Morals!
 

I thought it would be fun to revisit one of the fundamentals of the SM&P: hypothetical moral situations. So here is the fairly simple scenario:

A woman and a man are in a relationship. One of them intentionally undermines/discontinues/sabotages the couple's means of birth control without consenting the other. A child is concieved.


Preliminary question:

How immoral is 'blocking' the birth control by the individual acting alone?


Deeper questions:

Assuming the 'blocking' is proved to be intentional and without mutual consent, should there be any legal basis for damages?

Could/should it alter the dynamics of right to abortion?

Could/should it affect child support?

What are the key differences between this act when committed by the woman versus committed by the man?

Re: Morals!
 

Very immoral.

There should be no legal basis for damage.

No.
No.

It is her body is the biggest difference i see between the two.

Re: Morals!
 

Quite immoral.

Theoretically there should be a basis for damages

Ethically it should alter the abortion rights dynamic, practically it can't. If the father found a way to kill the child, I wouldn't hold him any more morally culpable than a mother choosing an abortion

Child support - ethically yes it should affect it, practically no.

I don't see any key ethical differences between the man and women committing the act. I guess it's a question of who owns the ejaculate.

For those who answered no to these questions: Imagine this scenario. Your female flatmate/friend looks around your apartment trying to harvest semen traces. She finds a misplaced condom with viable sperm, and uses it to impregnate herself. How do you answer to these questions now? Are you liable for child support?

How is this situation morally or legally different from one where you have a verbal agreement with your partner to avoid pregnancy, which she violates? Are these differences sufficient to justify a totally different ethical framework?

Re: Morals!
 

If it was the woman, and she was willing to raise the child completely on her own, I'd say it's not that immoral. I mean, when you get right down to it, it's really no sweat off the guy's back. I've got two kids and making them was the easy part. After they're born however....

If it was the man, I think it's a different story. For one thing, it's not his body that has to go through pregnancy and birth. So I don't think whether or not to have a baby should be entirely his choice.

Re: Morals!
 

[ QUOTE ]
For those who answered no to these questions: Imagine this scenario. Your female flatmate/friend looks around your apartment trying to harvest semen traces. She finds a misplaced condom with viable sperm, and uses it to impregnate herself. How do you answer to these questions now? Are you liable for child support?



[/ QUOTE ] Phil, I agreed with your entire post, but strangly enough, in the U.S., the question as to whether or not you owe child support in your hypothetical, is possibly yes. See this weird analysis: From the Straightdope

Re: Morals!
 

The actions are fraudulant so the subject of damages are relevent.

what damages are appropriate seems tough, maybe case dependant?

chez

Re: Morals!
 

Morals are only for people that don't know any better.

And you can quote me on that.

Le Misanthrope

Re: Morals!
 

[ QUOTE ]
I thought it would be fun to revisit one of the fundamentals of the SM&P: hypothetical moral situations. So here is the fairly simple scenario:

A woman and a man are in a relationship. One of them intentionally undermines/discontinues/sabotages the couple's means of birth control without consenting the other. A child is concieved.


Preliminary question:

How immoral is 'blocking' the birth control by the individual acting alone?


Deeper questions:

Assuming the 'blocking' is proved to be intentional and without mutual consent, should there be any legal basis for damages?

Could/should it alter the dynamics of right to abortion?

Could/should it affect child support?

What are the key differences between this act when committed by the woman versus committed by the man?

[/ QUOTE ]

The action is very wrong, not much to see here.
However I dont think the sabotage should have any legal implications.

Re: Morals!
 

Blocking the birth control is a good and holy act, meritorious for Heaven and will be rewarded with a crown of eternal glory.

And if that doesn't happen, then the blocker should be commended for his glorious use of will to power, taking advantage of a stupid and credulous partner who is deservedly made a fool of.

Re: Morals!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Morals are only for people that don't know any better.

And you can quote me on that.

Le Misanthrope

[/ QUOTE ]
I used to think that plays were useless and stupid.