relied on it, and what damages were proximately caused by your reliance on the false representation. Unless she said something, you don't have a false representation. End of civil lfraud claim.

Theft - larceny - is slightly better, but it is also a non-starter, because the man himself intends to divest himself of possession of the semen. Plus, while semen might be valuable if saved properly and stored, which is why sperm banks pay for it - just shooting it off in to a rubber to die renders the sperm essentially valueless.

What you appear to really be claiming is that your semen was put to an unpermitted use. That's at best a civil claim.

Colorado Revised Statutes, 18-4-401. Theft.

(1) A person commits theft when he knowingly obtains or exercises control over anything of value of another without authorization, or by threat or deception, and:

(a) Intends to deprive the other person permanently of the use or benefit of the thing of value; or
This is the problem element, as noted above, since the man is already voluntarily divesting himself of the benefit or use of the semen. He's shooting it out into the condom and having no further use or benefit of the thing of value -- which arguably doesn't even have a value anymore.

Seth wrote: She's attempting to make some poor sod legally liable for a child by using fraud and deceit.
According to the article, she's not attempting to make him legally liable. She's attempting secure a baby and have nothing else to do with the guy.
Seth wrote: Problem is, she doesn't get to make that decision, the law does. Her ignorance of the law does not excuse her fraudulent actions.
From the standpoint of the criminal law, it's HER mens rea that counts.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: A secular debate about abortion

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:24 pm

lordpasternack wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:Well, she is a whore because she engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse. Receipt of money is not a necessary part of the definition. Also, she is only fucking for what she feels is personal gain. She wouldn't fuck them for any reason if she didn't have personal gain - that thing she values is worth money. She's getting free loads of cum, for example, that she otherwise would have to buy at the sperm bank. But, nevertheless, fucking for money makes one a whore, but also fucking promiscuously for fun or for no reason also makes one a whore.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not insulting anyone, except this dingbat woman. I like pornstars, and the fact that they're whores doesn't bother me in the least.
You know the interesting thought to explore here, though? If she had chosen to swap the local clubs for local hotel bars, and set out to snare men in the city on business instead of average lads, and charged them, say, £100 for the privilege of banging her (which is cheaper than average as decent hookers go) - if she had managed in this scenario to have scored the same result of 20 willing partners - she would have raised, lemme see: £2000. She could have had protected sex with the suckers and everything, and have raised almost enough from these horny guys to go get a sperm donation, through which she'd be protected against any STIs and would even be able to select attributes she'd like in her donor (and hence offspring)!
She's an idiot. You can almost tell by looking at her. She's suffering from a psychological disorder. She ought to seek help, because her behavior is ridiculous. But, that's just my opinion, and I don't give a flying fuck what she does (just don't ask me to pay for it).
lordpasternack wrote: Hell, she doesn't even have to get physically involved with any guys. Even taking a short-term weekend job shaking her body in front of them would likely have been sufficient to raise those niggling funds:
Stringfellows lapdancer is a 'stranger' to the taxman

A lap dancer who is attempting to bring an unfair dismissal case against nightclub Stringfellows has been living as a ‘tax exile’ in her own country, it was claimed.

Nadine Quashie has never paid tax in her life and is a ‘stranger’ to Revenue and Customs, an employment tribunal heard.

The 27-year-old, who claims she was unfairly sacked from the London club, took home more than £1,000 on busy nights, working topless and in a G-string over 18 months, it was claimed.

Her garter was stuffed with pre-paid vouchers from clients, called 'heavenly vouchers', the tribunal was told, and on one night she made as much as £3,800.

Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/843970-stri ... z1DJqsl4VR
My emphases.

Some women are just so exploited, I could cry deep, searing, heartfelt tears of blood...
Strippers make tons of money. Everyone knows that. The problem is that most of them are fucked up in the head and spend the money on drugs or other wasteful things. However, I know there are strippers out there who see the golden opportunity and make the most of it. A non-drug using, hard working stripper can make herself a millionaire in the US in five years - and that can probably be mostly in cash.

lordpasternack wrote:
This chick says she's ready to accept all the responsibilities, but she does not include among those responsibilities the responsibilliy to actually pay for everything the child needs. For that, she'll find some other suckers to write the checks. That'll be "society" -- and "society" didn't even get to fuck the dirty slut. Well...wait....given the number of guys she's had to fuck in order to still not be pregnant despite her best efforts, by the time she's done she may well have sampled a preponderance of the UK's penises by the time she's finished...so maybe it's not so wrong for society to foot the bill after all.... :hilarious:
I don't have a penis - so not guilty, guv'nor! :lol:

Also, I've probably sampled more penis overall in my time than this woman has. May I also deem myself ethically entitled to draw from the public purse to fund my future child-rearing? :hehe:
I don't feel myself qualified to opine on this topic unless and until my penis has been properly sampled. :pardon:

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: A secular debate about abortion

Post by Seth » Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:14 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Seth wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Seth wrote: What should happen is that she should be arrested and charged with attempted criminal fraud.
The problem is in the details of what criminal fraud actually is.

Attempted fraud means that no fraud has yet occurred, and the odds of any police officer going and arresting someone for attempting to defraud a person is pretty slim. If the dollar figures at issue are large than the police might get involved, but they'll usually set up a sting and catch the scheme in the act. No resources will be allocated to chase down gold-diggers or baby-whores, I think you'll probably agree.
The pragmatic question of whether law-enforcement resources will be allocated to pursue a crime is not relevant to the legal principles involved. In this case, as I point out below, if the woman commits theft, a crime, by sabotaging a condom so that she can steal semen without the man's consent, the man himself can place her under arrest and bring her before a judge.
LOL - not a chance.

She'd have him arrested for false arrest and kidnapping, after the police at the station where the guy dragged her stopped rolling on the floor laughing their asses off.

Police Officer, "Sir, what are you doing? Why do you have this woman bound and gagged?"
Man, "I am making a citizens arrest, sir."
Police Officer, "On what charge?"
Man, "Theft of my semen."
Police Officer, "How did she accomplish this?"
Man, "We had sex, and I ejaculated, and I think she sabotaged the condom. She got pregnant and says it's mine, so I'm sure that at least one sperm got through. She stole at least one sperm, and probably millions. My guess is that she stole a teaspoon full of my semen, at least."
Police Officer, "You bound and gagged a pregnant woman and brought her to the police station to make a citizens arrest over a teaspoon of sperm?"
Man, "Yes."
Let's examine the law (in Colorado):
18-4-401. Theft.

(1) A person commits theft when he knowingly obtains or exercises control over anything of value of another without authorization, or by threat or deception, and:

(a) Intends to deprive the other person permanently of the use or benefit of the thing of value; or

(b) Knowingly uses, conceals, or abandons the thing of value in such manner as to deprive the other person permanently of its use or benefit; or

(c) Uses, conceals, or abandons the thing of value intending that such use, concealment, or abandonment will deprive the other person permanently of its use and benefit; or

(d) Demands any consideration to which he is not legally entitled as a condition of restoring the thing of value to the other person.

(1.5) For the purposes of this section, a thing of value is that of "another" if anyone other than the defendant has a possessory or proprietary interest therein.
Annotations
Theft occurs when any person obtains control of the property of another and knowingly intends to permanently deprive that person of the use or benefit of a thing of value. Sandoval v. People, 176 Colo. 414, 490 P.2d 1298 (1971).

The elements of the crime of theft need not be proven by direct, substantive evidence, but can be inferred from the defendant's conduct and the reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the circumstances of the case. People v. Gracey, 940 P.2d 1050 (Colo. App. 1996).

Crime may be established by circumstantial evidence. The crime denounced by this section may be established by circumstantial evidence alone. Montez v. People, 110 Colo. 208, 132 P.2d 970 (1942).

Where the larceny is from the person of another the crime shall be a felony, and no proof of value is required. People v. McIntosh, 149 Colo. 555, 369 P.2d 987 (1962).

Test of value is reasonable market value of the stolen article at the time of the commission of the alleged offense. People v. Austin, 185 Colo. 229, 523 P.2d 989 (1974).

18-2-101. Criminal attempt.
(1) A person commits criminal attempt if, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of an offense, he engages in conduct constituting a substantial step toward the commission of the offense. A substantial step is any conduct, whether act, omission, or possession, which is strongly corroborative of the firmness of the actor's purpose to complete the commission of the offense. Factual or legal impossibility of committing the offense is not a defense if the offense could have been committed had the attendant circumstances been as the actor believed them to be, nor is it a defense that the crime attempted was actually perpetrated by the accused.

16-3-201. Arrest by a private person.

A person who is not a peace officer may arrest another person when any crime has been or is being committed by the arrested person in the presence of the person making the arrest.
Annotations

A private citizen may arrest for any crime committed in his presence. Schiffner v. People, 173 Colo. 123, 476 P.2d 756 (1970).

An arrest must be first authorized under this section before a private person can use physical force to effect the arrest. People v. Joyce, 68 P.3d 521 (Colo. App. 2002).
18-1-707. Use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape.

(4) For purposes of this section, a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense means a reasonable belief in facts or circumstances which if true would in law constitute an offense. If the believed facts or circumstances would not in law constitute an offense, an erroneous though not unreasonable belief that the law is otherwise does not render justifiable the use of force to make an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody. A peace officer who is effecting an arrest pursuant to a warrant is justified in using the physical force prescribed in subsections (1) and (2) of this section unless the warrant is invalid and is known by the officer to be invalid.

(7) A private person acting on his own account is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to effect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person who has committed an offense in his presence; but he is justified in using deadly physical force for the purpose only when he reasonably believes it necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.
Seth wrote:
Moreover, there will be a question of proof.
Existence of a child with his DNA is proof that the semen was used by the woman. The other circumstances proving theft would, of course, be matter of evidence and judgment of the jury. Certainly a news article with a photo of the defendant with her express statements that she is engaged in this precise pattern of conduct is persuasive circumstantial evidence.
How will you secure a conviction for fraud when she isn't even intending on getting any money from the men she's fucking? She's fucking them for free, and her goal is to not see them again, ever and they would never know that the child even existed. There is no monetary loss intended there, and no monetary gain on the part of the scheming broad.
Well, it could be simple fraud because she is obtaining semen by fraud or deceit by deliberately sabotaging condoms. Semen is a valuable product which the man produces and has a right to market, or not market. If he wears a condom, he is expressing his desire that his semen not be used for procreation without his permission. By sabotaging the condom, she is in effect stealing his semen, as someone else pointed out, in violation of his express intent to retain dominion and control of it. I think that qualifies as civil fraud, and probably theft as well.
Semen is sold for next to nothing to sperm banks, and it's not that valuable.
Doesn't matter. It has commercial value, therefore it is a "thing of value." The value of the object stolen only goes to the degree of the crime and the punishment that can be levied, not to whether a crime has been committed.
AT BEST - AT BEST - it's a misdemeanor.
(2) Theft is:
...
(b) A class 2 misdemeanor if the value of the thing involved is less than five hundred dollars;
...
(5) Theft from the person of another by means other than the use of force, threat, or intimidation is a class 5 felony without regard to the value of the thing taken.
In this scenario, the theft is from the person of the victim (couldn't be more personal, actually) and thus it is a felony regardless of the value of the semen.
And, it probably isn't even that since he voluntarily ejected the semen into her knowing that condoms are not 100% effective. He'd certainly have to prove that the condom was, in fact, sabotaged in that instance.


Yes, the prosecutor would indeed have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the semen was obtained from the person of the victim against his will. But that's a matter of evidence for a court to examine. If the man finds out, perhaps because she brags to him about having sabotaged the condom, that she has stolen his semen, he has full legal authority to arrest her and bring her before a court, or turn her over to the police and swear out a complaint. Police can also obtain a warrant for her arrest after the fact, like at a court hearing at which the father is being dunned for child support and the woman admits that she sabotaged the condom.
In any case, the thing about his expressed desire that his semen not be used for procreation without his permission. Don't add facts that aren't there. Nothing in the article said that the men EXPRESSED that desire. They may have HAD that desire, and it may have been "implicit" in the use of a condom, but that's not EXPRESS - express means verbal or written. And, just because someone implies that they have a certain desire doesn't mean everyone else has to respect that desire. Did she agree that she wouldn't use the sperm? If she made no agreement, then there's no agreement.
I say that the use of a condom is a very clear expression of the desire that his semen not be used to create a child.
Civil fraud requires a material misrepresentation of fact on her part. She has to actually make a representation - that requires her to say something. She can't be held to have committed fraud unless she told him something that was false.
Sabotaging a condom is a material misrepresentation on her part. She provides the condom with the representation that it's to be used to prevent insemination, but she has deliberately sabotaged it. That's fraud. And theft.
Seth wrote:
Don't get me wrong - I agree with you that she's a reprehensible figure - a waste of life, based on the article. But, I don't think what she's doing can be fairly characterized as criminal fraud, or even civil fraud.
Yeah, I couldn't sustain that claim, though I still haven't searched the Restatement of Torts. But the theft argument would apply, I believe:
Civil fraud absolutely, positively does not apply. You'd lose that lawsuit every time, and it wouldn't even get to trial. You have to plead fraud with particularity, including stating what the misrepresentation was, when it was made, who made it, how you relied on it, and what damages were proximately caused by your reliance on the false representation. Unless she said something, you don't have a false representation. End of civil lfraud claim.
She invites the man to have sex with her. She provides a condom with either the implicit or explicit representation that it's to be used to contain semen, thereby preventing pregnancy. She fails to inform the man that she has deliberately sabotaged the condom so that it will not contain semen. That's absolutely fraudulent misrepresentation and I don't see how you can claim otherwise.
Theft - larceny - is slightly better, but it is also a non-starter, because the man himself intends to divest himself of possession of the semen. Plus, while semen might be valuable if saved properly and stored, which is why sperm banks pay for it - just shooting it off in to a rubber to die renders the sperm essentially valueless.
Doesn't matter what his intentions for the sperm are, so long as they DO NOT include her use of it without his permission for insemination. If I own a cow, and you steal it, it doesn't matter if I intend to kill it and leave it for the buzzards in the future. The man intends his semen to be contained within the condom and therefore in HIS possession. It's his property which she steals by fraud and misrepresentation. That's the first element of theft. As for value, the only thing the law considers is the fair market value of the object at the time the theft was committed. And since sperm does have monetary value, that element of the offense is met.
What you appear to really be claiming is that your semen was put to an unpermitted use. That's at best a civil claim.
I think it's that too, but the actions of the woman in the case cited constitute a criminal offense. Proving it may be difficult, but that's beside the point.

Colorado Revised Statutes, 18-4-401. Theft.

(1) A person commits theft when he knowingly obtains or exercises control over anything of value of another without authorization, or by threat or deception, and:

(a) Intends to deprive the other person permanently of the use or benefit of the thing of value; or
This is the problem element, as noted above, since the man is already voluntarily divesting himself of the benefit or use of the semen. He's shooting it out into the condom and having no further use or benefit of the thing of value -- which arguably doesn't even have a value anymore.
Semen survives for several hours or even days in a condom, and he could take that condom full of semen and sell it to someone, including the defendant in this case.

Seth wrote: She's attempting to make some poor sod legally liable for a child by using fraud and deceit.
According to the article, she's not attempting to make him legally liable. She's attempting secure a baby and have nothing else to do with the guy.
Seth wrote: Problem is, she doesn't get to make that decision, the law does. Her ignorance of the law does not excuse her fraudulent actions.
From the standpoint of the criminal law, it's HER mens rea that counts.
Right. And her mens rea is quite clearly to obtain semen without consent from a man using fraud and deceit BECAUSE she does not wish to pay the costs associated with obtaining semen from a licensed sperm donor clinic. She's a thief, plain and simple. Were I presented with these facts as a police officer, I wouldn't hesitate to arrest her because probable cause exists. Were I a prosecutor, I would not hesitate to try such a case because of a substantial likelihood that a conviction can be obtained. Her conduct, if proven, meets all of the elements of the offense of felony theft of a thing of value from the person of the victim. I believe I've cited sufficient statutory authority and precedent to prove this.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests