Engaging in sex implies consent to a pro-choice world where a woman has the right to abort, or birth, any child in her body. If she makes that choice, you are responsible as is the woman for whatever outcome.
In other words, women have all the say and men can go **** themselves, literally.
Why not "opt in" for the mother? After 9 months she's done her job. After that any sperm doner is 100% responsible unless he can get the mother to sign on the dotted line.
That makes just as much sense as your example.
Except she is making a choice to not abort, or adopt. Those relieve her of responsibility as well.
You make it a vindictive thing. She does not have to give the father 100% of the responsibility to get rid of hers.
In other words, if the man opts-out then the woman can just go **** herself up with a surgical procedure or by being a single mother. Literally.
Whatever happened to the responsibility of the woman to make sure that A) she uses enough protection if she doesn't want a child and the person she is consenting to have sex with wants one as well?
This is typical of the most recent women's rights movement. The proponents think women should have more rights but fewer responsibilities.
'Sperm doner' was just facetious. I was actually referring to whatever guy had sex and placed his sperm in a woman's birth canal.
Nevertheless, I'm still interested in learning why you think a man who donates sperm for the purpose of producing a child should not be obligated to pay child support and a man who donates sperm as part of a sex act with no intention of producing a child should have to pay?
Quote:
The ONLY one? Does that mean I'm not allowed to counter-argue with a different argument?
Do you have a new one you haven't posted yet? You're free to argue against my points, but the existence or absense of implied consent is pre-eminent here as I suspect your elaboration of the sperm bank doner example would demonstrate.
Quote:
Engaging in sex implies consent to a pro-choice world where a woman has the right to abort, or birth, any child in her body. If she makes that choice, you are responsible as is the woman for whatever outcome.
As I suspected, this is where we fundamentally disagree. I don't accept engagement in sex to be a contract to raise a child (it's an entirely different kind of handshake ) I maintain that since the final choice rests with the woman, the responsibility rests with here as well. Furthermore, I assert that if this was fully accepted by our society we would have less abortions and less unwanted pregnacies.
Quote:
So I take it you wouldn't support the opposite situation with regards to "opt-in"? Because you can see that it's folly? Just as it is for a man. [/B]
I see that your strawman argument is folly. I've never argued that legislation can somehow alter the burdens that biological reality places differentially on the sexes. But for the sake of folly, let's explore your counter-proposal. So a woman can have the baby then they have the legal right to pass 100% responsibility to the father. Ok, fine. Then the father has the right to give the baby up for adoption, presumably without ever meeting the child or paying support.
Aside from denying the obvious reality that most women who take a child to term actually intend to keep it, what does this example illustrate? It would probably still result in less abortions because woman would be less likely to "trap" a man for whom they could exact no support. It seems to weaken the woman's hand as she only has a choice of terminating, accepting full responsibility, or giving up full responsibility. If she's destitute and the father want's the child he simply waits out the pregnacy and she has to sign it over to him.
...I'm still interested in learning why you think a man who donates sperm for the purpose of producing a child should not be obligated to pay child support and a man who donates sperm as part of a sex act with no intention of producing a child should have to pay?
Presumably there's a written or implied contract.
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Do you have a new one you haven't posted yet? You're free to argue against my points, but the existence or absense of implied consent is pre-eminent here as I suspect your elaboration of the sperm bank doner example would demonstrate.
I wasn't referring to sperm bank doners.
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
I see that your strawman argument is folly.
What strawman?
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
So a woman can have the baby then they have the legal right to pass 100% responsibility to the father. Ok, fine. Then the father has the right to give the baby up for adoption, presumably without ever meeting the child or paying support.
Yes, adoption or abandon, like a woman, accept that a man might have to keep the baby until the adoption is final. A detail not worth debating here.
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Aside from denying the obvious reality that most women who take a child to term actually intend to keep it, what does this example illustrate?
Get a life, guys. You can't get it all. You can't eat plenty of junk food and stay in optimal health and skinny, nor can you eliminate completely the potential consequences if you are fscking a person of opposite sex. Get over it.
Get a life, guys. You can't get it all. You can't eat plenty of junk food and stay in optimal health and skinny, nor can you eliminate completely the potential consequences if you are fscking a person of opposite sex. Get over it.
Why must the burden fall on the male? What happened to equal responsibility?
Yes, a written contract exempting the donor from any parental responsibilites. In consensual, pre/extra marrital sex the vast majority of participants are engaging with the understanding that there is no intent to produce a child. The implied consent is NOT to have a child.
Quote:
What strawman?
You were suggesting that my line of reasoning led to your proposed scenario, it does not. That's a strawman argument.
Quote:
Yes, adoption or abandon, like a woman, accept that a man might have to keep the baby until the adoption is final. A detail not worth debating here.
No, your scenario doesn't require the man to keep the baby anymore than the women. You simply wish to ceremoniously pass the responsibility of putting the child up for adoption to the man. I'm not even sure if you would require the woman to inform the man prior to passing over custody. The end result, however, is the same number of children given up for adoption, but by a more circuitous route. Your scenario differs from mine on the following points...
1. It denies the reality that a woman makes a choice to continue with the pregnacy, thus affirming her intent to raise the child or give it up for adoption.
2. A biological father can blackmail a mother into turning over sole custody without any compensation or commitment of support during pregnacy.
Quote:
Equality.
It's possible we are getting tied up in semantics, but to be clear there is no such thing as true equality in reproduction. I can't legislate into existence a menstrual cycle for men or mandate that they gain 40 lbs, get kidney stones, have an episiotomy, or lactate. You are quite aware of this reality since you don't propose that a man have any say in whether a women can get an abortion or not.
I accept these realities and propose a division of responsibilities that results in the least number of single mothers, fatherless kids, unwanted children, and abortions. I accept the reality that most of the time when men and women have sex out of marriage they are proceeding with the understanding that they do not wish to produce a child and that it is a change of intent on the part of the woman that alter's the situation.
I'm curious as to what you would think of the following scenario...
There is currently a condom manufacturer who wraps the condoms in a special wrapper that must be unwrapped twice. The first wrap is removed by the man and the second by the woman. In each case a sticky layer of the wrapping preserves a fingerprint of each person for a record of consent. Now, what if in addition to this the wrapper explicity stated that opening this condom exempted the man using the condom from any future responsibilities for a child conceived during sex. You can also have a line of condoms that DOES commit the man to provide child support. The writing is bioluminescent (green for no child support commitment, red for child support required) and can be read easily in the dark, they are standardized and a widespread education campaign informs the public of their use and implications.
At face value, no, because it's an impossible system. But what you're getting at, a contract that holds over like in the case of a sperm doner, is something I would entertain. I don't know enough about the legal implications of that scenario to see how to jury one up for regular birth.
Post conception is too late. It's not a good situation to change your mind because of all the implications. The opt-out system would give unfair leverage. The pre-birth contract, like in the case of a sperm doner, is probably already possible.
There is currently a condom manufacturer who wraps the condoms in a special wrapper that must be unwrapped twice. The first wrap is removed by the man and the second by the woman. In each case a sticky layer of the wrapping preserves a fingerprint of each person for a record of consent.
At face value, no, because it's an impossible system. But what you're getting at, a contract that holds over like in the case of a sperm doner, is something I would entertain. I don't know enough about the legal implications of that scenario to see how to jury one up for regular birth.
Post conception is too late. It's not a good situation to change your mind because of all the implications. The opt-out system would give unfair leverage. The pre-birth contract, like in the case of a sperm doner, is probably already possible.
I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if you were screwed by a woman who digs a condom of a trash can, steals your sperm, gets pregnant, and sentences you to 18 years of garnished wages. Under the current system that is a very real possibility and that is entirely unjust.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
Engaging in sex implies consent to a pro-choice world where a woman has the right to abort, or birth, any child in her body. If she makes that choice, you are responsible as is the woman for whatever outcome.
In other words, women have all the say and men can go **** themselves, literally.
Originally posted by bunge
Why not "opt in" for the mother? After 9 months she's done her job. After that any sperm doner is 100% responsible unless he can get the mother to sign on the dotted line.
That makes just as much sense as your example.
Except she is making a choice to not abort, or adopt. Those relieve her of responsibility as well.
You make it a vindictive thing. She does not have to give the father 100% of the responsibility to get rid of hers.
Nick
Originally posted by BR
In other words, women have all the say and men can go **** themselves, literally.
In other words, if the man opts-out then the woman can just go **** herself up with a surgical procedure or by being a single mother. Literally.
Originally posted by bunge
In other words, if the man opts-out then the woman can just go **** herself up with a surgical procedure or by being a single mother. Literally.
Whatever happened to the responsibility of the woman to make sure that A) she uses enough protection if she doesn't want a child and
This is typical of the most recent women's rights movement. The proponents think women should have more rights but fewer responsibilities.
Originally posted by bunge
'Sperm doner' was just facetious. I was actually referring to whatever guy had sex and placed his sperm in a woman's birth canal.
Nevertheless, I'm still interested in learning why you think a man who donates sperm for the purpose of producing a child should not be obligated to pay child support and a man who donates sperm as part of a sex act with no intention of producing a child should have to pay?
The ONLY one? Does that mean I'm not allowed to counter-argue with a different argument?
Do you have a new one you haven't posted yet? You're free to argue against my points, but the existence or absense of implied consent is pre-eminent here as I suspect your elaboration of the sperm bank doner example would demonstrate.
Engaging in sex implies consent to a pro-choice world where a woman has the right to abort, or birth, any child in her body. If she makes that choice, you are responsible as is the woman for whatever outcome.
As I suspected, this is where we fundamentally disagree. I don't accept engagement in sex to be a contract to raise a child (it's an entirely different kind of handshake
So I take it you wouldn't support the opposite situation with regards to "opt-in"? Because you can see that it's folly? Just as it is for a man. [/B]
I see that your strawman argument is folly. I've never argued that legislation can somehow alter the burdens that biological reality places differentially on the sexes. But for the sake of folly, let's explore your counter-proposal. So a woman can have the baby then they have the legal right to pass 100% responsibility to the father. Ok, fine. Then the father has the right to give the baby up for adoption, presumably without ever meeting the child or paying support.
Aside from denying the obvious reality that most women who take a child to term actually intend to keep it, what does this example illustrate? It would probably still result in less abortions because woman would be less likely to "trap" a man for whom they could exact no support. It seems to weaken the woman's hand as she only has a choice of terminating, accepting full responsibility, or giving up full responsibility. If she's destitute and the father want's the child he simply waits out the pregnacy and she has to sign it over to him.
Originally posted by bunge
In other words, if the man opts-out then the woman can just go **** herself up with a surgical procedure or by being a single mother. Literally.
Or she can carry it to term and give it up for adoption.
What do you want next Bunge? People suing each other over STD's? There is at least some risk associated with living this thing called life.
Abortion is done as an outpatient procedure. If it is so dangerous how come we allow minors to get it done without even notifying their parents?
You sound like a closet pro-lifer.
Nick
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
...I'm still interested in learning why you think a man who donates sperm for the purpose of producing a child should not be obligated to pay child support and a man who donates sperm as part of a sex act with no intention of producing a child should have to pay?
Presumably there's a written or implied contract.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Do you have a new one you haven't posted yet? You're free to argue against my points, but the existence or absense of implied consent is pre-eminent here as I suspect your elaboration of the sperm bank doner example would demonstrate.
I wasn't referring to sperm bank doners.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
I see that your strawman argument is folly.
What strawman?
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
So a woman can have the baby then they have the legal right to pass 100% responsibility to the father. Ok, fine. Then the father has the right to give the baby up for adoption, presumably without ever meeting the child or paying support.
Yes, adoption or abandon, like a woman, accept that a man might have to keep the baby until the adoption is final. A detail not worth debating here.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Aside from denying the obvious reality that most women who take a child to term actually intend to keep it, what does this example illustrate?
Equality.
Originally posted by trumptman
There is at least some risk associated with living this thing called life.
Yeah, and getting a woman pregnant is one of them.
No, I'm not a pro-lifer. I support the pro-death movement even if BR likes to attack me.
Originally posted by Panther
Get a life, guys. You can't get it all. You can't eat plenty of junk food and stay in optimal health and skinny, nor can you eliminate completely the potential consequences if you are fscking a person of opposite sex. Get over it.
Why must the burden fall on the male? What happened to equal responsibility?
Originally posted by BR
Why must the burden fall on the male? What happened to equal responsibility?
A burden falls on both parties though.
Originally posted by bunge
A burden falls on both parties though.
Woman supplies egg.
Man supplies sperm.
Woman can opt-out.
Man cannot opt-out.
It's just that simple.
Originally posted by BR
Woman supplies egg.
Man supplies sperm.
Woman can opt-out.
Man cannot opt-out.
It's just that simple.
Biology sucks, doesn't it?
Originally posted by bunge
Biology sucks, doesn't it?
Yeah, that about wraps it up. I think all that can be said has been said.
It simply boils down to this:
You are in favor of inequality.
I am not.
Originally posted by BR
Yeah, that about wraps it up. I think all that can be said has been said.
It simply boils down to this:
You are in favor of inequality.
I am not.
So wait...does that wrap it up, or do you need to get one last dig it?
I've said time and again I'm in favor of something equitable. Opt-out isn't it.
Originally posted by bunge
Presumably there's a written or implied contract.
Yes, a written contract exempting the donor from any parental responsibilites. In consensual, pre/extra marrital sex the vast majority of participants are engaging with the understanding that there is no intent to produce a child. The implied consent is NOT to have a child.
What strawman?
You were suggesting that my line of reasoning led to your proposed scenario, it does not. That's a strawman argument.
Yes, adoption or abandon, like a woman, accept that a man might have to keep the baby until the adoption is final. A detail not worth debating here.
No, your scenario doesn't require the man to keep the baby anymore than the women. You simply wish to ceremoniously pass the responsibility of putting the child up for adoption to the man. I'm not even sure if you would require the woman to inform the man prior to passing over custody. The end result, however, is the same number of children given up for adoption, but by a more circuitous route. Your scenario differs from mine on the following points...
1. It denies the reality that a woman makes a choice to continue with the pregnacy, thus affirming her intent to raise the child or give it up for adoption.
2. A biological father can blackmail a mother into turning over sole custody without any compensation or commitment of support during pregnacy.
Equality.
It's possible we are getting tied up in semantics, but to be clear there is no such thing as true equality in reproduction. I can't legislate into existence a menstrual cycle for men or mandate that they gain 40 lbs, get kidney stones, have an episiotomy, or lactate. You are quite aware of this reality since you don't propose that a man have any say in whether a women can get an abortion or not.
I accept these realities and propose a division of responsibilities that results in the least number of single mothers, fatherless kids, unwanted children, and abortions. I accept the reality that most of the time when men and women have sex out of marriage they are proceeding with the understanding that they do not wish to produce a child and that it is a change of intent on the part of the woman that alter's the situation.
I'm curious as to what you would think of the following scenario...
There is currently a condom manufacturer who wraps the condoms in a special wrapper that must be unwrapped twice. The first wrap is removed by the man and the second by the woman. In each case a sticky layer of the wrapping preserves a fingerprint of each person for a record of consent. Now, what if in addition to this the wrapper explicity stated that opening this condom exempted the man using the condom from any future responsibilities for a child conceived during sex. You can also have a line of condoms that DOES commit the man to provide child support. The writing is bioluminescent (green for no child support commitment, red for child support required) and can be read easily in the dark, they are standardized and a widespread education campaign informs the public of their use and implications.
Would this be ok with you?
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Would this be ok with you?
At face value, no, because it's an impossible system. But what you're getting at, a contract that holds over like in the case of a sperm doner, is something I would entertain. I don't know enough about the legal implications of that scenario to see how to jury one up for regular birth.
Post conception is too late. It's not a good situation to change your mind because of all the implications. The opt-out system would give unfair leverage. The pre-birth contract, like in the case of a sperm doner, is probably already possible.
There is currently a condom manufacturer who wraps the condoms in a special wrapper that must be unwrapped twice. The first wrap is removed by the man and the second by the woman. In each case a sticky layer of the wrapping preserves a fingerprint of each person for a record of consent.
Damn, and people claim I have issues.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
At face value, no, because it's an impossible system.
Really? It's that hard to save a wrapper?
Originally posted by bunge
At face value, no, because it's an impossible system. But what you're getting at, a contract that holds over like in the case of a sperm doner, is something I would entertain. I don't know enough about the legal implications of that scenario to see how to jury one up for regular birth.
Post conception is too late. It's not a good situation to change your mind because of all the implications. The opt-out system would give unfair leverage. The pre-birth contract, like in the case of a sperm doner, is probably already possible.
I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if you were screwed by a woman who digs a condom of a trash can, steals your sperm, gets pregnant, and sentences you to 18 years of garnished wages. Under the current system that is a very real possibility and that is entirely unjust.