NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, so someone challenged Hotwife to make a thread on a particular subject and he didn't do it - so now I will.

What rights should the fathers have in the cases of the unborn? They did, after all, contribute 50% of the DNA and most likely a fair amount of effort (I always contribute a fair amount of effort). I have a plan. If it doesn't work medically yet, then let's put it on the shelf and we'll get to it when it does work medically.

Situation 1 (more common, I think):

Father wants the mother to have an abortion. Mother refuses.

Current situation: Mother has child. Mother sues father for child support. Mother wins. Father pays child support for twenty years for a child he never wanted.

Improved situation: Father files motion for notice of disapproval of birth (or some such). The mother must then either abort the child, or give up rights to child support and take care of it herself. In the case of the abortion, it is the father's responsibility to pay for it. In the case of the carrying to term, the father also surrenders all rights for the particular child (visitation and such), but the mother must give up all claims for child support.

Situation 2:

Father wants the child. Mother wants to abort.

Current situation: Mother aborts. Father has no recourse but to go and cry in the corner.

Improved situation: Father files a stay of abortion which is good for seven days. During that time, the father must find a willing surrogate who consents to take the child off of the mother's hands. At the conclusion of seven days, if the father does not find a willing surrogate, then the abortion may proceed. If the father does find a willing surrogate, the mother must allow the transfer of the child to its surrogate mother. The mother also gives up all rights (I.E. visitation) and responsibilities (I.E. child support) to the child in question.

The father is responsible for the cost of the procedure that is greater than what the cost of the original abortion would have been.


In the event of rape (a man raping a woman), since the DNA transfer was done in the process of a criminal act, he already gives up all rights to the child, and cannot petition for anything regarding the mother.

In the event of a rape (a woman raping a man) where she becomes pregnant, that's sticky. I'm not even sure how to address it. I'll come back to that, or perhaps you all can address it.

Ok, opinions? Tell me where this can be improved. You can also tell me if I'm completely off my rocker - but please back that up with a why!

I was going to wait a few days, since there seem to be a few abortion threads already.

I was going to wait a few days, since there seem to be a few abortion threads already.

Sorry.

Sorry.

It's ok - carry on.

Improved situation: Father files a stay of abortion which is good for seven days. During that time, the father must find a willing surrogate who consents to take the child off of the mother's hands. At the conclusion of seven days, if the father does not find a willing surrogate, then the abortion may proceed. If the father does find a willing surrogate, the mother must allow the transfer of the child to its surrogate mother. The mother also gives up all rights (I.E. visitation) and responsibilities (I.E. child support) to the child in question.


Ummm, you're proposing to "transplant" a few-month-or-so-old fetus? Or should they wait until natural birth? If so, man should compensate woman for her labour (pun definitely intended). Most likely payable in bearer checks. :D

It's ok - carry on.

While we're here. What do you think of my synopsis? Am I suffering severe delusions or does it actually make sense?

I can never tell.

Both parties have identical rights. During pregnancy, the right involves bodily autonomy. Both the mother, and the father, have the right to determine the fate of their respective bodies.

Once pregnancy is over, both parents are obligated to pay. Your scenarios don't work, because no party can gain superior rights by restricting someone elses.

Both parties, pre birth, have the same rights, control over their own body. Both parties, post birth, have the same responsibilities, support the child.

Ummm, you're proposing to "transplant" a few-month-or-so-old fetus? Or should they wait until natural birth? If so, man should compensate woman for her labour (pun definitely intended). Most likely payable in bearer checks. :D

I find your use of puns disturbing.

However, yes, that is what I am suggesting. I also disclaimed that in the beginning that, if it's not possible with current medical technology, that this be placed on the shelf until it is.

Both parties have identical rights. During pregnancy, the right involves bodily autonomy. Both the mother, and the father, have the right to determine the fate of their respective bodies.

Once pregnancy is over, both parents are obligated to pay. Your scenarios don't work, because no party can gain superior rights by restricting someone elses.

Both parties, pre birth, have the same rights, control over their own body. Both parties, post birth, have the same responsibilities, support the child.

Not exactly.

If the woman decides to terminate the pregnancy because she doesn't want a child, she may.

If the man doesn't want the pregnancy to continue, but the woman does want to continue, the man is stuck paying for a child he never wanted.

Doesn't sound equal to me.

You're always off your rocker, Gallo-san. Why? Because I said so.

Oh, and what's with the proliferation of abortion threads? It's disturbing.

Both parties have identical rights. During pregnancy, the right involves bodily autonomy. Both the mother, and the father, have the right to determine the fate of their respective bodies.

Ok, let's follow this:

Once pregnancy is over, both parents are obligated to pay. Your scenarios don't work, because no party can gain superior rights by restricting someone elses.

Except that, in the current scenario, that's exactly what happens. The mother has superior rights by restricting the father's when it regards the child.

Both parties, pre birth, have the same rights, control over their own body. Both parties, post birth, have the same responsibilities, support the child.

Except that it is one person, the mother, who decides whether they are going to be taking on that responsibility or not. She decides "for" him regarding that. Her rights restrict his.

You're always off your rocker, Gallo-san. Why? Because I said so.

Oh, and what's with the proliferation of abortion threads? It's disturbing.

I'm aware that I'm off my rocker. Sometimes, though, I actually make sense. I'm just not sure if these are one of them times.

And I think we're up to three now. It's about right, considering springtime is approaching.

Not exactly.

If the woman decides to terminate the pregnancy because she doesn't want a child, she may.

If the man doesn't want the pregnancy to continue, but the woman does want to continue, the man is stuck paying for a child he never wanted.

Doesn't sound equal to me.

The father isn't pregnant. If he was, he could terminate the pregnancy and the woman would have to pay child support.

The law treats them equally. Biology, on the other hand, does not.


Except that, in the current scenario, that's exactly what happens. The mother has superior rights by restricting the father's when it regards the child.

No, she doesn't. The mother decides what to do with her own body.

The state has decided that both parents are responsible for the child. It isn't up to the mother (although she can generally decide whether or not to pursue actual payment).


Except that it is one person, the mother, who decides whether they are going to be taking on that responsibility or not. She decides "for" him regarding that.

This doesn't contradict anything Neo Art said. The mother is the one who is pregnant. Therefore, she decides whether or not to continue the pregnancy. The father decides what to do with his body during that same time period. As such, they have the same rights during the pregnancy.

And, as Neo Art said, they have the same responsibilities to the child after birth.

Her rights restrict his.

No, they don't.

Should a father have an "opt-out" option? Perhaps. But this line of argument is not the way to demonstrate it.

You're always off your rocker, Gallo-san. Why? Because I said so.

Oh, and what's with the proliferation of abortion threads? It's disturbing.

I could kill a few of them off?


To this thread; I just very recently, as in, today, found out that one of my best friend's wife had gotten pregnant and had an abortion without even telling him. He found out from correspondence in the mail. He's seriously considering filing for divorce...

I think that the father should have some kind of choice in the process somewhere; shouldn't he?

I'm aware that I'm off my rocker. Sometimes, though, I actually make sense. I'm just not sure if these are one of them times.

And I think we're up to three now. It's about right, considering springtime is approaching.

No, you are making sense and what you're asking is an honest thing. Normally, the option to termiante a pregnancy befalls on the woman. Many times the man is considered to have no say in wether the pregnancy should be ended or not. Many men consider this unfair.

I do think that, because it's my body and because I will be caring the brunt of the pregnancy, that I have a the right, completely, on wether I want to carry a pregnancy to term or ended it. It's my health the one on the line, after all. But once again, this what I believe.

The law treats them equally. Biology, on the other hand, does not.

Interesting approach. I must meditate.

The state has decided that both parents are responsible for the child. It isn't up to the mother (although she can generally decide whether or not to pursue actual payment).

That is true - they are both responsible for the child if the child is born. However, they do not both get to decide if that responsibility is going to exist or not.

No, they don't.

Yes, they do. :)

Should a father have an "opt-out" option? Perhaps. But this line of argument is not the way to demonstrate it.

Well, the original OP has to do, on one side, with an "opt out" option. That's what we're talking about here - system reform.

Sooooo... where exactly are these laws that you are citing? I've never heard of fetal transplantation, and especially not as a legal discourse.

No, you are making sense and what you're asking is an honest thing. Normally, the option to termiante a pregnancy befalls on the woman. Many times the man is considered to have no say in wether the pregnancy should be ended or not. Many men consider this unfair.

I do think that, because it's my body and because I will be caring the brunt of the pregnancy, that I have a the right, completely, on wether I want to carry a pregnancy to term or ended it. It's my health the one on the line, after all. But once again, this what I believe.

Which brings me back to the OP. In the proposed improvement (if medical science allows), the choice to carry the child or not is still up to the mother - however, the choice to kill the child or not is now a split decision. I personally find that more fair.

Except that, in the current scenario, that's exactly what happens. The mother has superior rights by restricting the father's when it regards the child.

No, she does not. She has bodily autonomy over her person, he has bodily autonomy over his person.

Except that it is one person, the mother, who decides whether they are going to be taking on that responsibility or not. She decides "for" him regarding that. Her rights restrict his.

No decision she makes restricts what he may do with his body. Ergo no decision he makes may restrict what she does with her body.

Sooooo... where exactly are these laws that you are citing? I've never heard of fetal transplantation, and especially not as a legal discourse.

It's a proposal, not an existing law. Hence why I have the current situation versus the proposed improved one.

That is true - they are both responsible for the child if the child is born. However, they do not both get to decide if that responsibility is going to exist or not.

Of course they do. They both have the complete and utter choice over whether or not their bodies shall participate in the reproductive process.

Each may decline to allow their bodies to participate in that process, up until the point where their participation in that process ends.

The man most certainly has the choice whether or not the responsibility is going to exist, he may exercise his right of bodily autonomy to refuse to allow himself to participate in the reproductive process.

He may do so by choosing to not have sex with her.

Abortion Season?

"It's open season on babies!"

Not exactly.

If the woman decides to terminate the pregnancy because she doesn't want a child, she may.

If the man doesn't want the pregnancy to continue, but the woman does want to continue, the man is stuck paying for a child he never wanted.

Doesn't sound equal to me.

The biggest (and only) problem that I have with abortion is when it is used in a manner such as this. If people don't want children they should either not have sex or take as many precautions as possible. It infuriates me that people think they have a right to an abortion when all it is being used for is consequence dodging. In the case of rape or when the mothers/childs life is in danger I say that abortions should be allowed.

Which brings me back to the OP. In the proposed improvement (if medical science allows), the choice to carry the child or not is still up to the mother - however, the choice to kill the child or not is now a split decision. I personally find that more fair.

and if wishes were ponies....sure, in an ideal situation, the woman could abort her pregnancy, and have the fetus transplanted into a willing host or artificial womb. I'd have no problems with that whatsoever.

But until such technology comes about, it's a rather moot point is it not?

No, she does not. She has bodily autonomy over her person, he has bodily autonomy over his person.

Fine fine. This is not even really relevant to the proposal.

No decision she makes restricts what he may do with his body. Ergo no decision he makes may restrict what she does with her body.

But my fix still allows the woman to choose what to do with her body; she can choose *not* to carry this fetus. The only thing she cannot choose is to kill it instead of transferring it to a willing surrogate (if one is found to be available).

In principle, one may expect that if one of the parents does not want the child, the child was conceived beyond that parent's will. For instance: mother wants a child, father does not --> mother tells father that she takes the pill, while in fact she doesn't.

In such a case, the father finds himself in a very bad situation because the mother lied to him. I would not exactly call that fair. I understand the "my body, my decision" ideas (although strictly speaking the embryo is not part of the mother's body), but I'd give the father some more rights in that situation.

It's a proposal, not an existing law. Hence why I have the current situation versus the proposed improved one.

Aaaah, well I do think the father crying in the corner about it is a good and valid solution. And as the law stands now, your improved scenario for the father not wanting the child is already in place.

and if wishes were ponies....sure, in an ideal situation, the woman could abort her pregnancy, and have the fetus transplanted into a willing host or artificial womb. I'd have no problems with that whatsoever.

But until such technology comes about, it's a rather moot point is it not?

I'm not sure even how far we are from it or if anyone's even working on it. But, how will they work on it if no one proposes it as a solution?

Which brings me back to the OP. In the proposed improvement (if medical science allows), the choice to carry the child or not is still up to the mother - however, the choice to kill the child or not is now a split decision. I personally find that more fair.

Whereas I do not find that fair at all. The pregnancy, with all it carries (health hazards), rests solely on the mother. It is her body the one placed on the line, she could die at child-birth. The man only puts his sperm, nothing else. So, it is up to her, to the woman, and solely her, to decide wether she wishes to carry a pregnancy to term or end it.

Aaaah, well I do think the father crying in the corner about it is a good and valid solution. And as the law stands now, your improved scenario for the father not wanting the child is already in place.

Not in the US. What countries allow the father to "opt out" so to speak? I only have the perspective of living in America's Penis to go by.

Whereas I do not find that fair at all. The pregnancy, with all it carries (health hazards), rests solely on the mother. It is her body the one placed on the line, she could die at child-birth. The man only puts his sperm, nothing else. So, it is up to her, to the woman, and solely her, to decide wether she wishes to carry a pregnancy to term or end it.

So, if you didn't have to carry the child, and someone else was able to carry it in lieu of you, you still find that objectionable to have to do that as opposed to an abortion?

I'm afraid I don't understand.

Not in the US. What countries allow the father to "opt out" so to speak? I only have the perspective of living in America's Penis to go by.

Florida... America's penis.:D

Situation 1.
yeah seems very reasonable. just need to get a movement to modify the relevant custody laws.

situation 2 does not seem reasonable.
A man can raise a child as a single parent just as easily as anyone else can though I don't think transplantation of fetus is possible. Also during early term abortions its hard to prove who the dad is until after the procedure.

I'm not sure even how far we are from it or if anyone's even working on it. But, how will they work on it if no one proposes it as a solution?

I'm sure there are probably very large government-sponsored grants working on it already. I may just be paranoid and delusional, but I am sure the idea of creating an army from artificial wombs gives the DOD a hard-on.

So, if you didn't have to carry the child, and someone else was able to carry it in lieu of you, you still find that objectionable to have to do that as opposed to an abortion?

I'm afraid I don't understand.

If it's about donating my eggs, I don't mind as long as I don't have to put my body in peril. But if I don't want to have the child, I have the choice to abort it too.

What's so difficult to understand about that?

Fundamentally speaking in a legal sense, the parents have the legal obligation to provide for the child, whether or not they wanted it. By law - or at least in Ontario, under the Children's Law Reform Act - the child is entitled to receive support from their biological parent(s) (after all, one could have died) a person who has acted in the capacity or in place of a parent (this would apply to step parents, grandparents or any other legal guardian given custodial rights of the child).

As for the choice to force abortion or refuse, it doesn't matter. So long as the child has been brought into the world and wasn't simply just conceived, the child has a right to be supported until they are age of majority whether or not the father or mother wanted it.

If men could conceive and carry a foetus to term in the same physical capacity as a women, then they could have the right to make the same decision regarding their own sexual reproduction. In fact, they do. If they don't want children, they can don the rubber and insist that their partner is on the pill and even go as far as to use spermicide. That's a good choice. It gives men the same choice as women. The only difference is it begins before engaging in sexual intercourse.

Once the man blows his load into her, and she's plenty fertile then the ball's in her court. It's her choice. If he doesn't want her to have the choice, he has the full ability to make use of the birth control methods available to men. They can also insist that their partner use protection as well.

situation 2 does not seem reasonable.
A man can raise a child as a single parent just as easily as anyone else can though I don't think transplantation of fetus is possible. Also during early term abortions its hard to prove who the dad is until after the procedure.

Ah! Here we have a very relevant point. Perhaps she doesn't know who the father is? That could get sticky. She could also be claiming not to know who the father is. You have discovered a serious flaw in the secondary situation.

I'm sure there are probably very large government-sponsored grants working on it already. I may just be paranoid and delusional, but I am sure the idea of creating an army from artificial wombs gives the DOD a hard-on.

It gives me one. :D

If it's about donating my eggs, I don't mind as long as I don't have to put my body in peril. But if I don't want to have the child, I have the choice to abort it too.

What's so difficult to understand about that?

Seconded.

If it's about donating my eggs, I don't mind as long as I don't have to put my body in peril. But if I don't want to have the child, I have the choice to abort it too.

What's so difficult to understand about that?

Well, before greed and death put a lightsaber through my secondary situation, it was basically instead of getting an abortion that day, you were going to get a transplant that day (transplanting from you to the willing surrogate). Essentially, making it basically the same process, just instead of killing the fetus, moving it.

Well, before greed and death and legality and scinetific limitation put a lightsaber through my secondary situation, it was basically instead of getting an abortion that day, you were going to get a transplant that day (transplanting from you to the willing surrogate). Essentially, making it basically the same process, just instead of killing the fetus, moving it.

Fixed.

If men could conceive and carry a foetus to term in the same physical capacity as a women, then they could have the right to make the same decision regarding their own sexual reproduction. In fact, they do. If they don't want children, they can don the rubber and insist that their partner is on the pill and even go as far as to use spermicide. That's a good choice. It gives men the same choice as women. The only difference is it begins before engaging in sexual intercourse.

Once the man blows his load into her, and she's plenty fertile then the ball's in her court. It's her choice. If he doesn't want her to have the choice, he has the full ability to make use of the birth control methods available to men. They can also insist that their partner use protection as well.

With all due respect, this reads very similarly to the arguments that if women didn't want children, they wouldn't engage in sex or would use protection, and therefore should have no right to abortion at all.

Also, the same caveats as the other abortion threads:

Condom Broke
Birth Control didn't work
My sperm is too strong to be killed by spermicide
I was drunk
etc, etc, etc

I find it ironic that for the past thousand years or so most European nations embraced the idea that *only* the husband could decide what would be done with the thing in his wifes womb. Her wishes, or that of the biological father(if a different man*), were irrelevant in such cases. How times have changed...

*And possibly excluding the king and such of course. Droit the seigneur is such a burden.

Both parties have identical rights. During pregnancy, the right involves bodily autonomy. Both the mother, and the father, have the right to determine the fate of their respective bodies.

Once pregnancy is over, both parents are obligated to pay. Your scenarios don't work, because no party can gain superior rights by restricting someone elses.

Both parties, pre birth, have the same rights, control over their own body. Both parties, post birth, have the same responsibilities, support the child.

Exactly.

Now, if we want to stop talking about rights and responsibilities and instead discuss what would be nice, I think we can all agree that it would be nice if the mother requested the father's opinion on whether or not to abort, and nice if the parent who wanted the child were able to support that child independently. That absolutely does not mean that anyone should have the right either to control someone else's body or to let their child starve.

Exactly.

Now, if we want to stop talking about rights and responsibilities and instead discuss what would be nice, I think we can all agree that it would be nice if the mother requested the father's opinion on whether or not to abort, and nice if the parent who wanted the child were able to support that child independently. That absolutely does not mean that anyone should have the right either to control someone else's body or to let their child starve.

Yes this! Since everyone totally ignored mine I will endorse this one! Besides, she said it better.

Exactly.

Now, if we want to stop talking about rights and responsibilities and instead discuss what would be nice, I think we can all agree that it would be nice if the mother requested the father's opinion on whether or not to abort, and nice if the parent who wanted the child were able to support that child independently. That absolutely does not mean that anyone should have the right either to control someone else's body or to let their child starve.

So, lets suppose for a moment that the fruits of certain science pays off, and that the man chooses to have the embryo implanted in him and carry the child. This is scientifically plausible, according to many sources, but hazardous.

Would you then support him to carry the child against his girlfriend's wishes to term and then sue her for child support?

So, lets suppose for a moment that the fruits of certain science pays off, and that the man chooses to have the embryo implanted in him and carry the child. This is scientifically plausible, according to many sources, but hazardous.

Would you then support him to carry the child against his girlfriend's wishes to term and then sue her for child support?

Well, sort of. Presumably he'd have to get the embryo out of her first, which raises some additional issues. I would NOT support him being able to compel her to give him the embryo against her will, any more than I would support him being able to compel her to give him a kidney.

But if a woman freely consented to implanting her embryo in a man, then yes, he can absolutely carry it to term and insist that she pay child support, because at that point we've simply switched the genders in this scenario.

Well, sort of. Presumably he'd have to get the embryo out of her first, which raises some additional issues. I would NOT support him being able to compel her to give him the embryo against her will, any more than I would support him being able to compel her to give him a kidney.

But if a woman freely consented to implanting her embryo in a man, then yes, he can absolutely carry it to term and insist that she pay child support, because at that point we've simply switched the genders in this scenario.

I want to argue with you somehow, but since you're consistent (unlike many), I can't really trick and trap you with your own words.

Plus, your avatar keeps distracting me.

Situation 1 (more common, I think):

Father wants the mother to have an abortion. Mother refuses.

Current situation: Mother has child. Mother sues father for child support. Mother wins. Father pays child support for twenty years for a child he never wanted.

Improved situation: Father files motion for notice of disapproval of birth (or some such). The mother must then either abort the child, or give up rights to child support and take care of it herself. In the case of the abortion, it is the father's responsibility to pay for it. In the case of the carrying to term, the father also surrenders all rights for the particular child (visitation and such), but the mother must give up all claims for child support.


Letting a father deny financial responsibility by filing a petition? That's terrible. Babies are massively expensive, and if you're responsible for creating it, it's your responsibility to pay for your half, whether you have visitation rights or not. Even if you loathe the child, you're the one who made it happen and that makes you accountable.

Everyone wants to disown responsibility for their actions. If you are male, it's very simple: Don't have sex if you aren't prepared to pay for every possible consequence.

Letting a father deny financial responsibility by filing a petition? That's terrible. Babies are massively expensive, and if you're responsible for creating it, it's your responsibility to pay for your half, whether you have visitation rights or not. Even if you loathe the child, you're the one who made it happen and that makes you accountable.

Everyone wants to disown responsibility for their actions. If you are male, it's very simple: Don't have sex if you aren't prepared to pay for every possible consequence.

Again, this sounds very much like the anti-abortion league's stance regarding women.

That is true - they are both responsible for the child if the child is born. However, they do not both get to decide if that responsibility is going to exist or not.

Yes, they do, to the extent that their bodies are involved. The man's physical participation in reproduction is in having sex. The woman's is both in having sex and in pregnancy.

Again, this is not society or the law treating men and women differently. It is biology.

Well, the original OP has to do, on one side, with an "opt out" option. That's what we're talking about here - system reform.

But the argument for such an option wouldn't be the equal rights argument. Both men and women are already equal under the law.

Personally, I might support an "opt out" option because I think it is best for the child that deadbeat dads never be in the picture at all.

But my fix still allows the woman to choose what to do with her body; she can choose *not* to carry this fetus. The only thing she cannot choose is to kill it instead of transferring it to a willing surrogate (if one is found to be available).

I would say this would depend heavily on the details of the procedure. If the transplantation procedure carried significantly more risk to the mother than an abortion, this would be unacceptable.


In principle, one may expect that if one of the parents does not want the child, the child was conceived beyond that parent's will. For instance: mother wants a child, father does not --> mother tells father that she takes the pill, while in fact she doesn't.

You can't really expect that this happened. Unfortunately, many people have sex without even talking about what to do in the event of a pregnancy. They find out how the other feels when the unplanned pregnancy occurs.

In such a case, the father finds himself in a very bad situation because the mother lied to him. I would not exactly call that fair. I understand the "my body, my decision" ideas (although strictly speaking the embryo is not part of the mother's body), but I'd give the father some more rights in that situation.

If the father was so opposed to having children, why wasn't he taking birth control measures of his own? The pill is not 100% effective.

Again, this sounds very much like the anti-abortion league's stance regarding women.

It's simple responsibility. If you impregnate a woman, it's your fault. It's hers too, but it's undeniably yours as well. If she keeps the baby, you keep it too. It's neither pro- or anti-abortion. It's after-the-fact responsibility.

Yes, they do, to the extent that their bodies are involved. The man's physical participation in reproduction is in having sex. The woman's is both in having sex and in pregnancy.

Again, this is not society or the law treating men and women differently. It is biology.

You make a valid point on society vs biology here. However, both consented to have sex, so up until that point have an equal share of the responsibility. Unfortunately, due to biology, the woman's share of the... production shall we say, is significantly larger.

However, both consented to have sex. Either both consented to having a child or neither consented to having a child.

But the argument for such an option wouldn't be the equal rights argument. Both men and women are already equal under the law.

I disagree. One only has to look at the way child custody hearings go in the US (and I am still talking about the US - America's Penis remember) to find that to be fallacious.

Personally, I might support an "opt out" option because I think it is best for the child that deadbeat dads never be in the picture at all.

Ok. That would be good too.

I would say this would depend heavily on the details of the procedure. If the transplantation procedure carried significantly more risk to the mother than an abortion, this would be unacceptable.

I have no argument with this statement.

With all due respect, this reads very similarly to the arguments that if women didn't want children, they wouldn't engage in sex or would use protection, and therefore should have no right to abortion at all.

Also, the same caveats as the other abortion threads:

Condom Broke
Birth Control didn't work
My sperm is too strong to be killed by spermicide
I was drunk
etc, etc, etc

I realise it may have read that way, but I see it as if two people want to have sex, they better do it safely. If the man doesn't want the responsibility of dealing with the consequences, but wants the fun then there are plenty of methods of birth control he can use if he wants his sex and none of the consequences.

Of course there will be excuses but overall, if people want to, they can. But if they don't take the proper steps then something may indeed result, and in this case it puts the ball in the woman's court and it becomes her choice if the foetus is carried to term or not. At the end of the day, it's my opinion that the woman has the final say because it's her body and her choice. If the man doesn't like it, he can try and prevent the outcome by insisting that his partner also use birth control methods. It takes two to tango, but she's the one left cleaning up the gooey mess.

I do not care if people want to have sex or not. It's their choice, but I disagree that a man should have a say when it's not his sexual reproduction that's coming under the microscope. If he could bear the same equal burden as his female partner then by all means I would say yes, he can make the choices for his body. The woman would not be allowed to make the choice for him. Like a man can now, she would be allowed to say what she thinks but ultimately the choice would be his, just as the choice is ultimately that of the woman.

In answer to the scenarios in the OP, if it was the man who was the one carrying the foetus, it would be his choice if he wanted to keep it or abort it. Why should someone's body be taken 'hostage' because someone else doesn't agree with their right to make a choice regarding their sexual reproduction and rights?

Fixed.

To be fair, if we progress to the point where we can do an early-term transplant of an embryo/fetus, we'll probably have progressed to the point where we could do a paternity test then as well.


With all due respect, this reads very similarly to the arguments that if women didn't want children, they wouldn't engage in sex or would use protection, and therefore should have no right to abortion at all.

....except for one little detail. The man's physical participation in reproduction ends with sex. Therefore, his decision making capability ends there as well.

The woman's physical participation, on the other hand, last long after sex. She can also be pregnant. Thus, her capability in making reproductive decisions extends into that time period as well.

I realise it may have read that way, but I see it as if two people want to have sex, they better do it safely. If the man doesn't want the responsibility of dealing with the consequences, but wants the fun then there are plenty of methods of birth control he can use if he wants his sex and none of the consequences.

Granted. No argument there.

Of course there will be excuses but overall, if people want to, they can. But if they don't take the proper steps then something may indeed result, and in this case it puts the ball in the woman's court and it becomes her choice if the foetus is carried to term or not. At the end of the day, it's my opinion that the woman has the final say because it's her body and her choice. If the man doesn't like it, he can try and prevent the outcome by insisting that his partner also use birth control methods. It takes two to tango, but she's the one left cleaning up the gooey mess.

Which is why I support more equal rights under law. That's why a fetus transplant (if medical technology will allow - as pointed out, in the future) would absolve the mother from having to carry the child, and leave her free to use her body as she will, but leave the child alive to grow and thrive as well.

I do not care if people want to have sex or not. It's their choice, but I disagree that a man should have a say when it's not his sexual reproduction that's coming under the microscope. If he could bear the same equal burden as his female partner then by all means I would say yes, he can make the choices for his body. The woman would not be allowed to make the choice for him. Like a man can now, she would be allowed to say what she thinks but ultimately the choice would be his, just as the choice is ultimately that of the woman.

You're consistent. I appreciate that.

In answer to the scenarios in the OP, if it was the man who was the one carrying the foetus, it would be his choice if he wanted to keep it or abort it. Why should someone's body be taken 'hostage' because someone else doesn't agree with their right to make a choice regarding their sexual reproduction and rights?

See, that's the point of the scenarios in the OP - neither party is being taken hostage in a fashion that's unacceptable. I don't think 7 days to find a surrogate would be unacceptable. The woman still gets her body back.

In the other scenario, the man isn't being taken hostage by the woman either.

You make a valid point on society vs biology here. However, both consented to have sex, so up until that point have an equal share of the responsibility. Unfortunately, due to biology, the woman's share of the... production shall we say, is significantly larger.

However, both consented to have sex. Either both consented to having a child or neither consented to having a child.

Both consented to the possibility that the woman would get pregnant.

In the father's case, his participation is over. He thus has no rights to make any further decision.

In the mother's case, she is currently pregnant. It is her body, thus she gets to decide whether or not to remain pregnant.

I disagree. One only has to look at the way child custody hearings go in the US (and I am still talking about the US - America's Penis remember) to find that to be fallacious.

Last time this argument came up on NSG, child custody hearings were brought up, along with statistics. The vast majority of court-determined custody (ie. the parents didn't just ask for it that way) end up in joint custody. In those cases where one parent or the other gets custody, the woman gets it in only a slightly larger percentage of cases than the father - a discrepancy that can largely be explained by the fact that she was likely already their primary caregiver.

The idea that the woman always gets custody is a myth.

Both consented to the possibility that the woman would get pregnant.

Ok.

In the father's case, his participation is over. He thus has no rights to make any further decision.

Hardly. His participation is far from over - he will be financially responsible for the life of that child, or until he reaches 18.


In the mother's case, she is currently pregnant. It is her body, thus she gets to decide whether or not to remain pregnant.

Which, in event A, she chooses to remain so regardless of the consequences.

And, in event B, (in this hypothetical medical possibility) she doesn't have to, but the fetus still survives.

Last time this argument came up on NSG, child custody hearings were brought up, along with statistics. The vast majority of court-determined custody (ie. the parents didn't just ask for it that way) end up in joint custody. In those cases where one parent or the other gets custody, the woman gets it in only a slightly larger percentage of cases than the father - a discrepancy that can largely be explained by the fact that she was likely already their primary caregiver.

The idea that the woman always gets custody is a myth.

Do you remember the name of that thread or know how to find it? I'd like to look at those figures.

I don't know how other countries treat this delicate subject, But here in the US the preganant woman has the final say. The man can voice his opinion however Roe V. Wade say the woman has the Autonomy over her body. And that means the decision is her at the end of the day.

The operation is always performed successufully and is or can very expensive. And again could be preformed only with the woman agrement.

Which is why I support more equal rights under law. That's why a fetus transplant (if medical technology will allow - as pointed out, in the future) would absolve the mother from having to carry the child, and leave her free to use her body as she will, but leave the child alive to grow and thrive as well.

To what point?

Would it prevent women from seeking abortion all together? Or would it be optional when a woman goes in for consultation?

See, that's the point of the scenarios in the OP - neither party is being taken hostage in a fashion that's unacceptable. I don't think 7 days to find a surrogate would be unacceptable. The woman still gets her body back.

Now how would we count days? There are different ways of counting days. Would we count all days, or would certain days be exempt?

To what point?

Would it prevent women from seeking abortion all together? Or would it be optional when a woman goes in for consultation?

Well, if hypothetically it was no more risky than a standard abortion, it should be standard if the male DNA donor wishes to keep the child. Any extra cost (over a standard abortion) would be footed by him.

Now how would we count days? There are different ways of counting days. Would we count all days, or would certain days be exempt?

Don't follow. I meant 7 standard days... 24 hours, 7 rotations of the earth, 1/4 revolution of the moon... something like that.

Hardly. His participation is far from over - he will be financially responsible for the life of that child, or until he reaches 18.

That isn't participation in the reproductive process.

His participation in that process is over when his sperm enters the woman's body. Thus, his last chance to make a decision not to have his child brought into the world is at the point where he has sex.

Do you remember the name of that thread or know how to find it? I'd like to look at those figures.

Oh my. It was a "paper abortion" thread, but it's been quite a while.

That isn't participation in the reproductive process.

His participation in that process is over when his sperm enters the woman's body. Thus, his last chance to make a decision not to have his child brought into the world is at the point where he has sex.

And the woman's last part in the reproductive process is when the sperm enters the egg. Everything after that is simply gestation.

Oh my. It was a "paper abortion" thread, but it's been quite a while.

I'll hunt for it. I'm curious to see how those numbers play out.

Well, if hypothetically it was no more risky than a standard abortion, it should be standard if the male DNA donor wishes to keep the child. Any extra cost (over a standard abortion) would be footed by him.

If it was a standard one yes. What about in risky cases? Or ones where a woman truly does want to abort the foetus because it would be born with defects that are either inherited defects or those which would be birth defects?

Don't follow. I meant 7 standard days... 24 hours, 7 rotations of the earth, 1/4 revolution of the moon... something like that.

Well, in the legal profession, the days are counted differently depending on when something needs to be done. For example, you have seven days to deliver a statement of defence, but for practical purposes because it's seven days or less, holidays, which includes weekends are not counted. My question would then be, would all days be counted or those construed to be business days, because then in theory, the "seven days" to find a surrogate would suddenly become longer.

If it was a standard one yes. What about in risky cases? Or ones where a woman truly does want to abort the foetus because it would be born with defects that are either inherited defects or those which would be birth defects?

In a risky case, it would naturally have much more to do with the doctor's decision and input. Naturally, if the woman was in an emergency and about to suffer serious harm, the whole process could be shortcut.

In the case of birth defects, I would have it be the father's decision in this case to accept the responsibility for a child with birth defects if he so chooses. However, you do make an interesting point and I would like you to expound on it a little bit.

Well, in the legal profession, the days are counted differently depending on when something needs to be done. For example, you have seven days to deliver a statement of defence, but for practical purposes because it's seven days or less, holidays, which includes weekends are not counted. My question would then be, would all days be counted or those construed to be business days, because then in theory, the "seven days" to find a surrogate would suddenly become longer.

I really meant 7 standard days from the time the notice was given til the abortion could be done. Of course, I never think about things like holidays because I don't celebrate any of them.

I don't like the concept of "business days" because the holidays and such could interfere.

And the woman's last part in the reproductive process is when the sperm enters the egg. Everything after that is simply gestation.

Gestation isn't part of the reproductive process?

I think you are very confused about the meanings of these words.

Gestation isn't part of the reproductive process?

I think you are very confused about the meanings of these words.

1: the act or process of reproducing ; specifically : the process by which plants and animals give rise to offspring and which fundamentally consists of the segregation of a portion of the parental body by a sexual or an asexual process and its subsequent growth and differentiation into a new individual

Depends on how you interpret that. I see three basic ways:

1: At conception, when a new DNA strand is formed, it's a new individual, different than either of its parents.

2: At birth, it's a new individual as it's separate from its mother.

3: ~6mo-18mo, when it really develops its own personality, reproduction is complete.

4: ~16yrs, when able to survive on its own as an individual, reproduction is complete

Whereas I do not find that fair at all. The pregnancy, with all it carries (health hazards), rests solely on the mother. It is her body the one placed on the line, she could die at child-birth. The man only puts his sperm, nothing else. So, it is up to her, to the woman, and solely her, to decide wether she wishes to carry a pregnancy to term or end it.

If she didn't want to get pregnant then she should have refused to have sex with the man. Both partners had just as much choice in the conception of the child just because the woman has to carry does not mean she is the only one who can make the decision. Granted though she does have to deal with all the crap that comes with being pregnant but that still does not make her the only one who can make a decision on the matter of abortions.

Granted though she does have to deal with all the crap that comes with being pregnant but that still does not make her the only one who can make a decision on the matter of abortions.

Actually, yes, it kinda does.

What if he's unable to find a Surrogate or Pay for the procedure to take place?

Does he just lose whatever rights he has to the child's future?

And the woman's last part in the reproductive process is when the sperm enters the egg. Everything after that is simply gestation.

...which is part of the reproductive process, meaning that her participation does not end at sex. She physically participates in this process until it is either halted, or she gives birth to a child.


If she didn't want to get pregnant then she should have refused to have sex with the man.

Perhaps. But now she is pregnant, so she gets to decide whether or not to remain so.

Both partners had just as much choice in the conception of the child just because the woman has to carry does not mean she is the only one who can make the decision.

Yes, that is exactly what it means. She is the one who is pregnant. Therefore, she is the one who gets to decide whether or not to remain pregnant.

Granted though she does have to deal with all the crap that comes with being pregnant but that still does not make her the only one who can make a decision on the matter of abortions.

Yes, it does. If anyone else makes the decision, they are using her body against her will.

Actually, yes, it kinda does.

If the woman made the child all by her self then yes. But seeing as a man is needed as well then at least some of the decision making should be given to him. If the woman did not want a child she should have:

A. Had protected sex/used birth control
B.not had sex at all

with B being the option working 100% of the time.

Having an abortion because of an accidental pregnancy is just consequence dodging

What if he's unable to find a Surrogate or Pay for the procedure to take place?

Does he just lose whatever rights he has to the child's future?

This didn't make sense.

In the sense that now the mother is free to abort the child, I guess so.

If she didn't want to get pregnant then she should have refused to have sex with the man. Both partners had just as much choice in the conception of the child just because the woman has to carry does not mean she is the only one who can make the decision. Granted though she does have to deal with all the crap that comes with being pregnant but that still does not make her the only one who can make a decision on the matter of abortions.

In that aspect, both parties are responsible. If a pregnancy is unwanted, the man and the woman have the responsibility to use protection. But in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, because the woman is the one who will have to expose herself, both physically and mentally, to 9 months of sickness and health hazards, it is her right and choice to end it when and if she chooses. Not the man's. But hers alone.

If the woman made the child all by her self then yes. But seeing as a man is needed as well then at least some of the decision making should be given to him. If the woman did not want a child she should have:

A. Had protected sex/used birth control
B.not had sex at all

with B being the option working 100% of the time.

When you say "should be" are you saying "if they want to be nice people, women should discuss this with the father of the child, but the final decision is still hers" or "men have some legal right to decide whether or not a woman may abort"?

[QUOTE=Poliwanacraca;14478240]When you say "should be" are you saying "if they want to be nice people, women should discuss this with the father of the child, but the final decision is still hers" or "men have some legal right to decide whether or not a woman may abort"?[/QUOT

Doesn't the child technically belong to both of them?

If the woman made the child all by her self then yes. But seeing as a man is needed as well then at least some of the decision making should be given to him.

(a) This is a yes or no decision. If we have two people participating, only one of them can be the ultimate decision maker.

(b) Ok, why not? He provides an incredibly tiny fraction of the material that goes into forming the embryo/fetus. Therefore, he gets an incredibly tiny fraction of the decision-making capability.

Note: This doesn't mean that I don't think a woman should discuss this with the man and get his input before making her final decision. In the vast majority of cases, I think she should. I'm just talking about the ultimate legal rights here.

Doesn't the child technically belong to both of them?

After reading many of these posts....It seems that many posters dont believe so....

In that aspect, both parties are responsible. If a pregnancy is unwanted, the man and the woman have the responsibility to use protection. But in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, because the woman is the one who will have to expose herself, both physically and mentally, to 9 months of sickness and health hazards, it is her right and choice to end it when and if she chooses. Not the man's. But hers alone.

Well perhaps she should have considered what the possiblities were ahead of time.

Just a question: Why does it seem that some people act like it is impossible to live life if they don't have sex with someone?

Just a question: Why does it seem that some people act like it is impossible to live life if they don't have sex with someone?

Once you have good sex, you crave it all the time.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1;14478259]
(b) Ok, why not? He provides an incredibly tiny fraction of the material that goes into forming the embryo/fetus. QUOTE]

Have to stop you there, 50% of the DNA isnt exactly a Tiny fraction...

Well perhaps she should have considered what the possiblities were ahead of time.

Sexist argument. The man should also think of the consequences ahead of time. And, if the woman chooses to abort, understand that it is an issue of her body. She has that right.

As Dempublicents posted, that's not to say that she can consult with the male, but wether she aborts or not is her choice, not his.

Just a question: Why does it seem that some people act like it is impossible to live life if they don't have sex with someone?

I don't presume to know the workings of humanity's psyche. Besides that, I am not sex therapist. Google that.

Doesn't the child technically belong to both of them?

No.

Could you answer my question, please?

Sexist argument. The man should also think of the consequences ahead of time.



I don't presume to know the workings of humanity's psyche. Besides that, I am not sex therapist. Google that.

I didn't say the man could get away without doing anything. He should have to face the decisions he made as well.

I believe that Freud said that all humans are driven by sex and violance.

Have to stop you there, 50% of the DNA isnt exactly a Tiny fraction...

Um, yes it is. 50% of its DNA is a very, very, very, VERY small fraction of the mass of an embryo.

After reading many of these posts....It seems that many posters dont believe so....

I don't think the question is relevant. The embryo/fetus is located within the woman's body. As such, she can choose whether or not to let it remain there.

Have to stop you there, 50% of the DNA isnt exactly a Tiny fraction...

He provides 50% of the DNA for the very first cell. No mitochondria or other organelles and very little cytoplasm.

And that little bit of DNA is the end of it. The materials to form every cell after that come from the mother. By the time she's actually pregnant, those 23 chromosomes are a very, very tiny fraction of the material in the embryo.

I didn't say the man could get away without doing anything. He should have to face the decisions he made as well.

You surely made it sound that way.

I believe that Freud said that all humans are driven by sex and violance.

There you go. You answered your own question.

Um, yes it is. 50% of its DNA is a very, very, very, VERY small fraction of the mass of an embryo.

Maybe, weight Wise, but its not as if the Woman is providing more than the other 50%...Sure, she's providing nourishment, but as far as the actual material of the Embryo itself...

May I point you towards Mitosis?

Um, yes it is. 50% of its DNA is a very, very, very, VERY small fraction of the mass of an embryo.

And it's not even actually 50% of its DNA. It's 50% of the DNA of the zygote. Once the cells start dividing, the material comes from the mother.

Maybe, weight Wise, but its not as if the Woman is providing more than the other 50%...Sure, she's providing nourishment, but as far as the actual material of the Embryo itself...

Where do you think the material for growth comes from?

Oh....nourishment.

No.

Could you answer my question, please?

I am afraid that I cannot answer your question. Being a moderate in the political spectrum I really can see the positives of allowing abortions and the negatives. I do not approve, however, of two persons having sex and then opting for abortions to avoid the consequences of their actions.

explain to me please how the child does not belong to both parties?

Maybe, weight Wise, but its not as if the Woman is providing more than the other 50%...Sure, she's providing nourishment, but as far as the actual material of the Embryo itself...

May I point you towards Mitosis?

.....oh, man.

You appear to think mitosis is a magical process which violates the laws of physics by creating mass from nowhere. Everything - EVERYTHING - except that first single strand of DNA comes from the woman's body. Where the hell else would it come from?

You surely made it sound that way.

Sorry if I did that's not what I ment.


here you go. You answered your own question.

I was hoping for a different explanation though.

And it's not even actually 50% of its DNA. It's 50% of the DNA of the zygote. Once the cells start dividing, the material comes from the mother.

Indeed. I almost specified that, but then felt like being friendly and allowing the fathers to have a say proportionate to the mass of half the DNA in an embryo, seeing as that would still be something ludicrously teensy. :p

.....oh, man.

You appear to think mitosis is a magical process which violates the laws of physics by creating mass from nowhere. Everything - EVERYTHING - except that first single strand of DNA comes from the woman's body. Where the hell else would it come from?

http://www.ewtn.com/series/2006/fall2006/Finding_God.jpg

Him? lol, Idk, I refuse to accept that I have no rights in the fate of My Kid...

Sorry if I did that's not what I ment.

Sure.

I was hoping for a different explanation though.

How else can humanity procreate? Besides that, sex is enjoyable, sex is an expression of many things, not only lust. The answer is simple. What do you want, a thesis on the subject? The possibilities are endless. Think a little.

Him? lol, Idk, I refuse to accept that I have no rights in the fate of My Kid...

It isn't really about the fate of your kid.

What you don't have rights to is any woman's body. As such, you cannot use her as an unwilling incubator for the creation of your child.

Of course, if she chooses to carry to term, and the child is born, you have equal rights and responsibilities to it. (at least, as it currently stands)

I am afraid that I cannot answer your question. Being a moderate in the political spectrum I really can see the positives of allowing abortions and the negatives. I do not approve, however, of two persons having sex and then opting for abortions to avoid the consequences of their actions.

explain to me please how the child does not belong to both parties?
there is no way to avoid the consequences of pregnancy. they just dont choose to deal with it the way YOU want it done.

a child doesn in fact "belong" to both parents but until that child is born, it doesnt legally exist. the woman has the right to make medical decision about her own body. the man does not have the right to make medical decisions about her body.

I am afraid that I cannot answer your question. Being a moderate in the political spectrum I really can see the positives of allowing abortions and the negatives.

To be clear, I'm asking you to clarify your stated position. Please try to answer: are you saying that you, personally, think that this "say" you believe the father should have should be legally mandated, or not?

I do not approve, however, of two persons having sex and then opting for abortions to avoid the consequences of their actions.

How does an abortion avoid the consequences of their actions?

explain to me please how the child does not belong to both parties?

Are we talking about a born child, or an embryo/fetus? Because the former certainly "belongs" to both (in the sense that a human being can "belong" to anyone; it's obviously not their property :p ), but the latter is a part of the woman's body, and not a part of the man's body. The man does not legally own any part of the woman's body. The woman does. Fairly simple.

Sure.



How else can humanity procreate? Besides that, sex is enjoyable, sex is an expression of many things, not only lust. The answer is simple. What do you want, a thesis on the subject? The possibilities are endless. Think a little.

Topic for another thread: Yes and by letting people go out and have promiscuous sex we will over populate the earth (like we are now) and it leads to situations such as these. If people could just show a little self control we wouldn't even be talking about this.

there is no way to avoid the consequences of pregnancy. they just dont choose to deal with it the way YOU want it done.

a child doesn in fact "belong" to both parents but until that child is born, it doesnt legally exist. the woman has the right to make medical decision about her own body. the man does not have the right to make medical decisions about her body.

I've no opinion on abortions. It's just the idea that people can have sex all they want and not deal with the repercussions and having an abortion is just like pleading guilty by reasons of insanity to murder. It is the easy way out.

Topic for another thread: Yes and by letting people go out and have promiscuous sex we will over populate the earth (like we are now) and it leads to situations such as these. If people could just show a little self control we wouldn't even be talking about this.

I'm done with this thread. Go write the thesis.

I've no opinion on abortions. It's just the idea that people can have sex all they want and not deal with the repercussions and having an abortion is just like pleading guilty by reasons of insanity to murder. It is the easy way out.
they do deal with the reprocussions.

the only people who dont are those (probably mentally ill) people who give birth in a public bathroom and toss the baby away in the trash.

To be clear, I'm asking you to clarify your stated position. Please try to answer: are you saying that you, personally, think that this "say" you believe the father should have should be legally mandated, or not?



How does an abortion avoid the consequences of their actions?



Are we talking about a born child, or an embryo/fetus? Because the former certainly "belongs" to both (in the sense that a human being can "belong" to anyone; it's obviously not their property :p ), but the latter is a part of the woman's body, and not a part of the man's body. The man does not legally own any part of the woman's body. The woman does. Fairly simple.

1. I do think the father should have some control in the matter
2.Abortions avoid the prospect of giving birth to and raising a child. Though the childs life may be harder if it is raised by a mother that neither wanted the child nor can support it. So seeing as I don't want my tax dollars paying for it an abortion might actually be the smart thing. That's why being a moderate sucks, you always sit on the fense.
3.The mother and the father BOTH made the decision to have sex with one another. Why then should the fetus belong only to the mother?

I'm done with this thread. Go write the thesis.

I'm sorry I just angry at the fact that society seems consumed by sex.

1. I do think the father should have some control in the matter

Okay. I'll address the other problems with this in a bit, but first, how does "some control" work in a yes-no decision? Does he get to declare that only half of the embryo may be removed from the woman's uterus, but the other half has to stay in?

2.Abortions avoid the prospect of giving birth to and raising a child. Though the childs life may be harder if it is raised by a mother that neither wanted the child nor can support it. So seeing as I don't want my tax dollars paying for it an abortion might actually be the smart thing. That's why being a moderate sucks, you always sit on the fense.

"Giving birth to and raising a child" is not in any way equal to "the consequences of having sex." Unless you are honestly going to argue that every time anyone has sex, they give birth to and raise a child?

I'm glad you seem to recognize that abortion can be a responsible decision, though.

3.The mother and the father BOTH made the decision to have sex with one another. Why then should the fetus belong only to the mother?

I already explicitly answered this. It is part of her body. No one can claim ownership of any part of my body except for me. He does not own her, and he does not own any part of her, including her uterus.

In the case of birth defects, I would have it be the father's decision in this case to accept the responsibility for a child with birth defects if he so chooses. However, you do make an interesting point and I would like you to expound on it a little bit.

(Sorry for taking a while, but I am watching Star Trek: Next Generation reruns)

Just to review quickly, the purpose of the transplant and finding a surrogate is to allow for the foetus, if medically possible, to be carried to term. This works if there are no complications or risks involved in the form of medical complications for the mother or potential birth defects in the unborn foetus.

Now then, we run into the issue of birth defects, whether inherited or from the womb, as is the case with diseases like Downs Syndrome. The goal of this transplant would be to allow the foetus to have a chance at life. However, if the foetus is shown to have anything that would impact on the quality of its life, do we want to bring it into an overpopulated world?

This isn't to say all defects do impact so negatively, because not all are the same. Even the disease or defect would be different from person to person. Some may live a wonderful life, some may not.

By the same token there are potential problems that could impact on that live and it would make the lives of the potential surrogate parents difficult. Would they be willing to accept the costs?

This is assuming that there is medical disclosure at the outset.

Okay. I'll address the other problems with this in a bit, but first, how does "some control" work in a yes-no decision? Does he get to declare that only half of the embryo may be removed from the woman's uterus, but the other half has to stay in?



"Giving birth to and raising a child" is not in any way equal to "the consequences of having sex." Unless you are honestly going to argue that every time anyone has sex, they give birth to and raise a child?

I'm glad you seem to recognize that abortion can be a responsible decision, though.



I already explicitly answered this. It is part of her body. No one can claim ownership of any part of my body except for me. He does not own her, and he does not own any part of her, including her uterus.

In cases of accidental pregnancy did not both sides consent to have sex?

Though I have to admit until birth the fetus could be defined as a parasite that is sucking nutrients out of a womans body.

[IMG]

Him? lol, Idk, I refuse to accept that I have no rights in the fate of My Kid...

No, you were right to snarkily reference Mitosis. Some people on this board forget thats it not just prophase, metaphase, anaphase, and telophase, but also "mass and energy from the man floats through subspace, enters the woman's body, and contributes to the gestation" phase.

Thus, scientifically, its not all about the woman's body.

1. I do think the father should have some control in the matter


heres the problem with that stance.

what does "some control" mean? surely he shouldnt have final say over whether or not an abortion occurs, right? so maybe he should have ......49% of the decision and she should have 51% of the decision because, afterall, its her body. that seems very reasonable, eh?

so.... she wants an abortion and he doesnt. he gets 49% choice, she gets 51% ....oh she gets to do as she chooses as if she has 100% and he has 0%.

hmmmmm well what if its 50-50?

she wants an abortion, he doesnt. .....his 50% vote means that HE decides whether or not the abortion happens. he decides what to do with her body as if he has 100% decision....thats not right.

and of course, if he wants the abortion and she doesnt he is always shit out of luck because no one is ever going to strap a woman down on a table and abort her pregnancy against her will, eh?

its not "fair" but then its not "fair" that the woman should have to deal physically with all the issues involved in making a human being from scratch.

so if abortion is repugnant to you, you need to make sure that you only have sex with women who feel the same and who would take your opinion into consideration should she ever be in that situation and be considering abortion.

I'm sorry I just angry at the fact that society seems consumed by sex.
its all part of human biology to be consumed with sex. its kinda why we have more than 6billion people on this planet.

heres the problem with that stance.

what does "some control" mean? surely he shouldnt have final say over whether or not an abortion occurs, right? so maybe he should have ......49% of the decision and she should have 51% of the decision because, afterall, its her body. that seems very reasonable, eh?

so.... she wants an abortion and he doesnt. he gets 49% choice, she gets 51% ....oh she gets to do as she chooses as if she has 100% and he has 0%.

hmmmmm well what if its 50-50?

she wants an abortion, he doesnt. .....his 50% vote means that HE decides whether or not the abortion happens. he decides what to do with her body as if he has 100% decision....thats not right.

and of course, if he wants the abortion and she doesnt he is always shit out of luck because no one is ever going to strap a woman down on a table and abort her pregnancy against her will, eh?

its not "fair" but then its not "fair" that the woman should have to deal physically with all the issues involved in making a human being from scratch.

so if abortion is repugnant to you, you need to make sure that you only have sex with women who feel the same and who would take your opinion into consideration should she ever be in that situation and be considering abortion.

I said some becuase I don't want to commit myself to either side. I like sitting in the middle.

In cases of accidental pregnancy did not both sides consent to have sex?

Well, unless it was rape, yes, both parties consented to sex. But how is this a response to anything I said? (And could you possibly respond to the things I did say there? I mean, that's kinda how a rational discussion works - I ask questions, you answer them, you ask questions, I answer them, and so on.)

Though I have to admit until birth the fetus could be defined as a parasite that is sucking nutrients out of a womans body.

That is indeed essentially accurate.

(To avoid a repetitive side-discussion, "parasite" is a value-neutral term in this context. I do not think embryos are evil or something, but the relationship can reasonably be described from a biological perspective as being a parasitic one. I mention this only because every single time the word "parasite" comes up in an abortion thread, it seems someone has to start whinging about how people only use that word because they hate babies or something. :tongue: )

I said some becuase I don't want to commit myself to either side. I like sitting in the middle.
yes but do you see that he cant have SOME?

its all part of human biology to be consumed with sex. its kinda why we have more than 6billion people on this planet.

I disagree. While sex should not be repressed like some religions believe. Neither should people go about doing it without a care. And companies should not further exploit peoples desire for sex through ads and products.

all things in moderation.

Honestly I just like playing devils advocate. Except when breaking the law is involved in which case I am totally for strict laws and harsh punishments.

Playing devil's advocate is different from staying in the middle and is yet further different from being angry about a naturally pervasive biological impetus.

I disagree. While sex should not be repressed like some religions believe. Neither should people go about doing it without a care. And companies should not further exploit peoples desire for sex through ads and products.

all things in moderation.
yeah i know what you mean

but thats not how people behave.

(Sorry for taking a while, but I am watching Star Trek: Next Generation reruns)

You were forgiven for the response time, but not for watching TNG!

Just to review quickly, the purpose of the transplant and finding a surrogate is to allow for the foetus, if medically possible, to be carried to term. This works if there are no complications or risks involved in the form of medical complications for the mother or potential birth defects in the unborn foetus.

Now then, we run into the issue of birth defects, whether inherited or from the womb, as is the case with diseases like Downs Syndrome. The goal of this transplant would be to allow the foetus to have a chance at life. However, if the foetus is shown to have anything that would impact on the quality of its life, do we want to bring it into an overpopulated world?

This isn't to say all defects do impact so negatively, because not all are the same. Even the disease or defect would be different from person to person. Some may live a wonderful life, some may not.

By the same token there are potential problems that could impact on that live and it would make the lives of the potential surrogate parents difficult. Would they be willing to accept the costs?

This is assuming that there is medical disclosure at the outset.

I would say if the father and the surrogate mother (or surrogate mother & father, if appropriate) find it to be acceptable, then it should be allowed.

Playing devil's advocate is different from staying in the middle and is yet further different from being angry about a naturally pervasive biological impetus.

nonsense, being a moderate I can see the positives and negatives of both sides. In reality that means I can't really choose what I support except for a few times like with the whole angry about sex which probably stems from the fact that I know i'll never get sex.

As for playing devils advocate I love winning arguments and I live in a place where most people are onesided on an issue so I nautrally argue whatever side I see as having less support.

nonsense, being a moderate I can see the positives and negatives of both sides. In reality that means I can't really choose what I support

Because apparently a balanced examination of the premise somehow precludes that one side may have a prevalence of reasonable support that can outweigh the merits of the opposing position while still acknowledging them. That's reality?


except for a few times like with the whole angry about sex which probably stems from the fact that I know i'll never get sex.

So you don't except when you do. You having little optimism about sex somehow warrants the derisive judgment of an entire society as being fixated on it.


As for playing devils advocate I love winning arguments

Yet when you are saliently and consistently refuted, rather than crafting a cogent rebuttal, you explain how you don't take sides, except when you do.


and I live in a place where most people are onesided on an issue so I nautrally argue whatever side I see as having less support.

Maybe they're one-sided because they aren't getting sex. I've heard it can diminish one's ability to cogitate consistently with one's own philosophy.

Because apparently a balanced examination of the premise somehow precludes that one side may have a prevalence of reasonable support that can outweigh the merits of the opposing position while still acknowledging them. That's reality?



So you don't except when you do. You having little optimism about sex somehow warrants the derisive judgment of an entire society as being fixated on it.



Yet when you are saliently and consistently refuted, rather than crafting a cogent rebuttal, you explain how you don't take sides, except when you do.



Maybe they're one-sided because they aren't getting sex. I've heard it can diminish one's ability to cogitate consistently with one's own philosophy.


1.Most of what I say comes from my twisted version of reality please don't question it as it might fall apart and I don't know what kind of state that would leave me in.

2.I can profile society if I want. That doesn't mean that i'm right.

3. Most of the people I argue with are pretty stupid. Its not hard to form an argument to beat them.

any comments? refer to number 1.

wow I am probably not helping myself out with the above comments.

oh well.

1.Most of what I say comes from my twisted version of reality please don't question it as it might fall apart and I don't know what kind of state that would leave me in.

Twisted is one thing...blatantly contradictory and poorly reasoned are different.


2.I can profile society if I want. That doesn't mean that i'm right.

Profiling society in so broad and pejorative a way is hardly "moderate", nor does it represent an acumen for seeing the "positives and negatives" of both sides.

So, its not so much that you're wrong, you aren't even consistent with your own premise. A view can be twisted without being hypocritical.


3. Most of the people I argue with are pretty stupid. Its not hard to form an argument to beat them.

So, by that reasoning, the fact that a few people have presented rebuttals to your various claims that you haven't been able to cope with would make you, what? Merely twisted?

Whereas you can apparently comfortably judge those around you as "pretty stupid" since they can't withstand your own arguments, will you label yourself by the same standard?


any comments? refer to number 1.

Predicating your responses on your previous statements requires greater consistency within your arguments.

wow I am probably not helping myself out with the above comments.

oh well.

Well, at least you aren't a "pretty stupid one-sided" extremist who can't see both sides, like you describe some of the people around you.

Twisted is one thing...blatantly contradictory and poorly reasoned are different.



Profiling society in so broad and pejorative a way is hardly "moderate", nor does it represent an acumen for seeing the "positives and negatives" of both sides.

So, its not so much that you're wrong, you aren't even consistent with your own premise. A view can be twisted without being hypocritical.



So, by that reasoning, the fact that a few people have presented rebuttals to your various claims that you haven't been able to cope with would make you, what? Merely twisted?

Whereas you can apparently comfortably judge those around you as "pretty stupid" since they can't withstand your own arguments, will you label yourself by the same standard?



Predicating your responses on your previous statements requires greater consistency within your arguments.

For the sake of arguing I play the devils advocate. When it comes to making decisions such as in Nation States most of the choices I make are compromises between the two extremes. In that I do remain consistant. I don't know why I like playing devils advocate in arguments I just do it nautrally. As for the last statment: I'm an arrogant asshole I judge most of my classmates at my school as stupid while overlooking my own imperfections.

Well, at least you aren't a "pretty stupid one-sided" extremist who can't see both sides, like you describe some of the people around you.

Most of the people around me are high school students who have lives and don't pay attention to politics as much as I do. Most of them are also church goers who belive in the bible. Not that I don't believe in God it's just that sometimes these people defend there opinions with "it's in the bible, or God said so" I just spend more time focusing on arguing than they do thats all.

I see no course by which to reconcile the equality of the father to the problem that, until born, the child is protected by the rights of the person of the mother, and, once born, can hardly be killed for expediacy's sake.

All I would propose is that, if the male wants the child, but the female does not, remuneration be offered for her pregnancy, and renunciation of all rights "post natum".

For the sake of arguing I play the devils advocate.

That would be more credible if your arguments weren't acerbic generalities not reflecting any depth of analysis of the subject.


When it comes to making decisions such as in Nation States most of the choices I make are compromises between the two extremes. In that I do remain consistant.

You claimed to be a moderate in the sense of your purported ability to see both sides, yet your actual arguments don't seem to benefit from that ability. Further, your reasoning that seeing value to both arguments somehow precludes taking a side reveals little capacity for comparative reasoning, which is inconsistent with your self-declared inclination to be devil's advocate.


I don't know why I like playing devils advocate in arguments I just do it nautrally.

There is a difference between claiming to do something naturally and having the ability to do it well. You may find more potency as "Devils Advocate" if you developed the latter before the former.


As for the last statment: I'm an arrogant asshole I judge most of my classmates at my school as stupid while overlooking my own imperfections.

I imagine we all do that at some point. I would urge you to craft and refine your reasoning and rhetoric; commensurately, I will attempt to improve my own.

Perhaps you really are surrounded by "pretty stupid" people. But I hope that the marks they inflict on you do not swell and scar so fiercely that it makes you odious to those people you may eventually encounter that are not so bad. I learned that lesson too late and don't have enough life left to benefit.

You sound young, so perhaps you have time left.

That would be more credible if your arguments weren't acerbic generalities not reflecting any depth of analysis of the subject.



You claimed to be a moderate in the sense of your purported ability to see both sides, yet your actual arguments don't seem to benefit from that ability. Further, your reasoning that seeing value to both arguments somehow precludes taking a side reveals little capacity for comparative reasoning, which is inconsistent with your self-declared inclination to be devil's advocate.



There is a difference between claiming to do something naturally and having the ability to do it well. You may find more potency as "Devils Advocate" if you developed the latter before the former.



I imagine we all do that at some point. I would urge you to craft and refine your reasoning and rhetoric; commensurately, I will attempt to improve my own.

Perhaps you really are surrounded by "pretty stupid" people. But I hope that the marks they inflict on you do not swell and scar so fiercely that it makes you odious to those people you may eventually encounter that are not so bad. I learned that lesson too late and don't have enough life left to benefit.

You sound young, so perhaps you have time left.

How about this: For the sake of arguing I pick a side and defend it. I may or may not be good at it but I do it anyways. Why? Because most people don't understand compromises which is what I believe in. If you want proof here is my real opinion on abortion:

Abortion is intreresting in that you could be techinally hurting something and saving it all in one action. Obviously if a woman is raped or her life or the childs is in danger(including defects) then she has any choice that she wants on wether or not the child lives. When it comes to accidental pregnancies though I see two things:
1. By letting the child live we give it life and opportunity instead of killing it which may or may not be wrong to some people.

2.By letting the woman have the choice we are probably saving the child in the long run from a bad life with one mother who is probably young and cannot support the baby on her own and who still probably can't even with the fathers help which will lead to the child having future issues with crime or psychological problems. The down side to this is that in my uneducated opinion on abortion I see it as just a manner that people who only wanted to have sex for the enjoyment use to avoid having a baby. In my opinion this is equivalent to anyone commiting a crime and then some how getting away with it.

So what side do I pick? Well I don't really know the I haven't decided on what a good compromise between the two sides would be.

I try everyday not to be arrogent but I instinctivly do it anyways. It will probably take some large humbling event to make me realize and accept who I am and where I am in society.

Technically I'm not totally moderate. On the scale of anarchy vs authoritarianism I am way up the authoritarian side.

And with that, being still young I have a test to study for along with a ton of homework so good night to all of you.

Someone may have already mentioned this, but: if both parties are agreeable, couldn't some contract be drawn up, like a prenup, that states that in the event of pregnancy, the pregnant party agrees to have an abortion or not seek child support? It seems like this might help in situations where a man who does not wish to have a child and who is taking reasonable measures to prevent pregnancy finds himself "baby trapped". I mean, you can draft a contract for just about anything, can't you?

Someone may have already mentioned this, but: if both parties are agreeable, couldn't some contract be drawn up, like a prenup, that states that in the event of pregnancy, the pregnant party agrees to have an abortion or not seek child support? It seems like this might help in situations where a man who does not wish to have a child and who is taking reasonable measures to prevent pregnancy finds himself "baby trapped". I mean, you can draft a contract for just about anything, can't you?

An interesting notion, and one well worth consideration. I would have to consult with an attorney to see if that's possible or not, as certain things cannot be contracted. Know an attorney?

An interesting notion, and one well worth consideration. I would have to consult with an attorney to see if that's possible or not, as certain things cannot be contracted. Know an attorney?

Ask Neo Art, he's a lawyer.

Someone may have already mentioned this, but: if both parties are agreeable, couldn't some contract be drawn up, like a prenup, that states that in the event of pregnancy, the pregnant party agrees to have an abortion or not seek child support? It seems like this might help in situations where a man who does not wish to have a child and who is taking reasonable measures to prevent pregnancy finds himself "baby trapped". I mean, you can draft a contract for just about anything, can't you?

Unless I am much confused, such a contract wouldn't be legally valid, because you can't sign away someone else's rights - in this case, those of the child to financial support from its parents.

Unless I am much confused, such a contract wouldn't be legally valid, because you can't sign away someone else's rights - in this case, those of the child to financial support from its parents.

Is that always true, though? I mean, if someone goes to a sperm or egg bank and uses the, uh, "material" to have a child, and then somehow (there are mistakes) gets ahold of the donor information, can they make the donor pay? Technically speaking, the donor is the biological mother/father and thus has a financial responsibility, yet I have a hard time imagining this is the case.

Is that always true, though? I mean, if someone goes to a sperm or egg bank and uses the, uh, "material" to have a child, and then somehow (there are mistakes) gets ahold of the donor information, can they make the donor pay?

This is where I actually do have to defer to a lawyer, because I have no idea.

Here, I'll make Neo Art show up. *does something suggestive with Ryadn* ;)

Is that always true, though? I mean, if someone goes to a sperm or egg bank and uses the, uh, "material" to have a child, and then somehow (there are mistakes) gets ahold of the donor information, can they make the donor pay? Technically speaking, the donor is the biological mother/father and thus has a financial responsibility, yet I have a hard time imagining this is the case.

I think it has more to do with what's on the birth certificate.

Anecdotal of course, but I had a friend who was married for several years, got divorced, paid child support for a couple of years (to the tune of $2,900/mo), and found out from someone that she had cheated on him around the time of his son's birth.

So, naturally, he had a DNA test run, and lo and behold, the boy wasn't his. However, the judge made him continue to pay child support anyway. He still pays child support to this day, but I think the son turns 18 later this year.

Still 3 or 4 years on the daughter.

Someone may have already mentioned this, but: if both parties are agreeable, couldn't some contract be drawn up, like a prenup, that states that in the event of pregnancy, the pregnant party agrees to have an abortion or not seek child support?

Ask Neo Art, he's a lawyer.

very well then. The short answer is no. For a few reasons.

1) as Poli noted, you can't negotiate someone else's rights away. The right to receive child support is the right of the CHILD, not either parent. It's the CHILD'S right to receive support for both parents. You can't sign away your child's rights. Any clause in something like a prenup where it says that one child agrees to take responsibility for the child? Yeah, worthless. Trash. Use it as wallpaper. Courts, when considering child support, look to the best interest of the child. You can't negotiate the child's rights away. Only the child can.

2) a contract to have an abortion is...tricky, but the issue basically is this. The law recognizes only two kinds of enforceable contracts. Contracts for sale of goods, and contracts for services. Since there's no "good" involved, it must be for services, which are defined as, very losely, any general physical, or mental labor to bring about some end. So it would be a "service".

Problem, court's wont order specific performance of a service contract. They will not tell someone "you must do what you agreed to do and perform the service you agreed to perform". Mainly that's because when the government orders you to perform some task, we sorta call that "slavery", and it's kinda illegal.

2) a contract to have an abortion is...tricky, but the issue basically is this. The law recognizes only two kinds of enforceable contracts. Contracts for sale of goods, and contracts for services. Since there's no "good" involved, it must be for services, which are defined as, very losely, any general physical, or mental labor to bring about some end. So it would be a "service".

Problem, court's wont order specific performance of a service contract. They will not tell someone "you must do what you agreed to do and perform the service you agreed to perform". Mainly that's because when the government orders you to perform some task, we sorta call that "slavery", and it's kinda illegal.

Could there be a monetary forfeiture attached to noncompliance listed in the contract? An amount that would counter an expected child support claim, for instance.

This is where I actually do have to defer to a lawyer, because I have no idea.

Here, I'll make Neo Art show up. *does something suggestive with Ryadn* ;)

wow, that's a good way to make that work.

Short answer is, as a general rule, that is the exception, because of either statutory or case law exception. But in some states they have actually had to pass laws specifically saying "no, sperm donors don't have to pay child support" or that would actually be the logical implication of the rule that you can't contract away your child's rights.

wow, that's a good way to make that work.

Apparently so! :tongue:

Short answer is, as a general rule, that is the exception, because of either statutory or case law exception. But in some states they have actually had to pass laws specifically saying "no, sperm donors don't have to pay child support" or that would actually be the logical implication of the rule that you can't contract away your child's rights.

*feels all edumacated* :)

very well then. The short answer is no. For a few reasons.

1) as Poli noted, you can't negotiate someone else's rights away. The right to receive child support is the right of the CHILD, not either parent. It's the CHILD'S right to receive support for both parents. You can't sign away your child's rights. Any clause in something like a prenup where it says that one child agrees to take responsibility for the child? Yeah, worthless. Trash. Use it as wallpaper. Courts, when considering child support, look to the best interest of the child. You can't negotiate the child's rights away. Only the child can.

2) a contract to have an abortion is...tricky, but the issue basically is this. The law recognizes only two kinds of enforceable contracts. Contracts for sale of goods, and contracts for services. Since there's no "good" involved, it must be for services, which are defined as, very losely, any general physical, or mental labor to bring about some end. So it would be a "service".

Problem, court's wont order specific performance of a service contract. They will not tell someone "you must do what you agreed to do and perform the service you agreed to perform". Mainly that's because when the government orders you to perform some task, we sorta call that "slavery", and it's kinda illegal.

As well, I don't think you can have a contract without an exchange of said goods or services. It can't just be a promise by one party not to do something.

Could there be a monetary forfeiture attached to noncompliance listed in the contract? An amount that would counter an expected child support claim, for instance.

oh god now you're making me work. The answer, I think, would still be no, but for different, and more complicated reasons. This is...sorta complex, so lemme try to explain.

There is no analogous case I'm aware of, so I need to extrapolate here a bit. First, let's start with something called a covenant. In law, a covenant is basically an agreement pertaining to the use, development, and sale of real property (IE, land). When you buy a piece of land bound by a covenant, you agree to the term of that covenant, and if you fail to adhere to it, you can be sued to enforce the covenant.

Well, there's a very famous supreme court case called Shelly v. Kraemer, famous not only for its scope, but for its damned weird ruling. In this post, basically, someone had bought a piece of land pursuant to a racially restrictive covenant. In essence, he agreed to never sell the land to any black person, and to make any buyer, or heir, agree to that covenant. It was designed to prevent black people from living there, because it prevented anyone from in any way giving to anyone who was black, or anyone who would give it to someone who was black.

Anyway, he tried to sell it to someone who was black, they Shelley family, and got sued. The issue was, Shelley tried to have the covenant dissolved, and declared invalid. Here's where it got weird. The court held that the covenant was valid. The person who bought the property agreed to it. He agreed to contractually restrict his rights. That is a perfectly valid restriction on his rights as an agreement between private parties, and could not be dissolved.

But then the court found something...sorta strange. They said that while the covenant was a valid agreement, for the court to enforce the agreement would require governmental intervention in order to enforce discrimination. And, per the 14th amendment, the government can't racially discriminate. So while the covenant was valid, the courts couldn't do anything about it. No enforcement or damages was possible, because in order to enforce the terms of the contract, it would require the government to actively discriminate, nad violate the 14th amendment.

Clear as mud? Good. Basically the court held that, while the agreement was valid, the court could not enforce it by any legal means, because in doing so, would trample on the fundamental rights of the Shelley family. Thus it was an unenforceable contract.

In my opinion, this would be similar. The right to have an abortion is also the right not to. It's a broad right of bodily autonomy. To give an award for damages would, essentially, cause the court to enforce damages on a contract restricting ones fundamental liberties.

As well, I don't think you can have a contract without an exchange of said goods or services. It can't just be a promise by one party not to do something.

sorta yes sorta no. What you're talking about is "consideration", which is, in general, a bargained for legal benefit or detriment. Each party must gain something, and lose something, for a contract to be valid. You're right, an agreement simply saying "you have an abortion if something happens" wouldn't be valid for it lacks consideration. There'd need to be some interchange for a contract to be valid.

It STILL wouldn't be for other reasons, but you're right, lack of consideration is an issue, but by far is not the most fatal.

Hmm. Actually, your explanation makes good sense. I'm just not sure exactly what the answer to the original question is.

Probably, because there exists no clear cut answer at this time. I need to get one of these contracts, impregnate the woman, and then get it going through the courts to see what happens. SCOTUS is going to love me.

As well, I don't think you can have a contract without an exchange of said goods or services. It can't just be a promise by one party not to do something.

So pre-nups only work because there's already a marriage contract. But is marriage a good or service?

So pre-nups only work because there's already a marriage contract. But is marriage a good or service?

it's performing some activity (namely procuring the officiated marriage license and taking the legally proscribed activities necessary to effectuate the legal marriage). Ergo it's a service.

It's a fairly simple analysis. Are you GIVING something, or are you DOING something? The former makes it a sale of goods contract, the later makes it a services contract.

wow, that's a good way to make that work.

Short answer is, as a general rule, that is the exception, because of either statutory or case law exception. But in some states they have actually had to pass laws specifically saying "no, sperm donors don't have to pay child support" or that would actually be the logical implication of the rule that you can't contract away your child's rights.

Hmm. Okay.

...what about non-anonymous donors? Like, I know in many cases people who agreed to give their child up for adoption, who actually did give it up, can exercise their parental rights months later if they change their mind. Can parental responsibilities be enforced in the same way? Can someone who adopted a child try to get support, or is this a matter of birth certificates?

It's a fairly simple analysis. Are you GIVING something, or are you DOING something? The former makes it a sale of goods contract, the later makes it a services contract.

I want you to recognize that I'm working very hard not to make a dirty joke out of that.

Probably, because there exists no clear cut answer at this time. I need to get one of these contracts, impregnate the woman, and then get it going through the courts to see what happens. SCOTUS is going to love me.

Let us do it.

It's a fairly simple analysis. Are you GIVING something, or are you DOING something? The former makes it a sale of goods contract, the later makes it a services contract.

Idk...But ill go straight to Nevada to Find Out!!!

Let us do it.

YES! This text keeps the "yes" in caps.

YES! This text keeps the "yes" in caps.

Score, Galloism?:rolleyes:

Score, Galloism?:rolleyes:

I find your lack of enthusiasm disheartening.

I find your lack of enthusiasm disheartening.

It must be lateness of the hour.

Hmm. Okay.

...what about non-anonymous donors?

Jury's still out on that one nationally. Some states say if you clearly, and directly, entered into an agreement with the mother to actively attempt to impregnate her to give her a child, then you count as a "sperm donor". Other says no, you have to be anonymous, and if you didn't go through the anonymous process, you are the father.

Like, I know in many cases people who agreed to give their child up for adoption, who actually did give it up, can exercise their parental rights months later if they change their mind. Can parental responsibilities be enforced in the same way? Can someone who adopted a child try to get support, or is this a matter of birth certificates?

Here's how adoption works, in general. once a child is formally, officially, legally adopted, all rights and responsibilities of the former parents' cease, and they are transferred to the new parent(s). If you put your child up for adoption, once it's FORMALLY adopted, and the judge bangs that gavel, you are no longer the parent. You are citizen Ryadn, with no rights or responsibilities therein. Up until that final moment though, when legal rights transfer, you're still the parent. You can take the child back (unless the state took it from you, that is). So you can "put up" your child for adoption, then take it back, but once it's FORMALLY adopted, you are no longer that child's parent.

Whoever adopted your child are now the parents, and yes, as parents, they can be held to support that child. Once you adopt a child you take on ALL rights and responsibilities you would have had if you were that child's biological parent.

It's important to note that "parent" is a legal construct, not a biological one. Whomever has the legal rights and responsibilities is the person or persons that are the parents as a matter of LAW. Being the child's biological parent doesn't ALWAYS make you the legal parent, but there is a default position that, unless someone else has legally assumed the role of parent, the parents of a child are the ones who sired it.

It must be lateness of the hour.

I find your lack of a proper sleep schedule disturbing.

I want you to recognize that I'm working very hard not to make a dirty joke out of that.

I say go with it.

I want you to recognize that I'm working very hard not to make a dirty joke out of that.

I had a similar thought. Are we terrible people? :p

Oh, and what's with the proliferation of abortion threads? It's disturbing.

You have been on NSG how long? Now the election is over and Obama is sworn in and is doing a few things it is time for NSG to return to its regular programming that is abortion, Christians and spam.

And yes, this may be all I will post here I have said everything I want to say in these threads before hand, abortion should be allowed but it does annoy me that if the father doesn't want a child and makes that clear during the pregnancy that he should have to pay for the child.

It's important to note that "parent" is a legal construct, not a biological one. Whomever has the legal rights and responsibilities is the person or persons that are the parents as a matter of LAW. Being the child's biological parent doesn't ALWAYS make you the legal parent, but there is a default position that, unless someone else has legally assumed the role of parent, the parents of a child are the ones who sired it.

sorry, that last little bit there was horribly convoluted, let me try again. There are really two meanings for the word "parent" and it's important not to confuse the two. There is the person who contributed his/her DNA to the child. That is the child's biological parent. There is also the person who has the legal rights, responsibilities, duties and obligations to the child. That is the child's legal parent.

There is a presumption in the law that a biological parent is the legal parent, unless he has given up his rights and responsibilities to the child by some operation of law.

An anonymous sperm donor is the child's biological parent. He is not the legal parent, because the law says anonymous sperm donors are not legal parents.

Someone who has formally given her child for adoption is the child's biological parent, but, because she has given up her legal rights and responsibilities, she is not the child's legal parent.

Someone who has adopted a child is the child's legal parent, because he has taken on those rights and responsibilities, but is not the child's biological parent, because he didn't contribute DNA.

When discussing things like child care and the rest, the question is who is the legal parent, not the biological one. Biological parents arent, by themselves, important int he law, except for the fact that a biological parent are held to be the legal parent, absent some legal reason to the contrary.

very well then. The short answer is no. For a few reasons.

1) as Poli noted, you can't negotiate someone else's rights away. The right to receive child support is the right of the CHILD, not either parent. It's the CHILD'S right to receive support for both parents. You can't sign away your child's rights. Any clause in something like a prenup where it says that one child agrees to take responsibility for the child? Yeah, worthless. Trash. Use it as wallpaper. Courts, when considering child support, look to the best interest of the child. You can't negotiate the child's rights away. Only the child can.

2) a contract to have an abortion is...tricky, but the issue basically is this. The law recognizes only two kinds of enforceable contracts. Contracts for sale of goods, and contracts for services. Since there's no "good" involved, it must be for services, which are defined as, very losely, any general physical, or mental labor to bring about some end. So it would be a "service".

Problem, court's wont order specific performance of a service contract. They will not tell someone "you must do what you agreed to do and perform the service you agreed to perform". Mainly that's because when the government orders you to perform some task, we sorta call that "slavery", and it's kinda illegal.

Question Neo you say you can't sign someones right away but surely you can sign your rights away if you want to? You also mention that there is no good, surely the good would be the child and the service being the production of said child?

What happens in the case of employment contracts? You sign that you will do something and perform a service now that being a contract the government should be able to tell them they have to do what they signed up to?

Crap, I didn't do what I said I would, that serves me right for reading the thread.

Crap, I didn't do what I said I would, that serves me right for reading the thread.

*shackles you to the wall*

Trapped! Trapped! I caught another one!

Of course they do. They both have the complete and utter choice over whether or not their bodies shall participate in the reproductive process.

Each may decline to allow their bodies to participate in that process, up until the point where their participation in that process ends.

The man most certainly has the choice whether or not the responsibility is going to exist, he may exercise his right of bodily autonomy to refuse to allow himself to participate in the reproductive process.

He may do so by choosing to not have sex with her.

I'm sorry to interject here, but isn't this the argument that the pro-life side of the coin often uses to justify banning abortion? That the mother may choose to exercise her right to bodily autonomy by opting out of participation in the reproductive process? And I believe that the counter-argument from the pro-choice side is that consent to sexual congress is not consent to pregnancy or children.

Just to clarify my position, I am pro-choice, very ardently. I'm just curious about the seeming contradiction in terms here. I tend to think that a man should have the right to decide if he does not wish to support a child created out of a drunken mistake. Not at any point in the child's life that he chooses, but he should be given the same time period to declare his severance of parental rights as the mother does to have an abortion.

And I am intrigued by Gallo's question on when a woman rapes a man and falls pregnant. The child's rights are still the same - support by parents, but the man has obviously had no choice in the matter. Should he have to pay for children born of this situation?

Similarly a friend of mine's girlfriend punctured holes in his condoms so that she could fall pregnant...should he have to pay for her deception?

And I am intrigued by Gallo's question on when a woman rapes a man and falls pregnant. The child's rights are still the same - support by parents, but the man has obviously had no choice in the matter. Should he have to pay for children born of this situation?

Did I ask that question? I don't remember that. *shuffles back through the pages*

Question Neo you say you can't sign someones right away but surely you can sign your rights away if you want to? You also mention that there is no good, surely the good would be the child and the service being the production of said child?

No, because this was specifically discussing a contract to have an abortion if she got pregnant. Not to birth the child.

Secondly, contracts to NOT have an abortion are invalid for the same reasons. You can't grant specific performance of a service contract, because that's slavery. Likewise you can't enforce a "sale of goods" contract if the "good" produced is a birthed child.

Well, if we consider it a "sale of goods" contract, and the "good" is a child, then essentially, it's the sale of a child. Selling children is something the government tends to look down on.

What happens in the case of employment contracts? You sign that you will do something and perform a service now that being a contract the government should be able to tell them they have to do what they signed up to?

No, for the reason I said. The courts can not enforce a service contract by an award of specific performance. They can award damages for failure to perform as agreed, but they can't TELL you to do something. The government telling you to do something is slavery. That's unconstitutional.

sorta yes sorta no. What you're talking about is "consideration", which is, in general, a bargained for legal benefit or detriment. Each party must gain something, and lose something, for a contract to be valid. You're right, an agreement simply saying "you have an abortion if something happens" wouldn't be valid for it lacks consideration. There'd need to be some interchange for a contract to be valid.

It STILL wouldn't be for other reasons, but you're right, lack of consideration is an issue, but by far is not the most fatal.

Oh, I know it's not, I was simply trying to think of something I could add to a thoroughly comprehensive answer that wasn't just repeating what you said.

I'm sorry to interject here, but isn't this the argument that the pro-life side of the coin often uses to justify banning abortion? That the mother may choose to exercise her right to bodily autonomy by opting out of participation in the reproductive process? And I believe that the counter-argument from the pro-choice side is that consent to sexual congress is not consent to pregnancy or children.


Again, note, I did not say SEX, I said "reproductive process". A man may choose to opt out of the reproductive process. A woman may choose to opt out of the reproductive process.

The man's role in the reproductive process lasts a second or two. The woman's about 9 months.

Oh, I know it's not, I was simply trying to think of something I could add to a thoroughly comprehensive answer that wasn't just repeating what you said.

it was a good response. Sometimes in the minutia you lose the forest for the trees. Yes, of course, as you said, the other problem with that hypo is a lack of consideration.

This however could be remedied by adding something else to the agreement. The other problems can't be.

Again, note, I did not say SEX, I said "reproductive process". A man may choose to opt out of the reproductive process. A woman may choose to opt out of the reproductive process.

The man's role in the reproductive process lasts a second or two. The woman's about 9 months.

They make pills for that you know.

Blouman, it's important to remember that in most cases, our civil system (non-criminal matters) are set up to provide financial compensation for various wrongs. There are very, very few cases in which you can get an actual physical thing back, for example...most often you get the value of that thing. As Neo Art pointed out, forcing someone to follow through on a service contract is akin to slavery, but also not desireable for obvious reasons...for example, would you want the court to force someone to clean your house? Do you think that would work out for you? I can think of at least a dozen terrible things I'd do to someone's place if I were forced to live up to my end of a breached service contract...

Blouman, it's important to remember that in most cases, our civil system (non-criminal matters) are set up to provide financial compensation for various wrongs. There are very, very few cases in which you can get an actual physical thing back, for example...most often you get the value of that thing. As Neo Art pointed out, forcing someone to follow through on a service contract is akin to slavery, but also not desireable for obvious reasons...for example, would you want the court to force someone to clean your house? Do you think that would work out for you? I can think of at least a dozen terrible things I'd do to someone's place if I were forced to live up to my end of a breached service contract...

this too, for a rather practical consideration. My firm wants to enforce my employment contract by making me work for them?

Well...alright. I know how to work juuuuuust hard enough to avoid a successful ineffective assistance of counsel claim and disbarment.

*shackles you to the wall*

Trapped! Trapped! I caught another one!

:)

Curse you Galloism, you got me again. :mad:

No, because this was specifically discussing a contract to have an abortion if she got pregnant. Not to birth the child.

Secondly, contracts to NOT have an abortion are invalid for the same reasons. You can't grant specific performance of a service contract, because that's slavery. Likewise you can't enforce a "sale of goods" contract if the "good" produced is a birthed child.

Well, if we consider it a "sale of goods" contract, and the "good" is a child, then essentially, it's the sale of a child. Selling children is something the government tends to look down on.

Ok fair enough and as you say they can reward damages. As for selling children well yes but what about the sale of the services for the production of a child as some surrogates do.

No, for the reason I said. The courts can not enforce a service contract by an award of specific performance. They can award damages for failure to perform as agreed, but they can't TELL you to do something. The government telling you to do something is slavery. That's unconstitutional.

Yeah ok reward damages, so if a two people entered into a contract that the women would not have an abortion and they would produce a child and she then went ahead and had an abortion, would the other person be able to seek damages and what is the likelihood of succeeding?

Blouman, it's important to remember that in most cases, our civil system (non-criminal matters) are set up to provide financial compensation for various wrongs. There are very, very few cases in which you can get an actual physical thing back, for example...most often you get the value of that thing. As Neo Art pointed out, forcing someone to follow through on a service contract is akin to slavery, but also not desireable for obvious reasons...for example, would you want the court to force someone to clean your house? Do you think that would work out for you? I can think of at least a dozen terrible things I'd do to someone's place if I were forced to live up to my end of a breached service contract...

Actually I would like it very much if someone came and cleaned my house. :) But yes I see your point and I think some sort of compensation (depending on the case of course) should be in place, but surely if you breached a service contract and the government said you have to pay them a sum of money you would do that any way wouldn't you?

Maybe I am stuck in the old ways of honour and when I say I will do something I will do it.

Actually something else I thought of, if a court says that a person breached a service contract and they had to pay this person a sum of money would that not be similar to slavery? After all you are forcing people to do something against their will? What about prison services? Is that not similar after all they are usually told what to do. Now some of these questions are fairly ridiculous and more akin to playing devils advocate rather than anything else but yeah.

this too, for a rather practical consideration. My firm wants to enforce my employment contract by making me work for them?

Well...alright. I know how to work juuuuuust hard enough to avoid a successful ineffective assistance of counsel claim and disbarment.

This is why I never sued you to receive the remedy of specific performance for that rim job I paid you for that time in Juarez.

Actually something else I thought of, if a court says that a person breached a service contract and they had to pay this person a sum of money would that not be similar to slavery? After all you are forcing people to do something against their will? What about prison services? Is that not similar after all they are usually told what to do. Now some of these questions are fairly ridiculous and more akin to playing devils advocate rather than anything else but yeah.

Slavery is not 'being forced to do something against your will'. I didn't want to brush my hair as a child...when my mother forced me to, I was not enslaved.

When you breach a service contract, you generally do have to pay some sort of damages to the other side, but for very understandable policy reasons, the court will not tell you that you must perform the contract.

Slavery is not 'being forced to do something against your will'. I didn't want to brush my hair as a child...when my mother forced me to, I was not enslaved.

When you breach a service contract, you generally do have to pay some sort of damages to the other side, but for very understandable policy reasons, the court will not tell you that you must perform the contract.

So what is slavery?

And this isn't a I have no idea question this is a I have some idea but perhaps you can explain it to me.

I find your lack of a proper sleep schedule disturbing.

Lord Gader, I find your lack of other phrases disturbing.

Lord Gader, I find your lack of other phrases disturbing.

I find your lack of...


Shit.

I find your lack of...


Shit.

Proven.:D

Proven.:D

I just hate it when I get my schwartz twisted.

In short although it may seem that the man should have some rights, in reality he has none.

Fair/unfair, meh! Just life me thinks.

I just hate it when I get my schwartz twisted.

That happens to you for being an innocent Southern boy who knows nothing about nothing.

That happens to you for being an innocent Southern boy who knows nothing about nothing.

You're going to have to take me under your wing and teach me about the world. With lots of gratuitous sex, of course

You're going to have to take me under your wing and teach me about the world. With lots of gratuitous sex, of course

I think it's going to be the other way around. But, wathever you want to stay happy. That, of course, goes without saying.

I think it's going to be the other way around. But, wathever you want to stay happy. That, of course, goes without saying.

But I'm just a poor innocent southern boy. It would be impossible for me to teach the great Nanatsu. :hail: So, what are you wearing?

But I'm just a poor innocent southern boy. It would be impossible for me to teach the great Nanatsu. :hail: So, what are you wearing?

I find your lack of truth disturbing. I'm wearing a gray suit, black shirt, high heels and my hair lose. How about you?

I find your lack of truth disturbing. I'm wearing a gray suit, black shirt, high heels and my hair lose. How about you?

And I get jabbed for quoting Vader. :p Black sweatpants, red sweatshirt, 3 blankets, and my hair is also loose.

And I get jabbed for quoting Vader. :p Black sweatpants, red sweatshirt, 3 blankets, and my hair is also loose.

Lack of originality does that to people. Oh, I lkke the image I'm getting.

Lack of originality does that to people. Oh, I lkke the image I'm getting.

In the great style of www.xkcd.com:
The view is even better from just beneath me.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/excessive_quotation.png

In the great style of www.xkcd.com:
The view is even better from just beneath me.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/excessive_quotation.png

In all honesty, I have ran out of things to post...

In all honesty, I have ran out of things to post...

:eek:

:eek:

It's known to happen. *nod*

It's known to happen. *nod*

I'll keep that in mind.

I see no course by which to reconcile the equality of the father to the problem that, until born, the child is protected by the rights of the person of the mother, and, once born, can hardly be killed for expediacy's sake.

All I would propose is that, if the male wants the child, but the female does not, remuneration be offered for her pregnancy, and renunciation of all rights "post natum".

So you would use an unwilling woman as an incubator, but you'd pay her for it afterwards? How nice of you.

Exactly how much compensation is she entitled to? If she gets any of the diseases later in life that pregnancy is a risk factor for, can she sue the man who forced her to incur those risks for medical bills?

I'm sorry to interject here, but isn't this the argument that the pro-life side of the coin often uses to justify banning abortion? That the mother may choose to exercise her right to bodily autonomy by opting out of participation in the reproductive process? And I believe that the counter-argument from the pro-choice side is that consent to sexual congress is not consent to pregnancy or children.

Once again, the difference being that the man's physical participation in the reproductive process ends at sex. Thus, he only has a choice in whether or not to participate in that process by choosing whether or not to have sex.

A woman's participation, on the other hand, lasts throughout pregnancy. As such, she can choose to end her participation later.

And I am intrigued by Gallo's question on when a woman rapes a man and falls pregnant. The child's rights are still the same - support by parents, but the man has obviously had no choice in the matter. Should he have to pay for children born of this situation?

My gut answer to these questions is to say no. But I'm not sure what the legal reasoning behind that would be.

Similarly a friend of mine's girlfriend punctured holes in his condoms so that she could fall pregnant...should he have to pay for her deception?

My gut answer to this is also no, but I think the legal justification would be even more difficult, as even without her actions there would have been a chance of pregnancy.