A secular debate about abortion

[maiforpeace]

OK, now I'm pissed off. You are putting all responsibility on women, if there are errors or breaches of precautions they are her fault, she should suffer the consequences alone.
I may have to leave this for a bit. I'm losing perspective.

Read this then...it should change your anger to amusement.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 40#p790201

[Gallstones]

OK, now I'm pissed off. You are putting all responsibility on women, if there are errors or breaches of precautions they are her fault, she should suffer the consequences alone.
I may have to leave this for a bit. I'm losing perspective.

Read this then...it should change your anger to amusement.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 40#p790201

It's OK. I'm not angry at or with Seth.
His argument is triggering an emotional reaction in me. I am responsible for that.
After I chill, I'll come back and give him hell.

[maiforpeace]

That's why I wrote what I did Gallstones...it's hard to be angry at someone who writes what I linked to.

[Hermit]

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

Time for another singalong then? OK. 1,2,3

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

[surreptitious57]

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

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

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

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

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

Two -if you do not wish to father a child, then why not accept responsibility and take precaution ? The defence you previously offered - regarding prophylactics - is not acceptable. Sex doesn't automatically have to involve penetration. If however you are that desperate for it, then you should have zero problem in wearing one. It really is that simple. It does seem rather bizarre that a man who has no intention of accepting personal responsibility should be far more concerned about the sensitivity of his penis than anything else - hence his insistence on not wearing a rubber. Amazing, truly amazing ! Are you seriously suggesting that you are prepared to be lumbered with eighteen years of responsibility merely to have a better orgasm ? Furthermore, are you prepared to run the risk of contracting a variety of sexually transmitted diseases too ? Either take responsibility or don't have unprotected sex. End of.

[surreptitious57]

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

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

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

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

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

Two -if you do not wish to father a child, then why not accept responsibility and take precaution ? The defence you previously offered - regarding prophylactics - is not acceptable. Sex doesn't automatically have to involve penetration. If however you are that desperate for it, then you should have zero problem in wearing one. It really is that simple. It does seem rather bizarre that a man who has no intention of accepting personal responsibility should be far more concerned about the sensitivity of his penis than anything else - hence his insistence on not wearing a rubber. Amazing, truly amazing ! Are you seriously suggesting that you are prepared to be lumbered with eighteen years of responsibility merely to have a better orgasm ? Furthermore, are you prepared to run the risk of contracting a variety of sexually transmitted diseases too ? Either take responsibility or don't have unprotected sex. End of.

[surreptitious57]

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

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

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

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

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

Two -if you do not wish to father a child, then why not accept responsibility and take precaution ? The defence you previously offered - regarding prophylactics - is not acceptable. Sex doesn't automatically have to involve penetration. If however you are that desperate for it, then you should have zero problem in wearing one. It really is that simple. It does seem rather bizarre that a man who has no intention of accepting personal responsibility should be far more concerned about the sensitivity of his penis than anything else - hence his insistence on not wearing a rubber. Amazing, truly amazing ! Are you seriously suggesting that you are prepared to be lumbered with eighteen years of responsibility merely to have a better orgasm ? Furthermore, are you prepared to run the risk of contracting a variety of sexually transmitted diseases too ? Either take responsibility or don't have unprotected sex. End of.

[Coito ergo sum]

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

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

Of course she can "legally condition" the giving of a gift. If you offer to give me your car, and I agree to take it only if you pay the registration and insurance on it, then that's a legal condition.

However, the reason the man should be responsible is because the born child is a product of his genetics and the people that ought to be responsible for it are the parents - mother and father - absent extenuating circumstances. It's certainly not MY responsibility as a taxpayer - I, for one, certainly had no say in the matter - and the child, once born, can't be allowed to starve. So, if there are two parents available to take care of it, then they fucking damn well ought to. It's not the rest of our problem, and shouldn't be. So, as long as there is no dispute, and nobody is coming after the taxpayer's money (my money) to foot the bill, then there is no issue - the parents can divvy up the expenses as they see fit. But, when one parent seeks support from the State, then the question will be asked - "where is the other parent?" And, that other parent will be made to foot bill first, before the taxpayers (me and you included) have to kick in. Since I wasn't given any say, then YES, by all means, the father "should" pay support before the taxpayers pay.

The actual reason why the man is responsible is because the law says he is responsible.

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

That's a nice analogy, but it's not what we're talking about. A car is not a baby, and it's not negligence or carelessness to have a baby.

[

Why should a gift of sperm into a woman's vagina be treated any differently?

Because it's materially different.

[

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

Well, under the theory that a born child has the right to be supported by its parents, and that as between the parents and third parties, the parents ought to pay for the child.

Also, there is another equity involved. It's the fact that the law not only provides an obligation to the father to support after a child is born. The father also has equitable rights. If you give that gift of sperm to a woman, and then she has the baby, under your theory, if you want no liability for support, then you would have no right to sue for paternity - ever. After all, you gave an unconditional gift and she could do whatever she wanted with it - make a baby with it, whatever. So, if your hands are washed of the situation at the time of ejaculation, then you can't re-raise the issue at birth and claim that while you gave an unconditional gift when you came, you now want to be a father.

So, the equitable compromise is that fathers have the obligation to support, but the mother also has no right to deprive the father of those rights, and the courts will vindicate the father's parental rights. They will not inquire whether the sperm was unconditionally given or whether the father said - "I'll come inside you, but if you make a baby with my sperm, I need to be the father..."

Your rule would mean that the mere fact that men and women don't hash out support and custody arrangments prior to fucking, then fathers have no parental rights other than what mothers grant them voluntarily after birth. Is that what men want? Sure, if you don't want the baby, you want to wash your hands of it - but, most men want to be fathers to their children. If you don't pay your share of the support, though, you can't expect to have time sharing or visitation, or share in parental responsibilities, can you? How is that equitable?

[Gallstones]

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

Yes, and not to be considered lightly or taken for granted.

I misspoke here and have since changed my mind....in a just and equitable world one very much would be able to take their individual sovereignty for granted, it would be a given.

[Gallstones]

Ah, I see we have triplets.
Are they identical?

[Seth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gallstones]

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

[Seth]

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

Misogyny can be fun!

[Gallstones]

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

Misogyny can be fun!

Misandry too.

[Seth]

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

Misogyny can be fun!

Misandry too.

Even misanthropy can be a lark!!