25-07-2004 05:21									#121
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by DanS I don't know how it's in society's interest to encourage impregnation of lesbian couples and especially single women (!), but I guess a case could be made for infertile couples.

I see nothing wrong with lesbian couples. Sure, it's not for me but if they like that life style and they are financially able to support the child then so be it. I'd also like to see fewer single women having children but some of them don't like men and don't want men in their lives yet still want children. IVF provides a way for that to occur without some man later sueing her for parental rights.

	25-07-2004 05:22									#122
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Marriage requires mutual consent to enter, and ought to require mutual consent to leave.

That is truly stupid!

I beat my wife and abuse her but she can't get a divorce because I don't agree to one.

	25-07-2004 05:23									#123
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Yeh, but I see no balancing interest of society in order to make the removal of responsibility worthwhile. On the contrary, I can see where society's interests would be harmed by encouraging single women to have IVF, since it is the supporter of last resort.

	25-07-2004 05:23									#124
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Because with IVF one of the parents is directly biologically related to the child.

But for the other parent, this is no different from adoption. So why do we need sperm banks? Why does it matter to have biological children over adopted ones? Are the biological ones superior to the adopted children?

quote: Many, many people want that. This enables them to have it.

Many people want children to adopt, should all of them be able to?

	25-07-2004 05:26									#125
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: I beat my wife and abuse her but she can't get a divorce because I don't agree to one.

Thank you.

I was waiting for this argument.

I agree with you that there should be certain circumstances in which a divorce would not require mutual consent. However, that does not change the statement that divorce ought to be mutual.

Leaving aside the question of abuse, do you agree that divorce ought to require mutual consent?

	25-07-2004 05:28									#126
	Put an end to popups!

Ben Kenobi:

quote: Adoption already provides all of these benefits, so why do you need a sperm bank?

Don't you have a shortage of children for adoption over there? (At least of the right race and age.)

DanS:

quote: I don't know how it's in society's interest to encourage impregnation of lesbian couples and especially single women, but I guess a case could be made for infertile couples.

Why would it be less in society's interest to encourage lesbian couples than hetero ones?

	25-07-2004 05:28									#127
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi But for the other parent, this is no different from adoption. So why do we need sperm banks? Why does it matter to have biological children over adopted ones? Are the biological ones superior to the adopted children?

Because people want it that's why. An adopted child isn't a biological child no matter what you say. This allows the child to be related to atleast one of the partners so many people find that connection to be superior to adoption.

BTW the government doesn't require a licence to have a child. We can discuse if they should or not but if a woman wants to have a child through IVF then she has the legal right to do so.

	25-07-2004 05:29									#128
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: I'd also like to see fewer single women having children but some of them don't like men and don't want men in their lives yet still want children.

So why should only her desires be considered? What about the child? Should he not have a dad as well as a mom to take care of him?

	25-07-2004 05:30									#129
	Remove this text

quote: Why is it irrelevant?

Because my argument is that you are responsible for your actions if you are the one who engages in them of your own free will, as is the case of the woman. The man had nothing to do with that, he might as well have been the guy on the pavement who directed her towards the clinic. It was her actions of her own free will, no-one elses that caused the child, she is entirely responsible for that child. The sperm doner was merely offering a service to help that, like a bus driver who got her for the op two minutes early for her appointment .

quote: Actually, if I were to be consistent I would argue that you should be responsible for the child regardless as to the method of conception. So you would be responsible in both the balloon example, and in sperm donation.

Then I don't think we're going to agree here. Something so meaningless as DNA doesn't really register with me, so lets agree to disagree, I'm tired of arguing in circles.

quote: Right, but a child is not a commodity, nor is sperm.

Agreed that a child isn't, but a parent is still responsible for a child before it is adult, and what defines that? Something must otherwise the only thing responsible for that child would be the human race. Part of my argument is that DNA alone is insufficient for the definition of parent, or one responsible for that child. Sperm, on the other hand, is a commodity. It is of limited supply, a certain demand, it has all the properties of a material commodity and is thus subject to the normal economic laws of commodity.

quote: You may be able to instruct her how to use your sperm, but these restrictions cannot apply to the child, as your sperm ceases to exist after conception. She could argue that you did not instruct, nor can you instruct what options may be done with respect to the child.

That's another weakness in your argument since the child is a further indirect consequence, and the man stipulated that should there be a child he will not pay for it, so you have introduced another degree of separation there . To be precise, he didn't stipulate how she should use the sperm, rather that he is absolved of the responsibility for the consequences. The law that says there are such responsibilities is flawed in my view, but the contract, ethically speaking, is sufficient for him not to be bound by it anyway and to break that would require mutual consent.

	25-07-2004 05:31									#130
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Why would it be less in society's interest to encourage lesbian couples than hetero ones?

That's pretty off topic, and I don't really care, so I'll concede the point. However, the single women point is rather important to our discussion, so I'll argue that, if needed.

	25-07-2004 05:32									#131
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Don't you have a shortage of children for adoption over there? (At least of the right race and age.)

Good thought!

Now why might that be?

Perhaps because we are aborting all of them?

	25-07-2004 05:35									#132
	Put an end to popups!

quote: BTW the government doesn't require a licence to have a child. We can discuse if they should or not but if a woman wants to have a child through IVF then she has the legal right to do so.

Did anybody say she didn't have the legal right? On the other hand, it's not necessarily in the state's interest to encourage it in all situations, such as it is doing by removing responsibility from the father.

	25-07-2004 05:36									#134
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Because my argument is that you are responsible for your actions if you are the one who engages in them of your own free will, as is the case of the woman.

But the woman is not responsible for the child, unless you agree that she is required to have the child, and that her consent to sex is equivalent to her consenting to have the child.

The only difference in your analogy is one of distance.

Secondly, I am arguing that one of the consequences of your act is the pregnancy of the woman, since without your act, she could not get pregnant. Ergo, you ought also be held responsible for the consequences of this act, which is the birth of the child.

	25-07-2004 05:39									#135
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Agreed that a child isn't, but a parent is still responsible for a child before it is adult, and what defines that? Something must otherwise the only thing responsible for that child would be the human race.

This is where your abandonment of DNA betrays you. DNA provides the evidence for biological paternity. Without DNA it is difficult to provide a case for filial responsibility, and for ANY support payments from the father.

quote: To be precise, he didn't stipulate how she should use the sperm, rather that he is absolved of the responsibility for the consequences.

And this cannot be done in a contract! This is the point I was trying to get at. He cannot absolve himself of all the responsibilities of his actions in a contract.

	25-07-2004 05:40									#136
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi So why should only her desires be considered? What about the child? Should he not have a dad as well as a mom to take care of him?

Let us for one minute take your post at face value. Do you believe single women should not have the right to raise families? Everyone agrees it would be better to have two caring parents but that isn't always possible. In any event as previously mentioned the government isn't in the licencing of babies business. It's a free country and if she wants to pop out a baby squid then that's her business. Not yours.

	25-07-2004 05:48									#137
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Let us for one minute take your post at face value. Do you believe single women should not have the right to raise families?

No, I don't because for the same point that you make later, that it is not always possible for two parents to be provided.

quote: Everyone agrees it would be better to have two caring parents

So why would the government provide the means so that only one person is needed to raise a child, as in IVF for the single women who hate men, and do not want them in their life? This would be contrary to the best wishes of the child. I would say that the responsibility of the state to the welfare of children ought to take greater priority over the desire of childless women who hate men to have children without them.

quote: In any event as previously mentioned the government isn't in the licencing of babies business.

Birth Certificates? I see your point, but the government does have a role to protect the welfare of children.

	25-07-2004 05:53									#138
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: But the woman is not responsible for the child, unless you agree that she is required to have the child, and that her consent to sex is equivalent to her consenting to have the child.

But you forget the whenever one has sex there is a risk of becoming pregnant, even with contraceptives employed. By having sex you accept (like it or not) that possibility and thus if that possibility occurs, you are still responsible. Imagine a lottery where one number combination wins you £10'000'000, another wins you a bullet in the jugular. By playing that lottery, you are responsible should either outcome occur, since we can never be certain of the future responsibility is a question of intent not solely consequence.

quote: The only difference in your analogy is one of distance.

No, there is a fundamental difference between direct and indirect. To use an example I was discussing a few nights ago, if I lie to someone and say his partner is cheating on him, and as a result he breaks up with her, what am I responsible for? The breakup? No, that was a result of the decisions of the person I speak to. His ensuing mood? Perhaps, you can make a case for that being direct. The breakup is an indirect consequence and thus only the responsibility of one whose actions lead directly to that outcome (deciding and going through with the breakup).

quote: Secondly, I am arguing that one of the consequences of your act is the pregnancy of the woman, since without your act, she could not get pregnant. Ergo, you ought also be held responsible for the consequences of this act, which is the birth of the child.

Empty reasoning. I could be a blood doner which saved her life, allowing her to become pregnant, am I responsible for taht child? You argue by consequence, I argue by intent, therefore it's unlikely we're going to get anywhere with this conversation.

	25-07-2004 06:03									#139
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: But you forget the whenever one has sex there is a risk of becoming pregnant, even with contraceptives employed. By having sex you accept (like it or not) that possibility and thus if that possibility occurs, you are still responsible. Imagine a lottery where one number combination wins you £10'000'000, another wins you a bullet in the jugular. By playing that lottery, you are responsible should either outcome occur, since we can never be certain of the future responsibility is a question of intent not solely consequence.

No, I have not forgotten this point. It's very true.

quote: To use an example I was discussing a few nights ago, if I lie to someone and say his partner is cheating on him, and as a result he breaks up with her, what am I responsible for?

I would say you are directly responsible for the breakup. He would not have broken up with his girlfriend had you not lied to him, and by lying to him, you made him distrust his girlfriend. Seems to me pretty cut and dried, and I would expect that your friend would hang you by your *** should he find out the truth.

quote: Empty reasoning. I could be a blood doner which saved her life, allowing her to become pregnant, am I responsible for that child?

No, but you raise a good point. You are not responsible as a father, because the child has another father. You can say that you are indirectly responsible, since this child would not have been possible, if you did not donate blood to her.

	25-07-2004 06:19									#140
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I find this "state's interest" to be a bunch of bullshit. The state doesn't want to pay for the kid, so it makes some random guy do so?

	25-07-2004 07:38									#141
	SPERM BANK COLLECTOR/CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I was thinking to myself, SELF! who is gonna enforce such an action?

Who will be there to collect untold Gallons of Sperm for future use?

So I figured to myself, I know only one that comes to mind..

He is your favorite

Paul "I dun eat bread but love a good meatwich" Reubans

Everyone give it up for...Heresssss Pee Wee

Attachment: pee wee herman laughing.jpg
This has been downloaded 14 time(s).

	25-07-2004 07:53									#142
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by DanS He has the ultimate control over how his sperm is used. He can either provide it or not.

You know, the same could be said of gun companies and tobacco companies- after all, they have ultimate control over the use of their products, they could make them..or NOT. ASre you saying DanS that gun manufacturers and tobacco companies should bear final liability for their products?

	25-07-2004 08:03									#143
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by GePap You know, the same could be said of gun companies and tobacco companies- after all, they have ultimate control over the use of their products, they could make them..or NOT. ASre you saying DanS that gun manufacturers and tobacco companies should bear final liability for their products?

I think, and no I aint Dan but I would offer this:

I believe it should be the "Intent" as to wheter something was meant for a specific purpose.

Guns are meant to Defend, Kill (animals for food or human beings) Target practice/sport (to become proficient if the need arise to be able to use for above mentioned purposes

Tobacco now what good comes from Tobbacco? Some studies say they use addicitve ingredients some say they dont but both Handguns and Tobbacco make money and aree there for a profit..

I dont feel if a person donates sperm (unless in an adult theater) they should be held accountable for where it ends up..

I mean if a person donates sperm and this helps someone who cant conceive great!

40 years later this person that was conceived invents the next "Internet" or whatever should Joe "BLOW" the donator be eligible for some return on his investment? I dun think so

Same as if the "Conceived person" gets in a car wreck and kills someone should the family of the deceased be able to come after "Joe "BLOW"..I dun think so either

I think this person whom donates should be able to move forward!

Thats my $0.02 worth

Gramps