That’s a bullshitty “if” because it is nothing like sex and non-deceptive pregnancy. Are you raped on a regular basis? Because you consistently portray sex in a “the man was duped into fucking her” manner.
A more apt scenario would be if me and you were fighting and I threw a can of gasoline at your head, which you dodged, allowing it to spill all over the floor, walls, and curtains. And then let’s say you threw down your cigarette to punch me in my sassy-mouthed face (because we are quite the dysfunction pair, you and I), and the cigarette lit upon the spilled gasoline and ignited the whole room before we had enough time to extinguish it.
Both me and you are equally at fault, see? If it hadn’t been for the gasoline, the cigarette would not have started a fire. If it hadn’t been for the cigarette, the gasoline would not have started a fire. And my house would not have burned to the ground.
For the analogy-challenged:
gasoline = egg
cigarette = sperm
fire = fertilization
burnt up house = pregnancy
my ownership of house = woman’s body
living with parents instead of buying another house = abortion
buying another house = keeping the baby
There would certainly be a lot less unwanted babies if your plan was inacted robertliguori. I don’t know many women would be interested in having sex with a man in insisted on a written statement requiring her to have an abortion or raise the kid by herself.
But the mere presence of free will does not negate your responsibility in all cases. For instance Charles Manson has always claimed that he never killed anyone and that he never explicitly asked that anyone be killed. The procecutor in that case was able to prove, however, that he held quite a bit of responsibility for the results.
If you give a gun to a terrorist knowing he is a terrorist and right after he says something to the effect “Boy I wish I had a gun so I could kill…” Then I think even you would agree that you bear some responsibility as an accessory before the fact. Even if you don’t legally, morally you should reasonably have forseen the result.
I’m just saying that sex could be construed as this sort of risky behavior. That is, the fact that a woman could end a pregnancy is not suficient to completely remove your responsibility for it. Which I think is the crux of the OP.
I think we agree an most of the points brought up here. We just disagree on the nature of the implied agreement involved with having sex.
If I may paraphrase again, I think you are saying that there is not an implied agreement at all. While I am saying that absent any express agreements the implied agreement is to parent any resulting children. If I have this correct.
First, if I make a product that ignites and misrepresent this fact (Ford) and it lights on fire, then I am buggered. If I provide a product that is meant to ignite, makes sure that people know this, (Exxon) and someone chooses to burn someone’s house down with it, it’s not my damn fault.
In what alternate universe does that metaphor approximate sex? Sex is consensual, remember? “Pardon me, miss, would you have any objections to me poking my cigarette into this fluid which may be flammable?”
Plus, if I have your permission to start that fire, but am not allowed to put it out, how can I be blamed if you get burned?
Buggered, as in you have comitted fraud, and should be punished for it. Do you want my definition of what is being “stolen” when you knowingly misrepresent facts?
gasoline = egg
cigarette = sperm fight which enabled mixing of gasoline and cigarette = sex
fire = fertilization
burnt up house = pregnancy
my ownership of house = woman’s body
living with parents instead of buying another house = abortion
buying another house = keeping the baby
You’ve got it dead on. OTOH, my position is defensible on the grounds that since there is confusion over what is impled by sex, it’s best to have all legal details enumerated. There are innumerable casual agreements which are ignored by law. Since what sex means is so controversial, why should we assume it means anything besides mount and squirt?
When I do it first, yes. And in an arbitrated fashion. If, I sell you a product which I claim performs X but in fact performs Y, then explodes, I have entered into a contract under false premises with you, and have no right to your money. Therefore, I have “stolen” your money.
Because the “natural” consequence of an action can be taken as its meaning. If I may go back to your earlier analogy of the device which causes a fire. If that device has a normal and common use which does not include arson then you may have a reasonable expectation that it will not be used that way. If, on the other hand, your device is normally used to commit arson then even if you tell everyone not to use it that way you may not be completely free and clear.
Getting back to the OP, I think it comes down to meaning of sex. And more importantly it comes down to the meaning of sex as understood by BOTH parties. If you explicitly said that you think sex means nothing except “mount and squirt” and the female agred that this was OK with her, what could she say?
On the other hand, I think the child could say quite a bit. Given that he is a third party we might have to take into account what sex means to him.
Given the situation above, that is the male and female both agree that sex without obligations is OK, I still think the child has a case for some obligation owed to him. Remember I’m not suggesting that he is owed anything just because he needs it. Children on the other side of the world need things too. But given that the action taken by both the female and male directly caused the condition of need I think they still owe him something. What exactly and how to extract it if they are unwilling are different questions.
And I think this little exercise led me to the answer at least for me. If sex implies an agreement between the woman and man, then anything goes. They can agree to whatever floats their boat. As soon as the egg is fertalized the agreement has to be understood to take the child into acount. This implies that both parents owe an obligation to it unless either of them agreed to take that obligation on themselves.
So I guess the answer to your question from the quote is that sex means more than mount and squirt becaues it carries with it the implied possibility of the creation of life.
So maybe we could write a law like this (or establish it as our moral norm): Having sex is an act which constitutes an agreement to parent any resulting child with the other person. This part of the agreement is made amongst all three parties. In addition the male agrees to allow the woman control of the child for around 9 months and the woman agrees to reasonable gestation for the child for that period. The child agrees to do its best to live, grow and become the best human being it is capable of. This agreement is the default and has the force of law in the absence of any other arrangement the 3 parties might make. It does not imply that the child has any say in the matter until he of an age when it is legal for him to enter into contracts.
I can imagine lots of boiler plate sorts of agreements which would let one or the other party out of such an arangement.
P.S. let me get these out of the way right now so no one else feels obligated to:
If that’s all sex means why involve another person. Just get a blow up doll.
Very true. However, my making and distribution of the arson tool is its own crime. I am not responsible for the fires started with my tool.
Well, if she was the proverbial evil psycho bitch female, she could claim that I didn’t say that. With that in dispute, how often would the courts fall back on the ‘default’ setting?
Ok. And? If life is created, so what? Once said life is created, I have lost all rights/responsibilities over it. We’ve been over this from here on out.
OOC, why is it important to you that the default state of sex is parenthood if no legal precautions are taken? I have no cites handy, but I’ll bet that there is more recreational sex than procreative.
P.S. And creation of a need also does not obligate you to fill it. (If you believe otherwise, then I hope that you never have to fire anyone). 'Sides, at the time of conception/gestation, there is no 3rd party to be contracually obligated to.
I was thinking thinking of a situation where the arson tool itself might not be illegal. I think we have successfully shown that analogies are not as simple as some would hope.
I was speaking in the moral sense not the legal. Strictly legally, if a contract is in dispute the court has to use its best judgment. either it believes one party over the other, or it disbelieves both parties and simply applies the default arrangement.
This is very near where we started. I don’t think you have lost all responsibilities over it. Clearly you have no physical power over it. But you still have some responsibility for it. Consider the case that the female is somehow incapacitiated. You as the father (I’m just considering the normal situation where 2 people are procreatign on purpose here) have some say in how medical decisions are to be made.
I guess I’m saying that simply because you do not have absolute power over the child does not mean you have no interest in it at all. Especially given the fact that you had to know that any child would reside explicitly under the females control for 9 months.
As I said earlier, I think the current legal situation where a woman may have an abortion for any reason without input by the male is quite unfair. I think it is unnecessarily on sided. However, I don’t think this rises to the level necessary to remove all obligations from the father. Specifically since the right to an abortion is not absolute nor is it unlimited. I would propose that a “male abortion” during the first trimester is fully legal. That is the male may remove any and all of the biological support he is giving to gestating child at any time and for any reason during the first 3 months without any legal sanctions whatsoever. Mind you I didn’t say he can revoke material he has already contributed. Unfortunately he gives no biological support during this stage. So it is a right without a means to exercise it.
This point almost makes your argument to me. I think you could very well support the position that the normal and customary purpose of sex was recreation and not procreation. However, this is not the case for the child.
Putting aside the applicability of the analogy (I assume that the agreement to hire in the first place included provisions for firing which the employee agreed to) I think that creating needs does incur obligations. If I do something to you without recourse to some agreement on your part either explicit or implied which creates a need for you, I incur an obligation to at least try and help fill that need. Again, we’re not talking strictly legally here.
That the 3rd party does not have all the rights of a fully grown adult human is not in dispute. But that it exists cannot be in dispute either. And given that, I would argue that there most definately IS a 3rd party. What exactly its rights and interests are is up to us to discover.
Humor warning. This post is meant in jest. If you cannot take a joke please do not read it.
OK. I think I have a way for men to opt out of child rearing. All they would have to do is establish an agreement with the female before hand that they will under no circumstances participate in the raising of a child and then take steps on their own to help prevent it.
I’m thinking that it would take the form of an anouncement tattooed on the males forhead and “delivery mechanism” in a bright color. Something like this:
The genetic material produced here is intended for recreational purposes only. Any other use is stictly prohibited. Assisting in the act of delivering this material constitutes agreement to this license.
Of course he would then have to have a vasectomy.
Of course females could opt out in the same fashion except that if she decided to carry the child to term she would have to turn it over to the male.
In fact, I’ve proposed that the man is obligated to help “get her out of this mess”, just not in the way she might like.
To recycle another analogy, if you hit my car and damage the fender, you’re only obligated to get me a new fender. If I’d rather have a $1000 solid-gold Fenderator 5000 instead of the boring old $50 Toyota model, I have to pay the difference out of my own pocket.
And if she were so unwilling, she never would have spread 'em. Are you arguing against paternal opt-out or abortion?
So there goes that argument, huh?
Yes, thank you for restating my position. She doesn’t have to get an abortion. She can raise the kid herself.
She has to choose not to interrupt it. Inaction is just as much a free choice as action.
If I get a letter in the mail saying I have to show up in court on a certain date, obviously the default “natural” state is for me not to show up. Going to court involves taking a “proactive stance”. Yet, shockingly, I’ll still get in trouble if I don’t show up!
Is there a reason you keep repeating this? It’s a vital part of my proposal, I think we both understand how it works.
And it only takes one to turn that “new life” into a baby–you know, the thing that actually needs support. A zygote doesn’t need immunizations or new clothes.
And if she doesn’t want a new life to begin, all she has to do is not let him ejaculate into her, right?
It seems to me you’re starting with the assumption that her sacred and precious body is far more important than his sacred and precious wallet.
The guy cutting my chute is the woman choosing to carry a child to term.
Perhaps I knew the guy was there in my plane, and when I asked him if he had anything sneaky in mind, he laughed it off and said “No, I hate knives.” Or “Don’t worry, the knife is locked up.”
I had no reason to believe he would cut my chute. By jumping out of the plane, I assumed a risk, and implicitly placed my trust in him not to do anything to put me in jeopardy; but my acceptance of that risk doesn’t mean I’m responsible for what he chooses to do.
No, because the first option leaves you at a loss. You had a house before, now you have none. Since I’m partially responsible for the loss of your house, I’m partially responsible for getting you a new house of equal value, one way or another, whether it means giving you my house or a sack of cash. But if you want a mansion on the hill to replace your suburban 2-bedroom, you pay the difference yourself.
If a man is partially responsible for a pregnancy, he’s partially responsible for ending it, one way or another. In my proposal, he’s entirely responsible for ending it. If the woman wants to end it a different way, she pays the difference herself.
If someone has an obligation to a child once it’s born, why can a mother walk up to a hospital and hand over the kid, no questions asked, and never pay a dime in support ever for the kid she just gave to someone else to raise?
If women can do that at a hospital, why can’t a man just wash his hands of the whole thing?
Abortion is not (necessarily) as free of a choice as letting the pregnancy go to completion. And just because someone doesn’t want to go under the knife or vacuum, doesn’t mean they want to be a solo parent. But that’s exactly what you are saying their decision amounts to.
If anything, the guy cutting your chute is your own recklessness. It’s not the woman whose womb you consentually supplied with sperm. Unless you consentually supplied the guy cutting your chute with knives.
Are you serious?? If you are stupid enough to not take care of your own restless gametes, why are you trusting someone else to take care of their own? This is where I lose all sympathy for you.
You had no reason to believe he wouldn’t, either, but this is beside the point. The sky-dive scenario is supposed to show that an action that carries risk should be carried out by a person who is aware of the risk and prepared to deal with the consequences without depending on the actions of someone else. It’s a one-person scenario.
Let’s see if your logic fits:
By jumping out the plane (by having sex), you assumed a risk (paternity), and implicitly placed your trust in someone else to not do anything to put you in jeopardy (fathering a child). This doesn’t work.
How about this? If you jump out the plane, you assume a risk. If you don’t wear a parachute (condom) you increase that risk. Even if you wear a chute, you take on a risk (fatherhood). Jumping out a plane without a parachute and expecting someone else to rescue you mid free-fall, is not an intelligent, rational, or sane thing to do. Even if someone could rescue you (the pregnant woman), doesn’t mean they have to. And just because they choose not to rescue you, doesn’t mean they wanted you dead nor does it make them responsible for your death.
Right. The first option is a bad one in my particular situation, because (let’s say) my parents treat me like dirt and they’d make my life a living hell as long as I was staying under their roof. So the option of living with them (having an abortion) is actually worse for me than going through with the expense of getting a replacement house (having the baby).
That’s fine. The fact is, you don’t owe me money. You owe the bank that gave me the home loan (you owe the baby).
You were doing pretty good up to this point. He is NOT responsible for ending the pregnancy. Not without the consent of the woman. Why? Because the pregnancy inherently involves her body and everything that comes along with her body. Unfortunate, maybe, but it’s true. The man can’t hold her fully responsible for one choice and only partially responsible for another one, because both parties are equally to blame for the whole situation. If it hadn’t been for his sperm, she wouldn’t even have to ponder the question “to abort or not to abortion.”
Indeed. It means they want to be a solo parent more than they want to go under the knife or vacuum.
Then it must be irrelevant, because in real life there are two people making choices and potentially taking actions. You can’t ignore the fact that only the mother decides if the pregnancy will lead to a child.
How do you figure that? Perhaps if this person is incapable of rescuing me without putting herself in peril, but if she’s just standing idly by while I plummet to my doom, I call that negligence.
Another impasse. I don’t owe the baby anything, the one person who allowed the baby to come into existence does. If she knew she wouldn’t be able to support it, she is negligent.
Perhaps “ending” was unclear. He’s responsible for helping with some sort of resolution to the pregnancy, whether it’s abortion or delivery, since he’s partially responsible for the pregnancy.
There are two situations, and two choices. First there is a choice, made by both the man and the woman, to have sex. This leads to a situation where the woman is pregnant. Then there’s another choice, made only by the woman, to carry the child to term. This leads to another situation where there’s a child that needs food, clothes, toys, and whatnot.
The only situation the man is responsible for is the pregnancy. Since he has no control over what happens after that, he simply cannot be responsible for the later situation.
If you try to hold him responsible for setting things into motion, for causing the situation that led to the woman’s choice, then you also have to hold the man’s parents responsible for causing the situation that led to his choice to have sex, as well as everyone else who had a hand in all the events leading up to it. His parents are as responsible for his choice to have sex as he is responsible for the woman’s choice to give birth.
Face, are you getting that the “don’t have sex” analogy applies just as equally to forced abortions as forced child support? Does the fact that a line of reasoning that you support supports something you don’t mean nothing to you?
And here I join In and Face. Their bodies, their choices, their responsibilities. (Their wallets).
