Jane Roe going to Supreme Court.....

[CivilLiberty]

How about a no-fault clause for the man to be free from any consequences of this sexual encounter ?

That may be a good idea - For instance, if the man wants the woman to get an abortion, and she does not wish too, why not let the man waive his rights over the offspring? Just like a sperm donor does.


A

 

[theim]

That may be a good idea - For instance, if the man wants the woman to get an abortion, and she does not wish too, why not let the man waive his rights over the offspring? Just like a sperm donor does.


A

I'm not so sure.

Say a man has sex with his girlfriend, with little thought of the consequences. The girlrfiend gets pregnant. She happens to be morally opposed to killing babies and does not want to have an abortion. The man does not particularly care and just wants the fetus dead so they can forget about it and get back to more sex. I don't think it's fair that the man could just walk out and leave after that.

 

[theim]

Answer 2) God, particularly as viewed by the Judeo-Christian and Islamic cultures is simply a way to give importance to the believers lives. To know that the whole universe was put here for them and there exists some power greater than all we know that takes time to care about them – it is very self-aggrandizing. Without the formality of religion as assign importance to the believers lives what would they believe? It seems they are most likely incapable of forming an internal belief system or see the value in life itself. Like children raised in households with security monitors who never form an inner sense of right and wrong, because the fear of being caught is their only motive in life, these religious minions would lose their already misguided way and most likely destroy us all. So I find it difficult to care if they do not like me, as I am sure that it is only a reflection of how their god, which does not exist, has told them to feel.

I find it amusing...one who supports the killing of unborn children for convience, lecturing those gosh darn religious minions on the value of life.

You are obviously a very sad and bitter person, and you have my pity.

Did you get raped by a priest in your youth?

 

[dilloduck]

That may be a good idea - For instance, if the man wants the woman to get an abortion, and she does not wish too, why not let the man waive his rights over the offspring? Just like a sperm donor does.


A

and if she gets a STD she can't hold the man responsible and should she choose to allow the child the live, she takes full financial and emotional responsibilty for raising it. Child support becomes a thing of the past.

 

[dilloduck]

oh looky----a mans body isn't his own---women can use it to breed !!

http://www.michaeldougan.com/blog/B1531149743/C402385014/E1283131440/

 

[Avatar4321]

That may be a good idea - For instance, if the man wants the woman to get an abortion, and she does not wish too, why not let the man waive his rights over the offspring? Just like a sperm donor does.

Rights over an offspring? What the heck? We arent talking about rights. We are talking about responsibilities. I assume you know the difference. If you create a life because of your actions you have a responsibility to that life.

 

[elephant]

I find it amusing...one who supports the killing of unborn children for convience, lecturing those gosh darn religious minions on the value of life.

You are obviously a very sad and bitter person, and you have my pity.

Did you get raped by a priest in your youth?

First, you are quoting me very selectively at an attempt to make a point. You should read the whole thread and you would see that in the quote you selected I was being facetious. I was proposing a possible argument.

Second, I have not stated I think abortion is right or wrong. Nor have I told anyone else how they should value life. I have said on more than one occasion that I agree that life starts at conception, but I that I personally do not value that potential human as much as a already born human. I value different people differently. I do not have a problem with capital punishment for example either. I can just look at abortion as capital punishment for people who are conceived inside the morally inferior. Why wait for them to grow up to punish them? They clearly will be raised to have the morals of a serial killer.

Finally, pity is for the weak. The libs like to give it out to make themselves feel better after they lose elections or anytime after they open their stupid mouths for that matter. The fact that you can even feel pity confirms that you are a sissy-spined lib. You should save your pity for your family, friends and co-workers who have the regular misfortune of being close enough to hear the inane dribble that comes from your mouth. I can just not read your posts.

 

[elephant]

to dilloduck

We are talking about a pre-coital agreement, correct. I think some of the other posters have a problem with this arrangement only because it sounds like it gives men the right, at any time, to change their mind. I am ok with this type of agreement as long as it is made clear up front and both parties agree.

The problem from what little I know about the law is this:

If I sign or passively agree to a liability waiver to not hold a second party responsible for some dangerous activity in which they are allowing or assisting me to participate – paintball (I have to sign a form), seeing a hockey game (the agreement occurs when the money changes hands – waiver is on the back of the ticket), eating rare beef (they now put warnings on the bottom of the menus). That waiver often does not stand up in court. It can actually be used against the second party, because it says the activity is dangerous and the second party is fully aware it is dangerous.

I still think it is a good idea; I just do not want to be the test case.

 

[CivilLiberty]

I'm not so sure.

Say a man has sex with his girlfriend, with little thought of the consequences. The girlrfiend gets pregnant. She happens to be morally opposed to killing babies and does not want to have an abortion. The man does not particularly care and just wants the fetus dead so they can forget about it and get back to more sex. I don't think it's fair that the man could just walk out and leave after that.

No in the case as you specified - but what if he/they used "due diligence" and used protection, and the protection failed?

Or, what if he used a condom, and the woman shortly thereafter took the contents to inseminate herself without his approval?

A

 

[CivilLiberty]

Rights over an offspring? What the heck? We arent talking about rights. We are talking about responsibilities. I assume you know the difference. If you create a life because of your actions you have a responsibility to that life.

In the context of the rest of the thread I was pointing at the comments of Dilloduck regarding "male rights".


A

 

[no1tovote4]

No in the case as you specified - but what if he/they used "due diligence" and used protection, and the protection failed?

Or, what if he used a condom, and the woman shortly thereafter took the contents to inseminate herself without his approval?

A

That would be exceedingly difficult to prove. They had willing sexual congress.

 

[CivilLiberty]

If I sign or passively agree to a liability waiver to not hold a second party responsible for some dangerous activity in which they are allowing or assisting me to participate – paintball (I have to sign a form), seeing a hockey game (the agreement occurs when the money changes hands – waiver is on the back of the ticket), eating rare beef (they now put warnings on the bottom of the menus). That waiver often does not stand up in court. It can actually be used against the second party, because it says the activity is dangerous and the second party is fully aware it is dangerous.

It depends very much on the state, and with "dangerous instrumentations" it generally falls under a "duty to warn" which the liability waiver does fulfill. That still leaves "vicarious" liability, which in California is limited to $10,000.

A

 

[CivilLiberty]

That would be exceedingly difficult to prove. They had willing sexual congress.

And "willing sexual congress" is difficult to prove.

One *could* have a signed sperm donor agreement, then the male donor is not responsible for, nor has any claim to, the offspring.


A

 

[no1tovote4]

And "willing sexual congress" is difficult to prove.

One *could* have a signed sperm donor agreement, then the male donor is not responsible for, nor has any claim to, the offspring.


A

I agree with the concept, I just think it would be difficult for the man to prove the condom was used to artificially inseminate her after having sex with her. She could claim it broke or that he didn't use one. Evidence would be difficult to come by and the man would end up having to pay unless he had some way to simply say that he does not agree to having responsibility over a life he did not consent to create.

 

[dilloduck]

oh looky----a mans body isn't his own---women can use it to breed !!

http://www.michaeldougan.com/blog/B1531149743/C402385014/E1283131440/

well CL? comments ???

 

[Gem]

I'll look for information on the actual case...but I'm almost certain that there IS legal precedent of one-time sperm donors demanding and being granted by the courts visitation rights for the offspring of his "offering," so to speak.

 

[dilloduck]

I'll look for information on the actual case...but I'm almost certain that there IS legal precedent of one-time sperm donors demanding and being granted by the courts visitation rights for the offspring of his "offering," so to speak.

Well dang---that was might nice of them----wonder what it cost him??

 

[Gem]

No clue, but if true, it does put a bit of a kink in the, "men who donate sperm have signed away their rights to the child" idea...

I wonder what some of these judges are thinking?

 

[no1tovote4]

No clue, but if true, it does put a bit of a kink in the, "men who donate sperm have signed away their rights to the child" idea...

I wonder what some of these judges are thinking?

Why is it that when somebody signs a contract they are no longer held to their promise.

I mean damn, there was a time if you SAID something you were held to your promise. Now you get lawyers, write binding contracts, and you are STILL NOT HELD TO YOUR PROMISE!

It is starting to get really annoying. Why even sign contracts if nobody is ever held to what they signed.

 

[Gem]

Here's some legal information I've found so far:

AP - A state appeals court ruled that a verbal agreement between a woman and her sperm donor was invalid, and ordered the man to pay child support for the woman's twins.

www.drudgereport.com

When single women receive sperm from donors who are not anonymous, the legal implications are numerous and the protections few, as was demonstrated in a case that sparked heated debate. This case involved a lesbian couple that enlisted the assistance of a sperm donor when they decided to start a family. The donor agreed that while he would have no parental rights or obligations, he would meet the child if she ever became curious about her biological origins. The donor met the child on several occasions under terms strictly dictated by the couple. When the couple refused one of the donor's visitation requests, the donor instituted a paternity proceeding. The trial court refused the donor's request based on the equitable estoppel doctrine and the best interests of the child. The sperm donor prevailed, however, on appeal. The appellate court ruled that the donor was the child's biological father and as such he had parental rights that could not be terminated without a formal proceeding.

http://www.surrogacy.com/legals/article/nylaw.html

Although N.C.G.S. § 49A-1 says the child of a married couple who is conceived by artificial insemination is treated the same as any other child, there are no statutes that deal with the situation of an unmarried couple. For this reason, anyone considering the option of bearing a child through alternative insemination or donating sperm should consult a competent lawyer before proceeding, except in cases of anonymous sperm donation at a licensed medical facility.

A sperm donor may become obligated to support the child and may be granted visitation rights even if the parties enter an agreement to the contrary. Paternity tests approved by North Carolina courts are almost 100% accurate, so anonymity and the use of multiple donors provide little protection to either the sperm donor or the mother.

http://www.ncgala.org/guide/guideinsem.htm


So thats just a bit right of the bat...it looks like if you don't make damn sure that a) you are married and b) you have taken every legal precaution possible....the courts can make any sort of odd determination.