A secular debate about abortion

[Coito ergo sum]

An abortion still counts as a consequence they must face for whatever "carelessness" you wish to impute to them. And counts as taking responsibility for the situation, too. And beats the alternative in every way - of obligating such "careless" women into child-rearing (or at any rate pregnancy and childbirth) as some sort of twisted punishment for behaviour that just sticks in the craws of some self-righteous twats. As for the operation of one's genitals - I think it's mostly for the owners to make informed decisions about the right or wrong way to use them.

Or uninformed. Even if their decisionmaking is "uninformed," I don't see as it changes the fact that it's for the owners to decide about right and wrong use for them. I can't see why my use of my penis needs to be "informed" decisionmaking, nor do I accept anyone else's authority as the informative body. Likewise, your vagina is yours to do with as you please, and you have no obligation to inform yourself of what other people think you ought to know.

Okay - but I still think some sound, objective sex education is always a good idea. It's just not good for anyone when some in the sexually active population think that drinking a capful of bleach is some kind of post-exposure prophylaxis against HIV infection.

There is no such thing as "objective" sex education when the question is what is "proper" behavior. The only thing "objective" - at best - is "a man inserts his penis into the woman's vagina and after a period of time inside the vagina the man will ejaculate (usually, but not always, in conjunction with an orgasm) and sometimes the ejaculate will find its way to an egg which came from the woman's ovary and a spermatozoa will enter the egg and fertilize it. After that a normal pregnancy will result in the zygote affixing itself to the uterus wall and ultimately growing through various stages of development....etc. etc. -- many ways exist to have sex and attempt to prevent pregnancy, and among these are condoms, birth control pills, etc. etc. etc. and abortions may terminate pregnancies...etc. etc." For the record, I would think that "drinking a capful of bleach has not been shown to cure or prevent HIV infection," is an objective fact. It either has been shown, or it hasn't.

Those are the objective facts. As soon as we get into teaching that women ought not - or ought - to feel a certain way about having sex, contraception or abortions - or whether there ought or ought not be "stigma" associated with it - etc. - or what is "careless" behavior - then we are way off of "objective" sex education, and into "subjective" sex indoctrination.

I agree that sound, objective - and even some subjective - sex education - is a good idea.

[Coito ergo sum]

You have stated, but in more paragraphs, what I already stated a few times in the thread, Coito.

My words are music.

As to a woman disclaiming herself from obligation of the result of her pregnancy carried to term - it's called either true surrogacy (where she carries HER OWN biological offspring explicitly for a third party), gestational carrying (where she carries fertilised donor eggs explicitly for a third party), or legal adoption. She also has the prerogative of leaving the newborn on a doorstep or in/by a hospital should she get desperate.

Certainly, certainly - but, she has no right to serve a notice on the father of the child - "I'm not going to risk undergoing an abortion, but I'm hereby disclaiming my future obligations to the pregnancy or any born child thereof, and if it is born, it's your problem." That's what Seth is advocating. Moreover, in the case of adoption and surrogacy, there are protections in place for the child, in terms of legal requirements placed upon the adoptive or surrogate parents to help assure that the child is cared for. It's not merely a disclaimer by the woman.

A woman can simply abandon her baby, but there are legal penalties for child abandonment and neglect, and hospitals are not baby repositories. If a baby is found abandoned, the authorities will look for the mother and determine her fitness to be a mother. Safe haven laws and such give some immunity to CRIMINAL prosecution for abandonment, but they don't absolve anyone from legal liability for support. The State can still chase the parents down for child support.

And in the future when there are all kinds of synthetic wombs and stuff - she may also be able to write off responsibility unilaterally from her end, with the product of pregnancy being brought to term outside of her body, along the wishes of someone else.

Those changed facts will change the analysis of the issue, and the law will have to change with it.

I mean - the entire issue of unique DNA is going to be shaken to its core when children can simply be designed in a laboratory with all the genes purposefully selected. That is clearly going to be possible, eventually, as the processes for synthesizing DNA improves. Whole new life forms will be possible, as will an artificially selected jump in IQ that will make you and me look like we were retarded.

How the law will change to meet changing circumstances is just a guess now. We'll see.

[lordpasternack]

Yeah - I think we are agreeing but talking past each other, Coito! I think as much effort should be put into nailing the objective facts down, and on the "subjective" front, I don't think sex per se (before marriage), "promiscuity" by either gender, nor abortion should be explicitly or tacitly stigmatised in sex ed. They should all be addressed insofar as the risks they present for unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections - all to the ends that people will be better placed to make informed decisions about their reproductive tract.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yeah - I think we are agreeing but talking past each other, Coito! I think as much effort should be put into nailing the objective facts down, and on the "subjective" front, I don't think sex per se (before marriage), "promiscuity" by either gender, nor abortion should be explicitly or tacitly stigmatised in sex ed. They should all be addressed insofar as the risks they present for unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections - all to the ends that people will be better placed to make informed decisions about their reproductive tract.

I'm sure we do agree.

I have no problem with sex education at all. Basically, sex education is anatomy, biology and functioning of the human sex organs, the mechanics of sex and pregnancy, and the mechanics of the prevention and termination of pregnancies (and perhaps a discussion of what the law is on the topic).

I tend to see the word "informed" as a red flag, because usually it means saddles the term "decision" with the weight of an implied "...in a manner in which I approve." That is - if I have a right to make a decision, it's most assuredly not to be limited to only those decisions deemed "informed" by someone else, since what that winds up meaning is that I have a right to make a GOOD decision or an APPROVED decision - or a decision that makes sense to other people. I like my humanity to entail the right to fuck up, fail, goof, and even make intentionally ignorant decisions.

[Warren Dew]

Safe haven laws and such give some immunity to CRIMINAL prosecution for abandonment, but they don't absolve anyone from legal liability for support.

Can you provide a source for this? My understanding was otherwise - in particular, that the child could be dropped off anonymously.

[lordpasternack]

Certainly, certainly - but, she has no right to serve a notice on the father of the child - "I'm not going to risk undergoing an abortion, but I'm hereby disclaiming my future obligations to the pregnancy or any born child thereof, and if it is born, it's your problem."  That's what Seth is advocating.

Well, I don't know what Seth is advocating, but I am advocating a system wherby the father absolves himself where the mother (by law, and in her circumstances) has a conscious CHOICE to make with respect to letting the thing inside her give rise to a person or not. The biological father doesn't have that choice, and he needn't even have had vaginal intercourse (which may be inferred as some sort of consent to possible parenthood). He could have had a "posh wank" and thrown the condom in the bin - which was then removed without his knowledge while still warm. Either way, the bottom line is that he has no choice after the semen has settled in her vagina. With respect to a father, he forces the woman to take unilateral responsibility for a clear unilateral choice, whereas with respect to the mother - she'd be forcing the male to take unilateral responsibility for something that he can then make no choice about, and due to something either likely wasn't an active choice (to cause pregnancy), or at any rate wasn't unilateral. 

Moreover, in the case of adoption and surrogacy, there are protections in place for the child, in terms of legal requirements placed upon the adoptive or surrogate parents to help assure that the child is cared for.  It's not merely a disclaimer by the woman.

Are you sure this is the case - with respect to surrogacy/gestational carrying in particular, where the woman carries her child/a donor embryo for someone else? Is it not as simple as drafting some contractual agreement with the female in question? A lot probably has changed since the Baby M case…

And what about gamete donation? Are there restrictions on single parents and/or those who probably can't provide for a family from taking up services? In the case of couples seeking a family - are there specific arrangements put in place beforehand to make any non-biological parents in the couple legal adoptive parents even before the birth?

If so - the world would be a much better place if similar restrictions and safeguards were put in place for the average shaggers out there, and with particular respect to women who go out of their way to get pregnant against advice and wishes stated beforehand by men, or take pregnancies to term without ever being aware who the father is, or even with respect to families where both in the couple agree to having kids they can't care for. If only… 

A woman can simply abandon her baby, but there are legal penalties for child abandonment and neglect, and hospitals are not baby repositories.  If a baby is found abandoned, the authorities will look for the mother and determine her fitness to be a mother. Safe haven laws and such give some immunity to CRIMINAL prosecution for abandonment, but they don't absolve anyone from legal liability for support.  The State can still chase the parents down for child support.

That's all said with the presumption that the mother would be easily identified and found. There are means through which she could practically safeguard the physical wellbeing of the infant while receding permanently into obscurity. And what would happen if the mother identified herself after the infant had been legally adopted?

[lordpasternack]

Actually, I just want to add, with respect to this previous post of mine:-

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/wo ... unter.html

Frankly, in my opinion, that is one woman who should be practically coerced into abortion, and precisely for her irresponsible behaviour, and her attitude towards becoming a parent! ...  She's also, it goes without saying, placing herself and prospective infants at risk from HIV infection and other STIs - and could maybe take note that the two most common STIs - gonnorrhoea and chlamydia, can cause pelvic inflammatory disease in young females - potentially scarring the fallopian tubes, decreasing the chance of conception, and increasing the risk of ectopic pregnancies.

This girl is also placing the men and their future partners at risk by her behaviour - and particularly in sabotaging the condoms of those who would otherwise have been taking responsible precautions while having sex with her. If she wanted, she could quickly make use of sperm deposited in a condom (maybe even buying non-spermicidal ones if she wants to be that rigorous) and ensure the the only party at immediate risk is herself.

I still think she's a bit whacked in the head, though… 

[Coito ergo sum]

Certainly, certainly - but, she has no right to serve a notice on the father of the child - "I'm not going to risk undergoing an abortion, but I'm hereby disclaiming my future obligations to the pregnancy or any born child thereof, and if it is born, it's your problem."  That's what Seth is advocating.

Well, I don't know what Seth is advocating, but I am advocating a system wherby the father absolves himself where the mother (by law, and in her circumstances) has a conscious CHOICE to make with respect to letting the thing inside her give rise to a person or not. The biological father doesn't have that choice, and he needn't even have had vaginal intercourse (which may be inferred as some sort of consent to possible parenthood). He could have had a "posh wank" and thrown the condom in the bin - which was then removed without his knowledge while still warm. Either way, the bottom line is that he has no choice after the semen has settled in her vagina. With respect to a father, he forces the woman to take unilateral responsibility for a clear unilateral choice, whereas with respect to the mother - she'd be forcing the male to take unilateral responsibility for something that he can then make no choice about, and due to something either likely wasn't an active choice (to cause pregnancy), or at any rate wasn't unilateral. 

My theory is that the woman has 100% of responsibility for whatever is in her womb, and has 100% of the power and authority to remove things from it. A man can't ever have the authority to compel her to do anything one way or the other.

If a child becomes alive, then the persons properly responsible for that child's upbringing and care and support are its biological parents, and the child has an independent right (irrespective of what its parents agreed between themselves) to support from both parents (unless as in the case of adoption or surrogacy there has been an adequate replacement support source vetted). So, while a man does not have the ability to abort, he still retains the responsibility to support any born children - whether the mother had the last clear choice in the matter is irrelevant. The father is not being asked for anything while the pregnancy is on, and once there is a child after birth that child has rights that can't just be waived.

Moreover, in the case of adoption and surrogacy, there are protections in place for the child, in terms of legal requirements placed upon the adoptive or surrogate parents to help assure that the child is cared for.  It's not merely a disclaimer by the woman.

Are you sure this is the case - with respect to surrogacy/gestational carrying in particular, where the woman carries her child/a donor embryo for someone else? Is it not as simple as drafting some contractual agreement with the female in question? A lot probably has changed since the Baby M case…

The agreements are governed by surrogacy laws. In the US state law generally provides that surrogacy contracts will only be enforceable if the 'commissioning couple' (the intending parents of the child) be over the age of 18, married to each other, and that a physician licensed in Florida has determined that, 'within reasonable medical certainty': 1) the commissioning mother cannot physically gestate a pregnancy to term; 2) the gestation will cause a great risk to the physical health of the commissioning mother; 3) the gestation will cause a risk to the health of the fetus. The statute further requires the contract to include that the gestational carrier be over the age of 18, that she agree to submit to reasonable medical evaluation, treatment and prenatal care, that she retain the sole consent with respect to the clinical intervention and management of her pregnancy, that she relinquish her parental rights of the child upon the birth of the child and assist the commissioning couple in the birth certificate proceeding.

The commissioning couple also agrees to accept custody of and assume full parental rights and responsibilities of the child immediately upon the child's birth regardless of any impairment of the child. Which is the law providing protection for the child. Someone must support the child.

And what about gamete donation? Are there restrictions on single parents and/or those who probably can't provide for a family from taking up services? In the case of couples seeking a family - are there specific arrangements put in place beforehand to make any non-biological parents in the couple legal adoptive parents even before the birth?

Well, yeah - gamete donation means you put your sperm in a sperm bank and anyone utilizing that sperm and making a baby out of it is agreeing to be legally responsible for the baby.

If so - the world would be a much better place if similar restrictions and safeguards were put in place for the average shaggers out there, and with particular respect to women who go out of their way to get pregnant against advice and wishes stated beforehand by men, or take pregnancies to term without ever being aware who the father is, or even with respect to families where both in the couple agree to having kids they can't care for. If only… 

The thing is, once there is a baby, there is a baby. From the standpoint of those not getting the chance at an orgasm out of the deal, the people that should support that baby are its parents. If one parent is around, and just wants to disclaim liability post fertilization, it doesn't seem to me to be any of the rest of our concern. If there is no issue with support, then none of the rest of us will know. If, however, the child needs support and the State or the mother sues for paternity, then if the alleged father is actually the father than whatever agreement he had with the mother ought not to strip the child of the right to support from the father.

A woman can simply abandon her baby, but there are legal penalties for child abandonment and neglect, and hospitals are not baby repositories.  If a baby is found abandoned, the authorities will look for the mother and determine her fitness to be a mother. Safe haven laws and such give some immunity to CRIMINAL prosecution for abandonment, but they don't absolve anyone from legal liability for support.  The State can still chase the parents down for child support.

That's all said with the presumption that the mother would be easily identified and found. There are means through which she could practically safeguard the physical wellbeing of the infant while receding permanently into obscurity. And what would happen if the mother identified herself after the infant had been legally adopted?

No, it doesn't presume any such thing. Obviously, many things are hard to prove, and there are obvious hurdles one needs to find in order to identify an abandoning mother. When the mother can't be found, she can't be found. Then the State has to put the child in a state home or foster care. There's no other possibility. Most thefts go unpunished too, because of the difficulty in catching the perp.

There are also ways in which a father can permanently recede into obscurity, too. Yes, mothers will be able to abandon children and not get caught. That doesn't change the fact that she's legally obligated to support the child. She is legally obligated. Whether she fulfills that obligation, or whether she is caught and forced to fulfill that obligation is a entirely different matter (just like when a father is legally obligated to pay child support, but many don't and get away with it).

If the infant was legally adopted, then the mother is shit out of luck, generally speaking.

[Coito ergo sum]

Actually, I just want to add, with respect to this previous post of mine:-

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/wo ... unter.html

Frankly, in my opinion, that is one woman who should be practically coerced into abortion, and precisely for her irresponsible behaviour, and her attitude towards becoming a parent! ...  She's also, it goes without saying, placing herself and prospective infants at risk from HIV infection and other STIs - and could maybe take note that the two most common STIs - gonnorrhoea and chlamydia, can cause pelvic inflammatory disease in young females - potentially scarring the fallopian tubes, decreasing the chance of conception, and increasing the risk of ectopic pregnancies.

This girl is also placing the men and their future partners at risk by her behaviour - and particularly in sabotaging the condoms of those who would otherwise have been taking responsible precautions while having sex with her. If she wanted, she could quickly make use of sperm deposited in a condom (maybe even buying non-spermicidal ones if she wants to be that rigorous) and ensure the the only party at immediate risk is herself.

I still think she's a bit whacked in the head, though… 

Well, everyone puts their future partners at risk, it's just a question of how much risk. The only way the risk is zero is if you're a virgin. But, when you kiss someone new and have sex with them, there are risks of everything from regular illnesses, to STD's to pregnancies.

This woman, while in my opinion a psychologically imbalanced whore, is the owner of her vagina and if she wanted to fuck for kicks 20 times a month with 20 different men, I really can't see as how the law ought to stop her or compel her to get an abortion. Yes, the men are possibly being shang-hai'd here, and there may be criminal liability on her part for sabotaging a condom, but in the end that's near impossible to prove (well, except in this specific case where she admits it - but, it would still be hard to prove in a specific instance - she'd say "no I didn't pierce the condom, and/or we didn't use a condom").

This is a situation men have lived with forever. I approach sexual liaisons knowing that if something happens, I will have no control over whether there is an abortion, and I am obligated to support my natural born children. I also find something a bit callous and cold about a person who could "disclaim" a pregnancy and still never want to see or know their biological child. I don't get that at all. Once there is a child - there is a child. And, I could not bear the idea of that child wondering why his or her daddy didn't want him or her. Even if I couldn't be with the mother, I would want the child to know that I was an honorable man who loves his children and that even if life couldn't be perfect, I would help that child as much as possible and certainly to the minimum extent required by law (at least).

That's where I see the key difference in the abortion vs. fictional/metaphorical abortion issue - the former does not result in a child, the latter does. Therefore the situations are not perfectly analogous and one is not a replacement or "make good" for the other.

EDIT - From the article......

"When the child is old enough, I will tell them that me and their father had a magical night together but never saw each other again.

I just have to say to this.... BWAAHHAHAHHAAHHHAAA!!!! Magical night, my ass! What a laugh. How about being honest with the kid, and instead telling him the truth, like "When the child is old enough, I will tell them that me and their father, and about 50 other men, spent a series of magical nights over the course of months, until I finally got knocked up with you. You're lucky I didn't swallow you like about a million of your brothers during my and your father's "magical night"".....

EDIT 2 -- From the article...

"I'm sure lots of people will judge me and think I am insane - but I'm simply being honest.

BWAHAHAHAHAAA!!!! Logic fail.... umm....slut....your honesty does not mean you aren't still a fucking psycho.

EDIT 3 -- From the article...

"I am more than ready to become a mother and willing to accept all the responsibility that comes with it."

That's awesome and works out quite well until you aren't financially able to support the brat. Then you'll be filing for public assistance instead of having the father support his child. In other words..... "a parent doesn't want to support their natural children....? Oh, ok, then - let me foot the bill. After all, I didn't even get to blow a nut for the privilege..."

I also wonder why the article didn't discuss her career and income. If she alleges she is ready to become a mother and willing to accept all the responsibility, I would surely like to see her back that up - what is her job? How much money does she make? Fucking nut bag.... this is where my emotions run a bit toward Seth-ville on this issue....I almost want this chick's tubes tied - dingbat.

[lordpasternack]

 
Well, yeah - gamete donation means you put your sperm in a sperm bank and anyone utilizing that sperm and making a baby out of it is agreeing to be legally responsible for the baby.

Gamete donation covers both eggs and sperm, Coito. And I know that there are legal hurdles that are addressed at the outset that wash the hands of the donor clean, and very often have their identities strictly undisclosed, except in exceptional circumstances to the accepting parent(s), and in some places to the donor child(ren) after they reach a certain age (18 in the UK). 

I was specifically asking you, though, if donees are specifically vetted prior to accepting sperm or eggs to ensure that the child will be born into congenial circumstances - if similar restrictions are put over users of donated gametes  as users of surrogates/gestational carriers. 

You haven't addressed that, and seem to be saying that if a single woman succeeds in attaining a sperm donation  and either isn't in the best circumstances for child-rearing, or falls on hard times after the birth of a resultant child, then it's just her responsibility and just tough shit for both her and the child for her having made that choice in her life.

You also still haven't addressed the fact that there are scenarios directly qualitatively, though not currently legally, comparable to ejaculating into a cup - or otherwise not actually having vaginal intercourse with a female, where the semen is later deliberately used… 

And now we skip just a little text:-

The thing is, once there is a baby, there is a baby.  From the standpoint of those not getting the chance at an orgasm out of the deal, the people that should support that baby are its parents.  If one parent is around, and just wants to disclaim liability post fertilization, it doesn't seem to me to be any of the rest of our concern.  If there is no issue with support, then none of the rest of us will know.  If, however, the child needs support and the State or the mother sues for paternity, then if the alleged father is actually the father than whatever agreement he had with the mother ought not to strip the child of the right to support from the father.

HELLO glaring inconsitency!

 [The mother] is legally obligated.  Whether she fulfills that obligation, or whether she is caught and forced to fulfill that obligation is  a entirely different matter (just like when a father is legally obligated to pay child support, but many don't and get away with it).

If the infant was legally adopted, then the mother is shit out of luck, generally speaking.

The second sentence there makes no sense if you're presuming the mother wanted to instantly absolve herself of the situation, and came out after publicised adoption specifically because she would now presumably be fully absolved of parental obligation - which is what I was meaning! In such a case, it would be mission successful, not shit out of luck. 

[lordpasternack]

This woman, while in my opinion a psychologically imbalanced whore, is the owner of her vagina and if she wanted to fuck for kicks 20 times a month with 20 different men, I really can't see as how the law ought to stop her or compel her to get an abortion.

Well, she isn't a whore, because she's getting no recompense for her sexual favours... (Makes you wonder why she didn't think of trying that route, though!) Also, it should be said that there are many, many whores/pornstars/whatever out there behaving far more responsibly than this young woman. Let's not insult whores by calling this woman one, and implicitly comparing their sexual conduct and attitude to child-rearing.

I also wonder why the article didn't discuss her career and income.  If she alleges she is ready to become a mother and willing to accept all the responsibility, I would surely like to see her back that up - what is her job?  How much money does she make?  Fucking nut bag....  this is where my emotions run a bit toward Seth-ville on this issue....I almost want this chick's tubes tied - dingbat.

The article says she's an "assistant office manager" - whatever that means and whatever salary it denotes.

[Seth]

Seth - are you trying to argue from one coherent viewpoint inside this thread? 'Cause if you are, the exact components / characteristics of that viewpoint remain unclear. Please clarify.

-You have claimed that this is an abstract-only debate - is it (for you)?

Yes.

-You have "hinted" that (this whole debate?) is some sort of either/or thing - is it (for you)?

Those are the arguments I'm making.

-You have claimed that women have full sexual autonomy / freedom - is this also a part of your abstract debate scenario (because realistic this is not)?

This is a legal fact in the United States.

-You have made statements that appear to value some types of (female?) sexual behavior positively and some other types of (female?) sexual behavior negatively - if you see this as an abstract debate scenario, what is the abstract (objective?) basis for such value statements?

Why must there be an "abstract (objective) basis" for such statements? Could the "abstract" basis be that of reflecting the fact that much of society does in fact place value judgments on sexual behavior?

-You have not acknowledged that society plays a very large role in what contraceptive methods are attainable for women and/or for men - is avoiding that reality a part of your abstract debate / scenario?

Actually, I've said on several occasions that society not only does, but has the moral authority to make such decisions.

ATM your arguments don't make much sense to me.

Eventually they will. Or not.

[Seth]

the woman who pays no attention to any of it, fucks like a bunny and uses abortion as a form of contraception because she doesn't want to be bothered to even attempt any sort of ethical behavior before resorting to the killing of a living human being.

If there is nothing wrong with abortion, then there is nothing wrong with this behaviour.

This whole argument is a big fail.

There are many things wrong with abortion, just as there are many things wrong with the justified use of deadly force in self-defense. That the good may outweigh the bad on occasion does not mean that the bad does not exist. What is justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense in one situation is murder in another.

Such nuances apply just as much to abortion as to self-defense.

And that is why society has moral authority to regulate, and indeed oversee abortion, to prevent abuses while making it available in cases of rational necessity.

[Seth]

An abortion still counts as a consequence they must face for whatever "carelessness" you wish to impute to them. And counts as taking responsibility for the situation, too. And beats the alternative in every way - of obligating such "careless" women into child-rearing (or at any rate pregnancy and childbirth) as some sort of twisted punishment for behaviour that just sticks in the craws of some self-righteous twats. As for the operation of one's genitals - I think it's mostly for the owners to make informed decisions about the right or wrong way to use them.

Sure it "counts." The question is whether it's a moral and ethical decision to make without consultation and agreement of the other parties involved.

Just out of interest - what, pray tell, should the female do where she didn't catch the contact details from the one-night-stand(s) she had, before they bolted in the morning? And what, even, if she behaves "irresponsibly" with the intention to get pregnant?

Be more discerning and responsible about her sexual behavior? She might want the guy's information in the event that he gives her HIV, or the clap, or gets her pregnant.

Should a classified ad be put in the local paper informing the public that female X is pregnant and considering aborting/giving birth - to whom it may concern? And would the latter be alright, since she at any rate isn't going to be bothering the fellow for Child Support, except maybe on the off-chance that she bumps into him again and notes his ID?

Can the courts at some later date track the man down and demand child support from him using DNA evidence and detective work? Yes, it can. Therefore she has a duty and an obligation to do whatever is within her power to notify him of the pregnancy in order to include him in all decisions regarding the disposition of the fetus.

There is this one case of a female doing the latter that was in the press last year, actually: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/wo ... unter.html

Frankly, in my opinion, that is one woman who should be practically coerced into abortion, and precisely for her irresponsible behaviour, and her attitude towards becoming a parent! I could also point out a few places where she's going wrong in her mating strategy (sperm take over a day to travel through the reproductive tract, bitch - and ova are only viable for about a day...) - but I really wouldn't want to assist her! She's also, it goes without saying, placing herself and prospective infants at risk from HIV infection and other STIs - and could maybe take note that the two most common STIs - gonnorrhoea and chlamydia, can cause pelvic inflammatory disease in young females - potentially scarring the fallopian tubes, decreasing the chance of conception, and increasing the risk of ectopic pregnancies. Honestly - if she's really so insistent - it's not that hard to book a short holiday to some resort and have some wild holiday romance with one virile young guy who will do her all ways at least once a day, and most likely coincide with her fertile period. That would be safer, and likely more "effective", than what she's doing!

What should happen is that she should be arrested and charged with attempted criminal fraud. She's attempting to make some poor sod legally liable for a child by using fraud and deceit. And this is a good reason for MEN to be sexually responsible as well, which in her community seems to be the case. Guys, NEVER EVER use a condom supplied by the woman. Perhaps she needs to be committed for psychiatric care as well. I find it interesting that she's spent "a fortune" on piss-sticks, but won't pay the bill for a sperm bank. Absolutely an unethical and evil person, and one, given her narcissism, very likely should NEVER be allowed to have a child. She seems to want to be a "mum" in order to serve her own selfish needs, and that worries me.

And what about the "ethical" merits of the use of the female's reproductive organs prior to conception should have any bearing on whether it is ethical to terminate the life of the embryo/foetus - if you consider it to be a "human being", and hence equal to, or approaching infanticide/homicide to terminate its life? And does "irresponsible" conduct ever override the female's right to bodily autonomy?

One word: Consent.

[Coito ergo sum]

 
Well, yeah - gamete donation means you put your sperm in a sperm bank and anyone utilizing that sperm and making a baby out of it is agreeing to be legally responsible for the baby.

Gamete donation covers both eggs and sperm, Coito. And I know that there are legal hurdles that are addressed at the outset that wash the hands of the donor clean, and very often have their identities strictly undisclosed, except in exceptional circumstances to the accepting parent(s), and in some places to the donor child(ren) after they reach a certain age (18 in the UK). 

I was specifically asking you, though, if donees are specifically vetted prior to accepting sperm or eggs to ensure that the child will be born into congenial circumstances - if similar restrictions are put over users of donated gametes  as users of surrogates/gestational carriers. 

My understanding is that you need to fill out an application and be vetted in some way before they will sell you the gametes, but the law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

One thing interesting is that sperm donation can be risky depending on jurisdiction - a man who donated sperm was held financially liable for a child born of his sperm from a sperm back when a lesbian couple split up. Now, that kind of shit ain't right - they need to settle the law on that and make a clear statute or ruling on whether someone can be held liable and why. That was in Ireland. It's actually apparently happening more and more.

You haven't addressed that, and seem to be saying that if a single woman succeeds in attaining a sperm donation  and either isn't in the best circumstances for child-rearing, or falls on hard times after the birth of a resultant child, then it's just her responsibility and just tough shit for both her and the child for her having made that choice in her life.

I thought I addressed what you asked. Hopefully, I have by now. One of the ways I originally addressed it is by stating that gamete donation pursuant to a set of statutes covering gamete donation - which is supposed to be an essentially anonymous process whereby fertlie men or women make their gametes available for others who need them to use. So, there is a lot of necessary consideration going on long before someone gets pregnant in that manner. It's a different factual situation than consensual sex resulting in pregnancy. I also pointed out above that I think when donees buy sperm or eggs from a sperm bank, they have to apply and meet legal requirements, and they have to agree to be responsible for the resulting child as if it was their own biological child. I believe they are essentially "adopting" the child in advance.

In any case, if a single woman succeeds in becoming pregnant, then I think it's her responsibility, and I think it's the father's responsibility to pay child support to raise the child. It's certainly nobody else's responsibility. So, if a man falls on hard times and can't support his child, it's still his responsibility. If a mother and father together fall on hard times, then it's still their responsibility, and so a single mother is no different.

We all make choices in life. Why should a single mother's choices not be impacted by economic circumstances any more than a childless couple's choices? If I choose to buy a house, and then I fall on economic hard times and is it just tough shit for me that I can't afford to pay for it anymore? Should it be?

You also still haven't addressed the fact that there are scenarios directly qualitatively, though not currently legally, comparable to ejaculating into a cup - or otherwise not actually having vaginal intercourse with a female, where the semen is later deliberately used… 

I have addressed that in quite a lot of detail - if you'll see my post up above where I discussed the case of Louisiana v Frisard in which a woman inseminated herself without a guy's knowledge by blowing him and having him cum into the rubber and then using medical equipment to insert it into herself.

I think that where that happened, the woman ought to face serious consequences, perhaps criminal fraud punishment or even a lawsuit from the man for fraud. But, in the end, if a baby is born, whose responsibility is it to provide support? Wouldn't the child still be looking for daddy? Is it the child's fault that mommy was a dingbat fraudster?

And now we skip just a little text:-

The thing is, once there is a baby, there is a baby.  From the standpoint of those not getting the chance at an orgasm out of the deal, the people that should support that baby are its parents.  If one parent is around, and just wants to disclaim liability post fertilization, it doesn't seem to me to be any of the rest of our concern.  If there is no issue with support, then none of the rest of us will know.  If, however, the child needs support and the State or the mother sues for paternity, then if the alleged father is actually the father than whatever agreement he had with the mother ought not to strip the child of the right to support from the father.

HELLO glaring inconsitency!

You'll have to specify what's inconsistent. I'm actually not even sure that we disagree. I didn't think we did. What are we actually disagreeing on?

 [The mother] is legally obligated.  Whether she fulfills that obligation, or whether she is caught and forced to fulfill that obligation is  a entirely different matter (just like when a father is legally obligated to pay child support, but many don't and get away with it).

Oh - that's not an inconsistency. The mother is legally obligated, yes. That doesn't mean the father is not also legally obligated. They both are.

If the infant was legally adopted, then the mother is shit out of luck, generally speaking.

The second sentence there makes no sense if you're presuming the mother wanted to instantly absolve herself of the situation, and came out after publicised adoption specifically because she would now presumably be fully absolved of parental obligation - which is what I was meaning! In such a case, it would be mission successful, not shit out of luck. 

Maybe so - but if other parents who want the child have legally adopted the child. They would have filled out applications and been reviewed to see that they can support a child at least minimally. So, they won't want to give the child back anyway. So, that's no different than when a mother openly puts her child up for adoption and someone adopts it. Mission successful. Awesome for them, and the kid is taken care of, hopefully. At least, someone is on the hook for it.