It's generally argued that if you put something out (like trash on the sidewalk) you have abandoned any claim of ownership. Although not of liability. The question becomes one of abandonment. See Moby Dick, chapter 89, "Fast Fish and Loose Fish":

http://etcweb.princeton.edu/batke/moby/moby_089.html

For a man to retain a claim he must maintain that same claim. The common form of this maintenance is through marriage and support. How often, on the other hand, is the matter simply abandoned. To be sure, it is to the effectual care of the woman in whom it is lodged. Her claim is always absolute and necessarily so.

This adjudicates the respective rights of the man and woman. His claim is perfected in and by his being married to the woman. In that circumstance their "ownership" partakes of the peculiar rights of ownership of property that married people enjoy: they both own it equally and they both own it completely and they both own it indivisibly.

But society has a claim as well that is irrespective of both the man and the woman's rights. This is the claim for the maintenance of order and the well-being of the community. This claim is not a property claim, rather it is an exercise of the power to compel, usually to compel support from the father.

What isnt an isn't best for society is fluid, and ever changing. It's proclamation cant escape ones lips without being bound by the constraints of context its thought was conceived from. In our current state, people have a problem with responsibility. Nobodies taking it. These acts of not taking responsibility for oneself are invisible to most humans. We cloak them with faulty logic and chemical cocktails which lead us away from the obvious way we must act to retain order, through inaction.

Again, i am claiming that men have a right to their own bodies; And that sperm should be the genetic property of its orgin host; and that men should have every right to renounce responsibility leaving the responsibility to the mother and her family if that must be the solution. If he did not intend to do something, and its consequences could be alleviated and he wishes to follow that route, who is another to tell him his entire life must fall in line now to another person's illogical and manipulative ways. Forcing another to do something against their own will is prodigiously immoral. Under any circumstances period. This is the claim that men are responsible for their body, and women are responsible for theirs, and with that said, if a man chooses to not stake his claim then that is his decision. Why am i wrong?

The claim here does not seem to be that men should own their sperm, but rather (or ought to be) that men can emancipate themselves from their sperm. In a way you're asking if the sperm should own the man (i.e: necessarily have paternal obligations).

The answer is no. While intercourse itself implies some obscured amount of consent toward possible parental obligations (the "well you shouldn't have had sex" argument), discarded and otherwise dispensed sperms are not intrinsically the property of the producer.

If a woman were to impregnate herself with discarded sperm (such as sperm purchased from a sperm bank), the woman and child would have no claim over the producer, and likewise, the producer would have no claim over the woman or child.

Perhaps you could sue an entity that collected your genetic information and tried to use some aspect of it for commercial purpose, but strictly speaking a children don't have the exact same DNA as either parent, and would theoretically own its own DNA regardless.

For the first paragraph

I understand the " if the sperm should own the man " aspect of it, but your former statement was more accurate. How can the sperm own the man? thats ridiculous, the sperm is sperm. Whether it has the right to its origin host or not? No, it doesnt. It doesnt have a brain yet, much less the ability to acceptably manipulate that which it came from.

So, no, the sperm should not own the man. True.

" dispensed " sperms is very interesting to me. The idea that the material is being discarded instead of involuntarily ejected into a receptacle which biologically wants to use it to initialize creation. Hmmm. They were the property of the producer when they were one with him, and now, since they have been alleviated of their origin, they arent any more.

If that stands to be true, then again. If they are no longer the property of the father, why do we perpetuate this standard where a man can be involuntarily dragged into fatherhood when the mother, or him, or both of them, may be nowhere near the level of development we arguably should be at to successfully train another human being how to logically and productively approach the world.

I believe that the mother of a child to be is drowing in emotion, and as any drowing person will grab onto absolutely anything they can to survive ( carry out their biological objective which has been now been initiated ) and takes priority over all else.

Part of my claim is that not only that sperm should be considered genetic property of its origin host, but also that in our society, it is an infringement on individual rights, it is immoral, counterproductive, and sustains the perpetuation of our unrealistic" culture of idealism " which refuses to take responsibility. And, is slipping deeper. Into illogical trains of thought, where responsibility and morality are considered reprehensable.

It could be argued that what i am suggesting is giving that father to be an opportunity to abandon " his obligation " or " responsibility ". That is not what i am suggesting. What i am suggesting is that the father to be has a decision to make and so does the mother.

He decides if he wants to raise the baby or not

the mother decides if she wants to have the baby or not

you are seeing them united, by god knows what kind of circumstances led to the act which has resulted in where we are currently, a baby, coming into the world, unexpected, and bound to be the source of all sorts of likely undesirable emotions and outcomes.

I am saying these are two different decisions.

The decision of each potential parent has to be made for their own good, because at this point, their lives are paramount.

If the father retracts responsibility

Then the mother has to see her situation more clearly, and now she can more accurately decide whether or not she wants to have this child.

if the father is there, and he doesnt want to be part of the childs life, but the government will oblige him to be if it is born, then the mother has no reason to see her situation in an accurate light.

This all is as simple as individual rights by the way, which far exceed the convoluted mechanisms of our ridiculously structured legislature we have in place. It is dizzying. it could be encompassed in two easy laws all across the board.

you dont force or manipulate others

you dont let them force or manipulate you.

We have some systems in place right now that are allowing the culture of irresponsibility to continue. I believe this is one of them. These absolutey personalized laws that are tailored to the emotional needs of people who refuse to learn the lessons of life, primarily, because others refuse to let them learn.

please, help me understand why i'm wrong.

If the father retracts responsibility — Ranger

Can't undo what's done. Can't "retract" responsibility. If you could, it wouldn't be responsibility.

What i am suggesting is that the father to be has a decision to make and so does the mother. — Ranger

He gets to decide what he's going to do, arguably. He does not get to decide about his responsibility. Cause and responsibility don't always run hand-in-hand; cause is complicated, so is responsibility. But no one gets a free pass here. You don't get to decide after the fact.

Suppose the issue were shooting someone. You could threaten to, intend to, waves your arms around as if you were, even get a gun and come very close to doing it. Until it's done you can always not do it. But if you shoot, then you cannot unshoot.

This is the lesson. Some things are real, no time out, no do over, and no escape for an adult. And to be sure, no permanent escape for a non-adult. If you try, you never become a man.

So what does responsibility insist you do? Depends on the details.

Everyone is having sex with everyone. Its an orgy. — Ranger

Look, Ranger, if everyone is having sex in this orgy, THEN SOMEBODY IS GETTING MY SHARE! Please send details about where this big orgy is immediately.

should sperm be the property of its host? — Ranger

If one wishes to have some control over what one's sperm does after its hasty departure from the producer, then one had best use a condom. Alternately, one could get the sperm pipeline shut off near the source. Or, as part of the pre-coital negotiations to have sex at all (where one's various parts can be put, how long, how used, what words can be said, not said, and so forth, the participants could agree whether a pregnancy can be consummated or not.

Actually, the very act of negotiating the pre-coital contract might be the most effective birth control of all.

An additional alternative for the man is to have sex only with other men, then there won't be any worries about pregnancy or childrearing practices. Much less trouble, all round.

should sperm be the property of its host? — Ranger

No, not discarded sperm, but the genetic material which it (and every other part our body) contains.

There's more to biological elements than their material nature. I think if the law understood choice and free will better, they would not allow anyone's genetic material to be appropriated without the due consent. For example, say you have an aged atm card and it's cut into half and thrown in the trash (coz you're getting a new one). Then some hacker picks it up, puts it back together and manages to extract your bank information from it and uses it for a good payday. Is it a crime? Coz my thought is that the information on the discarded atm is still worthwhile and relevant and therefore wasn't discarded with the atm. So maybe the same analogy could apply to all our biological material? Ejaculation is primarily a consequence of sexual stimulation. Having a child is a different choice altogether, even though sometimes the two activities have a sought of direct or immediate relation.

There is a lot of material that we discard from the body, the one thing we don't is ownership of our genetic material.

And suppose human cloning was/is possible, would it be okay for someone to just collect your dna and reproduce another human without your consent?

He gets to decide what he's going to do, arguably. He does not get to decide about his responsibility. Cause and responsibility don't always run hand-in-hand; cause is complicated, so is responsibility. But no one gets a free pass here. You don't get to decide after the fact.


The baby does not exist yet, only the potential to have a child.

Okay.

I do not apprehend that the father is yet responsible for the child, solely based on this fact that his rogue sperm has seeded an indiscriminately accepting egg.

We live in a world that has very controversial and not so controversial options to take care of situations like these.

These options are available for a reason. To give the woman options to take care of her situation how she sees fit.

Lets remember, that a woman has the control to make whatever decision she wants reguarding the life of a child. Im mentioning this because the woman already has the right to say what she will, or will not go forth with, and the power to carry out her desires with no consideration of the male or society.

I perceive her option to do this correct, and moral. Its true, there was a cause that led us here. Now, should we really assume that in light of its potential affects, the right option now is to take a " mistake " which in every way is a lesson to be learned. And we should assume that these two should gather from their mistakes that the right path forward is what, having a child before they are ready? that will severely complicate their already undeveloped lives? That's the wise decision here?

It just doesn't make any sense.

While i agree with a womans option to handle he body as she sees fit, it seems she is getting her due power over the situation and her body, while the mans future is now dependent on her choice, and her choice alone. Ultimately, she can override his considerations. he gets no say. Is not a demonstration of a double standard?

Even if the father were to want the child, the woman could say " no, i am not ready " and then could go and have the child aborted without the consent of the father.

the father actually doesnt have a responsibility to the child, who hasnt even been born yet, and who can now potentially be " wielded " by the mother to affect his life under OBLIGATION from the law.

So, no. For me, responsibility upon based on the sole act of conception isnt an obvious gimme.

There is still a decision to be made here.

The mother can do whatever she wants, its how our system set it up. God knows, it must be a horribly tough decision for a mother to be. Once again, because her biological insides are absolutey screaming at her " HAVE THIS CHILD NO MATTER WHAT" !

hmmm ...


People need to start applying heat to this area.

A father needs to have the freedom to back away from a pregnancy.

Nothing can " own " another persons body. Any responsibility attached to the father in this situation is faulty and purely culturally motivated speculation. There is ZERO responsibility on the fathers part if he did not intend this to happen and the reason that can remain an ethical choice is there are tons of options at this point still.

The mother can handle it.

emotions sound like this " BUT THE MOTHER SHOULDNT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT "

well like the guy up there was saying, it is a real situation. A planned pregnancy is a miracle, an unplanned pregnancy is a wrecking ball.

The father, and mother, have to go through what they will have to go through to make the best decisions for themselves, who by the way, should be their only consideration right now, at this point.
Not the baby. The baby isnt real yet, and it would be ridiculous to consider " but what about the child ".

Life is absolutely precious, but we need to think logically.

Two people reacting on their ancient biological need to have intercourse shouldnt trap them in situations like what we are seeing.

Idiots will keep having children. But intelligent people who know they have made a mistake need to have the option to keep their life intact without being at the mercy of legislative obligations or very curious conditions involving mothers DESPERATELY and IRRATIONALLY seeking to fulfill their BIOLOGICAL needs at THE EXPENSE OF ANY AND ALL LOGIC.

apply heat.

And suppose human cloning was/is possible, would it be okay for someone to just collect your dna and reproduce another human without your consent?

this is fantastic. its true, in the future they will be diving into this area. Right now, we arent developed enough to be attacking it in a serious way but i do imagine, cloning technology will open up new perspectives into how we should treat genetic material.

The implications of how we handle that will affect how we handle this, i imagine.

I do not apprehend that the father is yet responsible for the child, solely based on this fact that his rogue sperm has seeded an indiscriminately accepting egg. — Ranger

Rogue? Indiscriminate? Given the topic, this is language on a holiday. And ignorant, stupid, or offensive - take you pick, or any two or all three.

Do children steal their DNA from their parents? Property seems the wrong concept for this area.

the father actually doesnt have a responsibility to the child, who hasnt even been born yet, and who can now potentially be " wielded " by the mother to affect his life under OBLIGATION from the law. — Ranger

Ranger, are you involved in an ugly paternity fight?

The connection between sperm, egg, fatherhood, and motherhood has been firmly established. Control of fertility rests equally on the decision making of the man and the woman at the time sex occurs. I will grant you (much to the irk of some other sophonts*** here) that some men have been misled into marriage or child-support by addle-brained women. I must also grant that some women have been misled into pregnancy by addle-brained men.

Bearing a child is a big deal. If the mother decides to raise the child -- whether with or without the assistance of the biological father -- it's a daunting, extremely expensive project. It's a tough project sometimes for married couples that want to have children. Maybe it's a bad idea under any circumstances? (Consult with Schopenhauer1; he will enthusiastically explain the downside of having children.)

I'll grant you that unprotected sex is probably more enjoyable for the male than having sex with one's dick encased in latex. Quite satisfactory sex is still possible and probable, however. It seems to me that sex a la latex is better than facing a paternity suit. (DNA will nail down paternity quite precisely.) I prefer sex without a condom too. But in my case (and the case of millions of other gay men) sex with a condom is preferable to being exposed to AIDS, syphilis or gonorrhea. So...

You can use condoms.

You can get a vasectomy. (Probably reversible, but no guarantees.)

You can do without penetrative sex (blow jobs, hand jobs)

Choose acceptable options.

The days when men "sowed wild oats willy nilly" (fathered children they did not acknowledge) have not just passed, they have very passed. So, until such time as men can again fuck with impunity, you are screwed. Tough. But that's the way it is.

I do not apprehend that the father is yet responsible for the child, solely based on this fact that his rogue sperm has seeded an indiscriminately accepting egg. — Ranger

How was it that the rogue sperm were able to get within a very short swimming distance to the egg? Did they freestyle swim in from another county. looking for idle vaginas? Generally (at least among warm blooded vertebrates) a penis is inserted into the female orifice and sperm are deposited there in. Many insects do it that way, too. NO species on earth thinks that sperm just arrive in the vicinity of the egg coincidentally.
.
.
.
***(chiefly science fiction) An intelligent being; a being with a base reasoning capacity roughly equivalent to or greater than that of a human being; does not apply to machines.

I will respond to this as soon as possible. Thank you for your perspectives. It's important to get all the sides together on weird ones like this.

Hi Ranger. If I read you right, you want an argument that relieves males of responsibility for pregnancies they don't want ("the bind we are in). Let's express it categorically - and bluntly: I'm Bob (actually, I'm not) and I'm an opportunistic fucker of females, just like every other red-blooded guy. Further, if any female becomes pregnant, that's her problem and no problem of mine at all.


--

Bob is responsible for bob. And Alice is responsible for Alice. In a world where everyone takes responsibility for themselves, there are not victims.

Bob can try and fuck as many girls as he wants, but with this new system in place, they are going to think quite a bit differently about fucking random gentlemen, such as bob.

--

Any problem with this, so far? Let's stay concrete: Alice is with Bob's child. She seems to think Bob does have a problem, here. What do you say to her claim?

--

Did bob agree to have a child with alice?

Alica has no means to manipulate bob into taking responsibilty for something which she has the opportunity to fix herself.

Bob might have a really great reason for not wanting to father a child with this woman.

Every circumstance is different.

The idea is, is when everyone is taking responsibility for themselves. It doesnt matter.

Bob and Alice are each responsible for themselves.

Bob and alive both decided to have sexual intercourse. Unfortunately, the woman is the one who gets pregnant. Women need to think more carefully about these situations.

We are not incentivizing that with our current system of coming to a " mother to be's " rescue from all angles.

in our current system, a man is absolutey screwed.

If she had to take responsibilty on her own for the child, she would see clearly, but we perpetuate a system which allows her to see a completely unrealistic and fabricated version of her situation.

one where she is more than capable of taking care of a child whether the father wants this to occur or not.

Where are the rights of the man?



And the society I live in does not routinely exterminate unwanted children, but rather tries to value all life. As such they claim from time immemorial a sovereign interest in the welfare of "its" children, its subjects/citizens. This interest runs towards education and well-being. And they seem to think you "have a problem" as well. What do you say to them?

of course we dont " routinely 'exterminate' our unwanted children "
and it would be a reach to say that implementing a system like im talking about would lead to that sort of routine and callous behavior.

LIFE IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT.

we should be learning now. The knowledge is out there. What type of parents and environment a child is raised in will have a profound effect on the rest of his life.

His parents will be part of his social conditioning.

They will train him with values, morals, principles, and virtue , ideally ...

but some kids dont get any of this training, because they are raised in a mess.

listen people. I LOVE us. We have so much potential. Men and women are extremely different and we are both EXTREMELY VALUABLE. but we are pitting the sexes against one another.

We need to create lines to understand where responsibility of our acts begin and end.

Both parties are responsible.

But after sex, both parties are responsible for themselves.

The woman has control over her body.

and the man has control over his.

The reason this must be implemented is we are creating an environment which creates an illusory-false capability of the individual to engage in an activity.

What if neither parents are mentally, emotionally, financially, any kind of developed?

What if they are just kids?

What if they are 16?

What if two 16 year olds have sex, a pregnancy occurs, and the girl is SO UNEXPERIENCED and wrecked that she wants to keep it.

this happens.

There are GREAT GREAT PEOPLE WITH GREAT MINDS ON THEIR HEADS.

but humans are complicated, and we are very diverse.

our neurology is doing things.

This is going to be an exciting century of discovery.

We are about to understand how our mind works.

so,

The man isnt going through the same biological processes as her.

He will see the situation more clearly because his chemicals arent " poppin " like hers. He may be releasing cortisol telling him to abandon this. ( please correct me if i am wrong about this )

Her chemicals are now setting up a dopamine chain telling her

" even if he doesnt want the baby, the government will make him help me "

" even if i dont have the money, my family will help "

" even if im 16, im ready to have a baby "

The dopamine chain will set up a starting point, all the landmarks she can visualize, and as far as she can see.

This chemical process will give her the strength to make a really poor decision.


regards, timw

p.s. I prefer a response in the thread - I won't hold you to it, though.


Tim,

im not saying we need to abort all the children. I am saying that society as a whole is acting irrationally. Raising a pattern recognition machine, on this planet, is an extremely complicated process that most people with children were not prepared for.

We need to understand that a pregnancy existing, is not an adequate reason to have a child. The child could be aborted, this will anger many. It could be given up for adoption. The woman can raise it by themselves. The guy could be supportive if the situation is right. The guy might not have any sense, he could be supportive even if the situation is wrong.

But, we cannot keep pushing out children who will grow up without security. We cannot allow others to continue taking advantage of emotional situations to fulfill their biological necessities. A child should be born when two parents are ready.

Lack of security is fear.

Fear, leads to the dark side.

The dark side, leads to trouble.

We are not obliged to take responsibility for others.

We see the immediate emotions of the woman who decides to act rationally.

Very emotional.

But we arent psychic.

How do you know 10 years down the line, that same woman doesnt look back and thank whatever deities exist that she made the responsible decision.

How do you know she doesnt call them man down the line and say

" you know what, we werent ready, im so happy we didnt do that "

" at the time, it just felt like i had to have the child. "

We are not psychics.

We cannot predict how things that happen today will affect us down the line.

I am suggesting we start to try though.

When looking at this issue, try and ignore the immediate situation. Try and envision years down the road instead.

So, come at me.

Hope this is intelligible.

Thanks, Tim.

Women in this position under extreme emotional pressure to fulfill the requests of their bodies reproductive cycle. Therefore, if a man is hold hostage in the situation, the woman has every reason to irrationally move forward unless she has an amazingly rational and stable head on her shoulders. — Ranger

It sounds like you are calling women idiots who are a slave to their bodies.

no , i am calling people idiots who are slaves to their bodies.

please, do not make this about women. I am not sexist. This has nothing to do with either sex. What this has to do with is the situations which are arising from the way we are currently handling this scenario.

The distinction i am making here is that women have a special biological function which tells them to go through with pregnancy even if doing so is illogical, and our society is doing everything possible to perpetuate this sort of behavior.

The each is responsible for themselves is the solution because it takes away the division of responsibility.

When responsibility is not fully our own, it is easy to hold others accountable for our shortcomings. Diffusion of responsibility is the enemy.

women have a special biological function which tells them to go through with pregnancy even if doing so is illogical — Ranger

It is hard not to see you as a sexist when you keep making sexist ignorant remarks.

I am not interested in correcting your bigoted sexist views, but I do feel sorry for any woman dumb enough to get in bed with you. However, feel free to actually prove your own "facts".

jeremiah, you dont have an argument to stand on. you are a distraction, and for the good of everyone, you should not be here until you learn enough to actually have a conversation with those who hold ideas different from what you believe to be true.

i repeat, you do not have any valid response to what i am saying here.

I REPEAT, JEREMIAH, YOU ARE ONLY CAPABLE OF AD HOMINEM ATTACKS.

you cannot defend your side, all you can do is attack ME, not my IDEA.

you are a distraction — Ranger

If my distraction is pointing out your sexist remarks, then I consider that productive.

Everyone reading this, you should read through Jeremiahs remarks to see how certain people will try and poison the well of an idea through fallacious, arbitrary attacks on the individual and not the idea. He is a great example.

notice how he just keeps calling me sexist. listen you sheep. bah bah. You are in the adult side of the swimming pool, go back to the kiddie section.

Whatever sexist.

At this point it would be useful to me if you restated - succinctly - your point or conclusion. So far I read it as your wanting the guy to be not on the hook for a pregnancy - for which conclusion you adduce a number of arguments. Is it that simple?

Where is Reverend Crank to ask if this conversation is giving us an ego hard on???

Gee, now that I've typed that sarcastic barb, I'm starting to feel a bit, um, you know, inflated. Hey, this just might work. Somebody yell at me. Let's get this party happenin!!!!

Don't forget that one of these arguments is his claim that women are too dumb and weak willed to resist supposed biological urges (that he never proved exist) and that in their irrational baby craze they maliciously trap poor and defenseless men with babies.

Jeremiah, you are really the enemy of truth dude. Look at what you did there. You have completely misquoted me. You are ignorant. You post nothing of any true value. Your whole mission in this thread is to discredit, which is not a valid or productive form of debate.

You havent given me ONE IDEA out of your head yet. Do you have any ideas? Does your mind have anything useful in it?

Sometimes it will feel as if the person you are talking with is a wall.

They don’t respond to addressed issues.

These are PRETENDERS

They are trying to suspend you disbelief of the situation by pretending the situation isn’t real.

These people can drive others insane.