https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5362930/

Social media got us.

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.

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.

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.

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?