The point is that the Supreme Court of the United States was able to provide such relief to women because of the biology. Men have an equal right to withdraw all of the nutrients that thier bodies provides to the fetus. They simply do not have the power for such a decision to mean anything.
No, the father (in my first case) shed some sperm cells. And given that it is possible for someone to steal them, why is that unreasonable, but sex with precautions reasonable?
Why? I’m not controlling the waky Raelian biology lab. In fact, once they’ve got my cell, I can’t do a thing. This is in fact the point I am trying to demonstrate, along with the fact that I feel you are using arbitrary criteria for determining which method of giving up cells makes people responsible for outcomes thereof.
And I say that when you can inexorably link sex to reproduction, I’ll shut up. The fact is that if a man has sex with a reasonable expectation that no child will result, it’s not right to expect him to be responsible for any children resulting, just as it is not right to take his genetic material without his knowledge and consent and use it for the same purpuse.
An interesting proposition. Wouldn’t it just be easier and more logical, if such wanton biological theft occured regularly, to state that there wasn’t necessarily a link between biological and legal fatherhood?
Also, just for the record, do you feel that a man who has sex with birth control and the understanding that the woman will get an aboriton if necessary is as responsible for his child as a father whose sperm is stolen? If so, I admire your consistency, although I disagree with your biology-implies-law premise. If not, I’d like to hear why the scenarios are different.
Well, as they say, extraordinary claims and all that. If you really think a single human birth has ever occured via stolen sperm cells then I invite you to post a cite to the proof. Otherwise, you example is silly.
I think you misunderstood me. I suggested that you volunteered your cells for the labv to try and clone a human. That is, you gave cells for the express purpose of trying to create a human.
Arbitrary? What the heck are you talking about. There is a perfectly reasonable normal application of the cells in question. There is nothing arbitrary about a child which results from sex. It happens all the time. It is perfectly predictable. I don’t think you know what arbitrary means.
Well, I hope you did not mean this the way I first read it. For our purposes, there is not reproduction without sex. You are not arguing that sometime women steal sperm and men should not be held liable for that. If you are, you need to probvide proof that it has happened sometime.
And a reasonable expectation that it might.
Its more reasonable than claimin he had nothing to do with it.
That’s what I’m saying.
No, I’m saying that one is a possibility and the other is just silly. I consider the question just as silly as asking “Should the man who pulls the trigger be held responsible for murder even if aliens made him do it.”
Well, lets put them side by side shall we? One is a scenario where a man and a woman have sex and a child results. Another is where the man knows nothing about the woman, has never seen her before, never offered a sperm sample to her or any of her agents, and nevertheless, she has a child.
On of these things is not like the other 
Because as long as only one person chooses to have a child, only one person should be financing that decision.
No, only as long as one person and one person only engages in activities which result in children should one person only be held accountable.
I’d like to take a stab at answering robert a little less snippily.
1st. If you demonstrate that a woman has given birth to a child with absolutely not help from the father (sex counts as help, so does vountarily donating sperm), then I’ll go along with you that the father should not be held responsible.
2nd. The female’s power over the fetus during the early part of pregnancy is not the same as having a child without help from the father. It is certainly more power after sex. But it does not remove the father from his responsibilities.
As I said, you guys have not come up with a single example in law or morality where power over the product of cooperation negates the responsibilities of the powerless partner. It simply does not follow that powerlessness implies negation of responsibilities.
Only one person does. The person who chooses to be pregnant.
Two people participate in activities that might lead to a fetus. Only one of them participates in activities that lead to a child.
You mean leading a normal healthy life?
You seem to be saying that if the woman does nothing out of the ordinary she is fully responsible for the child. She has no way to compel the father for support since she and she alone is responsible for the successful completion of the pregnancy.
If and only if she aborts the child does she get relieved of that full burden in the eyes of the law. The father can choose or not choose to support the child, but there is no way to compel his support since he can always say that he didn’t want the child.
What you seem to be saying is that abortion should be the default state, and only if the mother and father agree that they wish to have the baby will they share the responsibility. The woman must undergo an abortion or support the child by herself.
From a very detached viewpoint I see that as a valid argument, but it fails the “human nature” test. Once pregnant, the decision to abort isn’t a simple financial decision for the woman (or the father) in the vast majority of cases. To reduce it to that seems to reduce human reproduction to a purely financial transaction.
>Once pregnant, the decision to abort isn’t a simple financial decision for the ]
>woman (or the father) in the vast majority of cases. To reduce it to that seems
>to reduce human reproduction to a purely financial transaction.
Which is exactly what pro-choicers want - to reduce the status of the fetus to something that can be accepted or rejected at will. If you believe that default abortions are inhumane or at least questionable, you question whether the fetus is a living human being. In which case, you would seek to end the practice of killing living human beings - fetuses - that is to say, oppose abortion.
No, what I am saying is that the choice as to whether or not there ever is a child belongs to one person and one person only. So long as only one person has the right to make that decision, only one person is responsible for making that decision and for whatever outcome results from the decision. That means only one person should pay for that decision and whatever outcome results from that decision.
The end result is that the woman is the only one who can ever be responsible for the care of a child. Biology dictates that women carry the child until birth. You seem to be trying to seperate this fact of biology from the legal responsibilities.
I still say this fails the “human nature” test. One person is not reponsible for the outcome of the pregnancy. True, the woman does have the option of an abortion but this is balanced by the fact that she is the one who must carry the child. My opinion remains that giving the man such an easy out (don’t want the child, ain’t gonna pay for it) is unfair on the face of it. In practice, it would lead to a huge increase in single moms with no redress for child support.
Again, I understand you argument, I just disagree that it is valid. If this was about starting a business, or an aquarium, or anything but a child I would agree with the argument, but not with human reproduction. There is too much emotional and biological baggage to apply that argument in this case.
Yes, the government is prevented from infringing on one’s right to free speech, but if the government does infringe on that right, you still have the right, you just may get sent to the gulag for exercising that right. The right to speech is like the right to breath, it is inherent to one’s being. It does not require the assistance of a second party.
So, as long one’s rights are terminated judicially", it’s okay? Even without the consent of the holder of said right?
If the concept of child-support is based on a “child’s right” then adoption is the transference (or termination and creation, if you prefer.) of that child’s right.
If child-support is based on a parent’s “obligation”, then adoption is the transferring of an obligation.
Now, which is the more proper role for government under the United States Constitution? The “termination and creation” of rights? Or the transference of obligations?
The idea that there is even a time limit on such a determination is another example of the judiciary using “arbitrary law”, rather than “the rule of law”, to reach the politically correct ruling. Furthermore, to put a time limit on a continuing fraud, is repugnant to the idea of justice.
On the other hand, requiring fathers to continue supporting children to whom they have found not to be genetically linked, upon divorcing their mother, further solidifies my position that “child-support” is the extension of the parental obligations that are found within a marriage.
What’s devoid of logic and critical thinking is the notion that the phrase, “which had its origin in marriage,…” has no meaning or purpose within the sentence.
The quote that you provided states:
The right of the child to support from its parents, springs from the maritial relationship of its parents. That is what the quote is saying. What this means is that both parents, not just the custodial parent, still have the obligation to provide support for a child, even if the marriage has ended. Your quote is specifically speaking of “legitimate” children. If not, then why was the phrase, “which has its origin in marriage”, included in the sentence? For decoration?
Again, you have conveniently omitted the part about the “incidental relationship” of the parents that has its origin in marriage. If you would submit such a “quote” as evidence, you would be disbarred.
Because the author repeatedly used the term divorce. In fact, the author even refers to abandonment as a “cheap method of divorce”.
Yeah, and let alone have such arguments published.
You know what they say… “Nothing breeds contempt, like success.”
No, that doesn’t follow from my position. I hold that it is a complex decision, one best made by the people directly involved. Ideally, the mother and father have a voice in the matter, but biology has dictated that the mother has the most invested and thus the greatest voice.
Whether the fetus is a human being is not directly relevant. What is important is that there is a deep emotional and biological connection and people have the right to decide for themselves what they want to do. I don’t want the government getting involved in that decision.
I dislike the default abortion condition the same way I dislike the default euthanasia decision. Important choices should be left up to the people who are directly affected by them. IMO, the fetus doesn’t and shouldn’t have a voice.
No, there are other options. Adoption, foster parents, safe-haven programs.
Why is it that contemporary society is derermined to give women choice after choice after choice in matters of reproduction, but men are to have no choice.
Why is it that contemporary society is determined to give women various options to free themselves from the consequences of sexual intercourse, but men are to be held fully accountable, under the threat of incarceration, for the consequences of sexual intercourse?
That is a double-standard that is not compatible with a justice system supposedly founded under the principle of “Equal Justice Under the Law”.
They shouldn’t have a ‘redress for child support’. If they choose to have a child knowing that it is not wanted by anyone else, they should be the ones paying for that child.
Oh, they can’t afford it on their own? Then they shouldn’t have one. The fact that they cannot afford the child they chose to have and to raise as a single mother does not entitle them to another person’s money to fund all of it.
And the responsibility for the consequences of those choices should be left up to the people who directly made them.
Finish this sentence: “Amendment I: _______ shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…” People have the right to free speech, the government has the duty to respect it. If there is no government it makes no sense to speak of a right the government must respect. Remove the people or the government from the equation and the point is moot. Two parties.
Either one. You seem to be thinking of “rights” as God given certainties for all time and space, neither created nor destroyed. Pehaps some high minded and lofty rights are, but the the government creates lesser rights and duties all the time. Prior to 1966 you had no right to information the government held in secret about you, and they had no duty to disclose it. After 1966 you did have that right and they did have that duty. Even if everything you say about the origin of the marriage contact were true it still wouldn’t prevent the state from extending that right and duty outside the marriage, since marital and contactual obligations are matters of state law and subject to change by the state.
Ordinarily, that’s correct. Fraud isn’t subject to the ordinary statute of limitations, since fraud by its very nature conceals itself. The time limit for fraud doesn’t start running until the defrauded party realized or should have realized it. However, not all these situations are fraud, as many times the father voluntarily assumes the role with the full or partial knowledge that the child is not or may not be his, and continues to do so for many many years. Even when there has been intentional or unintentional deception the child is the innocent victim of it, and the court is loathe to “punish” the child who committed no deception for the mistakes and decptions of the adult. Still, there are very serious issues of equity to the father to be considered. The thorny nature of the issues presented are the exact reason the legislatures have not enacted hard and fast calculus to determine decisions. Courts instead use factors that must be considered, such as the length of time between the filing of the paternity action and the date the father was put on notice, the length of time the father has assumed the fatherhood role, the age of the child nd the nature of the relationship, the potential of harm to the child if paternity is disproved, and so on. At any rate, since the original conversation was over supporting one’s biological children out of wedlock, it’s a different topic.
“But” is disjunctive, establishing a relationship of contrast or opposition. “Incidental” connotes accompaniment to something separate and distinct from itself. i.e.,
“Alimony arises from the marriage contract between husband and wife, but child support comes from the relationship between the parent and child that originates during the marriage and is incidental to it.”
Oh, wait. This OP has been published? Well, I take back all I said, all the proof I offered, the citations I provided, and the statements I made. I had no idea it had been PUBLISHED. I completely concede all arguments I’ve made. I had no idea you had joined the ranks of Jayson Blair and Mohammed Saeed Al-Sahaf. How can I argue with that? And I’m sure Judge Hartin was just jealous when he said: “But the duty of the father, if he has means with which to do so, to support his infant children, springs immediately from the parental relationship.”
Nope. You have provided no argument which even comes close to proving this. Please do so.
This again, is your fallacy. A fetus is a thing which if left alone will become a child. Therefore, participation in the activity which creates the fetus must imply some responsibility for the child. Note, I did not say all responsibility. Some responsibility does not mean all responsibility. That is the fallacy you are falling prey to. Because the woman has power over the fetus, you are proposing the she has all responsibility for the child. This is patently false. She certainly has her share of responsibility. But there is no way to make the argument that her responsibility is all responsibility.
Seriously, I don’t get why you can’t see this. It would be one thing if you were arguing that in special cases where females lied about birth control, or stole sperm, or created the child through some other fraud. But you are not. You are simply arguing that since she has power over the fetus that she has total responsiblity for it. I simply cannot fathom what you are missing.
The logic whereby one person’s choice (and to remain pregnant is as much a choice made by one person as to have an abortion is) should be paid for by another.
I don’t think you will ever convince me of that.
But I do not think that one person’s choice can dictate to another person. The problem, in the context of this discussion is that the decision to have a child is not an individual choice. You guys have failed to make a good case that abortion makes children an individual choice.
Let me see if I understand you guys.
-
The choice to abort a fetus is the woman’s choice alone.
-
The choice to abort is a choice to end a pregnancy.
-
Therefore the choice not to abort is the choice to be pregnant.
Have I got the argument right? If I lay it out that way, can you spot the fallacy?
I can’t.
Wrong. Wrongwrongwrongwrongwrong.
I’ll repeat your challenge: show me a fetus which when left alone (i.e., not provided with nutrients, oxygen, et al), and I’ll shut up. You presume that the default state upon being pregnant is gestation followed by pregnancy. Even barring any human intervention at all (aside from abovementioned nutrients and life support), this is not necessarily true.
[QUOTE=pervert]
Therefore, participation in the activity which creates the fetus must imply some responsibility for the child.
[/
[QUOTE]
Say reading this thread makes some couple very horny, and results in them having a child that they wouldn’t otherwise have had. How much responsibility do we bear for inciting their lust?
None at all, you (I really hope) say. They made the choice of their own free will to get it on, regardless of such temptations as we may provide. Similarly, we argue that if a woman makes the choice of her own free will to have a child, regardless as to what the man did, she’s responsible.
Woman has total control over fetus. Therefore, woman has total control over whether or not there is a child. Total control = 100% responsibility. Woman’s control + everyone else = 100%, everyone else = 100% - Woman’s control, everyone else’s responsibility = 0.
Or, you can argue that even though the woman had free choice whether or not to have the child, other interested parties have a stake in the matter, starting with the father, and moving to those who made the conception possible, their parents, etc… In fact, if you remove the fact that the woman has full control over the matter from the equation, you can make a good case that an infinite number of things had to happen for that act of conception to occur, and therefore the responsibility of any one of those things (e.g., the father) is zero.