Sperm Donor forced to pay Child Support

[Whaleboy]

Do we have the right to sign our own rights away? To sign ourselves into slavery to others?

If I was being a purist by my philosophy, then yes. Realistically we're hampered by regulation and red-tape but conceptually speaking I see no reason why not. If I consent to be made a slave, that's fine, as long as I retain the right to recind that agreement. One cannot recind that agreement here since no liberty has been taken away from the man or the woman.

So you do not believe that a law that establishes a minimum wage is an important human right?

No. If I am offered a job with a given wage, I can agree to it or disagree, I am free to walk away if the terms are unacceptable to me. However in this day and age, I understand the need for one, hence conflict between pragmatist Whaleboy and purist Whaleboy.

If the agreement violates another principle, then that person who has signed the contract can annul the contract. If a person has the right to sign away his rights, he also has the right to pick them up again when he chooses to do so.

Agreed with one person, with two requires mutual agreement, say a person is in a marriage, they agree to divorce but the man wants the woman back - the woman has no obligation to come back to him upon his whim.

[Ben Kenobi]

but I tend to find your premises flawed and your views unable to form a dialectic.

Not forming a dialectic?

An interesting critique if I ever heard one.

What would constitute a dialectic, and how would you make one?

[DanS]

What I mean by environmental is indirectly consequential

I wasn't quoting you when I brought up CERCLA. Rather, I was showing that individuals and corporations acting as individuals are on the hook for what they do, even though they believe that they have signed their obligations away. It's better justice to have the individuals take responsibility for their actions than the unsuspecting public having to bear the costs.

[Dinner]

Ok, so we agree that sperm donors have the legal right to not be responsible as long as it is through a sanctioned clinic. In this case I'm not sure if it occured in a sanctioned clinic or not and the man was dumb enough to not have a written contract other wise he'd be covered.

[Ben Kenobi]

If I was being a purist by my philosophy, then yes. Realistically we're hampered by regulation and red-tape but conceptually speaking I see no reason why not. If I consent to be made a slave, that's fine, as long as I retain the right to re(s)cind that agreement.

I would argue that anyone who would accept such a contract is doing something wrong, and ought to be prosecuted for doing so. Even if you have the right to accept an offer that strips you of your rights, it does not absolve the one who offers such a contract from his actions.

One cannot rescind that agreement here since no liberty has been taken away from the man or the woman.

The man could argue that child support inhibits his freedoms.

No. If I am offered a job with a given wage, I can agree to it or disagree, I am free to walk away if the terms are unacceptable to me. However in this day and age, I understand the need for one, hence conflict between pragmatist Whaleboy and purist Whaleboy.

Agreed, that minimum wage flows from more fundamental human rights rather than constituting an individual right in itself.

Agreed with one person, with two requires mutual agreement, say a person is in a marriage, they agree to divorce but the man wants the woman back - the woman has no obligation to come back to him upon his whim.

Because he has consented to the separation. Now, supposing he did not consent to the divorce, would the woman be able to separate from her husband?

[DanS]

Oerdin: I agree that that's probably the law (or approximately, IANAL), but it's rather inconsistently principled, given the fact that the man is on the hook in all other situations, contract or no.

[Whaleboy]

In the blimp example, can you reasonably expect a child to result from your actions?

Irrelevant, it is up to the woman how she uses it, the man in this case merely stipulated that should she use it to create a child given conditions would apply which she agreed to. A child was created and given conditions therefore applied.

Therefore I can cite false analogy.

The probablility of conception or intended use is irrelevant to the contract, the analogy holds.

What would constitute a dialectic, and how would you make one?

If I were being simplistic, it would involve following through common points of your, and your opponents logic to form a new position, call it adding premises to one another. Quite hard and rare to do mostly so I try to look for positions and debators that I *can* do it with but you come across as dogmatic in the face of superior reasoning.

[Dinner]

I see it as being very consistent with laws such as adoption and it servers society's good by allowing infertile couples, single women, and Lesbian couples to become parents. Without legal protections no man in his right mind would donate and so these people would be denied their lives' greatest desires.

[Ben Kenobi]

I see it as being very consistent with laws such as adoption and it servers society's good by allowing infertile couples, single woman, and Lesbian couples to become parents.

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

[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.

[Whaleboy]

it does not absolve the one who offers such a contract from his actions.

I disagree, and would use the most obvious example: rape. If a man has sex with a woman without her consent or against her will, it is rape... I'm sure we can concur there. If she consents, it is not. Same logic applies.

The man could argue that child support inhibits his freedoms.

I meant that the original agreement did not remove any of the mans liberties.

Agreed, that minimum wage flows from more fundamental human rights rather than constituting an individual right in itself.

Agreed, but I don't think the reasoning that leads up to the conclusion of the minimum wage is sound, but that's another story, lets not threadjack.

Because he has consented to the separation. Now, supposing he did not consent to the divorce, would the woman be able to separate from her husband?

Yes, just as the woman is now perfectly free to refuse to accept his payments. The example is flawed in this context because in the case at hand no rights were signed away, I used the latter to answer something else. A better example would be that of an unofficial trade. No refunds . My friend has a book. I offer him a CD for the book. He accepts, the transaction is made. Later, he decides he wants the book back. Why should I give it to him, or be forced to do so?

[Ben Kenobi]

Irrelevant,

Why is it irrelevant?

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.

it is up to the woman how she uses it, the man in this case merely stipulated that should she use it to create a child given conditions would apply which she agreed to.

Right, but a child is not a commodity, nor is sperm. This is why these concepts do not work, as they would for other property.

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.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Adoption already provides all of these benefits, so why do you need a sperm bank?

Because with IVF one of the parents is directly biologically related to the child. Many, many people want that. This enables them to have it.

[Whaleboy]

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.

If this is going to degenerate into the typical sexual-liberalism vs. abstinance / traditionalist debate, gay/lesbian marriage/adoption, underage / premarital sex with all the trimmings, I shall leave as it's one red herring I'm rather bored of. The issue at hand is one of responsibility.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, just as the woman is now perfectly free to refuse to accept his payments.

Marriage requires mutual consent to enter, and ought to require mutual consent to leave. You need something else here Whaleboy, to make your analogy work.

She may be free to refuse payments, but she retains the right to call for payments, should her situation change.