Thanks to Jocelyn Bowie for pointing me to a very interesting recent opinion in the case of Ferguson v. McKiernan, --- A.2d ---, 2007 WL 4555436, Pa., December 27, 2007:
A man (McKiernan) agrees to provide sperm to an unmarried woman (Ferguson) who wishes to become a single parent but wants to use the sperm of someone she knows rather than an anonymous donor. The man agrees not to seek custody or visitation of the child, and the woman agrees not to seek child support. The woman’s eggs are then fertilized in vitro with the man’s sperm, and resulting embryos are implanted in the woman’s womb for gestation. Five years after giving birth to twins, the woman demands child support payments from the man. The trial court ruled that the contract is unenforceable because parents normally are not permitted to waive child support requirements. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, fearing that no man in his right mind would ever be sperm donor if that ruling is upheld, reversed and freed the man of monthly support obligations.
The case illustrates several conceptual difficulties inherent in defining parentage and determining child support obligations. The majority of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court observes that if the “known” sperm donor is held responsible for caring for his “children,” there is no reason why the logic wouldn’t require the same of anonymous sperm bank donors. They, too, are genetic parents of the children. But if the line on one side — between donating friends and anonymous sperm bank donors — is difficult to defend, so too is the line on the other side. If the sperm donor friend need not support the offspring on the ground that he had no intention of becoming a “social” parent and genetic parentage should not be sufficient, shouldn’t the same rule apply to a man who impregnates a woman through sexual intercourse after the two agree that the man will have no support obligations for any offspring? In this case also, both genetic parents understand and agree that the man is only providing genetic material and is not agreeing to become a social parent. If the man should not be responsible in this case, the next question is why he should be responsible when the pregnancy is accidental rather than intended and the man wants the woman to obtain an abortion but the woman declines to do so? The woman’s right to control her own body guarantees her the right to unilaterally decide whether or not to terminate the pregnancy, but why should she be able to impose child support obligations on the genetic father who clearly wishes to avoid “social” parentage?
The usual response to all of these questions is that the woman has no right to waive child support because this right belongs not to her but to the child. But this response just begs the question of what relationship is necessary to establish such an entitlement. If genetic parentage is sufficient, then children should have a right to child support from even an anonymous sperm donor.
Many states (although apparently not Pennsylvania) have established by statute that anonymous sperm donors have no parental obligations, but the existence of such laws doesn’t justify them. One possible defense of treating anonymous sperm donors differently is that states with such statutes abrogate the rights that genetic children fathered by anonymous sperm donors would otherwise have against their genetic fathers because such laws encourage sperm donation, which in turn makes it possible for the genetic children to be born, and being born but having no paternal financial support is better than never being born at all. But this logic, carried to its extreme, would suggest children would have no right to parental support in any case.
Perhaps another way to think about the problem posed by the case is that the woman cannot contract away the children’s right to the support of their genetic father, but there is no reason why she should not be able to indemnify the man from any such claims. Her promise not to seek child support can be interpreted as such an indemnification. This reasoning seems sound from the perspective of contract doctrine — the woman can commit herself to a contract but not the third-party children — but it raises obvious practical problems when the man earns sufficiently more than the woman (as was true in Ferguson) such that his court-imposed child support obligation exceeds what she could pay in damages. Following this path of reasoning often would result in the resort to bankruptcy law to determine how much of the amount the man owes to his genetic children he can recapture from their mother.
Would you have to actually execute a legal agreement? I seem to remember the Chapelle Show having some sort of comedy sketch on that topic...
More to the point, though, isn't there a clear distinction between artificial insemination (which is always an intentional act aiming at pregnancy) and, er, more traditional forms of insemination (which are often performed without the goal of pregnancy)? I don't see why this distinction can't be seen as legally relevant, to the point of killing slippery-slope arguments.
So, this one time, justice was done. The woman lied, and was poised to get away with it, as usual, on the basis of "for the good of the child".
Note, I am not suggesting that men should be exempt from their acts, but rather, that women should also be held accountable for theirs. If she enticed him into sex or fathering a child by lying to him, then she too should be held accountable. If nothing is said, then caveat emptor. But where I would draw the line is where active fraud was committed by the woman. So, in my view, the woman who uses the sperm from a discarded condom to get pregnant shouldn't benefit from her actions, and neither should the woman who promises a sperm donor that he he won't be held to child support.
You have provided an excellent discourse on the issues attending artificial insemination. Our government has made woman supreme in these cases because she gets to decide if she wants to be a parent, but the father doesn’t. I also find it strange that while a woman can’t contract away the child’s right to support, she can terminate its life.
In my opinion any man who donates sperm is extremely foolish unless he’s prepared to take on at least the financial obligations of fatherhood. Now Michael Crichton’s latest novel Next explores some of the potential legal problems an anonymous sperm donor can get into. In a subplot a medical student donates sperm. More than 20 years later his adult genetic daughter manages to identify him an threatens to sue the doctor for passing along some bad genes. It seems the good doctor was aware that he had a genetic predisposition towards substance addiction and abuse as medical student, yet he recklessly donated sperm for money. His attorney advised him to settle.
Wouldn't this undermine any justification for abortion. i.e. the woman has no right to kill the child because this right belongs not to her but to the child ?
The principle which gives the mother exclusive control over the fetus leads, I should think, to exclusive responsibility for it--absent agreement by some one else, such as through marriage, to assume that responsibility as well.
Mothers are already permitted to make life and death decisions for unborn children while fathers are not.
The reason for the carve out is to encourage social parentage by fathers of children born via sexual relationships and to discourage sexual relationships between men and women that don't intend to be social parents to the potential offspring. Certainly some sociologists can explain the merits of this system better than me.
It's not a child, and therefore has no rights, until passage through birth canal / Cesarean section / magic pixie dust makes it one.
In the case of artificial insemination, however, it seems more clear that the woman does have a meaningful choice. Meaningful enough that it seems reasonable that in some circumstances she may bear the sole responsibility to the child created.
But those assorted burdens can be valued, as they would for a tort if they were directly caused, and will often be less than the cost of child support.
And then there is the issue of fraud. From the blatent (impregnating yourself with discarded sperm, eg in a used condom), to subtle and unclear (false claims to have non-obvious contraception).
Regarding the problem with indemnification, that would only arise if the mother is non-custodial, though, right? Otherwise, she could just pay back the child support payments themselves.
Clearly, a man who donates sperm under certain conditions is in a different position than a man who engages in sexual intercourse with a woman. If a woman implants sperm into herself in order to get pregnant, she does so intentionally, with the knowledge that a child will result. So she is in a position to know whether she can financially support the child prior to the artificial insemination. For her to come back later on and demand child support is clearly disingenuous, as she intentionally impregnated herself.
What I love is that not only does the current child support law overwhelmingly favor the mother at the expense of the father, it does nothing to foster the social relationship of fatherhood. I've seen my 7-year-old daughter less than 10 times in her entire life. I was not present at her birth -- I didn't even hear about it for several weeks. I've not met any of her teachers -- her mother has not wanted me involved. She has not met her grandparents (in fact, she's been told that her mother's boyfriend's parents are her grandparents). Her mother lives on two salaries while I'm forced almost to bankruptcy on my one.
And there is absolutely no reason for her to change a thing. She gets free money and free healthcare and gets the privilege of rubbing my face in it. She gets to do whatever the heck she wants (including expensive overseas trips) and I have a wrecked life of constant work, no credit and almost 1/3 of my paychecks going to support a daughter I have only two (old) photographs of to really feel any connection to.
I love my daughter. I'd love to do more for her--but I don't believe fatherhood is simply something that should only be about money. On top of that, it's cruel as hell that the expenses her mother incurs for child care are tax-deductible, but mine are not. Several federal agencies are statutorily prohibited from hiring folks with even the smallest arrears in child support.
Child support should not be about tearing fathers down, but it is. Child support should not be about making the only relationship non-custodial parents have with their children is financial, but it does. If you're trying to help society, do more to make sure a child has both parents -- not that one parent is punished for the others' decisions. Obviously, this case isn't about someone with my situation; however, it points to the obvious problems and inequities in the current system. The worst part is that the people administering support see non-custodial fathers as the enemy. They are consistently rude and seem to revel in making threats (my favorite is the "pay or we'll take your drivers' license away" --- a wonderful way to scare someone, but not exactly good for a child because you're denying income and the opportunity to see a parent).
I wasn't around for the debates that created our current system. I wish I had been. The current system is unnecessarily punitive towards men and predicated on inequality. It equates parenting with finances only and does nothing to ensure a social relationship. By harming the father financially, it hurts his chances of using the courts to get any fairness. Worst of all, it does not ensure that every child is supported. Support is only guaranteed when the father can be determined, which is not always the case (I can think of two teenage mothers I knew who had no idea who the father was --- as a result, their families bore the costs of the child).
But of course those of under the system's boot don't have a particularly good reputation. Drop one mention of "deadbeat dads" and the whole world stops paying attention. What sucks is those of us who are working our asses off to pay the obligation and still have to deal with that stigma.
What really sucks is having to ask permission to give my daughter a Christmas gift. What really sucks is never having been to a birthday party. What really really sucks is hearing her ask "Why is last name the same as mine?" and hearing her mother say "Lots of people share last names."
Courts tend to be very hesitant to terminate parental rights without an adoptive parent in the wings. Perhaps any statute or policy protecting donors (anonymous or otherwise) should also reflect the policy of ensuring that the child is likely to be supported.
That’s all quite logical, but can’t overcome the legal and political axiom that a child has an inherent right of support from its parents. Another axiom says we can’t “punish” children for the actions of their parents. Ergo a genetic father is out of luck unless the mother has a higher income or can find someone else to support the child. It doesn’t matter how he became the genetic father. No amount of fraud on the part of a woman can overcome the child’s right to support. If she lies about being sterile, tough luck—pay up. Moreover not only does the child have the right to get supported, it must be supported to a degree consistent with the father’s station in life. As a practical matter, this means a rich man must pay a lot, far beyond the basic necessities. Of course some state laws carve out an exception for sperm donors based on your sound reasoning. But even anonymous donors run the risk that someday they will find themselves getting sued for child support anyway.
The idea of not “punishing” child for the acts of their parents even extends to actions like illegal immigration. If parents bring in a young child illegally, then we are not supposed to “punish” the child by ever deporting it.
I feel for you. Years ago I did free work for men undergoing custody problems like yours. I saw a lot of very ugly stuff. I saw courts refuse to punish women for outright perjury. Not only that, the false evidence was still used to determine support. I’ve seen men have 90% of their income taken away. One guy quit his job (why work for 10%) and then end up in jail. I know of one case where a man brought all his cancelled checks to court to prove he paid child support. Didn’t help. Since he was supposed to mail the checks to the DA, the checks he sent directly to the mother got deemed a gift outside of the child support obligation. But I know of one case where the father got majority custody, and collected child support from a mother with a lower salary. The mother was not a criminal or a drug addict, or abusive. Sometimes if you are clever enough you can win, but don’t count on it.
This leads to the logical problem that if it were not for the waiving of the child's right to support, then the child would not exist. This presumes that for the adult parties that no contract would be consumated without such waiver. The only way for the child to exist would be for the waiver. So the child can either choose to exist without support, or choose support, but retroactively give up his right to exist by invalidating the contract that brought about his existance.
I don't see a distinction between copulation and masturbation. Why should the manner in which sperm unites with egg matter? If we're willing to allow a man and a woman to create life and to enter into an enforcable contract regarding the support of that life, why should it matter whether that life was created in a laboratory or the old fashioned way?
And why shouldn't we enforce contracts that cover unintentionally created life? What if a woman wants to have sex with a man, but he's hesitant because he doesn't want to risk impregnating her. Shouldn't they be able to draw up a contract in which he's off the hook if she gets pregnant? If not, we a get an absurd result: women can relieve men of support for their children as long as their pregnancy was intended.
Of course it makes perfect sense if one accepts the fiction that the child has an inherent right to economic support independent of the mother, but the "right" to economic support is only a legal fiction and always works one way. Could the father by law be required to donate organs or blood to the child or be forced to work as a slave ten hours a day on a state plantation in order to fulfil his obligations? And if the child has an independent right to economic support, there is an equally strong argument for recognizing a "right" to state enforcement of the supposed right against the mother.
Of course, a brightline rule that child support obligations should ffollow biological paternity is at least consistent, but courts have often been willing to turn the argument on its head when husbands are forced to pay child support to their former adulterous wives.
Some womens' rights activists even argues that constitutional concerns might bar lawsuits for fraud
"...Second, the private nature of the conduct involved in these cases makes judicial intervention of any kind undesirable. The
Due Process Clause of the Constitution
protects individuals against unwarranted intrusions into decisions about consensual sexual relationships and procreation. Recognizing a claim under either
an equal protection or fraud theory might independently contravene those rights by giving courts license to intrude into parties' reproductive behavior
and decisionmaking."
If we're concerned with the child's rights, why the heck are the mother's wishes controlling?
Turn it around: If a woman claims that a sperm donor has parental responsibilities, then we can avoid most of the problems identified above by a presumption that assertion of this claim automatically identifies the mother as an unfit parent. Award sole custody of the child to the sperm donor father, and make the mother responsible for 50 percent of the child's support. Seems at least as fair as the other way around, doesn't it?
I second your recommendation; however the book was reissued in 1992 under the title Men and Marriage -- Amazon appears to have quite a few used copies available, plus it's still in print.
if we suppose a world where abortion is always legal and 100% of people consider it moral, there are still health issues to abortion. Abortion can in some
cases cause infertility, depression, etc. Sure, not in most cases, but we aren't going to know who will have those risks at the time of conception. Seems
like it is a better rule to assume that the woman doesn't have control over bearing the child. And once a woman carries a child for 9 months it seems a
little unfair to say "give it up for adoption or get no help from the father."
Why is it unfair? The right to abortion is very strong in the first trimester, and we are often told by pro choice activists that abortion is safe enough to be a constitutional right, only to be interfered with minimally by the government. If the unfairness boils downs to forcing most women to make choices with moral implications, the law should (at least not in most cases) operate on the assumption that
women have a right to freedom from moral responsibility.
Is abortion meant to protect a right to abort for any reason? Or is the broad constitutional right prior to viability only a prophylactic rule necessary to free women from proving that bringing the child to term is a life or health hazard?
One day, we may truly find out, whentechnology permits safe extraction and growing of an aborted fetus outside the woman's body. Should the woman then have a right to destroy an aborted fetus capable of surviving on artificial life support because she basically doesn't want children? I need no crystal ball to predict what most pro choice feminists will say.
From a public policy standpoint the PA court got it right, but it would have been much better if the court had simply said yes to the mother and left it to the legislature to sort it out.
I wonder what would happen in a case where a woman stold sperm from a used condom or medical sample and impregnated herself without the father's consent? As I recall there is at least one case, from the Chicago area I think, where something like this occurred but I forget what happened. Anyone know about any other precedents? Anyone care to speculate about cases of stolen sperm?
"...Second, the private nature of the conduct involved in these cases makes judicial intervention of any kind undesirable. The Due Process Clause of the Constitution
protects individuals against unwarranted intrusions into decisions about consensual sexual relationships and procreation. Recognizing a claim under either
an equal protection or fraud theory might independently contravene those rights by giving courts license to intrude into parties' reproductive behavior and decisionmaking."
That's funny, the courts have never had a problem delving into the nature of this "private conduct" at the drop of a hat - or false accusation - in just about any other situation you can think of. The nerve of these men, thinking that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that it might afford them equal rights. There are several other problems with that article, but those passages weren't quoted.
Men are already second class citizens in much of the legal system, and on their way to third class. What I can't understand is why most are putting up with it. I guess some of the older generations foolishly idealize women and never experienced the vicious misandry (or are jealous of youth so they encourage it). Once they retire and move on maybe men will stop tolerating it.
I wonder, though, if economic price discrimination might provide at least the beginning of an explaination. Let us assume that the best outcome from a social policy is for the child both to exist and be entitled to child support. How to achieve that? Make sure that men are ignorant about their child support liability! And it would seem that outside of the sperm donation context, most men are indeed highly ignorant about the magnitude of the risk of their child support obligation. Very few men, before it is too late, are likely to realize that child support can be a significant chunk of their income, is basically non-waivable, and is enforced by the most draconian measures available to the modern state.
So we end up with a regime that essentially exploits male ignorance. The men who find out, too late, that they have been played for suckers obviously feel exploited; but they have zero power to do anything about it. The men who are not ingorant--sperm donars who are likely to do their homework beforehand--get a pass. While it may not be the moral system, they can be no denying its efficiency nor any prospect of changing it until men realize the real burden of child support ex ante.
I wonder what would happen in a case where a woman stold sperm from a used condom or medical sample
and impregnated herself without the father's consent?
As I recall there is at least one case, from the Chicago area I think, where something like this
occurred but I forget what happened. Anyone know about
any other precedents? Anyone care to speculate about cases of stolen sperm?
There was mention of an Illinois case, but I couldn't find it. However, courts have as far I know held
that the fact of statutory rape is irrelevant to the validity of child support obligations.
For instance, in S.F. v. STATE EX REL. T.M., 695 So.2d 1186 (Ala.Civ.App. 1996)the Alabama Court of
Civil Appeals summarily disposed of the argument that a victim of rape was ipso facto relieved of a
duty to pay child support "...We find S. F.'s argument to be without merit. The child is an
innocent party, and it is the child's interests and welfare
that we look to under the Alabama Uniform Parentage Act. The
purpose of this act is to provide for the general welfare of
the child; any wrongful conduct on the part of the mother
should not alter the father's duty to provide support for the
child. We note that the father could have filed criminal
charges against the mother. See §
13A-6-65,
Ala. Code 1975." And the court
That's funny, the courts have never had a problem delving into the nature of this "private conduct" at the drop of a hat - or false accusation - in just
about any other situation you can think of. The nerve of these men, thinking that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that it might afford
them equal rights. There are several other problems with that article, but those passages weren't quoted.
Yes, my thought. One might argue that any statutory classification triggering child support obligations, or laws against statutory rape were equally constitutionally suspect because a judicial determination of the facts would necessarily intrude into the private sphere protected by the Constitution. Either privacy is good enough to shield both men and women from courts inquiring into their privacy, in which case women shouldn't get away with tort actions alleging nonconsentual sexual intercourse proven by a preponderance of evidence standard, or men should at least have an equal cause of action against deceiving women. Artificial reproduction may reframe the debate, since the traditional discrimination in favor of women in the child support context can only be justified by the cumulative physical burden of carrying the child to term. If every man got a vasectomy, women would have to bargain for the only reproductive commodody men have and women don't.
But the distinction between artificial and natural insemination, as appealing it is from a normative theory of consent, makes little sense when the male donor is on notice that reproduction is a likely if not certain outcome of his voluntary action. After all, he has more knowledge of and influence over participation in the elective procedure than did the rape victims in S.F and other cases.
Most women I know want to have their cake and eat it. The problem is not women demanding equality, but rather that men are to cavalier to insist that equality is more than a one way street.
The other consistent position is holding the custodial parent(s) solely responsible for the support of the child, as a condition of their custody. The custodial parent(s) (not the child) would then have a right to assistance in that support from a noncustodial party if and only if an agreement with that party to provide such support existed (for example, a marriage at the time of the birth, or an adoption of the child after birth).
I think that "the legal and political axiom that a child has an inherent right of support from its parents" logically does not apply to certain circumstances beyond sexual intercourse. When a female intentionally causes herself to be artificially inseminated with the intent of having a child as a single parent, with a clear understanding that the sperm donor (anonymous or not) will not be a participatory parent, she is guaranteeing the child that she will be its sole supporter. Why should she not be held to that guarantee? She made the decision knowingly, voluntarily, and with the knowledge that she would be the child's sole supporter. Nobody forced her to become pregnant, nor did she share the risk of pregnancy with a male.
I'm used to policies being created and/or stretched to illogical and absurd results "for the children" but there has to be a point where we say "no" to protecting the supposed interests of children. Especially when it's clearly against public policy (as the Penn. S.Ct. pointed out in its opinion).
I don't see a distinction between copulation and masturbation. Why should the manner in which sperm unites with egg matter? If we're willing to allow a man and a woman to create life and to enter into an enforcable contract regarding the support of that life, why should it matter whether that life was created in a laboratory or the old fashioned way?
And why shouldn't we enforce contracts that cover unintentionally created life? What if a woman wants to have sex with a man, but he's hesitant because he doesn't want to risk impregnating her.
Because if he has sex with her, he's knowingly taking the risk that a child might result (plus, he can minimize that risk by using a condom). Pregnancy is a known risk of sex, minimizable but not entirely negatable. That's why sex is different than masturbation, re: your first question.
The woman who has timely access to medical care (dont be in South Dakota or rural Mississipi!) can terminate the pregnancy. And men, you are entitled to your faith-based beliefs on the origin of life but it ain't a "child" entitled by law to over-ride my rights to make health decisions about my own body when it is a parasite in my body. If you can extract the zygote (or whatever stage it has reached) and raise it in artifical wombs, more power to you -- I'd be the first customer. But the law recognizes that in the world we currently have women who by choice or lack of options carry a baby to term tend to bond with that baby. So a significant number - dare I say the vast majority of women -- who end up mothers have bonded with a baby that was conceived without tricking the man into anything.
A man who says he was "tricked" by a women claiming she was sterile is a man who is failing to take responsibility for his own sexual behavior. Use a condom (and take it with you if you are paranoid) or get a vasectomy, but you have responsibility for where you put your sperm. I dont sleep around but if I did I certainly would not trust a man to tell me that he had a vasectomy -- buyer beware in the sexual marketplace, and bring your own birth control if you don't want to be a father. The law recognizes this fact, and is written to create incentives for responsible behavior.
Do injustices occur in child custody battles? Sure, on all sides -- like in every single area of law -- but in aggregate women are far more likely to suffer far greater financial consequences from the birth of a child then men. Those harsh nasty child support laws are gender neutral and can apply to woemn. And the law is so aggressive in collecting child support because of the huge numbers of men who have been and are happy to have sex but don't want to support the resulting children (and because of welfare reform making the government more interested in pursuing the men for money than encouraging parental relationships -- I agree with the men who think the law needs to support parental relationships when the parents are capable of healthy parent-child interactions).
The strong desire of certain folks on this thread to call women harlets and conniving is certainly...traditional. But it is starting the analysis from a place that tends to overlook the fact that the law must take into account the huge numbers of normal situations that do not involve such straw women. I very much appreciate the comments on the legal question that leave misogyny out of the discussion. Sensible lines can be drawn between sexual encounters and sperm donation and it is good to see judges doing their jobs in drawing those lines. I agree that the woman who contracted for a sperm donor knew what she was getting into -- as long as the man did not ALSO breach his agreement and start trying to get legal visitation rights, etc.
Wow, the comments on this thread are amazing. Here is a thought: The law is written to take into account certain sociological and biological facts currently
prevalent in our society. Women are at MUCH higher risk of sexual violence that leads to pregnancy then men. Male rape can happen, and all sexual violence
should be taken seriously but in discussions of parental rights and especially in a discussion involving (even tangentially) abortion rights, throwing
in male rape and weird unusual behavior by harlots stealing sperm is a red herring because it really is the weird outlier that sticks out because it is
so unusual and rare.
Pointing out behavior, which is uncommon but stille within the scope of what the law reaches as a matter of public policy, is not a red herring. You may think that these cases are unimportant, and granted, cumulatively speaking, they are. But a wrong doesn't make a right. Statutory rape is not coterminous with sexual violence and arguing that these cases are outliers is of no difference to the actual male victims. Perhaps correcting historical wrongs done to women as a group is more important than individual justice, but glossing over the distinction between women who for a number of reasons really can't get an abortion or bring the child up for adoption, and women who simply want children is the problem in a nutshell. Why should every man regardless of consent, duress or deception be required to pay for the choice of the woman?
If we could save the fetus during the first trimester and put it on life support, should the woman be permitted to destroy it as a matter of convenience?
If the law essentially stipulated that, save for cases where abortion was a health risk, child support obligations should only be imposed where the parties were in a formal relationship, both the putative parents would be on notice and have to internalize the likelihood of conception before thinking of sex.
“Do injustices occur in child custody battles? Sure, on all sides -- like in every single area of law …”
This sentence applies some kind of parity in the frequency of injustices, which is a gross distortion of reality. The injustices that occur in custody battles overwhelming occur against men.
“ … but in aggregate women are far more likely to suffer far greater financial consequences from the birth of a child then men.”
That has nothing to do with the injustices in custody battles.
“Those harsh nasty child support laws are gender neutral and can apply to women (sic).”
While the laws are stated in gender-neutral language, the application of those laws is a different matter. Judges have extremely wide latitude in how they apply those laws, and they do so in anything but a gender-neutral manner.
Suppose that the parents are married, and the father is a hedge fund manager with millions of dollars. The couple is eccentric, though, and lives in a one bedroom apartment, sends the kid to public school, buys the kid nothing more than the bare minimum food and clothing to keep it healthy, etc. Can the child sue to get more money out of the father? Does he have some sort of "right" to a more lavish lifestyle merely because the father makes lots of money? If the father quits his hedge fund job to work retail at the mall, can the child sue to force the father to earn more money under penalty of contempt of court? No.
Any "right" the child has to do these things is contingent upon the parents separating and the mother making the decision to sue on behalf of the child for additional child support. So if the mother can consent on behalf of the child when the parents are married, why can't she do so when they're not?
- Legally Blonde
Consider the following fact situation that is currently before the trial court in Kansas: Two couples go to the local lover's lane in one car, one couple in the front seat, and one couple in the back seat. They discover that among them all, they have only one condom. The couple in the back seat engage in intercourse using the condom, and then give the condom to the couple in the front seat. The gentleman in the front seat, not wanting to spread disease, turns the condom inside out. The couple in the front seat then engage in intercourse. One month later, the lady in the front seat discovers she is pregnant. After the birth of the child, DNA tests reveal that the father is the gentleman from the back seat. Clearly, the gentleman in the front seat engaged in an intimate sexual act with the mother of the child. Yet, it is the sperm from the gentleman in the back seat who impregnated the mother. Who is on the hook for child support? Should the court impose a "joint enterprise" theory of liability? Or is the gentleman in the back seat "strictly liable" because it was his sperm?
I'd be willing, for the purposes of arguing child support, to count being engaged, or cohabiting, as equivalent to being "married". An otherwise long running sexual relationship as a known "couple" short of those? Trickier. But a one night stand or quick fling or revolving door? Nope.
That said, I think seriously strong social pressure (even backed by a public deadbeat dad list?) should lean on the father to provide support, even though he perhaps has no strict legal obligation to do so. Perhaps the old cliche of a shotgun wedding wasn't quite so barbaric after all.
[BTW The above is why I consider myself a libertarian conservative -- just because certain things shouldn't be a matter of law doesn't mean they are socially harmless -- there is still a place for shame, etc as a way of reducing sub-legal social ills.]
Of course, contracts such as the sperm donor -- anonymous or not -- should put one in the clear.
Feminists really need to piss or get off the pot on the subject of a woman's rights and responsibilities -- that 2nd part always seems to be ignored.
One more tangent on the marriage as a practical *functional* institution thing: it clearly relates to the civil gay marriage issue. Fundamentally, marriage is about child support and inheritance (by means of / in exchange for a publicly made promise of sexual exclusivity) - IOW about raising children, not spousal benefits in their own right. It's not, in the functional sense, about making everyone else recognize and approve of your "love".
As someone put it once about het vs gay marriage: barring infertility outliers, straight people have to resort to extraordinary measures to avoid children, whereas gay couples have to use eaxtraordinary measures to have children. The stakes in the game are fundamentally different. Using the functional argument, one may as well say that licensing gay marriage is almost as silly as granting blind people driver's licenses in the name of equality. I don't think this is a definitive, final argument against gay marriage (I'm open to continued social and technological change), but I think it is a very strong one.
That said, I don't mind some form of civil union to simplify benefit sharing for the couple.
I'd be willing, for the purposes of arguing child support, to count being engaged, or cohabiting, as equivalent to being "married". An otherwise long running sexual relationship as a known "couple" short of those? Trickier. But a one night stand or quick fling or revolving door? Nope.
That said, I think seriously strong social pressure (even backed by a public deadbeat dad list?) should lean on the father to provide support, even though he perhaps has no strict legal obligation to do so. Perhaps the old cliche of a shotgun wedding wasn't quite so barbaric after all.
[BTW The above is why I consider myself a libertarian conservative -- just because certain things shouldn't be a matter of law doesn't mean they are socially harmless -- there is still a place for shame, etc as a way of reducing sub-legal social ills.]
Of course, contracts such as the sperm donor -- anonymous or not -- should put one in the clear.
Feminists really need to piss or get off the pot on the subject of a woman's rights and responsibilities -- that 2nd part always seems to be ignored.
One more tangent on the marriage as a practical *functional* institution thing: it clearly relates to the civil gay marriage issue. Fundamentally, marriage is about child support and inheritance (by means of / in exchange for a publicly made promise of sexual exclusivity) - IOW about raising children, not spousal benefits in their own right. It's not, in the functional sense, about making everyone else recognize and approve of your "love".
As someone put it once about het vs gay marriage: barring infertility outliers, straight people have to resort to extraordinary measures to avoid children, whereas gay couples have to use eaxtraordinary measures to have children. The stakes in the game are fundamentally different. Using the functional argument, one may as well say that licensing gay marriage is almost as silly as granting blind people driver's licenses in the name of equality. I don't think this is a definitive, final argument against gay marriage (I'm open to continued social and technological change), but I think it is a very strong one.
That said, I don't mind some form of civil union to simplify benefit sharing for the couple.
Even granting everything you say, if these outliers are easily distinguished then shouldn't we distinguish them?
There's one really big problem with the "assumption of risk" regime that currently is applied to child support -- i.e., the regime that generally results in men paying child support for their offspring, period, no matter what the circumstances of their conception.
True, in most cases, it's really the only way to run the railroad. There's a kid here, after all.
But, and it's a big but: Under current law, in almost all cases, men "assume the risk" of intentional misconduct by the mother. A woman can lie about using contraception, she can lie about her intentions if she accidentally becomes pregnant, she can even become pregnant by stealing sperm from a used condom. And it just doesn't matter: the DNA test establishes paternity, and the man pays. In some states, the woman gets the cash and isn't even required to provide an accounting to show that child support was actually used for the benefit of the child. Next case.
Contraceptive fraud is the perfect crime. And it really does happen.
It's important to ponder just how strange this whole situation is. I am aware of no other area of the law where someone is said to "assume the risk" of another adult's intentional misconduct. In general, you could say that when I walk down the street I assume the risk that a meteorite will fall on me. But I can't really be said to assume the risk that somebody will intentionally chuck a rock at my head, can I?
One could argue that I should have worn a helmet when I walked down the street, so to speak. But the helmet won't stop all the injuries. And what does that suggestion say, as a group, about the people who are chucking rocks? Not very pretty.
Waldensian: you make some good points, but you should know that the Sixth Circuit rejected similar arguments in Dubay v. Wells, 06-2107 (6th Cir., Nov. 6, 2007).
But in giving responsibility to the man, you're simultaneously removing responsibility from the woman. A woman is more likely to have sex if she knows that she's guaranteed to get support payments from the father.
Please explain the legal distinction between these two scenarios:
(1) Woman wants to be a single mother. She invites Man, a tall, fit, intelligent, healthy friend to ejaculate into a plastic cup. Woman and Man are permitted to waive Man's support obligation.
(2) Woman wants to be a single mother. She invites Man, a tall, fit, intelligent, healthy friend to ejaculate into her vulva. Woman and Man are not permitted to waive Man's support obligation.
it is assumed that if you are in a "sperm donor" relationship you have thought it all out.
Thought what out? That you don't want a child? Well neither does the guy just looking for casual sex.
Neigher a sperm donor nor a man looking for consequence-free sex want to be burdened by obligations to support children that result from their actions. The difference is that the sperm donor knows that his actions will result in a child. The guy looking for sex only knows that his actions might result in a child. So if you know that you're going to get a woman pregnant, you can escape child support, but if there's only a possibility that you might get her pregnant, you can't? How the hell does that make sense?
Well, here's a Ninth Circuit decision where the court upholds an order to deport an illegal immigrant couple and their children, who were born in the U.S.
I often disagree with Judge Pregerson, but his dissent gives me pause:
(HT: Decision of the Day)
Waldensian argues "Under current law, in almost all cases, men "assume the risk" of intentional misconduct by the mother. A woman can lie about using contraception, she can lie about her intentions if she accidentally becomes pregnant, she can even become pregnant by stealing sperm from a used condom. And it just doesn't matter: the DNA test establishes paternity, and the man pays."
Mixing apples and oranges in that argument. First, if the true facts of the case are that the woman stole sperm from a used condom (eew) then the law should take that into account and I agree that it might be a very very good reason to change the default rules IN THAT INSTANCE to take into account all of the facts of that case. But there is a really strong issue of proof because how credible is that story? I mean how often are men really having their precious bodily fluids stolen out of the trash in such a fashion? If I were the judge in that case, and the facts did show that such a crazy thing had happened, I would be thinking that the risk of pregnancy shot up because of the behavior of the woman but I'd want to know if the man had sex with her earlier using that condom because in that case he did consent to some risk of pregnancy because contraceptive failures do happen. So unless the man was solitary in his actions that led to the discarded condom, then it is fair for the law to allocate some responsibility to the man for actions (sex using condom) that created a risk that a child would result from his actions. I would also be concerned about the welfare of the child: How competent is the woman to have custody of the child if she acts in such a manner? And if she is crazy then is there an alternative to dumping the child into the foster care system? So I'd be hoping that in a situation where precious bodily fluids are actually stolen that the law could take all the weird facts into account in assessing both custody and parental obligations.
But a woman stealing precious bodily fluids without knowledge of the man is an exotic and rare orange. The more usual case of the man feeling cheated and misled is the common red apple of both men and women saying a lot of things to get eachother into sexual relationships. Doesn't matter if the man or the woman lies about using contraception BOTH parties need to take independent responsibility for the use of contraceptive devices and BOTH parties need to take ownership of the fact that all contraceptive devices have incidents of failure. In case of contraceptive failure the woman ALWAYS is stuck with the consequences (miscarriage, abortion and childbirth all have potential for physical consequences even if no child results). The fact that in some cases she can and does have an abortion doesn't detract from the fact that in virtually any sexual encounter between heterosexuals there is a risk of pregnancy that could lead to a baby being born. If you don't like the potential consequences don't engage in the behavior. Because no one in our society is owed the right to sex involving more than masturbation. Sex involving two people always comes with some risks. Law is about allocating responsibility and it is perfectly fair for men to be on the hook for their share of the potential financial consequences of their sexual actions. Women via biology are always left facing the potential physical consequences. It is fair that both parties are held responsible for the financial consequences of raising a child.
What happens after payments are made, in terms of accounting for money spent, it a slightly different question from whether there is an obligation for both parents to financially support a child. I am sure that there are situations where there are real issues with the way the money is spent but if the custodial parent is providing shelter and food and clothing and all of the other myriad of expenses that come with children (like childcare if the custodial parent also works), then even without an accounting it is typically true that the custodial parent is spending a large amount of money to pay for the child's upbringing.
And to answer the front seat back seat hypothetical, I would argue that the guy in the front seat should be held responsible for child support payments because he engaged in the conduct that led to the pregnancy (placing sperm in a location where it can meet up with the egg via sexual relations). The fact that it wasn't his sperm (again, eew) isn't as relevant as his actions. But in real world cases the genetic test showing paternity is also a big fat arrow to past behavior.
Sperm donors that are not seeking parental rights are in a different category. The law should be applied so that sperm donors typically are completely off the hook financially.
How Progressive!
First thought we need to separate several distinct issues.
<B>1) General gender unfairness inflicted by society (rape risk, increased male earnings etc...)</B>
The goal of any conversation of this form can never be to rectify all gender inequity. Men die sooner than women, some studies suggest men are on average more happy etc.. etc.. None of us has the slightest idea whether it is better off to be born as a man or a woman and even if we did no so what. <B>I mean should women get lesser sentences for murder if we suppose their lives are on average worse?</B> This is silly. It's emotional pandering to bring up arguments that demonstrate women should be treated more gently by the law in general and only apply them to an issue like child support just because they provoke strong passions in this context.
Don't get me wrong. I'm open to reasonable arguments that the tax code should either give women/mothers special tax breaks or other support based on a pure cost/benefit analysis for the kid's, the mother's or society's benefit but if this is your view you should say child support rules are unfair but the only solutions that are more fair are politically unpalatable.
<B>2) Child support after marriage and serious long term relationships</B>
Absent explicit written legal documents the the guy repudiates these obligations the child support is perfectly justified in this circumstance. Implicitly the guy is agreeing to take on these obligations by agreeing to the marriage or accepting the stand practices of dating. Optimally opt-out forms would be provided at the end of tax forms so suggesting to your s.o. to wave the child support expectation didn't signal severe distrust of them. Hell, maybe they should even give a tax deduction for it to discourage unwanted (by dad) babies or worse (but rare) babies created to trap the guy into the relationship.
I mean ultimately marriage really is primarily a contract about how to raise children and it just so happens that the unspoken contract for long term dating defaults to something similar.
<B>3) Children produced by one night stands or by explicit sperm donor agreements.</B>
Here I think there is no plausible case at all. Certainly there is no plausible grounds on which you can interpret the guy as having entered into some sort of contract to support the kid by this isolated act and <I>even if you thought the guy had then anytime the woman lied about birth control, agreed never to seek child support and etc.. it should void the child support obligation.</I>
In short I think a theoretically sound legal theory can explain the broad outlines of child support for actual relationships. The place where the argument just can't stand up is in the case of one night stands, explicit agreements to the contrary and the like. Issues I will address in my next comment.
And then, there are situations where mothers go through a phone book and have anyone with the name of the putative father served. And, then the person who doesn't respond correctly under the law is found to be the legal father by default. (Day by Day had a great comic strip on this when Sam (for Samantha) was served, and proved her non-paternity by flashing her breasts at the judge).
My point with these is that men end up being designated as the fathers of kids for child support purposes through DNA testing, and also despite DNA testing. The women have it both ways, all, of course, "for the benefit of the children".
I still contend the difference lies between sexual intercourse and masturbation. There is a human compulsion to have sexual intercourse, thus humans must assume the responsibility of the natural effect of that act, pregnancy. There is no human compulsion for men to masturbate into containers and preserve their semen as chattel. Quite the opposite, in fact. Thus, humans should be free to negotiate freely and without the interference of the law and notions of "protecting the children" because the children are intended ab initio by the woman negotiating her acquisition of the sperm for insemination. It's understood by both sides that the woman is acquiring the sperm for insemination. Even if the woman lied and said she only wanted to buy the sperm to drink it, and not for insemination, if she chooses to inseminate herself with it, she made that decision unilaterally and thus should bear the financial consequences unilaterally.
In other words, there is a difference when children are the cause, and not the effect.
http://www.supportguidelines.com/articles/art199903.html
Thanks for the case. I’m glad to see that some sanity entered the legal system with regard to illegal immigration.
A few words about the concept of “punishing” children for the actions of their parents. Mexico. If a child’s parents steal a car and give it to him, he doesn’t get to keep the car because he didn’t know his parents stole it. The car must be returned to its rightful owner even if returning the car causes a hardship. The child can’t argue that he should get to keep the car because he needs it to earn a living or go to school, and he shouldn’t be “punished” for his parent’s actions. Similarly parents who enter the US illegally with their children-- we don’t punish the children by deporting them with their parents. Deportation is not a punishment (except in special circumstances); it’s the taking back of something gained illegally.
And it would seem that outside of the sperm donation context, most men are indeed highly ignorant about the magnitude of the risk of their child support obligation. Very few men, before it is too late, are likely to realize that child support can be a significant chunk of their income, is basically non-waivable, and is enforced by the most draconian measures available to the modern state.
Some of the hypotheticals we are talking about criminally victimize men who are quite aware of the risk. Even if you are safe and responsible you aren't protected from someone that will root around in a dirty condom, intentionally have herself inseminated, and then make fraudulent claims against you. (Fraudulent in the sense that I bet few of them disclose in their filings "Yeah, I inseminated myself with sperm from a dirty condom and he was safe, responsible, and didn't know anything about this, but I still want support." Not disclosing that is a fraudulent representation.)
Anyway this is the more interesting post with 1st ammendment issues in it. Ohh and yes I know that it's not only women with child support but it's too long to write.
----
Anyway so let us now restrict our analysis to the case of the one night stand or the friend who donates sperm under an oral contract. Unlike the above situation this can't be explained merely as an implicit contract since it is the inability of the woman to repudiate her future claims to child support which prevents the whole situation for just decaying down to no child support for one night stands.
Now what argument can support this point?
1) The woman can't waive this right because it is a right of the child?
But it obviously isn't a right of the child. If this was really the theory the woman would be obligated to seek child support. If the mother has the right not to seek child support once the child is born how can she not have that right to seek it before? Heck, divorce settlement agreements are precisely binding promises not to seek more that a certain amount of support for the child in the future so how does this differ?
Maybe the woman should avoid sleeping with guys who won't share the risk with them but that doesn't show they shouldn't be free to do so if they choose. I mean what's next legally demanding women attend college so they can pay for their future children?
2) The child needs the money and the child's welfare trumps the fairness consideration for the dad.
This is just a fancy way of saying take from the (possibly) rich and give to the poor. If you really believed these arguments why wouldn't we just grap the nearest millionaire when a fatherless baby was born and appoint him to pay for child support? This isn't an argument at all since it presupposes it is morally obligatory the guy pay.
3) The guy is an equal participant in the act therefore he has an equal responsibility to pay the consequences.
This argument seems appealing but we simply don't accept it in other circumstances.
We like to romantisize pregnancy but as far as the law is concerned it might as well just be a certain kind of infection. Can you imagine if the law let you sue your friend because he gave you the flu after he warned you and you invited him out to hang out with you anyway. Not only does any other rule unfairly penalize the vulnerable party (people are afraid they will sue) but in cases like this it poses a moral hazard.
Finally you can't argue that this is to make up for the horrible burden of pregnancy and dealing with this difficulty for women unless you are willing to grant that the experience of giving birth is less wondrous than the extra worry you have picking up guys in a bar. You can't both claim being fertile is a great wondrous gift as well as a horrible curse. It has ups and downs like everything else but you can't cherry pick when you want to make your point.
However, courts have as far I know held that the fact of statutory rape is irrelevant to the validity of child support obligations.
I think the two situations are easily distinguished. In the statutory rape case you're still talking about accidental conception with consensual sexual partners. In the case of stolen sperm you are talking about the intentional bypass of working contraception and intentional conception. Then most likely fraudulent misrepresentations and filings and perjury in any related legal actions.
Hmm, have my bold and italics privileges been taken away?
Wow, it's good they aren't trying to take away your bodily integrity. Or batter you or worse. Because that's a RIGHT.
1) Some of those harmed the worst by making guys pay child support after one night stands/summer flings are the intelligent liberated women this sort of women's justice movement is aiming to protect. None of my female friends in grad school would ever actually carry some child they had on some fling to term and certainly would never demand child support. However, the fact that some girls try slimeily (a few is enough) makes it harder to convince the guys it's okay to sleep with them. (I for instance won't sleep with pro-lifers).
2) A friend of mine from high school is now finishing up grad school in physics out in princeton. She wants to have children on her own (with extended family support) if she can't meet a guy she might want to marry in 2 years and reasonably finds genetic material from someone she knows more appealing than a sperm bank. Even if she found a donor to trust her totally the law means they would be on the hook in an emergency the net result being strictly praedo inferior.
-----
If you think kids need more money then cut taxes (or give more subsidies) to those economic groups. On the other hand if you think these subsidies encourage women to just have more kids than child support does the same thing. Either way I think we need to move away from these nonsensical fairness based arguments and start looking at some hard sociological data about what laws create the best benefits.
I was actually thinking they were showing mercy to the other commenters.
I don't see a distinction between copulation and masturbation. Why should the manner in which sperm unites with egg matter? If we're willing to allow a man and a woman to create life and to enter into an enforcable contract regarding the support of that life, why should it matter whether that life was created in a laboratory or the old fashioned way?
It is impossible to unintentionally get pregnant from masturbation. In the stolen sperm situation we are talking about intentionally bypassing working contraception, intentional insemination, and likely false representation in filings and the like.
What makes the child support system really rough on non-custodial parents ("dads") is that the system doesn't adequately take into account the necessity of the man to pay for his own living expenses. When a couple is married or cohabitating, both parents' incomes pay for a single set of shared living expenses. Suddenly, mom becomes responsible for paying for a house, food, utilities, etc. for herself and her kids, and dad becomes responsible for paying for housing, food, utilities for himself AND some of mom's.
If you're a guy making $100,000 a year, you can probably afford to do that -- though you'll find yourself living in a $500 a month one bedroom apartment in a bad neighborhood. If you're a working class guy making $30,000, or even a middle class guy making $55,000 or so, it becomes a lot tougher. Where I think the child support laws get goofy is how they deal with men who are not -able- to make their support obligations. It's one thing to track down and punish truly "deadbeat dads" who have the money to pay and refuse; quite another to force a guy to become homeless to make support payments, and to take away his driver's license and throw him in modern debtor's prison if he is unable to pay.
I can tell you one thing -- I'm single, I have no kids, and the more and more 30-something and 40-something divorced men I encounter who have suffered the crushing consequences of divorce, the more I'm convinced I'm best off by staying the way I am.
There was a reason why parents in the past counseled boys about behaving appropriately with sexual matters, and not just to protect the girls, but for the boy's own sake. Bodily fluids, if left about, can result in procreation. Given that a crying infant without the means of support should always be society's paramount concern, there is good reason to impose strict liability on the father's conduct. This includes not just careless sex, but also the thoughtless tossing of a condom where anyone can access it.
In the case at issue, the parents attempted to agree to create a child without a father and only one parent to provide support. Contrary to the libertarian viewpoint that the "contract" between the two parents should be enforced to the detriment of the child, society as a whole should declare these types of agreements to be void and let the chips fall where they may.
Male rape can happen, and all sexual violence should be taken seriously but in discussions of parental rights and especially in a discussion involving (even tangentially) abortion rights, throwing in male rape and weird unusual behavior by harlots stealing sperm is a red herring because it really is the weird outlier that sticks out because it is so unusual and rare.
I know of several "stolen sperm" cases personally. I can't get into specifics because they haven't been litigated/etc. yet. (I realize one can claim that this is a cheap argumentation tactic, but I had to mention it because I want the word to get out and the public to start realizing that this occurs.) Maybe its a regional thing, but if I know of several personally I would bet there are dozens, if not hundreds or more, nationwide.
So if the laws make it possible to basically get away with unilaterally enslaving someone and tying them to you for a significant portion of their life, don't you think it would be a good idea to do something about it? (And no, I'm not heartless, any children in a case like this are victims too.)
If I were the judge in that case, and the facts did show that such a crazy thing had happened, I would be thinking that the risk of pregnancy shot up because of the behavior of the woman but I'd want to know if the man had sex with her earlier using that condom because in that case he did consent to some risk of pregnancy because contraceptive failures do happen. So unless the man was solitary in his actions that led to the discarded condom, then it is fair for the law to allocate some responsibility to the man for actions (sex using condom) that created a risk that a child would result from his actions.
This is irrelevant. In the stolen sperm hypothetical we are talking about the woman intentionally bypassing working birth control (the man doesn't even need to have had sex, or any contact whatsoever, with her), intentionally inseminating herself, and then most likely making fraudulent filings and the like. Talking about any other sexual contact is emotionally manipulative fluff. Same thing with any talk about the difficulty of childbirth, etc. - the women in these hypotheticals went out of their way to intentionally bypass working contraception and to intentionally inseminate themselves.
I would also be concerned about the welfare of the child: How competent is the woman to have custody of the child if she acts in such a manner? And if she is crazy then is there an alternative to dumping the child into the foster care system? So I'd be hoping that in a situation where precious bodily fluids are actually stolen that the law could take all the weird facts into account in assessing both custody and parental obligations.
This is something we agree on. Although I wouldn't assume they're crazy, the biological clock, baby rabies, etc. are pretty powerful motivators.
The fact that in some cases she can and does have an abortion doesn't detract from the fact that in virtually any sexual encounter between heterosexuals there is a risk of pregnancy that could lead to a baby being born. If you don't like the potential consequences don't engage in the behavior.
More emotionally manipulative yet irrelevant material. We're talking about intentionally (and literally) injecting this risk back into the situation as a certainty by bypassing properly functioning contraception.
They're ALWAYS after our lucky charms.
Yup. And I think one collateral consequence of all of this is that since virtually every man out there now knows that husbands and fathers get screwed in family court (and not in a good way), as time goes by fewer and fewer men are going to be willing to take the risk of becoming husbands and fathers. Since there is no longer any stigma to premarital sex, or even living together, and since birth control pretty much works, they no longer have to.
One more comment: My own father died when I was a small child so I grew up in a home without a father. I know from experience that growing up fatherless is a terrible thing. Any woman who deliberately and intentionally plans for a child to grow up fatherless is, in my opinion, unfit to be a parent almost by definition.
Bodily fluids, if left about, can result in procreation.
Not without tortious and probably criminal behavior.
Given that a crying infant without the means of support should always be society's paramount concern, there is good reason to impose strict liability on the father's conduct. This includes not just careless sex, but also the thoughtless tossing of a condom where anyone can access it.
Hmmm. Can I break into your house and take the money and valuables that you thoughtlessly toss there? Can I steal the car that you thoughtlessly park in your driveway? So if you let me on the property should it be assumed that you are giving me license to steal all these things? Of course not. The women in the stolen sperm scenarios are engaging in acts of blatant selfishness and dishonesty. Letting them victimize and use men and victimize and use children without any consequences - in fact in most cases being rewarded - is disgusting. They wanted babies and they didn't want to go about it the right way - consensually. So they just took what they wanted without caring about the consequences to others. That's equivalent to theft or rape using the state to provide the force.
As usual and always, I question that unconsidered presumption. I agreed to no contract allowing her to do so; it's MY genetic information, it belongs to ME, and if I don't want a child made with it, how exactly is she supposed to be entitled to do so anyways?
How exactly is her mere access to the primary means of transportation of that information supposed to entitle her to use it to create a child?
In fact, how exactly is her mere possession of my ejaculate, whether by gift, sale, theft, or other means, supposed to entitle her to use the personal and individual information it contains in ANY way? Can she give it to a friend or family member so that they can reproduce with it?
It's MY genetic information. It belongs to ME. And if I categorically DENY anyone else the right to use it for any purpose whatsoever, what grounds can they possibly have for doing so anyways?
American Psikhushka, you've misquoted me. You quoted AK's response to my post which he made at 1.4.2008 11:40pm.
Sorry. My mistake.