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.

In any event one can find historical examples for anything I bet.

I'm sure we could but that doesn't mean it was commonplace, the law, a societal norm, or tradition. As I said before you can't keep trumpeting historical precedence when there was in fact no historical precedence for what you are advocating for.

Historically single woman were shvt out of luck when they got knocked up.

Historically single woman were shvt out of luck when they got knocked up.

There was typically huge societal pressure to marry someone you got knocked up. The cutural mores were not expressed as 'a child has rights' or interms of women making choices or anythign like it, but the mores in most societies have been structed to parents raising their own children be the default mode. Marriage (ignoring the religious bits) exists largely to promote monogomous pair bonding, easy identification of a father's children, and as a structure to support the progeny.

So yeah pretty much every societyI know of has strong forces pushing for both parents to support their genetic children. Our current society is more rigorous in indentifying who father is and forcing them to support the child even out of marriage, but all those societal behaviors are expressions of the underlying principles.

It sounds like you think I am saying every society looked just like ours in terms of child support or that there are no exceptions where a man "sowed his wild oats" and never paid any support. That is not whatI am saying, what I am saying is cultures by and large are structured with marriage and families, laws and customs, which result in two parents raising their children as the default norm, and this is not something that just happened.

Children are (in a very real sense) a societies future and societies that are not structured to support them likely did not survive.

More U.S. women using the "morning-after" pill: report

There was typically huge societal pressure to marry someone you got knocked up.

If the two people involved happened to be young, single, and weren't of ill-repute. Basically if the farmer's daughter got knocked up by the other farmer's son there was pressure to get married. But if it was the farmer's daughter and a migrant worker or sailor or someone simply someone passing through town the woman and family of hers was shvt out of luck. If the man happened to already be married, again, the woman was shvt out of luck. If she was a woman of ill repute she was shvt out of luck. Basically in order for there to be pressure to marry and take care of the woman and child there needed to be a very specific set of circumstances. Secondly besides public shame there was no apparatus to force a man to take care of the woman and child and sometimes there wasn't even public shame. If a woman were to cuckold her husband and he found out about it he could throw her and his children out on the street and nobody would tsk tsk him for doing it nor would the law have stepped in and told him to support his children. Or if the man simply wanted out he could pack his bags and leave and again there was nothing to be done about it. Historically it has been the other way of what you think should happen. A man, historically, got to choose to opt in or not and could at anytime choose to opt out.

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?

Does the fact that many kids have an xbox mean that children have a right to an xbox? For it to be a right, it has to be universal, and available to all. Otherwise, it is not a right. That is the fundamental underlying of rights in the modern world. The fact that what you are asking for is not universally available to all, means that it by definition cannot be a right.

Obama mentioned during the SOTU that a child raised by two parents making minimum wage, can still be under the poverty line. You are telling me that those children are having no rights violated? While the child from a well off single parent, who can afford day-care, a nanny, good, healthy food, an xbox etcetera is? A wealthy child is having his/her rights violated, while a child living in poverty is not? That notion is so far beyond ridiculous, it's not even funny.

Does the fact that many kids have an xbox mean that children have a right to an xbox? For it to be a right, it has to be universal, and available to all. Otherwise, it is not a right. That is the fundamental underlying of rights in the modern world. The fact that what you are asking for is not universally available to all, means that it by definition cannot be a right.

By that logic because someone can not yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater there is no right to free speech. Because I don't have the same 'megagphone' that Al Gore does there is no right to free speech. If something gets stolen ever then there is no right to property. Clearly that is an absurd view of rights.

Rights are an ideal. They are the default position, the expectation. They are not universal in the sense that instances of their violation somehow invalidate the right, that would be silly. Not only that but right's often collide, 'your right to swing your fist ends just before my nose' is one simplified formulation of this. You seem to want to hold children's rights to a much higher standard than any other, because according to your logic there are no rights, because nothing is universal.

Obama mentioned during the SOTU that a child raised by two parents making minimum wage, can still be under the poverty line. You are telling me that those children are having no rights violated? While the child from a well off single parent, who can afford day-care, a nanny, good, healthy food, an xbox etcetera is? A wealthy child is having his/her rights violated, while a child living in poverty is not? That notion is so far beyond ridiculous, it's not even funny.

The child has the right to be supported by its parents, with society as a backstop. I suspect there are children whose rights in this manner are being violated, but it has nothign to do with the poverty line (which is a construct much like the idea of a replacement player or wins above replacement, useful but not some determinator of rights or anything).

You talk about money, but in your example you are never mentioning if one or both parents are or are not supporting the child. A child of a wealthy father with a mother who is a deadbeat could very well be fine and have its rights violated. the state will likely go after that deadbeat mother for that very reason - the child is owed support from its mother.

It is similar to the right of property. If I have a thousand loafs of bread or only one loaf, if you steal a loaf you have violated my property rights. The number of loafs of bread I have is irrelevent to the discussion of whether or not you have violated my property rights. Similarly the amount of support the child has from one parent is irrelevent to the discussion as to whether or not the other parent is supporting the child and potentially violating the right of the child.

Unless you are suggesting that somehow having a bunch of property means it is OK to steal some of it? (Edit: to have someone else steal some of it)

I would say it is rather obvious that it is not a right for a child to have two parents supporting it. If it was a right there would be a whole lot of lawsuits by kids and for kids. As we saw from the data posted earlier a ton of men are not supporting their children and a lot of that has to do with the mother not seeking support from them. If it was a right to have two parents support you then a lot of mothers in this nation are walking all over that right.

Basically we as a society have declared that chidlren and human beings in general are guaranteed a certain level of standard of living and if you can't provide that for yourself or have others provide that for you we as a society will provide that for you. If you happen to be a child the state will look at those closest to you, genetically, to pick up part of that tab. But at no time does society or the state think the rights of the child are "paramount" as BM likes to state over and over.

I would say it is rather obvious that it is not a right for a child to have two parents supporting it. If it was a right there would be a whole lot of lawsuits by kids and for kids. As we saw from the data posted earlier a ton of men are not supporting their children and a lot of that has to do with the mother not seeking support from them. If it was a right to have two parents support you then a lot of mothers in this nation are walking all over that right.

You do realize that children con't really participate normally in most legal actions and the guardian of the children does that for them. This means the custodial parent and/or the state. And there are a ton of actions by mothers (and fathers) against deadbeat parents, and actions of the state looking out for the best interest of the child. The ex is a volunteer Guardian Ad Litem and participates in those sorts cases all the time, looking out for the best interests of the child.

One of the things I stated many posts ago is that a foundational principle of the whole thing is we as a society have decided that in general parents make the best decisions for children (there are obviously extraordinary circumstances). So when a mother chooses to not persue a deadbeat father, that is not evidence the child has no rights, it is evidence that we accept the parents decision that overall - considering everything - the mother is doing what is best for the child. When the state decides the parent is not doing the best for the child then steps are taken.

Basically we as a society have declared that chidlren and human beings in general are guaranteed a certain level of standard of living and if you can't provide that for yourself or have others provide that for you we as a society will provide that for you. If you happen to be a child the state will look at those closest to you, genetically, to pick up part of that tab. But at no time does society or the state think the rights of the child are "paramount" as BM likes to state over and over.

To be clear the rights of the child are (I feel) paramount not over all of society, but over the rights of a parent to not support it. Basically people get to decide what to do with their money, but when a child is in the picture that right gets superceded to an extent (we call this child support) because of the child's right for support from its parents.

But we have instituted a safety net (I don't think it is quite as strong as "guaranteed a certain level of standard of living", but it is getting there, but that does not mean there are not other rights also. Why do you think the state does "look at those closest to you, genetically, to pick up part of that tab"?

I suggest it is because the state understands there is a linkage of rights and respnsibility between a parent and a child. A link that very early in the thread Sam wanted to deny (or claim we had moved past as a society). Perhaps someday we will move past it, but we are not there yet, and I have heard nothing as to why we should move past it.

Hundreds and hundreds of posts in, am I the only one who has admited making child support payments? Everyone can and should participate in the discussion (I don't have extra moral authority from making them by any means), but I do find it amusing.

And if I missed/forgot someone else who has stated they pay (or recieve) child support then I am sorry. I have a terrible memory.

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.

I'm largely in agreement with the "men should be able to opt out" contingent in this thread. Sam in particular has done a good job of arguing coherently, consistently, and without falling into logical fallacy. I'm not entirely delighted with where the argument takes us, but it's a principled argument and I'm not one to abandon principles merely because they result in situations I personally don't like.

You do realize that children con't really participate normally in most legal actions and the guardian of the children does that for them. This means the custodial parent and/or the state. And there are a ton of actions by mothers (and fathers) against deadbeat parents, and actions of the state looking out for the best interest of the child. The ex is a volunteer Guardian Ad Litem and participates in those sorts cases all the time, looking out for the best interests of the child.

Again, according to the data a ton of mothers are violating the supposed rights of the child by not seeking support from the fathers. A child turns into an adult and at that time that adult could seek retribution from their mother or at any time the state could go after the mother. That neither does shows that it isn't a right to have two parents support a child. All the state cares about is that a human being recieves X and it doesn't really care where X comes from. If the mother can't provide X but wishes to keep the child the state will step in and try to provide the child X and if it is possible they will try to get the father help pay for X.

So when a mother chooses to not persue a deadbeat father, that is not evidence the child has no rights, it is evidence that we accept the parents decision that overall - considering everything - the mother is doing what is best for the child.

So then the mother's rights are paramount since she gets to decide what is best.

Chat up virtually any social worker in America and they can tell you numerous stories of kids that were better off being taken away from their mother but were not because the mother refused to give them up. Nobody who looks into this the least little bit can say with a straight face that the child's rights are paramount. That is just complete fiction.

So then the mother's rights are paramount since she gets to decide what is best.

No the custodial parent is assumed to be making decisions that are best for the child. The child is assumed to be not able to make those decisions (duh, it is a child), so someone has to, and that is the custodial parent (with occasional boughts of society watching and stepping in in extreme circumstances). Just because someone is incapable of making decisions does not invalidate their rights.

Chat up virtually any social worker in America and they can tell you numerous stories of kids that were better off being taken away from their mother but were not because the mother refused to give them up. Nobody who looks into this the least little bit can say with a straight face that the child's rights are paramount. That is just complete fiction.

Talk to any police officer in the nation, stuff gets stolen all the time. Heck most of the time they just file a report and never even investigate the theft. Nobody who looks into this the least little bit can say with a straight face that property rights are paramount over anything.

And from that choice flows responsibilities. And the responsibilities as always should flow to the person who made the choice.

Unless you are a male and choose to have sex, apparently.

Talk to any police officer in the nation, stuff gets stolen all the time. Heck most of the time they just file a report and never even investigate the theft. Nobody who looks into this the least little bit can say with a straight face that property rights are paramount over anything.

Was this supposed to dispute my opinion?

No the custodial parent is assumed to be making decisions that are best for the child. The child is assumed to be not able to make those decisions (duh, it is a child), so someone has to, and that is the custodial parent (with occasional boughts of society watching and stepping in in extreme circumstances). Just because someone is incapable of making decisions does not invalidate their rights.




I'm glad we assume that since apparently a child and his rights are so important and come first before all other people's rights. Again, where are all the lawsuits from former kids suing their mothers for making bad and irresponsible decisions on their behalf? Why are we letting poor uneducated people make decisions for a protected class of individuals that have rights that trump all other's rights?

How many children are born with defects and debilities because of the mother's actions during gestation? Many children are born drug addicts/alcoholics, effects of smoking, etc. Does the child have cause of action against the mother? Shouldn't he, if his interest are paramount?

Was this supposed to dispute my opinion?

So you agree that property rights are not significant? I guess the right to the father's property (income) is not that significant either. I guess there is no room for complaint then when that money is used for child support then.

Basically a silly argument is being used to diminish the child's rights, and I am using the same argument to show that other right's could be similarly diminished. The follow on to this is your realization that rights can not in fact be dimished in such a manner (but I am not really holding out hope you will realize this).

Again, where are all the lawsuits from former kids suing their mothers for making bad and irresponsible decisions on their behalf? Why are we letting poor uneducated people make decisions for a protected class of individuals that have rights that trump all other's rights?

You do realize that children are taken away from their parents. That near adult children are sometimes "divorced" from their parents and enfranchised on their own (I am forgetting the exact term for this).

We allow the default position of custodial rights making the decisions because the option is the state making all the choices for the childrne. In general people feel it is better for the children to have the parents making the decision than having the state make the decisions. Are you arguing the state should make all "parenting" decisions? I am not, but it sounds like you might be.

How many children are born with defects and debilities because of the mother's actions during gestation? Many children are born drug addicts/alcoholics, effects of smoking, etc. Does the child have cause of action against the mother? Shouldn't he, if his interest are paramount?

So in order to suggest children have a right to be supported by their parents, every single aspect of that needs to be detailed out in a legal sense? I do know (have heard of) cases around a mother acting against the best interests of the proto-child. I vaguely remember lawsuits around work rules in a factory of some sort with possible exposure to lead and other toxins.

I have no idea how they turned out and I am not a lawyer. I do know thatbalancing the rights of the child and the rights of the mother is challenging. Even determining when the fetus becomes a child can be challenging. However the principle that all the parties involved (Father, Mother, Child) have rights, these rights sometimes conflict, and sometimes some rights are paramount over others in certain situations seems pretty normal to me, so I am still puzzled as to how this is radical.

You do realize that children are taken away from their parents.

I'm glad this wasn't a question.

In general people feel. . .

So then people's feelings are paramount?

Are you arguing the state should make all "parenting" decisions?

If a child's rights are paramount, yes.

So you agree that property rights are not significant? I guess the right to the father's property (income) is not that significant either. I guess there is no room for complaint then when that money is used for child support then.

Basically a silly argument is being used to diminish the child's rights, and I am using the same argument to show that other right's could be similarly diminished. The follow on to this is your realization that rights can not in fact be dimished in such a manner (but I am not really holding out hope you will realize this).



your opinion is that a child's rights trump all others. It does not nor does your example show that I am incorrect in disbelieving your opinion.

I have no idea how they turned out and I am not a lawyer. I do know thatbalancing the rights of the child and the rights of the mother is challenging.

Well once you concede that there is in fact balancing of the rights of mother and child, your whole "the rights of the child supersede everything" shtick you have been parroting for 1500 posts, goes out the window.

So in order to suggest children have a right to be supported by their parents, every single aspect of that needs to be detailed out in a legal sense?

First, that's what you're holding the father to when you say his responsibility derives completely and totally from that one act of sex.

Second, you didn't answer the questions.

As long as some woman somewhere in some way is divested of her parental rights, is held liable, that's good enough for you to justify the state of the existing system. You don't require much to justify your positions, do you? Yet, for one party, the consequences derived from that one act are pretty dire, and incommensurately reciprocal as to the other parties in the calculus.

And, if all else fails, let's throw up our hands and say, oh well, rights conflict, you the father always lose, boo hoo. The tears of the Walrus and Carpenter.

your opinion is that a child's rights trump all others

This is not what I said. What I said was regarding the conflict around the parents right to keep their money versus the child's right to be supported, the Child's right is paramount. As I said many hundreds of posts ago, the parents both are adults who made a choice, the child is not an adult and had no choice, but still it must be supported. Thus in terms of supporting the child the parents rights are superceded.

That does not mean in every instance every right of a child is paramount. This is clearly not the case and I have never said it was. Children have somewhat limited rights and responsbilities. I believe their right to free speech is somewhat limited. Also they are not allowed to violate their parent property rights willy-nilly and steal whatever they want from their parents.

I do not have the simplistic each and every right is absolute and an island. Rights conflict all the time. Society has to decide how to juggle those conflicts. Society has decided (prefers, feels) that in the case of child support from the parents the individual parents do not have the right to opt out.

On the case of who makes decisions for a child, the state or the parents, the status or the primacy of the various rights in their conflicts with other rights has very little to do with deciding who makes the decisions for those who can not make decisions for themselves (such as children). Most societies have a mix of the two. I think you wanting to assign all the decision making to the state is quixotic at best and will never go anywhere. Our society has clearly decided that it is best for children if the parents make the decisions for that child - with limitations (child abuse and so on).

Again how is this possibly surprising to anyone?

Well once you concede that there is in fact balancing of the rights of mother and child, your whole "the rights of the child supersede everything" shtick you have been parroting for 1500 posts, goes out the window.

No it doesn't. See #1772.

First, that's what you're holding the father to when you say his responsibility derives completely and totally from that one act of sex.

If I throw a rock I am held responsible for that one act of throwing a rock. If I fire a gun I am held responsbile for that act. Sex is different how?

As long as some woman somewhere in some way is divested of her parental rights, is held liable, that's good enough for you to justify the state of the existing system. You don't require much to justify your positions, do you? Yet, for one party, the consequences derived from that one act are pretty dire, and incommensurately reciprocal as to the other parties in the calculus.

What? That is not even close to what I said. My stand is the child figures into the calculation, and where support is involved its need for support supercedes the desire of the parents individually to opt out. The existing gender differnce in those who choose to try to opt out is irrelevent to the theory (though I admit not the practice).

As I said many hundreds of posts ago, the parents both are adults who made a choice, the child is not an adult and had no choice, but still it must be supported.

Like the child the father had no choice either. The mother is the only one in the equation that has the legal right to have a child and thus should be the only one who must support the child absent a contract stating otherwise.

Sex is different how?

Sex may cause a zygote.

If I throw a rock and break some guys window I am responsible for that window. If the guy in anger then goes out and kills hisn neighbor I am not responsible for that death.

Hundreds and hundreds of posts in, am I the only one who has admited making child support payments? Everyone can and should participate in the discussion (I don't have extra moral authority from making them by any means), but I do find it amusing.

I don't have any children, so I don't have any payments to make. I did, however, receive alimony for about six months after my separation (I was in the final semester of law school and had no income).

Like the child the father had no choice either.

And here I though men could choose who to have sex with.

If I throw a rock and break some guys window I am responsible for that window.

And if your rock breaks a window you claim no responsibility because the person you threw the rock with could have grabbed the rock out of mid-air, preventing the window from breaking. Since she could have done that you think you are blameless, but you aren't, you still threw the rock knowing she might not catch it out of the air.

Sounds like you need to be more careful throwing rocks.

I don't have any children, so I don't have any payments to make.

As I have said before I have had sex twice sans birth control, and have two children. My mom got pregnant on most forms of birth control (including after having her tubes tied).

The moral is be careful, and even then things can happen. So count yourself lucky (assuming you don't want to be a parent at this point in your life).

And if your rock breaks a window you claim no responsibility because the person you threw the rock with could have grabbed the rock out of mid-air, preventing the window from breaking. Since she could have done that you think you are blameless, but you aren't, you still threw the rock knowing she might not catch it out of the air.

Sounds like you need to be more careful throwing rocks.

Once again, you think this disputes my opinion?

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.

Well, times changed and all of that. Marriage is too weak an institution to support that any more. Sex inside or outside of marriage, what's the diff? Marriage should be up to the two of us, whenever we want to, it was said. An unmarried man and woman should be able to live together and rent an apartment without any problem. People who want to have sex on the first date should be able to do so. It's all up to the people involved. You wanted it, you got it. Marriage doesn't have any connection to children any more. It's all about sex.

How many children are born with defects and debilities because of the mother's actions during gestation? Many children are born drug addicts/alcoholics, effects of smoking, etc.

Naturally the Yankee Redneck Plan would address this consideration as well as dozens of other through the practical application of free market principles.

From 1433:

Can anyone seriously argue that the purported problems foisted on unsuspecting low-status males in this thread would be addressed and alleviated by the simple application of market principles to commodified infants? Rather than being a long-term burden to the unsupported mother, the newly-minted infant instantly becomes a short-term profit on a significant scale, enough to lift many women out of their impoverished circumstances. Prenatal drug and alcohol abuse would plummet as women protected their investment.

From 1071:

The mother is incentivised to have a healthy pregnancy. Can you imagine the financial hit she takes if the kid is born with fetal alcohol syndrome?

As 1721 presciently points out:

Restoring a child to the proper status of commodity opens up a host of solutions to problems both extant and unanticipated.

Yes, the answer is right here in front of us.

Marriage doesn't have any connection to children any more. It's all about sex.

This kind of absolute statement is pointless.

Marriage doesn't have any connection to children any more. It's all about sex.

This kind of absolute statement is pointless.

And also dead wrong. Marriage is much more about children than it was 100 years ago. People have sex constantly without getting married. They tend to marry when they are ready to have children.

As I said many hundreds of posts ago, the parents both are adults who made a choice, the child is not an adult and had no choice, but still it must be supported.

Both those adults made a choice to have sex. Only one of those adults was allowed to choose whether to have a child.

The choice to have sex is not choosing to have a child. We recognize that as to one of those parents. Why not the other one?

The child has its recourse--against the parent who chose to have it. Why is that so hard to understand?

And, Bitter Mouse, you still have not answered my questions. Does the child have a cause of action against the mother for injuring and damaging him when he was in her womb?

Marriage is much more about children than it was 100 years ago. People have sex constantly without getting married. They tend to marry when they are ready to have children.

How many illegitimate children are there now as compared to, oh, say, about 1950?

Plus, you've grounded your argument only in the getting married--what about the staying married?

The choice to have sex is not choosing to have a child. We recognize that as to one of those parents. Why not the other one?

The answer is "because".

Good Face,

Thanks for responding.

How many illegitimate children are there now as compared to, oh, say, about 1950?

Plus, you've grounded your argument only in the getting married--what about the staying married?

Many more, but many fewer people are married.

Sex and procreation have a lot less to do with marriage, but marriage (when it happens) has more to do with children. In 1950, it was the default way of life.

There's also a huge class divide. The middle and upper classes have illegitimacy and divorce rates mimicking the 50's. For the working class, marriage is rapidly disappearing.

It's one of the major sources of growing inequality in the US.

The choice to have sex is not choosing to have a child.

It's choosing to possibly have a child.

Pregnant women have a right to an abortion because of the peculiar bodily facts of pregnancy. They also bear a variety of responsibilities because of these bodily facts. People who are not pregnant women do not have an analogous right to separate from the potential child. This is because people who are not pregnant women are not pregnant and thus have no superseding right to bodily autonomy. (In the case of a surrogate pregnancy for a straight couple, neither the genetic mother nor father has the right to an abortion and both are responsible for the child.)

I can tell that it really sticks in the craw of a lot of guys that pregnant women have a right to an abortion, and you don't get to have your own rights-toy, too. It's fundamentally a refusal of reality. (As well as a ridiculous misunderstanding of the responsibilities and physical suffering that attend to pregnancy, as well as in many cases to abortion.)

The answer is "because".

Sadly, after discussing this for hundreds of posts, that really is all they have.

Pregnant women have a right to an abortion because of the peculiar bodily facts of pregnancy. They also bear a variety of responsibilities because of these bodily facts.

But on the issue we are discussing, they don't bear full responsibility at all.

This is because people who are not pregnant women are not pregnant and thus have no superseding right to bodily autonomy.

Yep. Incarceration doesn't impinge upon bodily autonomy.

Women get to decide to be responsible for the caring of a child because they have this thing growing inside them and it isn't really a picnic having it inside them.

A man gets no say and has to dedicate the next 21 years of his life to labor in order to care for the child because apparently working and or going to jail isn't hard on men. So a woman's rights trumps a man because of 40 weeks of uncomfortableness as compared to 21 years of being shackled to labor. Oaky, gotcha.

A woman gets to say, "this is hard. I'm not doing it" but a man isn't allowed to say that. Gotcha.

If being "live" is not the demarcation of having rights, only birth is, why do fetuses in fact have rights in law? Why are there crimes like feticide?

And if that rationale applies at one end of the life spectrum, why not the other end. Not long ago I was visiting someone in a nursing home, and to get to his room everyday I passed in front of room where resided a very old woman in a total vegetative state. I asked some medico about that and he said she had been in that state for months with no hope of recovery. She was in a coma and was fed intravenously--even had a wash cloth wadded in her hands so her fists wouldn't clench shut all the way. Is she viable? Is she a person? Is someone (or thing--private or public) obligated to support her in this state until she is clinically dead?

Pregnant women have a right to an abortion because of the peculiar bodily facts of pregnancy. They also bear a variety of responsibilities because of these bodily facts. People who are not pregnant women do not have an analogous right to separate from the potential child. This is because people who are not pregnant women are not pregnant and thus have no superseding right to bodily autonomy. (In the case of a surrogate pregnancy for a straight couple, neither the genetic mother nor father has the right to an abortion and both are responsible for the child.)

I can tell that it really sticks in the craw of a lot of guys that pregnant women have a right to an abortion, and you don't get to have your own rights-toy, too. It's fundamentally a refusal of reality. (As well as a ridiculous misunderstanding of the responsibilities and physical suffering that attend to pregnancy, as well as in many cases to abortion.)

While I disagree with the "men's rights crew" they do have a point in exposing the hypocrisy of the abortion law.

The father is equally the parent as the mother. He should have equal say in whether an abortion occurs (if anyone is to have any say), and equal responsibilities and rights after the child is born.

And, Bitter Mouse, you still have not answered my questions. Does the child have a cause of action against the mother for injuring and damaging him when he was in her womb?

Well you never addressed my question whether you think children are property. Are they?

Anyway the answer is I am not 100% sure. I suspect it is a case by case basis. If a 8.5 month pregnant woman knowingly did something to horrifically abuse or damage the child within her, then probably. According to curent law at that point is viable and you can't do whatever you want with it (like have an abortion - obviously the matter gets more complex when it is the life of the mother versus the life of the child, but that doesn't seem to be your question).

If the mother is 2 weeks pregnant, doesn't know it yet, and does something foolish that harms the zygote then I kind of doubt it.

However, since the child is not an adult it would likley be up to the state to see to redress and not the child (not many 2 day olds file in court I suspect).

More fundementally how does a conflicting in rights between a mother and child (which is basially what you are describing) invalidate anythign I have said. I have acknowledged that all the parties involved (Mother, Father, and Child) have rights. Those rights conflict often, but in a specific circumstance (support of the child) the Child's rights are paramount.

That does not mean the child's rights are always paramount, and in fact sometimes the child's rights lose out to the parents rights. This does not invalidate the child's rights any more than a decision the mother makes invalidates the childs rights anymore than the parents having to support their child invalidates the child's rights.

Once again, you think this disputes my opinion?

I guess I don't know your opinion of property rights. If you think they are meaningless I guess not. Are property rights meaningless in your opinion?

The answer is "because".

If you add in "because the child is the progeny of two parents, has rights which are not abrogated by any decision the mother makes, and so both parents must support their children" then yup.

So a woman's rights trumps a man because of 40 weeks of uncomfortableness as compared to 21 years of being shackled to labor. Oaky, gotcha.

What in the hell do you think she is doing for those 21 years?

The father is equally the parent as the mother. He should have equal say in whether an abortion occurs (if anyone is to have any say), and equal responsibilities and rights after the child is born.

It would indeed be much more fair, physically, if both genetic parents of the child became pregnant. I think that would be good for the world in any number of ways.

However, since it's not the world in which we live, our laws have to reflect reality

As I have noted, surrogacy shows us that it isn't about "women" and "men", it's about "pregnant women" and "everyone who isn't a pregnant woman." Pregnancy, the physical fact of having an embryo or fetus that is at once part of your body, does not have any analogue for non-pregnant people, and we shouldn't write laws to pretend as if it does.

It would indeed be much more fair, physically, if both genetic parents of the child became pregnant. I think that would be good for the world in any number of ways.

However, since it's not the world in which we live, our laws have to reflect reality.

I don't think it's relevant. The facts of biology are what they are.

We don't use biological differences between the sexes to give greater or lesser rights in other areas, we shouldn't here.

It's choosing to possibly have a child.

No, it isn't. You keep avoiding the crux. At the most, we can presume that both have to know that impregnation is a possibility. They are both responsible for the pregnancy. But having a child? That doesn't hold for both of those adults. It is up to only one of them whether there will be a child. Only one is responsible for the child. If Congress overrides a presidential veto, it can't then blame the president for what is birthed into law.

What in the hell do you think she is doing for those 21 years?

Anything she wants. She doesn't have a court order threatening incarceration over her head.