The rights of consenting sex and child support

[Catalyst]

I brought up this idea with a family member, but her conclusion was "that is just not right" with no real argument. Maybe you guys could give this idea more of a test to see if it is right or wrong.

 

If two people have consenting sex, the woman becomes pregnant and the woman wants to keep the baby but the man does not, she has the baby and the man likely still pays child support.

 

My argument is, to make it equal, if the woman does not want to have a child but the man does, the woman must have the child. If the woman aborts without his consent, he may press charges. However, does a person have a right to say what they do with their body, despite what the other wants?

 

If the above is true, then it is unfair for the man to have to pay child support when he does not want the child because in both situations it is in the woman's benefit and less of the man's. She gets to have her cake and eat it too, the man gets nothing unless both or neither want to have a child.

 

But if people are having consenting sex, they are also consenting to having a child (with no condom/pill). If this is true, unless both people agreed to get an abortion before hand, neither person after the fact can say they do not want a child. If this is the case, the woman must have the child if the man does and the man must pay child support (or stay with her) if she wants to keep the child. I feel this would also contradict the woman's right to do what she wants with her body after the fact (regret in decision) if she is forced to do something so no longer wants to do and can be avoided.

 

I know this is a bit of a merry-go-round. Because this goes in full circle of hypocrisy, my feelings are that if a man does not want to have the child, he does not pay child support (condom or not). Or the man must pay child support if she wants the child and the woman must have the child and pay support if he wants the child because of consenting sex implication of child making.

 

What do you guys think of this idea? At the moment it seems blatantly one-sided for the woman's benefit but would like to see some holes in it that I may not see.

[Boss]

Unless there was an agreement beforehand, I would say if either party wants the life of their future child, stopping that life would be immoral. 

 

[MrNlul77]

In having sex you accept all possible outcomes. If conception happens and the man doesn't want the child and the woman does, the man has already accepted the possibility of that situation and as a result has accepted that he is bound to pay for the child. If the man wants the child and the woman doesnt, he has already accepted that he has no right over the womans body and cant force her into having it.

[Boss]

In having sex you accept all possible outcomes. If conception happens and the man doesn't want the child and the woman does, the man has already accepted the possibility of that situation and as a result has accepted that he is bound to pay for the child. If the man wants the child and the woman doesnt, he has already accepted that he has no right over the womans body and cant force her into having it.

You think the life inside the woman created by both parties has no right? And the man has no right to say he wants the child?

 

Obviously you cant force the woman but if she ends the life when the man wanted it I would consider her immoral. 

 

Both are responsible for creating life. Both know the possible outcome of sex. 

[MrNlul77]

You think the life inside the woman created by both parties has no right? And the man has no right to say he wants the child?

Obviously you cant force the woman but if she ends the life when the man wanted it I would consider her immoral. 

 

Both are responsible for creating life. Both know the possible outcome of sex.

 

In my opinion, a ball of cells/embryo (upto a certain point) is not a "life". Sure the man has the right to say what he wants, but that doesnt give him the right over the womans body. They both accept the possible outcomes of sex, conception is a possible outcome; however, having a baby is a choice. The woman owns her own body and has the freedom of choice over it.

 

Why would you consider the woman immoral for not wanting to continue with the pregnancy?

[AncapFTW]

In my opinion, a ball of cells/embryo (upto a certain point) is not a "life". Sure the man has the right to say what he wants, but that doesnt give him the right over the womans body. They both accept the possible outcomes of sex, conception is a possible outcome; however, having a baby is a choice. The woman owns her own body and has the freedom of choice over it.

 

Why would you consider the woman immoral for not wanting to continue with the pregnancy?

Did she not agree to lose those rights under a certain context, the same way the man agreed to lose his rights in the form of child support?  If she agreed to be a surrogate for someone else, would she still be able to get an abortion against their will?

[Catalyst]

In having sex you accept all possible outcomes. If conception happens and the man doesn't want the child and the woman does, the man has already accepted the possibility of that situation and as a result has accepted that he is bound to pay for the child. If the man wants the child and the woman doesnt, he has already accepted that he has no right over the womans body and cant force her into having it.

Are you saying this hypocrisy is a prerequisite to the agreement? Men have no say what happens whereas women have complete say?

I respect that if people are having sex they must also understand that is how children are made. But why is it men do not have a plan B but women do?

What justifies this inequality? Is this agreement part of the consent? I would disagree if it is.

[dsayers]

My argument is, to make it equal, if the woman does not want to have a child but the man does, the woman must have the child.

Where does the word "equal" come from? You use it as if it's automatically "good" and allows for us to override reality.

 

The reality is that the fetus is part of the woman's body, drawing upon her resources not unlike her own foot, or an internal parasite. If the man does not like her foot, he doesn't get to hack it off. If he doesn't want to give her a fetus, and he knows that vaginal intercourse to the point of ejaculation could reasonably produce the fetus, then it is his responsibility to block the ejaculation, or select a woman with whom he has established what they will do in event X, Y, or Z and can trust her to follow through.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

In having sex you accept all possible outcomes. If conception happens and the man doesn't want the child and the woman does, the man has already accepted the possibility of that situation and as a result has accepted that he is bound to pay for the child.

Whenever a woman enter's a man's house, she accepts all possible outcomes. If he wants to have sex, and she doesn't, she has already agreed to this possible outcome and is bound to have sex with him.

 

The man is responsible for the outcome of his sperm, whether that be conception or otherwise. However, the man ceases to be responsible from further choices made exclusively by the woman. At best, you can say the man agreed to assume the risk of conception, but never the risk of birth. If the woman decides to have an abortion, it would make sense to compel the man to assist in paying for it. Likewise it would make sense perhaps to compel him to assist in any care needed while carrying the fetus. However, he never once makes the decision to have a child, the mother does, so he can not be compelled to pay for the child.

 

What you're saying would only make sense if abortion didn't exist and there was no was to "undo" conception. Then birth would indeed be a biological inevitably for which the man was jointly responsible. But that's not the case.

[MrNlul77]

Did she not agree to lose those rights under a certain context, the same way the man agreed to lose his rights in the form of child support?  If she agreed to be a surrogate for someone else, would she still be able to get an abortion against their will?

Even if the woman signs a contract beforehand that she would have a baby if they concieved or agrees to surrogate, she still has freedom of choice over her own body and nobody can force her to have a baby against her will. The onus is on the man to wisely choose the woman he has sex with.

Are you saying this hypocrisy is a prerequisite to the agreement? Men have no say what happens whereas women have complete say?

I respect that if people are having sex they must also understand that is how children are made. But why is it men do not have a plan B but women do?

What justifies this inequality? Is this agreement part of the consent? I would disagree if it is.

dsayers has already answered your questions and better than i could. Hope it helped straighten this issue out for you.

[AncapFTW]

Even if the woman signs a contract beforehand that she would have a baby if they concieved or agrees to surrogate, she still has freedom of choice over her own body and nobody can force her to have a baby against her will. The onus is on the man to wisely choose the woman he has sex with.

 

dsayers has already answered your questions and better than i could. Hope it helped straighten this issue out for you.

So people don't have to obey the terms of a contract in your world either?

 

When they signed a contract they specifically agreed to limit their rights in this one area.  That's what a contract is.

[Mister Mister]

I agree that there is a problem here.  Though I think there are multiple solutions that a free society/common law might come up with.  Historically, men were responsible for taking care of a child if they got a woman pregnant.  This was enforced more socially than legally, however.

 

With feminism, women have demanded greater sexual freedom, but often have not always accepted the responsibility that comes with it.  They don't want to be chaperoned on dates or shamed for wearing certain clothing, but also blame all men for harassment or assault committed by a small number of men.  They want access to birth control, but want others to pay for it.  They don't think men should have any say over reproductive rights, but also want legally enforced access to their money.  They want men's money to pay for children, but they also want to be able to keep the men away from their children.

To me, if you want guaranteed access to child support money from a man, then you should also require his consent to have an abortion.  OR, if you don't think he should have consent in the matter of abortion, you don't have rights to child support.  Thirdly, as a compromise, men should have rights to what is called Legal Paternal Surrender, a kind of financial abortion, as a corollary to womens' biological abortion rights.  That is to say, before the stage of pregnancy where a woman can legally have an abortion, a man can legally terminate both his obligation to care for the child, and his right to be involved in the child's life.  Of course this is all ignoring the abortion issue which we should maybe leave aside for now.  Women and feminists I have talked to about this, vehemently reject the idea of LPS on the grounds that women would be "forced" to change or restrict their sexual behavior in certain ways...I'm like, "yea, that's the point."

[Catalyst]

Where does the word "equal" come from? You use it as if it's automatically "good" and allows for us to override reality.

 

The reality is that the fetus is part of the woman's body, drawing upon her resources not unlike her own foot, or an internal parasite. If the man does not like her foot, he doesn't get to hack it off. If he doesn't want to give her a fetus, and he knows that vaginal intercourse to the point of ejaculation could reasonably produce the fetus, then it is his responsibility to block the ejaculation, or select a woman with whom he has established what they will do in event X, Y, or Z and can trust her to follow through.

In the next line, following the part you quoted me on, I talk about how a woman owns her body. The part of "my argument is..." is to say how that would be equal, but not right. In regards to that, I agree with you.

 

In the final paragraph I summarize my feelings. The part that you quoted was development to the final idea. To summarize it more, I feel a man should not pay child support if he does not want the child. This is because it is hypocritical and bad that a woman can abort a child without the man's consent with no negative implications.

[Boss]

In my opinion, a ball of cells/embryo (upto a certain point) is not a "life". Sure the man has the right to say what he wants, but that doesnt give him the right over the womans body. They both accept the possible outcomes of sex, conception is a possible outcome; however, having a baby is a choice. The woman owns her own body and has the freedom of choice over it.

 

Why would you consider the woman immoral for not wanting to continue with the pregnancy?

Under the definition of life the woman is holding life. I dont think that part is debatable. Its living matter.

 

Obviously he woman owns her body and she decided to take part in an activity that now involves 2 another lives.

 

The man who helped create life and the life inside the woman. 

 

Ending the life of the mans future child would be immoral. Why wouldnt it be?

 

If you wanted a child and your wife was pregnant and someone punched her belly till the life inside her end, would you consider that person a murderer?  I would and so do most states law. 

[dsayers]

To summarize it more, I feel a man should not pay child support if he does not want the child. This is because it is hypocritical and bad that a woman can abort a child without the man's consent with no negative implications.

When a person chooses to have a child, they are voluntarily creating an obligation to nurture and protect that child until such a time as they are able to do so without their parents. I don't know exactly what you're talking about when you say "child support." Could you elaborate?

 

Your second sentence is just repeating your position as if no challenge has been offered. The fact that a person can dispose of their property as they see fit is neither bad nor hypocritical.

[Catalyst]

When a person chooses to have a child, they are voluntarily creating an obligation to nurture and protect that child until such a time as they are able to do so without their parents. I don't know exactly what you're talking about when you say "child support." Could you elaborate?

 

Your second sentence is just repeating your position as if no challenge has been offered. The fact that a person can dispose of their property as they see fit is neither bad nor hypocritical.

It takes the man's will and say out of the equation; a man has no rights on if an embryo turns into a child or is aborted. This is bad because, as you recognize, if a person chooses to have a child and want to nurture the child, but having this taken away from them because the woman does not want the child, it violates the man's rights to have a child he voluntarily went to creating.

 

Child support means to pay in money to the nurturing family of the child, not necessarily parenting the child themselves. If I understand it, it is when both people consent to sex, they also voluntarily create a child. Which brings us back to violating a man's right to the child he wants but does not get to have if the woman does not want it and aborts.

 

If a man is able to have his right's violated by being denied a child when a child was intended by the consenting sex, it is fair that he is able to deny the nurturing family financial support. This is because if there is a capacity for his rights to be violated, then there should be an equal capacity for the nurturing family to have a lessened security. A man being forced to financially support a child he did not want would also take away his rights.

 

So what we have today a man has all the capacity to have his right's violated but a woman has none. I am saying it needs to be 1 of 3 things.

If a woman is pregnant and one of the 2 parents wants the child, the child must be born and supported by both parents. As consenting sex says they must.

If a woman is pregnant and one of the 2 parents does not want the child, the child may be aborted or the denying parent is not forced to financially support the child. As to not violate the rights of the parent who does not want the child.

Or it is a case that it is good that the man has no say because it is good for the child's security and future. It is the woman's say to be all or none and a man must accept the woman's choice, regardless of his intentions and rights.

[labmath2]

When a person chooses to have a child, they are voluntarily creating an obligation to nurture and protect that child until such a time as they are able to do so without their parents. I don't know exactly what you're talking about when you say "child support." Could you elaborate?

 

Your second sentence is just repeating your position as if no challenge has been offered. The fact that a person can dispose of their property as they see fit is neither bad nor hypocritical.

The argument is that sex creates obligation on the man's body (in the form of his labor), but creates no obligation on the woman's body. How is this obligation created and why is it only created for men?

 

Does a woman incur an obligation from having a child so that the obligation is retained even if she relinquishes her rights to the child (adoption)?

[MrNlul77]

So people don't have to obey the terms of a contract in your world either?

 

When they signed a contract they specifically agreed to limit their rights in this one area.  That's what a contract is.

The issue is specifically about the property rights of a persons own body, whether people should be able to violate a womans body or not.

 

"in my world" any contract that signs themself into slavery is invalid.

[MrNlul77]

Under the definition of life the woman is holding life. I dont think that part is debatable. Its living matter.

Obviously he woman owns her body and she decided to take part in an activity that now involves 2 another lives.

The man who helped create life and the life inside the woman. 

Ending the life of the mans future child would be immoral. Why wouldnt it be?

If you wanted a child and your wife was pregnant and someone punched her belly till the life inside her end, would you consider that person a murderer?  I would and so do most states law.

 

Whats your definition of life?

 

The last part of your post has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

 

If the woman didnt want to continue with a pregnancy, the man was putting her under a lot of pressure to continue with it, as a result of his pressure she experienced a lot of stress which resulted in a miscarriage, would you consider the man immoral?

[Des]

I want a new culture: Don't make a baby unless there is a trust fund.

 

Whoever wants to be a grandparent can chip into the fund. Whoever doesn't want a grandchild that strongly, don't give him a grandchild.

 

Got pregnant consensually without a trust fund in place? Silly you. Tough luck. Your problem. He/his parents did not chip in before you consented to make a baby? Same. Make do with what is in the fund.

 

There is lots of value/money in the world, why are people making babies on a 20-year payment plan instead of a pay-up-front contract?

[AncapFTW]

The issue is specifically about the property rights of a persons own body, whether people should be able to violate a womans body or not.

 

"in my world" any contract that signs themself into slavery is invalid.

So I'm not free to give up my freedom in any way, and you are the final judge of whether an agreement is valid or not, not the people making the agreement?  Ok, then.  Nice to know you want to rule us.

[MrNlul77]

So I'm not free to give up my freedom in any way, and you are the final judge of whether an agreement is valid or not, not the people making the agreement?  Ok, then.  Nice to know you want to rule us.

Your not making any sense?. What are you talking about?

 

"So I'm not free to give up my freedom in any way", when was that ever stated, there was not even the implication of that in what I posted.

 

"And you are the final judge of whether an agreement is valid or not", no the facts of reality are.

 

"Not the people making the agreement", it's an impossibility for a person to sign a contract that gives another person ownership over their body.

 

"Ok, then. Nice to know you want to rule us", that's just an absurd comment.

[AncapFTW]

Your not making any sense?. What are you talking about?

 

"So I'm not free to give up my freedom in any way", when was that ever stated, there was not even the implication of that in what I posted.

 

"And you are the final judge of whether an agreement is valid or not", no the facts of reality are.

 

"Not the people making the agreement", it's an impossibility for a person to sign a contract that gives another person ownership over their body.

 

"Ok, then. Nice to know you want to rule us", that's just an absurd comment.

 

The issue is specifically about the property rights of a persons own body, whether people should be able to violate a womans body or not.

 

"in my world" any contract that signs themself into slavery is invalid.

 

You specifically stated that you didn't consider specific contracts valid, even if they are signed freely.  You said also were the one that decided that it was "slavery", even though everyone involved consented to it.

 

You were the one that decided that they were giving up ownership of their body.  That isn't a part of the contract.  They would merely be agreeing to behave in a certain way in a specific situation, not transferring ownership of their body.

 

When you get to be the judge of whether other people's interactions with each other are allowed, in violation of their will, then you are claiming more ownership of them then they possess, as you can override their decisions whenever you want.  That means you are a ruler, so no, it's not an absurd statement.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

The main has some claim over whether the women has the child based on her consent to have him fertilize her eggs. That was his investment, agreed to with her consent. If she destroys his investment, she should be responsible for the damage she has caused. If the man is not acknowledged to have any part in creating the child, then he has no obligation to take care of the child. This is basic property rights.

 

If the man shoots some sperm and then runs off, clearly he is not invested and the woman can say he was negligent and abort without his permission, or file for child support. However, to the extent the man provides any resources (including any time spent with her) to care for the child besides his sperm, for the woman to be able to unilaterally take action to destroy the value of his investment is a sort of resource rape inflicted upon the man. She should be liable to return any resources he invested plus some. 

 

The only other option I can see is if neither are liable for taking care of the child. But for the women to have a get out of responsibility free card when she has a partner who has invested in her specifically to have the child is fraudulent towards the man. It would be like if I entered into a contract with someone to build an apartment complex, and as soon as they got my money they decided they're not going through with it, and they're not returning my money.

[dsayers]

If she destroys his investment, she should be responsible for the damage she has caused.

That's not how investments work. By this logic, if a man buys a woman some food and she later clips her toenails, she owes him compensation since she has destroyed part of his investment.

 

Furthermore, once somebody releases something, it is no longer their property.

 

I have already put forth the argument that the zygote/embryo/fetus is the woman's property as it is part of her body which is her property. If you find flaw in this claim, please address it.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

That's not how investments work. By this logic, if a man buys a woman some food and she later clips her toenails, she owes him compensation since she has destroyed part of his investment.

 

Furthermore, once somebody releases something, it is no longer their property.

 

I have already put forth the argument that the zygote/embryo/fetus is the woman's property as it is part of her body which is her property. If you find flaw in this claim, please address it.

 

Clipping toenails has nothing to do with my argument. Long nails have nothing to do with a man's investment in a woman to grow a child. Gifts are not the same as resources for investment. A man is not gifting resources to a woman when she is pregnant. He is investing in her to produce his offspring. If she wasn't producing his offspring, the resources would not be there for her. 

 

However, I will concede that just because someone has made an investment does not entail the person to restitution if their expectations aren't met. There would have to be fraud involved. So an example which would include fraud is if the woman had an abortion without telling the man, and then continued to take his resources. Or, if she lied to him about it being his sperm which produced the baby. I concede that a woman simply having an abortion would not entail the man to restitution.

 

If a woman decided to have an abortion out of the blue after the man has been providing resources to her, that is shitty to him, but she is not initiating force or fraud against him as far as I can see. It would be more like a broken promise.

 

Wouldn't abortion be a denial of the obligation to nurture and protect the child though?

[dsayers]

Wouldn't abortion be a denial of the obligation to nurture and protect the child though?

I don't think so. The obligation is created to the child, not the fetuses that get aborted.

[Boss]

Whats your definition of life?

 

The last part of your post has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

 

If the woman didnt want to continue with a pregnancy, the man was putting her under a lot of pressure to continue with it, as a result of his pressure she experienced a lot of stress which resulted in a miscarriage, would you consider the man immoral?

Life: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

 

 

Yes, I am not saying stress the woman out. Like I said in the beginning you cant force the woman. I am saying If you had a baby and someone killed it in the womb most people would consider them immoral. But I guess if it happened to be the mother who killed the baby, you wouldnt.

 

 

[MrNlul77]

You specifically stated that you didn't consider specific contracts valid, even if they are signed freely.  You said also were the one that decided that it was "slavery", even though everyone involved consented to it.

 

You were the one that decided that they were giving up ownership of their body.  That isn't a part of the contract.  They would merely be agreeing to behave in a certain way in a specific situation, not transferring ownership of their body.

 

When you get to be the judge of whether other people's interactions with each other are allowed, in violation of their will, then you are claiming more ownership of them then they possess, as you can override their decisions whenever you want.  That means you are a ruler, so no, it's not an absurd statement.

This getting boring now, it takes ages to cut and paste and quote, I'm not speedy at all this text editing/quoting.

 

Again, your making no sense, What are you talking about?.

 

As I see it, all you've done is to come to conclusions about what I've said and then represent your conclusion as facts about what I've said.

[MrNlul77]

Life: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

Yes, I am not saying stress the woman out. Like I said in the beginning you cant force the woman. I am saying If you had a baby and someone killed it in the womb most people would consider them immoral. But I guess if it happened to be the mother who killed the baby, you wouldnt.[/size]

 

The woman owns her own body, the zygote/embryo/foetus has no capacity for growth on its own, it's part of the woman's body, she has the freedom of choice over her own body, That's all I'm saying.

 

Do you believe that, in all circumstances, if a woman decides to have an abortion she is immoral?

[AncapFTW]

This getting boring now, it takes ages to cut and paste and quote, I'm not speedy at all this text editing/quoting.

 

Again, your making no sense, What are you talking about?.

 

As I see it, all you've done is to come to conclusions about what I've said and then represent your conclusion as facts about what I've said.

If you can't be bothered to respond to the problems I pointed out in your argument, then there's no point in discussing this.  You obviously aren't interested in having a discussion.

[Des]

So people don't have to obey the terms of a contract in your world either?

 

When they signed a contract they specifically agreed to limit their rights in this one area.  That's what a contract is.

Contract terms (if competently written), will say "I agree to do x, and if I fail to do x, the other party may have recourse y". Nobody has to do anything, but contracts permit specific recourse by the one party if the other party fails to perform to contract. Again, if competently written, neither party suffers a disaster if there is any failure on either part.

 

I agree with MrNlul77 on there being an issue with validity of contracts: the issue is that you need other people to support the enforcement of a contract, and a contract could be outrageous to the extent that people (mobs, perhaps) would restrain the enforcers of the contract. The pound of flesh in a shakesperean play which was renamed to "Merchant of Venice", comes to mind (recourse for not repaying the sum loaned, was the lender could cut a pound of flesh from the borrower).

 

A vaguely competent court outside of a statist system, would toss out some contracts, because they want repeat business, and some hypothetical crazy contracts would, if upheld for enforcement, discredit the court that ruled on it, and collapse that court as a business. Ditto for any court-ruling-enforcement business.

[Boss]

The woman owns her own body, the zygote/embryo/foetus has no capacity for growth on its own, it's part of the woman's body, she has the freedom of choice over her own body, That's all I'm saying.

 

Do you believe that, in all circumstances, if a woman decides to have an abortion she is immoral?

You could say a 1 year old baby has no capacity for growth on its own as well. It will need the mothers milk or someone to feed it. A 1 y/o cant just grow up on its own. 

 

You keep saying the woman owns her own body but she is the one who did an activity that created another life.

 

I believe ending life because of your own faults is immoral 

 

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I don't think so. The obligation is created to the child, not the fetuses that get aborted.

 

You're begging the question what makes a fetus not a child. It is dependent like a child. It is chosen like a child. What makes it not a child?

 

You're also suggesting giving birth is a moral choice. But giving birth is not a choice at all. It is an unconscious process of the body. The choice, and what could be evaluated morally, is the conscious decision to become pregnant. Between a conscious decision which will lead to involuntary processes in the body, and the involuntary processes themselves, what do you think is the moral choice?

 

To point to the involuntary spasms that occur as a result of this decision 9 months later and say this is the beginning of moral culpability does not jive with the fact that positive moral obligations are chosen.

[MrNlul77]

If you can't be bothered to respond to the problems I pointed out in your argument, then there's no point in discussing this.  You obviously aren't interested in having a discussion.

from my point of view, You haven't pointed out any problems in my argument, you keep making up you own version of my argument and then addressing problems with your own interpretation.