Parthenogenesis is the formation of a new individual via an unfertilized gamete, usually an egg. It happens mostly in plants and arthropods, though there are some cool lizards that do it too. In effect, parthenogenesis makes clones, so that woman’s baby would be a clone of that woman.
Generally, I’m not sure what the point of the example is, as there may be shared DNA between you and the baby/fetus by virtue of both being human, but an RFLP analysis (or a short tandem repeat analysis) should demonstrate that it was a parthenogenic birth eventually. It’d take a while, because the lab would be convinced that they had contaminated samples, but they’d figure it out. Or they’d arrest her for experimenting in human cloning, which is currently illegal in the US.
Either way, you’re not on the hook for child support. Nevermind that you’re female.
Diogenes you don’t appear to be addressing the question of why the man is committed at the point of conception. That is the real issue.
At that time there still remains a legal choice as to whether conception will proceed to birth. That choice is the woman’s.
The question is not what is currently allowed and required. It is why the man becomes obligated to support the consequences of a choice he did not support, and where there is a legal alternative.
Speaking personally I support the current regimen of obligations, but I have to say ** Stratocaster** has authored the better argument in this thread, clear and to the point.
We must have different definitions of equal. Both the man and the woman have made an equal choice to have sex. Man 1, woman 1. The score is tied. Condom fails, conception occurs. The woman now has a difficult choice to make. She has several months to make it. I woldn’t want to be in that position - but it’s not equal.
I should probably add that I am not in favor of encouraging any man to forgo his responsibiltiy as a father. I am no more advocating that than someone who favors abortion rights encourages women to have abortions. What I object to are arguments like “it’s the man’s fault if a woman gets pregnant” or “it’s biology, live with it”, or “it’s for the good of society”, or “a child needs a man in his life”, or " don’t have sex". And these from people who seem like they would proudly consider themselves progressive. Why is it so difficult to admit that a man might have some rights after he pulls his pants back on?
The decision to have sex is not when the woman has to make a final choice whether to be a parent. That moment is only crucial for the man. At the moment of sex, the choice about parenthood is man 1, woman 0. The woman does not “score” until she decides whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term. Choosing to have sex does not carry the same finality for the woman as for the man. At the time of intercourse, the woman has yet to have made a final choice. Both people get one choice. Just because the woman can make it later does not mean that the man’s choice is any less binding or any less freely made.
I sure don’t recall signing any Terms of Service before sex. If you’re referring to the laws as they currently exist–having sex with knowledge of the law means you implicitly accept the consequences of that law–then I’m afraid that’s irrelevant; the law can be changed.
Women can avoid having to care for a child by choosing not to have sex. Men can also do that.
Women can avoid having to care for a child by choosing to abort or give it up for adoption. Men cannot.
Final score: women 2, men 1.
No, that’s what keeping abortion legal does.
Making it financially easier for women to have kids that no one else wants, on the other hand, has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. Don’t you think the knowledge that a man will have to subsidize a woman’s decision to raise a child makes it more likely that she’ll choose to do so? If your neighbor had to step in and make your car payments when you couldn’t afford them, wouldn’t that make you more likely to buy a car you couldn’t afford?
I don’t know who you think is making those assumptions, but it sure isn’t me. My point is that in many cases, there wouldn’t be a child if the woman weren’t able to force a man to pay for it.
Again, child support has nothing to do with biology. Dollar bills did not evolve to jump out of a man’s pocket every month.
They can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe their premise is that the man should know better.
Why they cannot put that litmus test on the woman, I have no clue.
The extra risks the woman has during pregnancy is irrelevant if you agree that woman has the same capacity as a man to “know better” than to have sex at the risk of getting pregnant.
If by “parent”, we mean someone with parental rights and obligations under law, then this inequality can be easily resolved. Just let the man make his final choice later.
Because the moment before the moment of conception is the last possible moment that a man can opt out of becoming a parent (or risking the possibility) without imposing on the physical autonomy of the woman. It’s the last point at which the man has any biological involvement. That involvement continues after sex for the woman, therefore she has more time to make her decision.
That would be impossible to do without imposing on the physical autonomy of the woman. The moment of conception cannot be undone, therefore the man’s choice is made (and made freely) at the moment of ejaculation.
You are correct that the woman has a later opportunity to make a final choice. The word final implies previous opportunities as well. The man’s final opportunity to make a choice coincides with the woman’s first opportunity to make a choice . It is not equal.
Fortunately, the woman does not have to take any risks during pregnancy because she can simply terminate it. The woman has no obligation to “know better” before pregnancy because it’s her own body that’s at issue. Her decision does not have to be made before sex. Ony the man’s does.
Your just repeating ad nauseam what the law currently is. You are not addressing why that should be so. Believe me, we know what the law currently says.
First, we’re not talking about his rights. He can opt out of his rights all he wants. His obligations are a completely different matter.
Second, if a man’s sperm results in a pregancy then he has already quite voluntarily affected another person’s body. After that point, he has no right to tell the woman what to do about the pregnancy but if she does bear a child, then both parents are equally responsible for creating it and equally responsible for taking care of it. To say that the man can opt out after pregnancy is to say that the man has no responsibility whatsoever and that the woman is 100% responsible for any live births. Clearly this would be a vile and reprehensible system.
Both people have an equal opportunity to opt out of being parents. Their options are simply exercised at different times.
No, it means that the woman is 100% responsible for her choice to have sex and to carry to term. She made both of those choices, remember? If she does not want to be 100% responsible for the child, she can opt out. No one is forcing her to pay for her first choice.
Her first choice is irrelevant. For the woman, the choice to have sex is not a choice to become a parent. For the man it is. Each person is equally able to opt out of becoming a parent. The man by not putting his sperm in anyone and the woman by terminating any unwanted pregnancies.
Nonsense. It only says that the man has no responsibility for children that were carried to term over his objections - children that only the woman wanted.
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you how the opportunities are not equal. One party has two opportunities, the other only has one. We could easily change the law to grant both people equal opportunities to opt out of legally being parents, without interfering with anyone’s bodily autonomy.