A secular debate about abortion

[Coito ergo sum]

Then that's why your proposal sucks, IMHO.

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

Hey, you're the one who wanted to talk about the way things "should" be. I'm not the one calling childbirth a "problem." That's your baggage. I WANT to care for my born children. I consider it an honor, not a problem.

Your proposed state of affairs is, in my view, silly. I creates a situation where:

1. Men and women are required to enter custody, visitation and support negotiations prior to having sex, for a child that likely will never even be conceived.
2. If men and women behave naturally and don't enter into legal negotiations and enter binding contracts before fucking, then you want the guy to have zero responsibility for any born children resulting from it, and you want the woman to have 100% authority and rights regarding that born child, to exclude or include the father at her pleasure.
3. It does not reasonably include the interests of born children in the analysis, and born children did not get to participate in any negotiations and had no choice in being born.

Your view is certainly something that could be legislated. I would vote against it, because I think it's stupid.

[Coito ergo sum]

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

I love how you use legal terms you obviously have no understanding of, and don't even use properly.

Equitable estoppel doesn't have anything to do with firm standards and time limits. Equitable estoppel is when your voluntary conduct stops you from denying that a state of affairs exists. Like in Lambertini v. Lambertini, 655 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1995). In the late 1950s, Olga, who was married to another man, and Frank Lambertini met and began living together in Argentina. Olga and Frank hired an attorney in Buenos Aires, who purported to Divorce Olga from her first husband and marry her to Frank pursuant to Mexican law. The Lambertinis began what they thought was a married life together, and soon produced two children. In 1968, they moved to the United States and became Florida residents.

In 1992, Olga sought a divorce from Frank. She petitioned the Florida court for sole possession of the marital home and temporary Alimony, which the court granted. Frank sought a rehearing, arguing that the Mexican marriage was not a valid legal marriage and was therefore void. Though Frank won with this argument in the trial court, the appellate court reversed, holding that Frank was equitably estopped from arguing that the Mexican marriage was invalid. According to the appellate court, Frank and Olga had held themselves out as a married couple for more than 30 years, lived together, raised two children, and owned property jointly. Both Frank and Olga apparently believed all along that the Mexican marriage was legal, and it was only when Olga filed for divorce that Frank discovered and chose to rely on its invalidity. The appellate court granted Olga her divorce, the house, and the temporary alimony. Frank's acquiescence for three decades—holding himself out as being married to Olga—prevented him from denying the marriage's existence.

That's equitable estoppel.

[Coito ergo sum]

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

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

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

Dude, a philosophical debate can be honest or dishonest. Dodging issues doesn't get us anywhere. When you have asked me direct questions, I've given you direct answers. I expect the same courtesy in return, or I will not continue.

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

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

That's why I don't want your state affairs to come to pass.

[

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, your allegations is that almost everyone in the world who has ever had sex is an ignorant twit, since they never almost never engage in such negotiations. Moreover, even rarer would be a written pre-sex agreement.

Except for you, of course, because when you are about to have sex, you negotiate potential custody, support and visitation rights of a baby to be born later, maybe. As such, by bringing finances and legal negotiations into the mix, women look at you like you have three heads and run screaming into the night.

The reason why a father should have parental rights over his born children is because (1) he is the father, (2) the child has a right to support from its parents, and (3) millenia of America, English and Anglo-Saxon law that states that parental rights are fundamental rights of man, and common law rights. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Common Law stated that the common law imposed a duty on parents to provide for the maintenance, protection, and education of their children, and of these, the duty to provide an education was “of far the greatest importance.” Blackstone defined the relationship between parent and child as the “most universal relation in nature,” and stated that the duties of parents to their children consisted of three particulars: their maintenance, their protection, and their education. Blackstone stated, “The last duty of parents to their children is that of giving them an education suitable to their station in life: a duty pointed
out by reason, and of far the greatest importance of any. For, as Puffendorf very well observes, it is not easy to imagine or allow, that a parent has conferred any considerable benefit upon his child by bringing him into the world; if he afterwards entirely neglects his culture and education, and suffers him to grow up like a mere beast, to lead a life useless to others, and shameful to himself.”

The common law duties of maintenance, protection and education were recognized for hundreds of years under English common law and Anglo Saxon common law, and all American states recognized that common law also.

Your argument is that Blackstone and everyone expounding or adhering to the common law are twits, and you think the law should be changed to make fathers not responsible for their born children unless prior to ejaculation a contract is consummated wherein he voluntarily accepts those duties. Other than that, the child can look only to the mother for support, maintenance, protection and education - essentially born children have no fathers other than those fathers who made prior commitments to be fathers. The interests of the born child in having a father, in your view, ought to be entirely discarded, and the child is just "fucked" because the woman was too much of a "twit" to present the man with an Antecoitus Agreement that he was willing to agree to. And, if the guy wanted to be a good father to a born child of his, but didn't get an Antecoitus Agreement that says he could be a father to his children, then the child is still fucked out of a father, unless the woman voluntarily allows the father to participate, and only to the extent that she allows.

Great world you envision, Seth. Sounds like a really horror-show to me, like a twisted society - like the Vogon society in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - people wanting to have sex would complete proper forms in triplicate and have them notarized. Maybe the pre-coital agreement for each sex session would need to be witnessed and notarized. The agreement should set forth precisely which sex acts are allowed, too - that way, it would be set forth in advance whether oral and anal would be involved and whether facial cumshots are permitted - fucking or sucking outside the bounds of the written agreement would be, ipso facto, non-consensual and therefore all rape would be abundantly clear. LOL.

[

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

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

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

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

Answer the question, will you?

I just did.

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

One disclaims liability if the woman seeks to impose liability without one's prior consent. On the other hand, if he does not ACCEPT responsibility for the potentiality of his gift, ahead of time, expressly and preferably in writing, stating that he is asserting parental rights should a child be created, then he's fucked,

And, so is the child - but, who cares? The child never matters in your analysis. Fuck 'em.

because the woman is not compelled to recognize a parental right as a part of any condition upon which the semen was gifted. You snooze, you lose. Estopple.

First of all - its "estoppel," not "estopple." And, you need to stop using words like that without knowing what they mean.

Failure to negotiate the conditions of the gift ahead of time estops the man from asserting parental rights against the woman's consent later.

Clarification - no, it doesn't. You'd LIKE it to do that. You think it SHOULD be like that. But, it's abundantly clear from hundreds of years of case law and under statutes in every American state, that ejaculated semen is not legally a gift, and failure to negotiate ahead of time does not estop him from asserting parental rights. Quite the opposite.

At the same time, if the woman does not condition the giving of the gift ahead of time by gaining consent to parental liability in advance, preferably in writing, then she's well and truly fucked, and the man can disclaim any later assertion of liability. That's full equality and good contract law.

Again, that's what you think "should" be the case. There is no support for your position in Anglo-American jurisprudence, statutory law, or in the common law fro the last 1,000 years that in any way remotely supports your position as being anything other than ridiculous.

Also, you don't take into account the rights of the born child, and in fact you totally discount them. The child had no chance to negotiate any gift or contract, but is born. The child has a right to both parents, generally speaking (with exceptions for sperm banks, etc.). To allow children to be born in a state of "fucked" and without any right to maintenance, support, protection and education from their parents is contrary to modern law, and contrary to the common law for the last 1,000 years - and the logical basis for the common law obligations of fathers, and the rights of children to maintenance, support, protection and eduction, is founded upon natural rights, the rights of man, and logical and practical necessities of society and family units.

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

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

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

Sure - and smart women would offer the pussy, but decline to agree to anything in advance. If she gets pregnant and the guy wants to fulfill his role as a father, she can just drive a hard bargain, and rake him over the coals for $1,000,000 if she wants. She can demand that she be paid any amount she chooses. She could demand that he kneel before her and kiss her feet every time he sees her, in exchange for visitation. Either the man would comply, or the child is "fucked" out of a father. That's what your preferred state of affairs would allow.

My preferred state of affairs would have reasonable child support set via rational guidelines taking into account the relative incomes of the parties. The law would set the guidelines for the rights and obligations of the parties as it does in many other areas.

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

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

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

That doesn't necessarily require the conclusion that fathers aren't responsible for and don't have rights to their born children, or that those born children do not have rights to maintenance, support, protection and education from their parents. Sure, both parents have rights and responsibilities for their own bodies. But, a child is not their own bodies. Once born, the child is wholly separate.

[Coito ergo sum]

Let's examine your proposed state of affairs where contracts between sex partners governs the rights of born children to support, maintenance, protection and education.

Can the guy just say while fucking "Oh baby! This feels so good, " Thrust thrust thrust ..."When I come, I'm giving you my sperm on the condition that I only pay $1 a year in child support, and I get full parental rights and sole custody, and on the condition that you won't abort a resulting fetus!" And, then after 10 more minutes of sex he ejaculates and she becomes pregnant. Must she adhere to this? Is this a contract? Or, does she have to say "yes," to it? Assume we have video/audio of it, and his statement indisputable.

[camoguard]

So nobody is going to challenge me eh?

Cowards.

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



Yay me!

It's hard to argue with a correct statement. Also, I don't like arguing with women because I'm tired of losing to rational views.

[Gallstones]

I'm feeling provocative this morning.

Sperm are invaders.
A fetus is a parasite as is a newborn because it feeds off the mother.

If it weren't for the hormones forcing us to be agreeable to letting sperm in and fetuses live--none of us would have been born. None of this does the supplier of the invaders have to personally endure. Ergo your minuscule contribution of insemination does not rise to the level of commitment that the woman assumes, so you don't get to have anymore input on what she can or can not do than that warrants.

In the days before contraception, and abortion, and women's rights, women still rid themselves of this burden when the hormones could be overcome or weren't doing their job. We call it infanticide, and since forensics wasn't nearly as sophisticated as it is now, no one knew that some crib deaths were infanticide.

[Gallstones]

So nobody is going to challenge me eh?

Cowards.

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



Yay me!

It's hard to argue with a correct statement. Also, I don't like arguing with women because I'm tired of losing to rational views.

I posted that shortly after I got home last night. I had been out doing the St Patrick's thing and was feeling rather fiesty.

[Seth]

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

I love how you use legal terms you obviously have no understanding of, and don't even use properly.

I love how you don't actually think about what I write before showing off your legal acumen, to your detriment.

Equitable estoppel doesn't have anything to do with firm standards and time limits. Equitable estoppel is when your voluntary conduct stops you from denying that a state of affairs exists.
That's equitable estoppel.

Actually, in this case, equitable estopple is about inducing a person to act based on a promise, and then violating that promise. Here's a hypothetical example:

"Your Honor, I didn't even know the girl was pregnant. I haven't seen or heard from her in seventeen years. When we had sex, I wore a condom and told her I didn't want to have kids, and she said she didn't either, and she promised that she was on the pill, and that she would have an abortion even if she did get pregnant. Evidently she changed her mind after I left and had a baby. How was I to know this? I trusted her. We had sex once, seventeen years ago, and we both agreed and did everything possible to avoid her getting pregnant. It was a one-night-stand that she initiated... she begged me to make love to her, and now she's asking for seventeen years worth of back child support, and more. That's just not fair. How can she get away with denying our agreement now?"

"I agree Mr. Smith. Ms. Jones, you are estopped from making a claim from child support because of your voluntary actions and your promise to have an abortion, which you reneged on, to Mr. Smith's detriment."

This is a case of promissory estopple, a form of equitable estopple.

All reliance-based estoppels require the victimised party to show both inducement and detrimental reliance, i.e.:

* there must be evidence to show that the representor actually intended the victim to act on the representation or promise, or
* the victim must satisfy the court that it was reasonable for him or her to act on the relevant representation or promise, and
* what the victim did must either have been reasonable, or
* the victim did what the representor intended, and
* the victim would suffer a loss or detriment if the representor was allowed to deny what was said or done — detriment is measured at the time when the representor proposes to deny the representation or withdraw the promise, not at the time when either was made, and
* in all the circumstances, the behavior of the representor is such that it would be "unconscionable" to allow him or her to resile.

Simply put, promissory estoppel has four necessary elements which the plaintiff must prove:

* there was a promise
* that was reasonably relied upon
* resulting legal detriment to the promisee
* justice requires enforcement of the promise
Source: Wikipedia: estopple

Your suggestion sets a time limit for making a claim for support and disallows either party from changing their minds at a later date, as in the hypothetical case above, and therefore is "compatible with the concept of equitable estopple."

[Seth]

Then that's why your proposal sucks, IMHO.

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

Hey, you're the one who wanted to talk about the way things "should" be. I'm not the one calling childbirth a "problem." That's your baggage. I WANT to care for my born children. I consider it an honor, not a problem.

What if you're an abusive dickwad who beats up his girlfriends and children, and you knocked up some poor girl before she figured out what a dick you really are and wants nothing to do with you?

Your proposed state of affairs is, in my view, silly. I creates a situation where:

1. Men and women are required to enter custody, visitation and support negotiations prior to having sex, for a child that likely will never even be conceived.

And that's a bad thing because...??

2. If men and women behave naturally and don't enter into legal negotiations and enter binding contracts before fucking, then you want the guy to have zero responsibility for any born children resulting from it, and you want the woman to have 100% authority and rights regarding that born child, to exclude or include the father at her pleasure.

Yup, as an inducement to both responsible sexual behavior and an expression of fundamental fairness. That's good social policy. Or, alternatively, the woman surrenders sovereignty of her womb through the act of voluntary sex and a duty of gestation is imposed upon her to deliver the child to the father, rather than to simply kill the child with an abortion. That's another avenue to fairness that supports your right to be a father.

3. It does not reasonably include the interests of born children in the analysis, and born children did not get to participate in any negotiations and had no choice in being born.

Like I said, the rights of the child are an entirely different debate, and I'm avoiding it here so as not to muddy the waters in a debate about male/female sexual politics and abstract philosophical ethical and moral debate.

[Seth]

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

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

Yes, your allegations is that almost everyone in the world who has ever had sex is an ignorant twit, since they never almost never engage in such negotiations. Moreover, even rarer would be a written pre-sex agreement.

Used to be that women INSISTED on the contract, and so did the woman's parents, before the man was allowed to dip his wick. Traditionally, women who engaged in promiscuous sex without getting married first were known as "whores." I favor a return to that more civilized atmosphere where sex is not an end, but merely a means to an end, as nature intends.

Except for you, of course, because when you are about to have sex, you negotiate potential custody, support and visitation rights of a baby to be born later, maybe. As such, by bringing finances and legal negotiations into the mix, women look at you like you have three heads and run screaming into the night.

I'm not driven to act without thinking by my cock, as far too many men are today. I'm a mature, responsible adult who is capable of controlling his sexual urges and who considers the consequences of having sex very carefully and makes such decisions before going out on the prowl for pussy. I respect women, and their bodies, and their rights, and I choose, as an ethical and moral person, not to use their bodies for my own selfish pleasure without due consideration and respect for their needs and desires, and their rights and mine. In other words, I'm very selective about where I put my cock, and I do, in fact, always keep in mind the consequences of having sex, one of which is that if I have sex with a fertile female and she becomes pregnant, my life changes and I am duty-bound to accept responsibility for my actions and support the woman and child, no matter what. As a result, I don't have promiscuous sex with women I don't want to spend the next 19 years with raising a child.

The reason why a father should have parental rights over his born children is because (1) he is the father,

He's a sperm-giver, nothing more. Fatherhood is something far more complex than ejaculation I'm afraid, and not every man is prepared to be, or should be allowed to be a father.

(2) the child has a right to support from its parents, and (3) millenia of America, English and Anglo-Saxon law that states that parental rights are fundamental rights of man, and common law rights.

Yeah, well, the common law can be repealed by a single signature on a Bill.

Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Common Law stated that the common law imposed a duty on parents to provide for the maintenance, protection, and education of their children, and of these, the duty to provide an education was “of far the greatest importance.” Blackstone defined the relationship between parent and child as the “most universal relation in nature,” and stated that the duties of parents to their children consisted of three particulars: their maintenance, their protection, and their education. Blackstone stated, “The last duty of parents to their children is that of giving them an education suitable to their station in life: a duty pointed
out by reason, and of far the greatest importance of any. For, as Puffendorf very well observes, it is not easy to imagine or allow, that a parent has conferred any considerable benefit upon his child by bringing him into the world; if he afterwards entirely neglects his culture and education, and suffers him to grow up like a mere beast, to lead a life useless to others, and shameful to himself.”

The common law duties of maintenance, protection and education were recognized for hundreds of years under English common law and Anglo Saxon common law, and all American states recognized that common law also.

Blackstone's not wrong, but the rights of the child are not what's being discussed right now.

Your argument is that Blackstone and everyone expounding or adhering to the common law are twits, and you think the law should be changed to make fathers not responsible for their born children unless prior to ejaculation a contract is consummated wherein he voluntarily accepts those duties. Other than that, the child can look only to the mother for support, maintenance, protection and education - essentially born children have no fathers other than those fathers who made prior commitments to be fathers. The interests of the born child in having a father, in your view, ought to be entirely discarded, and the child is just "fucked" because the woman was too much of a "twit" to present the man with an Antecoitus Agreement that he was willing to agree to. And, if the guy wanted to be a good father to a born child of his, but didn't get an Antecoitus Agreement that says he could be a father to his children, then the child is still fucked out of a father, unless the woman voluntarily allows the father to participate, and only to the extent that she allows.

Great world you envision, Seth. Sounds like a really horror-show to me, like a twisted society - like the Vogon society in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - people wanting to have sex would complete proper forms in triplicate and have them notarized. Maybe the pre-coital agreement for each sex session would need to be witnessed and notarized.

The Vogons have a point... Society runs better when people think before they act, and when they make promises and then keep them.

The agreement should set forth precisely which sex acts are allowed, too - that way, it would be set forth in advance whether oral and anal would be involved and whether facial cumshots are permitted - fucking or sucking outside the bounds of the written agreement would be, ipso facto, non-consensual and therefore all rape would be abundantly clear. LOL.

Hey, if it's good enough for Katie Morgan, it's good enough for you.

because the woman is not compelled to recognize a parental right as a part of any condition upon which the semen was gifted. You snooze, you lose. Estopple.

First of all - its "estoppel," not "estopple." And, you need to stop using words like that without knowing what they mean.

Spelling Nazi.

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

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

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

Sure - and smart women would offer the pussy, but decline to agree to anything in advance.

And a smart man would say, "Thanks for the offer honey, but your pot ain't worth it without a no-kid contract, so I'll just go wank instead."

If she gets pregnant and the guy wants to fulfill his role as a father, she can just drive a hard bargain, and rake him over the coals for $1,000,000 if she wants. She can demand that she be paid any amount she chooses. She could demand that he kneel before her and kiss her feet every time he sees her, in exchange for visitation. Either the man would comply, or the child is "fucked" out of a father. That's what your preferred state of affairs would allow.

That's why contracts are good things. They resolve such ambiguities in advance.

My preferred state of affairs would have reasonable child support set via rational guidelines taking into account the relative incomes of the parties. The law would set the guidelines for the rights and obligations of the parties as it does in many other areas.

No problem, so long as the contract for child-bearing precedes the child support agreement.

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

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

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

That doesn't necessarily require the conclusion that fathers aren't responsible for and don't have rights to their born children, or that those born children do not have rights to maintenance, support, protection and education from their parents. Sure, both parents have rights and responsibilities for their own bodies. But, a child is not their own bodies. Once born, the child is wholly separate.

Which, as I've said, is an entirely different debate.

[Coito ergo sum]

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

I love how you use legal terms you obviously have no understanding of, and don't even use properly.

I love how you don't actually think about what I write before showing off your legal acumen, to your detriment.

I do think about what you write. It's just so off base sometimes that it makes little sense, and when you use words improperly we first have fish through your own particularized definitions and meanings to come to some agreement on meaning.

Equitable estoppel doesn't have anything to do with firm standards and time limits. Equitable estoppel is when your voluntary conduct stops you from denying that a state of affairs exists.
That's equitable estoppel.

Actually, in this case, equitable estopple is about inducing a person to act based on a promise, and then violating that promise.

That's not equitable estoppel (estoppel, not "estopple"). That's "promissory estoppel," and it's a different legal concept entirely than "equitable estoppel." Promissory estoppel is the concept where person A makes a promise to person B that is not contractual in nature. If there is a contract, there can not be promissory estoppel, ever. Promissory estoppel is an alternative claim to contract. So, you have to choose one or the other - you can't have both a contract and a promissory estoppel claim. If person A promises to person B to do something or give them something, and person B materially changes their position in JUSTIFIABLE reliance on that promise, and that change in position is to person B's detriment, then person B may sue person A for any money damages suffered as a result.

Here's a hypothetical example

"Your Honor, I didn't even know the girl was pregnant. I haven't seen or heard from her in seventeen years. When we had sex, I wore a condom and told her I didn't want to have kids, and she said she didn't either, and she promised that she was on the pill,

That is not a promise that can support a claim for promissory estoppel. The promise in promissory estoppel must be for future action, not present or past state of affairs. If a person says, "I promise I am on the pill," then that is a "representation," not a "promise of future performance." As such it could support a claim of "fraud" but not "promissory estoppel." Fraud claims require a false representation of material fact, on which the complaining party justifiably relied to their detriment, and based on which they suffered injury and damages.

and that she would have an abortion even if she did get pregnant.

That's promise of future performance. So, is it JUSTIFIABLE reliance on the part of a man that if a woman says that if she gets pregnant she will absolutely have an abortion? I don't think so. I doubt any court would so hold. He also arguably hasn't changed his position to his detriment based on that promise. He would have to prove that he wouldn't have had sex with her anyway, or that he only had sex with her because of that promise.

Evidently she changed her mind after I left and had a baby. How was I to know this? I trusted her. We had sex once, seventeen years ago, and we both agreed and did everything possible to avoid her getting pregnant. It was a one-night-stand that she initiated... she begged me to make love to her, and now she's asking for seventeen years worth of back child support, and more. That's just not fair. How can she get away with denying our agreement now?"

You haven't alleged an agreement. You've alleged promissory estoppel. You can't have both. If you're are alleging an agreement then you have to have OFFER, ACCEPTANCE, REASONABLY CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS TERMS, and CONSIDERATION flowing both to you and from you, and a manifestation of mutual assent. And, that consideration can't be sex. Contracts for sex have been held unenforceable as against public policy for hundreds of years, in American law and English common law on which it is based.

A promise on which you rely is NOT an agreement.

Moreover, there are inevitable problems of proof. You didn't say whether she would admit that she made the representation about being on the pill, and yo udidnt' say whether she would admit to the promise of having the abortion.

As for the argument about fairness, the response would invariably be that the support money is not for the mother, but for the child. The child is yours, so it's your obligation to support, protect, maintain and educate it, as it has been for 1,000 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence.

"I agree Mr. Smith. Ms. Jones, you are estopped from making a claim from child support because of your voluntary actions and your promise to have an abortion, which you reneged on, to Mr. Smith's detriment."

This is a case of promissory estopple, a form of equitable estopple.

Ah, so you agree on the equitable estoppel vs. promissory estoppel. They are, however, two different concepts. Moreover, you're assuming that the court will take your word for it. If she's suing you for paternity, you can bet dollars to donuts that she will not be admitting any of your defenses. Bank on it. And unless you have video/audio, she'll say you begged to fuck her, and that in doing so you pledged your love to her and pledged to be the father of any children that arise out of it, but reneged like a dog once you got your rocks off. Bet on it.

All reliance-based estoppels require the victimised party to show both inducement and detrimental reliance, i.e.:

* there must be evidence to show that the representor actually intended the victim to act on the representation or promise, or

Correct, and as I pointed out above, you don't have that evidence. She won't admit it, and you don't have personal knowledge of her intent.

* the victim must satisfy the court that it was reasonable for him or her to act on the relevant representation or promise, and

I don't think it would be reasonable to act on a promise by a woman to have an abortion if she got pregnant. I doubt most people would. I doubt any judge or jury would. I think they'd think your reliance on such a promise was decidedly unreasonable. But, you can make that argument in court, and it's an issue of fact for the finder of fact.

* what the victim did must either have been reasonable, or
* the victim did what the representor intended, and
* the victim would suffer a loss or detriment if the representor was allowed to deny what was said or done — detriment is measured at the time when the representor proposes to deny the representation or withdraw the promise, not at the time when either was made, and
* in all the circumstances, the behavior of the representor is such that it would be "unconscionable" to allow him or her to resile.

I doubt any fact finder in court would find the woman's action in promising to have an abortion and then not having one to be "unconscionable." All she'd have to say is that she changed her mind, and it's her right to have an abortion or not. She didn't sell her body to you.

Simply put, promissory estoppel has four necessary elements which the plaintiff must prove:

* there was a promise
* that was reasonably relied upon
* resulting legal detriment to the promisee
* justice requires enforcement of the promise
Source: Wikipedia: estopple

Your suggestion sets a time limit for making a claim for support and disallows either party from changing their minds at a later date, as in the hypothetical case above, and therefore is "compatible with the concept of equitable estopple."

It doesn't set a time limit. You've not said how long that time limit is.

I'd never want to argue your proposed case in court. I'd take the other side in heartbeat, and move for summary judgment. I'd bet I'd win.

[Coito ergo sum]

Then that's why your proposal sucks, IMHO.

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

Hey, you're the one who wanted to talk about the way things "should" be. I'm not the one calling childbirth a "problem." That's your baggage. I WANT to care for my born children. I consider it an honor, not a problem.

What if you're an abusive dickwad who beats up his girlfriends and children, and you knocked up some poor girl before she figured out what a dick you really are and wants nothing to do with you?

Then she'll make that argument to the court to deny me parenting rights and at least to only allow me supervised visitation on a limited basis, and she should file a criminal complaint against me for assault and other charges.

Your proposed state of affairs is, in my view, silly. I creates a situation where:

1. Men and women are required to enter custody, visitation and support negotiations prior to having sex, for a child that likely will never even be conceived.

And that's a bad thing because...??

I explained why it's a bad thing. It's just not human. Sex is a complex interpersonal relationship involving feelings and drives - people do not "negotiate" for sex like it's a used car.

2. If men and women behave naturally and don't enter into legal negotiations and enter binding contracts before fucking, then you want the guy to have zero responsibility for any born children resulting from it, and you want the woman to have 100% authority and rights regarding that born child, to exclude or include the father at her pleasure.

Yup, as an inducement to both responsible sexual behavior and an expression of fundamental fairness. That's good social policy. Or, alternatively, the woman surrenders sovereignty of her womb through the act of voluntary sex and a duty of gestation is imposed upon her to deliver the child to the father, rather than to simply kill the child with an abortion. That's another avenue to fairness that supports your right to be a father.

Well, then we're about done here - because all we can do is say to each other that we each think a different state of affairs would be preferable. I think your proposed world is a nightmare world. I don't agree that your proposal is good social policy, because it does not reflect the reality of human nature and human social interaction.

My preferred state of affairs is far fairer than yours, IMHO. But, since that's just subjective opinion, you are free to opine otherwise.

3. It does not reasonably include the interests of born children in the analysis, and born children did not get to participate in any negotiations and had no choice in being born.

Like I said, the rights of the child are an entirely different debate, and I'm avoiding it here so as not to muddy the waters in a debate about male/female sexual politics and abstract philosophical ethical and moral debate.

They are part and parcel of this debate because you are stripping them of their right to support, maintenance, protection and education from one of the parents.

You're avoiding it here because it makes your argument look cruel and unfair.

Philosophical debates are not worthwhile unless they are applied to actual states of affairs. If you are merely arguing in the abstract, and not in the real world, then we can only say that if a world ever existed that matched your abstract world, then your argument might hold water. Since the world is nothing like your abstraction, then it's just a hypothetical.

[Gallstones]

WOMEN WHO KNOW THEIR PLACE

"Barbara Walters did a story on gender roles in Kabul,
Afghanistan, several years before our involvement in the Afghan conflict.

She noted that women customarily walked five paces behind their husbands.

She recently returned to Kabul, and observed that women still
walk behind their husbands. Despite the overthrow of the oppressive Taliban regime, the women now seem to, and are happy to, maintain the old custom.

Ms. Walters approached one of the Afghani women and asked, "Why do you now seem happy with an old custom that you once tried so desperately to change?"

The woman looked Ms. Walters straight in the eyes, and without
hesitation said, "Land Mines."

No matter what language you speak or where you go,"

Moral of this story is
BEHIND EVERY MAN, THERE'S A REALLY SMART WOMAN

[Seth]

WOMEN WHO KNOW THEIR PLACE

"Barbara Walters did a story on gender roles in Kabul,
Afghanistan, several years before our involvement in the Afghan conflict.

She noted that women customarily walked five paces behind their husbands.

She recently returned to Kabul, and observed that women still
walk behind their husbands. Despite the overthrow of the oppressive Taliban regime, the women now seem to, and are happy to, maintain the old custom.

Ms. Walters approached one of the Afghani women and asked, "Why do you now seem happy with an old custom that you once tried so desperately to change?"

The woman looked Ms. Walters straight in the eyes, and without
hesitation said, "Land Mines."

No matter what language you speak or where you go,"

Moral of this story is
BEHIND EVERY MAN, THERE'S A REALLY SMART WOMAN

[Gallstones]

Sex is a well known conundrum: reproduction by way of sex requires two parents to produce a single child, whereas clonal or parthenogenic reproduction requires just the mother; the father figure is not only redundant but a waste of space and resources. ~Nick Lane from Power, Sex, Suicide

• 

Working in a quote mine goin' down, down, down
Workin' in a quote mine, oops about to slip dah--hown.