Imagine… Bruce is a gay man. At a party hosted by his friend Derek, Bruce gets a BJ from his partner Adam. Now Adam doesn’t swallow, so he spits it out into a glass. Another guest, Clarice, picks up the glass, and pretends to take it to the kitchen for cleaning. Instead, she inseminates herself. Clarice is in town only that day, normally living a very long way away, and both her movements and Bruce’s are well-witnessed and documented. 9 months later, Bruce gets a letter demanding support for his child.
Is this rape? Has a crime been committed? Is Bruce liable? How about Derek?
Not remotely rape, and I’m pretty sure Bruce is not liable in any jurisdiction. Also, Derek needs to stop throwing those sorts of parties.
I would be curious to know if Bruce could bring some sort of case (criminal or civil) against Clarice, but I can’t imagine what it would be. Presumably Bruce could claim parental rights but to do so would also make him liable for the support Clarice is asking for.
I heard that the tennis player Boris Becker got a BJ from a girl who then saved the sperm and impregnated herself. Boris had to pay for the kid.
just found a link Seminal truths | Health & wellbeing | The Guardian
Well, in Bruce’s case, yes.
But when she got it from Miggs he straight up threw it at her- hard for him to argue that didn’t imply consent on his part.
Legally speaking, in every jurisdiction I’ve heard of this happening Bruce will be liable for child support, and Clarice will not be liable for the theft of the sperm.
Rape in almost all jurisdictions is some version of; the penetration of another knowing or suspecting that consent was not present. Rape IS NOT i)sex you disliked ii) sex you regretted later iii) actions tangetically related which you disapprove of.
Flip it the other way: if the guy is appalled that some woman Stole His Child and wants to sue for custody, do you allow it? Or do you deny him any parental role in this child’s life because he played no voluntary role in the conception?
It just seems to me you can’t have it both ways: either a genetic connection means something, in which case he IS the child’s father and has all the rights and responsibilities that involves, or a genetic connection doesn’t mean anything, in which case he has neither.
Now, legal processes–such as adoption or annoymous sperm donation–can supersede the genetic connection, but they are in place because we have this assumption that genes mean something.
One of the complaints about pro-life people is that some people seem to want unplanned pregnancy to remain around as a punishment for being a slut. I think people see child support in the same way: it’s the penalty you pay for sin, so if no sin, no support. But that’s not what it is. It’s a recognition that we have a responsibility to our kids, however they happen to come to exist. And right now, our society defines “our kids” as those we have a genetic tie to.
Now, I can see an argument that he can be ordered to pay child support, and then sue the mom for the amount of that child support because that’s the damages she did to him. That seems stupid if she just has to pay him back what he pays her, but I think it’s a worthwhile distinction to make: he owes the kid (not the mom) support: the mom owes him for those costs.
Personally, I think he should be able to have it both ways. I think any woman mad enough to do this is far too crazy to raise a child, and if something like this is proved, then she should lose custody rights.
If Bruce wants to claim paternity, he should then be allowed to do so, otherwise the baby should be anonymously put up for adoption.
If someone stole frozen eggs from a woman who’d had fertility treatment, and used them themselves, should they be permitted to then claim child support from her?
If you have neither participated in a sex act that could result in pregnancy, nor consented to any use of your genetic material that could result in pregancy, I really do not think you should be held responsible if some crazy person then decides to have ‘your’ child without your knowledge. You should be able to decide what your DNA is used for, and if someone uses it without your consent, they should not be permitted to profit from that.
I mean, where else do you draw the line?
What if someone steals a few of your cells and manages to clone you?
I am uncomfortable with a “Schrodinger’s Baby” where it is and isn’t your child until you decide. Now, your scenario is perfectly plausible: mother’s parental rights are severed because she is insane. Father then voluntarily severs his rights through existing channels (adoption). No problem with that. But it’s the father severing his rights, not some man failing to ever be the father.
And, as I said, suing the thief for the amount of child support seems really obvious to me. Those are the damages from theft.
And yeah, if someone stole my eggs and made a baby, I’d sure as hell want the right to be able to sue for some access to my child. What I would do with that access would be based on what I thought was best for the kid, but I would not want to be told I had no connection to the kid because I didn’t preemptively consent.
Doesn’t the legal definition of rape only cover the physical act? It seems like this might count as theft of some variety. I suspect if it were a Law & Order episode they might try to get the lady on some kind of intellectual property violation, improperly using the father’s DNA. I am certainly no lawyer, though.
“Best interests of the child above all else” is a pretty solid legal principle in 99%+ of circumstances, but I do feel we should have a protocol for these kind of extremely rare exceptions. I’m deeply uncomfortable with forcing an individual to provide for someone they truly had no responsibility for bringing into the world. It seems no better than walking out to the street, grabbing the first person you see and saying “Hey you, you’re responsible for child support for this kid now.” It seems to me in these extremely, extremely (I really can’t overemphasize how unusual a case like this would be in the real world) rare cases the only just course of action is to have the state assume responsibility on behalf of the innocent biological parent.