home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48039 alt.abortion.inequity:5119
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
- Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!rpi!uwm.edu!psuvax1!castor.cs.psu.edu!beaver
- From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
- Subject: Re: Who owns sperm?
- Message-ID: <Bxrzr5.43@cs.psu.edu>
- Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: castor.cs.psu.edu
- References: <1bhi7lINN9bu@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> <1992Nov13.163406.14799@rotag.mi.org> <1e117hINN3oa@gap.caltech.edu>
- Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 21:01:52 GMT
- Lines: 43
-
- In article <1e117hINN3oa@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
- >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
- >>In article <1bhi7lINN9bu@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
- >
- >>>Ah. I see. An *excellent* argument for not leaving one's personal property
- >>>(one's sperm) lying about outside of the realm of one's control. Now, if
- >>>*you* can think of a way to allow a man to repossess sperm HE left lying
- >>>about, I'll support you in it.
- >
- >>If I you invite me to your house, and I drop my wallet there, is it yours?
- >
- >>The property of invited guests does not automatically
- >>become the property of the host simply because physical contact is lost.
- >>If you're going to cite a legal principle, please cite one that EXISTS.
- >
- >Ah, but it does become the property of the finder if it remains unclaimed
- >for a period of time (usually 30-90 days). Extrapolating from this legal
- >principal, I suggest that if the man has been out of the loop (with regards
- >to the woman's pregnancy) for a comensureate period of time, then he
- >has forfeitted any rights to control or influence the outcome of the
- >pregnancy.
-
- So men will simply go down to the police office every 90 days
- to report a loss of sperm.
-
- Now, if a woman happens to "find" some sperm -- perhaps noticing
- it after she misses a period -- then she's obligated to report it
- (otherwise she can hardly rely on the fact that the claimant was
- "out of the loop").
-
- A "pleasant" side effect of Clinton's desire to impose paternal
- social-security numbers on birth certificates is that the woman
- would violate the law if she intentionally misrepresents the
- original owner of the sperm. And in failing to report information
- that will ultimately be revealed, she takes on the liabilities
- without any right to bar the father from exercising his rights later --
- in a manner reflecting "Last Clear Chance" much more clearly and explicitly.
-
- Just following through with this relatively unproductive approach,
-
- Don
- --
- beaver@cs.psu.edu Opinions from the PC-challenged
-