5 ms·

> "One law we definitely need is to make sure people can't become genetic parents without their knowledge or consent," says Greely. Exactly when and how is con

> "One law we definitely need is to make sure people can't become genetic parents without their knowledge or consent," says Greely. Exactly when and how is consent given? Going down this ethical train of thought, one could argue that sexual intercourse only implies consent for sexual intercourse, not consent for reproduction. If the requirement for consent implies a requirement for a written contract, then consent for sexual intercourse does not imply consent for reproduction. If the requirement for consent merely implies a requirement for a lack of coercion and allowing people to continue on with what they have found along the path of life, then surely one should be allowed to make do with the barber's garbage. Eventually, the discussion should stop revolving around consent and start revolving around commitment. Women should have a right to expect men to decide whether or not to make a commitment by a certain deadline, and should have the power of the courts to hold men to that commitment, should it be made. And nobody should presume that celebrities are making a commitment (of any kind) to anyone who decides that a celebrity's trash is their treasure.

gearsandbeers 3y ago
> could argue that sexual intercourse only implies consent for sexual intercourse, not consent for reproduction You might also enjoy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_abortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_abortion - I stumbled upon this last night and thought about it for a while.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sjducb 3y ago
Sex is not separate from reproduction. If you are a man and have sex with a woman then you're consenting to be a father. Most western countries recognize verbal and other non-written contracts. The clearest example I can see here is the UK's law about weather the genetic father is the legal father. If the child was conceived through sexual intercourse then the genetic father is always the legal father.
- samtho 3y ago
  Sex has been separated from reproduction, at least in the few species we know of that partake in it for pleasure only. Humans engage in a variety of sexual activities that ostensibly cannot result in a pregnancy. You talk about verbal contracts, how is that different from misrepresenting yourself if you said you were on the pill or you had a vasectomy? The verbal contract of consent can be delivered or revoked during this stage as well.
  - throw0101b 3y ago
    > Sex has been separated from reproduction, at least in the few species we know of that partake in it for pleasure only. That's like saying that eating has been separated from sustenance (or nutrition) because people (just happen to) eat Twinkies for pleasure. People doing something for reasons that just happen to not to be the primary purpose does remove the purpose of an action.
    - samtho 3y ago
      I would argue that sex is different because, looking at the animal kingdom, the result is rarely a benefit to the individual. It’s resource intensive and in some cases (with insects specifically) the ushering in of a new generation results in the death of the parent. Reproduction is absolutely essential to the survival of the species but often a bad deal for the organisms involved. It’s a bodily function that many resources are dedicated to but is the least essential for for the survival of the individual. Part of what enables pleasure-sex in humans is the fact that penetration does not trigger ovulation and that happens on its own schedule so evolution selected for mating strategies that would lead to frequent and short encounters. Additionally, the way we began to walk upright had the effect of moving human female genitalia more to the front which enabled her to be more selective about her partners. With the parental instinct being shared among both males and females combined with the fact both parties also are able to derive a great deal of pleasure from the experience, both sexes end up being more closely aligned with the goals of a sexual encounter vs those of our most recent, more ape-like ancestors. To bring it back around, I understand what you are trying to say here, but disagree with your conclusion. Evolution selected modern humans to engage in sexual encounters that will not always result in a pregnancy, unlike eating which your body will always attempt to process the same as the last thing you are.
throw0101b 3y ago
> Going down this ethical train of thought, one could argue that sexual intercourse only implies consent for sexual intercourse, not consent for reproduction. Then you may wish to have family law changed in (e.g.) the province of Ontario: > 7 (1) The person whose sperm resulted in the conception of a child conceived through sexual intercourse is, and shall be recognized in law to be, a parent of the child. 2016, c. 23, s. 1 (1). * https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c12#BK9 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c12#BK9 Pregnancy is an easily foreseen consequence of having sex, and so being held (civilly) liable for actions is perfectly reasonable. Or, as old meme/trope goes: f*ck around and find out. * https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/personal-injury/personal-injury-basics/what-is-foreseeability-in-a-personal-injury-case.html https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/personal-injury/personal-... * https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/foreseeability https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/foreseeability
laratied 3y ago
[flagged]
- elric 3y ago
  It seems like a reasonable statement to me. Can you elaborate on why it's so ridiculous in your eyes?
- b1ue64 3y ago
  Why is it so ridiculous? There is sexual activity that doesn't result in reproduction (massive shocker, i know)
- samtho 3y ago
  > What planet are we on. A planet where many people (but perhaps not enough) can access to very safe and effective birth control in a way where both people in the partnership have some control over their ability to conceive a child.

gearsandbeers 3y ago

> could argue that sexual intercourse only implies consent for sexual intercourse, not consent for reproduction You might also enjoy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_abortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_abortion - I stumbled upon this last night and thought about it for a while.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

sjducb 3y ago

Sex is not separate from reproduction. If you are a man and have sex with a woman then you're consenting to be a father. Most western countries recognize verbal and other non-written contracts. The clearest example I can see here is the UK's law about weather the genetic father is the legal father. If the child was conceived through sexual intercourse then the genetic father is always the legal father.

samtho 3y ago
Sex has been separated from reproduction, at least in the few species we know of that partake in it for pleasure only. Humans engage in a variety of sexual activities that ostensibly cannot result in a pregnancy. You talk about verbal contracts, how is that different from misrepresenting yourself if you said you were on the pill or you had a vasectomy? The verbal contract of consent can be delivered or revoked during this stage as well.
- throw0101b 3y ago
  > Sex has been separated from reproduction, at least in the few species we know of that partake in it for pleasure only. That's like saying that eating has been separated from sustenance (or nutrition) because people (just happen to) eat Twinkies for pleasure. People doing something for reasons that just happen to not to be the primary purpose does remove the purpose of an action.
  - samtho 3y ago
    I would argue that sex is different because, looking at the animal kingdom, the result is rarely a benefit to the individual. It’s resource intensive and in some cases (with insects specifically) the ushering in of a new generation results in the death of the parent. Reproduction is absolutely essential to the survival of the species but often a bad deal for the organisms involved. It’s a bodily function that many resources are dedicated to but is the least essential for for the survival of the individual. Part of what enables pleasure-sex in humans is the fact that penetration does not trigger ovulation and that happens on its own schedule so evolution selected for mating strategies that would lead to frequent and short encounters. Additionally, the way we began to walk upright had the effect of moving human female genitalia more to the front which enabled her to be more selective about her partners. With the parental instinct being shared among both males and females combined with the fact both parties also are able to derive a great deal of pleasure from the experience, both sexes end up being more closely aligned with the goals of a sexual encounter vs those of our most recent, more ape-like ancestors. To bring it back around, I understand what you are trying to say here, but disagree with your conclusion. Evolution selected modern humans to engage in sexual encounters that will not always result in a pregnancy, unlike eating which your body will always attempt to process the same as the last thing you are.

throw0101b 3y ago

> Going down this ethical train of thought, one could argue that sexual intercourse only implies consent for sexual intercourse, not consent for reproduction. Then you may wish to have family law changed in (e.g.) the province of Ontario: > 7 (1) The person whose sperm resulted in the conception of a child conceived through sexual intercourse is, and shall be recognized in law to be, a parent of the child. 2016, c. 23, s. 1 (1). * https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c12#BK9 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c12#BK9 Pregnancy is an easily foreseen consequence of having sex, and so being held (civilly) liable for actions is perfectly reasonable. Or, as old meme/trope goes: f*ck around and find out. * https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/personal-injury/personal-injury-basics/what-is-foreseeability-in-a-personal-injury-case.html https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/personal-injury/personal-... * https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/foreseeability https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/foreseeability

laratied 3y ago

[flagged]

elric 3y ago
It seems like a reasonable statement to me. Can you elaborate on why it's so ridiculous in your eyes?
b1ue64 3y ago
Why is it so ridiculous? There is sexual activity that doesn't result in reproduction (massive shocker, i know)
samtho 3y ago
> What planet are we on. A planet where many people (but perhaps not enough) can access to very safe and effective birth control in a way where both people in the partnership have some control over their ability to conceive a child.