Calling it something different is nothing but a cheap ploy. Giving it rights here, no rights there, is an exercise in the arbitrary nature of public policy determinations as a prelude to law. That doesn't change what it is, whatever that is.

More quibbling over semantics.

His physical connection isn't nonexistent -- the fetus is made up of his physical material -- but so what? Everyone understands that the fetus is temporarily resident in the woman's body for a period, but the question is why that warrants such entirely asymmetric rights and dominion over the fetus.

It’s not a requisite of co-ownership for both co-owners to bring the same thing to the co-ownership for there to be a co-ownership. Some can bring goods, some can bring money, some can obtain an interest through only providing services. And there is no genuine co-ownership when you can willy-nilly deprive one of the supposed owners of his status when it’s convenient and then reinstate it later when that’s more convenient to you. That’s not a real interest in a property or enterprise or a thing (or person).

By chance of nature, the embryo or fetus is a part of the body of one party, and not a part of the body of the other. Rights to bodily autonomy come into play only for the former party.

Not really. The fetus is part his. It only resides on her property. Think of the law of condominiums. The structure/dwelling can have a different ownership from the property on which it resides.

Calling it something different is nothing but a cheap ploy. Giving it rights here, no rights there, is an exercise in the arbitrary nature of public policy determinations as a prelude to law. That doesn't change what it is, whatever that is.

Are you suggesting it is quibbling to decide when fetus becomes a person? Really?

It is a profound decision a society makes with societall and legal ramifications. It is not in the slightest quibbling. However once made things follow from that decision.

If it was not important that one could argue each sperm is as much a person as a fetus is a person as a baby is a person. Is that what you are suggesting?

Only in the homeopathic sense. Once the fetus hits 10^9 cells its 1 part in 2 billion.
It is made of his "information". But the physical material -- protein, fat, carbs, nucleic acids, etc. Are all maternal in origin.

See above—co-owners do not have to bring the same things to the co-ownership.

While it is a fetus, they are. Once it becomes a child then the child's rights matter./quote]

To the person who owns him—and the person who owns is the person who held and exercised the rights and privileges of ownership. And that was NOT the father. And when that person exercised those right unilaterally, his interest terminates.

Nothing we discuss here on this board, is going to change anything, whether it's politically feasible or not. We are not going to change the world from a baseball message board. So why not stick to what's right, over what is feasible right now.

We don’t know that. I bet someone said that when there were arguments about women’s rights, minority rights, etc., in their pioneering days. First we must rid the land of the savage.

BTW - I was not sure what 1702 is refferring to, but a Child is not property. Really. No kidding. Once it has been determined to be a person it is a person and not property. We have constitutional amendments and everything on the subject.

Not really. The fetus is part his. It only resides on her property. Think of the law of condominiums. The structure/dwelling can have a different ownership from the property on which it resides.

So you also seem to believe that a woman needs the man's approval to have an abortion?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It’s perfect that when I recited way back there upthread that “laundry list” that showed as a matter of existential status and expressed and unexpressed law men are, and always have been, worse off than women, JOLLY OLD fobbed it off with a that’s irrelevant. Elements indicating a woman’s social position in some way may be inferior is never irrelevant. The ways her position is superior is what’s irrelevant. There simply is no reciprocity, no balance between males and females, in this society.

When either a man or a woman faces job discrimination because of non-job related factors of their gender, that's very relevant. When a mother whose income is greater than that of the father isn't required to contribute more for child support, or vice versa, that's discrimination based on gender, and your point about fairness is also relevant.**

But if a law were passed to require all beardless people to pay a fine, that's not equality before the law, that's an absurdity. And if there were a law that only people with a uterus could own a gun, that would be a bit suspect as well, even if it might dramatically reduce the incidence of gun-related deaths.

And when you go around pretending that it's irrelevant that women are, you know, the people who actually go through nine months of gestation and childbirth, while the man's active physical part in the birth process ends the second he pulls his johnson out of her vagina, then yes, your insistence on absolute "equality" before the law is not just irrelevant, but somewhat contemptible. It calls to mind Anatole France's remark about the law in all its noble majesty, forbidding the rich as well as the poor to sleep under a park bench, and it's pure sophistry disguised as principle.

**Unless a contrary setup was agreed to beforehand by both parties.

dang, i was at the gym during the state of the union address so i missed this.

BTW - I was not sure what 1702 is refferring to, but a Child is not property. Really. No kidding. Once it has been determined to be a person it is a person and not property. We have constitutional amendments and everything on the subject.

You need to make up your mind what it is when it is and what you base that on. Right now, you're just into hokey-pokey mind games. First, it's not a person, it's a thing called a fetus (what is that?), it's only part of her, not him (although there is his genes, it's not much more than that), then it is, voila!, a child/person, but you don't say why that is or how that happens. How did it get to be a person--what happened that made it a person?

Plus, you also say it was part of her, but why isn't it still her after it's born if it was her before it was born? Sounds like a god thing. How did it go from "her" to "child" that is now "theirs" when it was only hers before? Conceptually, very confusing. Indeed, the concepts are empty intellectual vestiges of a creed that is outworn in all ways except in ways that make it easier to entrap the guy into assuming a responsibility he disavowed.

So you also seem to believe that a woman needs the man's approval to have an abortion?

No.I say if she acts in a way that assumes or co-opts his interest, or in a way that disavows his interest, then he has no interest, no ownership. certainly not one that can be reinstated by her and the state unilaterally after a lacuna in which he had none--and if he had no rights, he had none. Either he has an interest or he doesn't. If he does, he has obligations and rights. If he doesn't, he doesn't have obligations and rights.She doesn't have to have his approval, but she has to live with the meaning and consequences of what she does or doesn't do.

So you also seem to believe that a woman needs the man's approval to have an abortion?

Well, as I have said 729 times now, it's either that, or the woman is solely responsible for the fetus, and everything that follows from it from that moment.

You need to make up your mind what it is when it is and what you base that on. Right now, you're just into hokey-pokey mind games. First, it's not a person, it's a thing called a fetus (what is that?), it's only part of her, not him (although there is his genes, it's not much more than that), then it is, voila!, a child/person, but you don't say why that is or how that happens. How did it get to be a person--what happened that made it a person?

Well as quoted the US Constitution explicitly states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

So at the very least once born a child is a citizen of the US and not property. That is not a mind game, it is right there. There has been much discussion about abortion rights and when it becomes a child versus not-a-person. There are laws on that too, feel free to look them up.

What I am stating is once it is decided this is a person, then they are not property. They are a person. Ownership blah-blah-blah that you keep mentioning does not apply to children because they are not property.

How is this unclear?

Well, as I have said 729 times now, it's either that, or the woman is solely responsible for the fetus, and everything that follows from it from that moment.

And I respond, nothing the mother decides abrogates the rights of the child.

And I respond, nothing the mother decides abrogates the rights of the child.

You've not shown that the child possesses a right to more than support by the mother, and if necessary government social programs.

You've not shown that the child possesses a right to more than support by the mother, and if necessary government social programs.

This.

@1713 is well done.

Well, as I have said 729 times now, it's either that, or the woman is solely responsible for the fetus, and everything that follows from it from that moment.

Or, option three, the woman has an additional choice that the man doesn't have.

I guess I don't understand what's so difficult about accepting that fact. Why do you feel that men and women should have the exact same choices?

BTW - I was not sure what 1702 is refferring to, but a Child is not property.

Well then once we change that the problem may be solved. Restoring a child to the proper status of commodity opens up a host of solutions to problems both extant and unanticipated. "Octomom" may be overwhelmed and suffering financial difficulties while decent loving couples are forced through labyrinthine bureaucracies here and abroad just to give a child a good home. Tens of thousands of dollars are being pocketed by rapacious middlemen while the poor mother is forced to scratch for crumbs.

Opening up the market to the fair sale of infants creates a host of benefits for all parties and for society at large. The promise of proper financial remuneration will not only reduce abortion but further expand the adoption pool by incentivising impoverished women to sell their offspring to better homes where they can receive superior care and education to what she would have been able to otherwise provide. Parents looking to adopt can be more selective, leading to superior outcomes and greater satisfaction. Perhaps the greatest beneficiaries would be the children themselves, who through the magic of market forces would be matched with only the most dedicated and desirous parents. Philanthropists could purchase whole gaggles of children as a way to lift women out of poverty, while biomedical research corporations could guarantee themselves ready long-term access to rare genotypes through careful screeening and the nominal cost of child-rearing.

All of these problem listed above - the terrible unfairness of oppressive female "rights", the sad plight of the low-status male, the threats of imprisonment at the hands of an unfeeling judicial system stacked with bitter lesbians, the fear of childhood poverty - all can be solved, and solved within a generation, with the judicious application of market principles. I've yet to see any credible claims to the contrary.

I guess I don't understand what's so difficult about accepting that fact. Why do you feel that men and women should have the exact same choices?

I don't. I think the rights and choices the individual person has should determine their responsibilities.

It's really pathetic that I have had to repeat this fact so often. It's almost as if people weren't actually interested in having a discussion on the merits.

Here is an interesting thing to me. Abortion is only legal because a handful of old men decided it was legal 40 years ago. In most polls the populations is pretty much evenly split on the abortion question and numerous states have tried to curtail abortion rights. Yet many people here think the right to an abortion for a woman is inviolate. So the issue of her body her choice isn't really as clear cut as some would like to make it out to be.

All well and good, YR (#1721), but I can just picture the first multi-millionaire compulsive collector who decides to take up infant collecting rather than stuffed rhinoceros heads, and then forgets which storage shed he's left them in.

Well then once we change that the problem may be solved. Restoring a child to the proper status of commodity opens up a host of solutions to problems both extant and unanticipated. "Octomom" may be overwhelmed and suffering financial difficulties while decent loving couples are forced through labyrinthine bureaucracies here and abroad just to give a child a good home. Tens of thousands of dollars are being pocketed by rapacious middlemen while the poor mother is forced to scratch for crumbs.

I think the government should auction adoption slots and the parents giving the baby up should get a % of the haul. The government should then use that money to subsidize child care for those parents wishing to keep their babies. Thus parents who can afford to raise kids but cannot have kids can obtain kids to raise while parents who cannot afford to raise kids but yet have kids can place those kids in homes that are capable of taking care of those children and the parents giving up the kid is given financial assistance that might just help them get out of poverty. Now then some might say this could turn people into baby mills but to that I would counter with free market principles. The demand for kids isn't high enough and the cost of having a kid are so great that it really wouldn't pay to keep pumping out kids. But as a sop to those who would worry about this we could place a limit to the amount a parent could receive by giving up their kids. Something like you'd only get a cut of the adoption twice. After that you get nothing.

Just wanted to pop into this thread to say that anything YR claims I said in another thread is a dirty awful lie that takes me out context...

You may now return to the zygote pricing discussion...

Hey y'all are NOT gonna believe what zonk said in the new Rosenthal thread! I'll see ya there!

Meanwhile Andy is still trying to crush capitalism with his pink-tinged tears:

All well and good, YR (#1721), but I can just picture the first multi-millionaire compulsive collector who decides to take up infant collecting rather than stuffed rhinoceros heads, and then forgets which storage shed he's left them in.

Do we not already have laws against leaving children in storage sheds to die? I believe we do. Go throw Ray Bolger elsewhere you knave.

I don't. I think the rights and choices the individual person has should determine their responsibilities.

And I don't disagree. I just view it as the man has the choice to either engage in sex or not. A pregnancy may result. If it does, he may have to pay child support. It's a consequence of his choice. The ability of the woman to have an abortion or not doesn't come into play at all.

I don't. I think the rights and choices the individual person has should determine their responsibilities.

It's really pathetic that I have had to repeat this fact so often. It's almost as if people weren't actually interested in having a discussion on the merits.

Repeating something over and over does not make it true. I have read what you wrote and disagree, because nothing the mother can do abrogates the rights of the child ...

You've not shown that the child possesses a right to more than support by the mother, and if necessary government social programs.

Well how could I show something like that? Fundamentally I think it does have a right to support from both parents. You don't. I think the genetic and historical factors suggest it, you disagree.

So to turn it around where have you 'shown' the child does not possess a right to support from its biological father?

Here is an interesting thing to me. Abortion is only legal because a handful of old men decided it was legal 40 years ago. In most polls the populations is pretty much evenly split on the abortion question and numerous states have tried to curtail abortion rights. Yet many people here think the right to an abortion for a woman is inviolate. So the issue of her body her choice isn't really as clear cut as some would like to make it out to be.

All of which we can discuss, but it has nothing to do with the fact that a child has a right to support (or doesn't if we believe your unsupported assertion).

How about rendered homeless? Or made poor? What should we do to get people to pay child support?

There's still the same social safety net to prevent against homelessness and other similar issues. What we should do to get people to pay child support is the same thing that we'd do for any other sort of debt.

I don't see what's so complicated here. If you have the means to pay support for your biological child, you pay. If you don't, the social safety net picks up the slack.

So then what makes a father a father isn't the sperm he gives but the amount of money he has in his wallet?

Where did that come from? I never once connected the legitimacy of parenthood with wealth. Nor did I suggest that inability to pay support have anything to do with visitation rights.

You need to make up your mind what it is when it is and what you base that on. Right now, you're just into hokey-pokey mind games. First, it's not a person, it's a thing called a fetus (what is that?), it's only part of her, not him (although there is his genes, it's not much more than that), then it is, voila!, a child/person, but you don't say why that is or how that happens. How did it get to be a person--what happened that made it a person?

There's no mind game at all.

The fetus starts out as a single cell, which is pretty clearly not a person, and, if allowed to come to term, ends up a baby, which pretty clearly is a person. As the fetus develops, it transitions from non-person to person. There is no precise moment that we can point to where the transition happens, but we can identify stages of development and make decisions based on what our concept of "personhood" is. To the extent that members of society differ in opinion, we resolve the matter in the same way that we resolve any other matter of disagreement: through the democratic process (and how willing we are to respect the law should the ruling decision violate our principles).

The boundary line that is easiest to measure, arbitrary as it may be as an indication of biological viability, is birth. That's why birth is generally the moment where the law considers personhood and the resultant individual rights to begin.

As for the idea that it's "only part of her, not him," those are your words, not mine. The fetus is its own thing from the moment of conception, but until it reaches a certain point in its development, its entitlement to the rights that come with individual personhood do not attach. Neither mother nor father have any particular claim or obligation regarding the fetus until it becomes a legal person, at which point both share the same claims and obligations.

Plus, you also say it was part of her, but why isn't it still her after it's born if it was her before it was born? Sounds like a god thing. How did it go from "her" to "child" that is now "theirs" when it was only hers before? Conceptually, very confusing. Indeed, the concepts are empty intellectual vestiges of a creed that is outworn in all ways except in ways that make it easier to entrap the guy into assuming a responsibility he disavowed.

I wouldn't describe it that way at all.

Prior to birth, the fetus was a potential person, but had no rights nor any material worth. There was nothing to weigh against the mother's decision to engage in whatever behavior she wished with her own body, just as the father could have any sort of personal medical procedure he desired. Upon birth, chosen in large part for its clear transition from passenger to pedestrian, our society invested the now-child with personhood, and the package of rights that come with the condition of personhood.

I don't see what's confusing about it at all. Since development does not occur in consistent, easily measurable chunks, we pick a moment that is consistent and easily measurable to allow for a general application of public policy. It's not like we don't see other arbitrary cutoffs in other areas of public policy: age of consent, age of voting, age for social security, etc.

And I also don't think it's outworn at all. There are practical reasons to hold individual biological fathers responsible for their own offspring rather than spreading the burden to society as a whole. A policy that does not hold such parents responsible is, in my opinion, a policy likely to lead to higher incidence of irresponsible sexual behavior and a greater cost to society. (This isn't some prudish dislike of casual sex; I've got no issue with that at all. It's a dislike of individual people who do not want children engaging in irresponsible partner selection and irresponsible use of birth control.)

Well, as I have said 729 times now, it's either that, or the woman is solely responsible for the fetus, and everything that follows from it from that moment.

Or, option three, the woman has an additional choice that the man doesn't have.

What you mean is that the woman's "additional choice" is that she gets to choose for the man.

And he has to assume the responsibilities of her choice.

I guess I don't understand what's so difficult about accepting that fact. Why do you feel that men and women should have the exact same choices?

Sigh. The point is that the responsibilities should be tied to the choice. Feel free to ignore this for the 730th time.

They don't have to have the same choices. But then they shouldn't have the same responsibilities.

?

And I don't disagree. I just view it as the man has the choice to either engage in sex or not. A pregnancy may result. If it does, he may have to pay child support. It's a consequence of his choice. The ability of the woman to have an abortion or not doesn't come into play at all.

That "doesn't come into play" because you think the Hegar dilator hasn't been invented yet. But here in the year 2013, abortion is safely available, and is a choice. And from that choice flows responsibilities. And the responsibilities as always should flow to the person who made the choice. That would be the woman.

Why don't you make the man's parents assume the responsibility for supporting the kid, as long as you're removing the decision point so far back in time as to render it meaningless. The man's parents chose to have him, after all, knowing full well that he could one day knock some girl up who would then have the unilateral power to have the child without assuming all of the responsibilities.

True story. My wife offered to be surrogate to friends, a couple who couldn't carry a baby to term. Didn't happen, but if it had gone through apparently since it would have been my wife's sole decision to carry the baby to term, the couple could have lost interest and forced custody of the baby on my wife, or my wife could have stolen the baby from them. Regardless, there was clearly no way it could be theirs, nor did they have any responsibility for its existence.

The law says that the two biological parents who provide the sperm and egg are the eventual joint custodians of any living human that may result from the pregnancy. That human may make claims against them for care, more or less. The fact that any woman incubating the baby may have reason to terminate the pregnancy does not give her the right, or afford her the opportunity, to usurp the custodial rights and responsibilities.

True story. My wife offered to be surrogate to friends, a couple who couldn't carry a baby to term.

BEYONCE DID THAT?

What's the law as to sperm donors? Porn actresses who are impregnated through a performance? Prostitutes impregnated by a john? I wonder if Nevada has any laws to this last.

This guy certainly got a rude awakening:

Craigslist sperm donor forced to pay child support to lesbian couple - despite giving up parental rights to the baby BEFORE she was born

•Angela Bauer, 40, and partner Jennifer Schreiner, 34, placed ad in 2009
•Donor William Marotta relinquished financial responsibility for child

•Kansas state ordered Mr Marotta to pay after lesbian couple applied
for welfare

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255241/Sperm-donor-ordered-pay-child-support-lesbian-couple-despite-giving-rights-child.html

1735:

Say that again.

This explains the situation a bit more clearly:

Just ask William Marotta, a married 46-year-old mechanic from Topeka, Kansas, who is being asked by the state to pay $6,000 in child support after he donated sperm to a couple in his town.

Marotta had a contract absolving him of parental responsibility and says he has no contact with the child, but because he donated his sperm outside of a licensed institution, the state has gotten involved.

"No good deed goes unpunished," Marotta told TODAY. "With what I know now, I don't think I would have been the sperm donor."

Marotta replied to a Craigslist ad in 2009 from a local couple who said they wanted to find a sperm donor. They were offering $50. After discussing it with his wife, Marotta volunteered, turning down the cash Jennifer Schreiner and her partner, Angela Bauer, were offering in exchange.

Marotta signed a written agreement that relinquished him of parental rights and held him harmless "for any child support payments demanded of him by any other person or entity, public or private ... regardless of the circumstances or said demand,” according to The Topeka Capital-Journal.

Schreiner became pregnant with the sperm, and she and Bauer -- who are not married because Kansas does not recognize same-sex unions -- co-parented the baby girl. Child support only came up when the two women broke off their relationship, one of them got sick, and they applied for state services for the girl. The Kansas Department for Children and Families demanded they tell them the donor's name, which Schreiner and Bauer eventually gave, reluctantly.

The state filed a child-support claim for more than $6,000 against Marotta this past October.

..."In cases where the parties do not go through a licensed physician or a clinic, there remains the question of who actually is the father of the child or children. In such cases, DCF is required by statue to establish paternity and then pursue child support from the non-custodial parent,” Angela de Rocha, director of communications, said in a statement.

Ben Swinnen, whose Topeka firm will represent Marotta at his Jan. 8 hearing, said Marotta has no way to pay for the child support costs, never mind his unexpected legal fees.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/03/16326826-hey-sperm-donor-dont-answer-that-craigslist-ad?lite

Now, that is interesting.

Repeating something over and over does not make it true. I have read what you wrote

Really, have you? Cause this is entirely unresponsive to the actual complaint I was making. Repeating something of course does not make it true, that goes for your side, as much as mine. But that is no excuse for distorting a position, which has been carefully laid out many times*, and attributing claims to me, I have never made.

*either intentionally, or because they are giant ####### morons, I'll let you decide

So to turn it around where have you 'shown' the child does not possess a right to support from its biological father?

But I have shown that. Repeatedly. There are currently many children in single parent households, who are being raised without support from one parent (e.g. by choice of the mother, because the father is unknown, one parent is dead etcetera). Nobody thinks those children are having their rights violated. Rights by definition have to be equal for everyone. Therefore, if those children are not having their rights violated, than children do not posses said right.

I was actually complimenting RR. There is a certain beauty in a loathsome deed done well, and I'm nothing if not an aesthete.

Since this is coming from BTF's Lothario of Loathsome, I am very honored.

I actually would like to know your opinion on this issue; I wasn't kidding. Some of the other Libs have weighed in on it.

It just goes to show, using a fake name is the best form of birth control.

I swear I'll call you tommorow
Brian Brianson (Totally my real name)

The state filed a child-support claim for more than $6,000 against Marotta this past October.

..."In cases where the parties do not go through a licensed physician or a clinic, there remains the question of who actually is the father of the child or children. In such cases, DCF is required by statue to establish paternity and then pursue child support from the non-custodial parent,” Angela de Rocha, director of communications, said in a statement.

I agree with the state. Marotta is a fool.

This explains the situation a bit more clearly:

Brady Anderson agrees your sperm donor child support sample size is convincing.

So to turn it around where have you 'shown' the child does not possess a right to support from its biological father?

But I have shown that. Repeatedly. There are currently many children in single parent households, who are being raised without support from one parent (e.g. by choice of the mother, because the father is unknown, one parent is dead etcetera). Nobody thinks those children are having their rights violated. Rights by definition have to be equal for everyone. Therefore, if those children are not having their rights violated, than children do not posses said right.

That is terrible logic. The fact that there are children in single parent households has zero to do with the right of the child to support. Does that fact that many children are supported by both parents mean the child absolutely has the right?

When a father does not pay child support the state absolutely thinks the child's rights are violated - have you read all the things the state does to fathers who violate there child's rights in this way? Look upthread, there are many - including one guy who just donated sperm (and because he was a moron the state recognizes the child's rights remain).

Besides I though we were talking should not is. Because if we are talking "is" then I am pretty sure the father has been expected to support his child through most of US history including today. By what moral grounds are you severing the traditional (again through most of human history) expectation that a father (both parents really) will support their children?

The status quo is parents support. Children are helpless wards (at least initially). Other than "well it happens today in many homes and I did not hear the words 'child's right violated regarding that situation, so there are no child's rights" - which as I said is not terribly compelling logic - what case to you have to sever that traditional expectation?

Why don't you make the man's parents assume the responsibility for supporting the kid, as long as you're removing the decision point so far back in time as to render it meaningless. The man's parents chose to have him, after all, knowing full well that he could one day knock some girl up who would then have the unilateral power to have the child without assuming all of the responsibilities.

Because he is an adult and made the choice to have sex (his parents did not - I hope). And so his genetic material helped create a child. And the chid has an expectation to be supported by its parents. And nothing the mother does, no decision she makes, can abrogate the child's rights once it is a person.

Because if we are talking "is" then I am pretty sure the father has been expected to support his child through most of US history including today


Um, no.

To further elaborate. A father has been expected to support his wife and children throughout most of history. But a man was not expected to support any child he had outside of marriage nor any woman he wasn't married to besides possibly his mother, sisters, and daughters. If you had a child out of wedlock it was too bad so sad for that kid and woman. Giving support to the child is a recent phenomenon not a historical trend.

But if you wish to bring up tradition it does raise an interesting point. Which is that you're wishing to select which tradition we should still honor and which honor we shouldn't still honor.

But a man was not expected to support any child he had outside of marriage nor any woman he wasn't married to besides possibly his mother, sisters, and daughters.

Never heard of a shotgun wedding huh?

EDIT: In any event one can find historical examples for anything I bet. Today however a father is clearly expected to, so I am to blame for my own red herring.