WHAT??!! “Does not affect the father’s responsibilities.”??? It totally determines the father’s responsibilities, and there’s your inequity of law.
I’m sorry if I’m being obtuse, but isn’t that sort of the crux of the debate, rather than something to be assumed?
I understand how you can say that, I see the distinction you’re making. I guess I just don’t agree that it’s a meaningful one. It seems to me that if she has sole discretion over the abortion, and because the birth occuring or not is the direct result of that choice, that she de facto also has sole discretion over the birth (as opposed to the insemination). I think we may just have a fundamental disagreement on that point, and there’s no more to debate. If that’s the case, I’m at least glad it’s clarified so I can respectfully disagree. 
One’s right to free speech never depends on a second party.
Sometimes one loses his right to vote. Could someone who is not going to exercise their right, transfer that right to the person that lost his?
But, can a person transfer another person’s rights?
What is happening in adoption, is the transfering someone else’s right. That is, if a child has the right to support from it’s biological parents.
Would this be the same time limit that a birth mother has to challenge a biological father for child-support?
But you have to remember that sole descrition over the abortion is not the same as sole descrition over the birth. Also, you have to remember that the fact that she has sole descrition is imposed by the reality of nature rather than as some legal conspiricy.
Let me see if I can illustrate it this way. Two people agree in a contract on the creation of a business, lets say. In the contract they agree that one of the partners will have sole responsibility over the day to day operation of the business during its initial startup period. Afterwards, they will share this responsibility in some way. The fact that one partner had sole power for a certain time does nothing to the other partner’s responsibility toward the business.
Now, the point I am trying to illustrate: Imagine that the clause in the contract which gives one of the partner’s sole custody (and sole power) over the business is not an arbitrary decision, rather, it is a necessary consequence of the nature of the business. That is, even if both parties agreed that it was unfair, they could not start the business without one of the partners taking full custody for a period of time.
Imagine now, that the first partner (the one who did not get initial custody) complains later that he does not want to participate in the business anymore. However, he does not want to pay the agreed to buyout because, he argues, the second partner could have killed the business before it required his participation. He argues that since the second partner had this power at her sole descretion, she should not be solely responsible for the business.
Now a question for you. How is the first partner’s argument different than yours? I don’t mean in the odd way that sex is not a negotiatied contract. I mean in the sense that the sole power did little to detract from the first partners responsibility.
Fair enough.
Correct. Does not affect. The rights and responsibilities of the father are imposed at conception. The fact of power by the female does nothing to change this.
Let me try one last illustration. Imagine that the child (at any age) once born has to undergo surgery. Further imagine that while in surgery, the surgeon could take some action which would kill the child. You have to stretch a little, but imagine that such an action was perfectly legal. Sort of a I had to to try and save him or 3 other patients or something like that. Now, imagine a father saying after the surgery “He could have legally killed the child, so I shouldn’t have to be its father anymore.”
I’m sorry, again, but the argument is ridiculous. Temporary power over a thing does not remove all responsibilities owed to that thing by the one who exercised (or not) that power. Nor does it remove all responsibilities owed to that thing by those who had no power during that time.
Now, if you want to argue that fathers should have some say in the woman’s decision to abort then we can talk. I can see an argument that at least he should be allowed to say a few words.
OK, no I can’t. The fact is that if a man wants children he has to grant complete power of life or death to that child for a short period to a woman. In the same way, if he does not want children, the only way is to not plant his seed inside a fertile female.
Sorry about missing this before, but I need to add one clarification.
This is where your (collective your) argument falls apart. The decision not to abort does not directly result in birth. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition of the birth. Just as the insemination is. Similarly, insemination does not confer total responsibility for the child on the father.
Consider that the decision to ejaculate or not is more of a decision than the one made by the female to ovulate or not. Could she argue that she had less of a choice in the conception and therefore should shoulder less of the responsibility? If you remove abortion for a second, could you make the argument that the father should take full and total responsibility for any child which results from his failure to “pull out”?
Exactly. Everything you say is true because it is legally defined that way. The first partner has the legal obligation to bear that responsibility to which he agreed, regardless of the interim period, because that is the legal structure of the contract.
In your example, the business is a particular thing defined by a contract; this “thing”, and this is key, is always the same thing in the view of the law, regardless of who has responsibility for it.
The pregnancy, however, is not strictly analogous because the issue isn’t just that one partner has inevitable sole custody/responsibility for a time. There are, under the legal standard which gives women the right to abort, two separate and distinct entities: first a fetus, then a child. Biologically, yes, the first is just a stage of development and its dependent nature is simply an evolutionary fact. But legally, it is distinct from the child, and only becomes a child if the mother, at her sole discretion makes the choice to allow it to become one.
No, you can’t illustrate it thusly, because the point that we’ve made (and you’ve not rebutted) is that at no point does the man enter such a contract. You claim that having sex is equivalent to stating consent to care for any fruit of the union. We point out that it obviously isn’t so on the female side of the equation. Besides, since with birth control and whatnot, a baby is not necessarily a likely outcome of sex, implied conset is hooey.
No, I have not said that sex is a contract to care for a child. I have said that having sex is a contract to take responsibility for that action. If it does not result in a child, then no child care is required. If it does, however, then care is required. Both participants have power to prevent children. These powers are different. The fact of this difference does not negate the responsibilities of either participant. Which, unfortunately is what your argument amounts to.
Okay, we’ll take this from the top.
Say I follow you around, steal a germ cell from you somehow (both genders lose them on a regular basis), and borrowing lab equipment from the Raelians, produce your child. Why should you legally owe it child support?
Of course, you should have taken responsibility for your germ cells, in this above example. By your logic, you owe the child a debt. I think this is horse hooey, because you had a reasonable expectation that no one would attempt to grow a child from your cast-off cells, just as people who have sex with birth control have a reasonable expectation that no child will thusly result.
You can’t have it both ways. Either we have a built-in obligation to care for our children, regardless of how they came about, or people don’t have such an obligation as default and need to incur it, at which point you need to argue that taking some action (I.e., having sex) implied a willingness to pay child support.
Also, keep in mind I’m talking about what the law should eb==
I’m sorry, again, but the argument is ridiculous. Temporary power over a thing does not remove all responsibilities owed to that thing by the one who exercised (or not) that power. Nor does it remove all responsibilities owed to that thing by those who had no power during that time.
Damn keyboard puts enter right next to backspace. Please ignore the last two paragraphs.
And so long as one of the ways available to women for ‘taking responsibility’ is choosing not to become a mother, a man should be able to decide not to be a father.
Your argument is completely and utterly devoid of logic and any indication of critical thinking skills. I would be embarrassed to put forth such an argument to a first grade class, yet alone a message board. The entirety of your assertion is that because the author uses the term divorce when discussing societal trends in the latter nineteenth century, it must mean child support arises from the marriage contract. Do I understand you correctly? Despite my providing you with numerous cases, multiple articles, and direct quotes to the opposite, you insist on saying “it’s obvious”. Good God man, what’s your next argument, I know you are, but what am I? Or perhaps, “Oh yeah, well your mother smells funny.”
The court specifically states that alimony arises from the marriage contract and child support arises from the parent/child relationship and you think that proves your case? Congratulations, you have left me all but speechless.
Of course it does. The government has a duty not to infringe on your right of free speech. If you were the only person alive free speech wouldn’t come up too much.
Note where I said “lots of rights” and not “all rights”. Additionally, in some circumstances someone will be able to assert the rights of another who is unable to assert them themselves, if a special relationship exists between them.
Yes, in certain circumstances. Your right to control over your person or estate may be tranferred to a guardian in the event of your incapacity. If you kill a family member for the inheritance or insurance your right to collect may be transferred to another party.
No, that’s not what is happening. Rights and obligations are being judicially terminated on the one hand, and judicially created on the other. There is no transfer, although if there were it wouldn’t necessarily be improper.
In my state, the time limit isn’t set in stone. The length of time that you have assumed the role of father is one of several factors the court uses to make a determination.
Reread that:
“The right of the wife to alimony arises immediately out of the marriage contract, but the right of the child to support at the hands of its parents springs from the incidental relationship which has its origin in marriage, to wit, that of parent and child.”
The author is saying that the relationship between parent and child is created during the marriage, but the duty of support doesn’t come from the marriage contract, unlike alimony. It comes directly from the relationship with the child.
No, you left out a very important part to the quote that you provided.
And this is consistant with Texas state law prior to “Gomez”. And not just Texas, but many other states as well. See, that was one of the reasons that illegitimacy was such a social taboo. Not anymore though, illegitimacy is commonplace. My how we’ve progressed.
I find it somewhat difficult to sympathize with the “fact of biology” argument, especially since the Supreme Court of the United States, through an act of judicial decree, provided women relief from their burden of biology.
Why?
As long as this extra power is merely a result of necessary biology, temporary, and known going in (so to speak), there is nothing inequitable about it.
2 things wrong with this scenario. 1st, of course, you are implying that the child in both cases is created without any action taken by the father. This is certainly not true. Look again at your last sentence. Notice the phrase “reasonable expectation”. It is perfectly reasonable that sex could result in children.
Look at it this way. Take your example and change it slightly. If you volunteered your germ(germ is the wrong word, I believe, but lets use it anyway) cell. Even if you thought the cloning process was likely to fail, you would still have some responsibility to the prduct of it.
Remember, I did say that if you could propose a method of reproduction which did not require input from the male, I would support the man’s right to withhold support for it. While you have proposed such a method, you have not linked it properly to the act of sex.
For instance, if we change your scenario once again, and posit that people have been stealing “germ” cells and reproducing that way for thousands of years, then I would agree that we need to begin controlling who can take our “germ” cells. Otherwise…
I have reread and reread, but that one little phrase, “which has its origin in marriage”, draws the lines seperating legitimate and illegitimate children, just as Texas state law did.
If you are going to grossly misinterpret a quote, Razorsharp, please have the decency to do it to the entire quote:
Here’s another quote from Ruge:
Here, I’ll try and help you out some more:
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.