On the rights of unwilling fathers:

[lAmebAdger]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

i did NOT mess up. it IS steroids (extra *TESTOSTERONE*) that *SHRINKS* your testicles. "steroids will give you big biceps to impress a girl with, but when she takes a look down your pants, she will be very displeased" -unknown. i could not say it better so i used this unknown person's quote.

alright, too tired to look it up, so i'll trust your sources

if u say my biology is wrong, u need to name the biology of mine that is wrong before your comment nets my attention.

first: i'm not saying "WRONG", i'm saying inexact, and that's purely on the level of exactness professional biologists use in writing their documents

-the life part is one example of inaccuracy as per scientific biological defintion
-the estrogen/testosterone part about "nearly entirely" is also pretty inaccurate, i think you should give other factors a bit more credit than "nearly non-existant"

as to the "purpose of life"

we are talking about two different things:

you are talking about your own ideas of life as a conscious self-aware human being.

i am talking about the REAL purpose of life underneath people's superfluruous ideas of life, the DNA/GENES and their continuance/survival.

"purpose" is a term that was linked to a concept that was, i'm sure, more subjective than you think. there is no objective "purpose" of life. what the purpose of life is is arbitrarily determined by each individual him/herself and then conventionally expanded to a group
what you're talking about is not a conventionally accepted link between the terms "purpose of life" and that concept of procreation narrowing, i'm sure, if we talk about as much people as are in both our countries together
i could just say: DNA/GENES and their continuance/survival? it matters, but other things, taken together, matter more. and what matters more will have a bigger win-chance in the convention area,

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

alright, too tired to look it up, so i'll trust your sources



first: i'm not saying "WRONG", i'm saying inexact, and that's purely on the level of exactness professional biologists use in writing their documents

-the life part is one example of inaccuracy as per scientific biological defintion
-the estrogen/testosterone part about "nearly entirely" is also pretty inaccurate, i think you should give other factors a bit more credit than "nearly non-existant"




"purpose" is a term that was linked to a concept that was, i'm sure, more subjective than you think. there is no objective "purpose" of life. what the purpose of life is is arbitrarily determined by each individual him/herself and then conventionally expanded to a group
what you're talking about is not a conventionally accepted link between the terms "purpose of life" and that concept of procreation narrowing, i'm sure, if we talk about as much people as are in both our countries together
i could just say: DNA/GENES and their continuance/survival? it matters, but other things, taken together, matter more. and what matters more will have a bigger win-chance in the convention area,

if only everyone would be too tired to question me j/k, the information i gave is correct.

out-dated and incorrect. what i said is accurate. the xy or xx has very little to do with your biological-physical gender characteristics.

i put purpose in "..." marks because that's the word i chose. if u don't like "purpose" use a different word. it's hard to respond when u don't give me something to respond to. life's "purpose" is life, that is to continue. and it's ONLY the DNA/GENES that matter, not the organism like a human being or whatever. it be helpful if u named what u think is life's "purpose", because i am having trouble responding to something u did not mention as what it is. i do NOT know what "other things" are. please elaborate if u want a response.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

other things?:

i'll list some of mine first: life does not have a purpose.
(that is my provisional opinion as of now, because i haven't made up my mind yet, which attributes i want to choose for my definition of life's purpose)

some attributes others have used (note that some may be out/in of the biological aspect of life you're talking about, don't get upset because of that, instead, see that there are other ways to see "purpose"):


-the purpose of life is to determine whether your soul is good enough for heaven
-the purpose of life is to create beauty, momentary beauty and unique one-time beauty which never stays and only exists for fleeting moments
-the purpose of life is to have fun
-the purpose of life itself is to expand, creating more life and more life
-the purpose of life is to get you down, so get out of the life-rebirth cycle through enlightenment ASAP
-the purpose of life is to survive
-the purpose of life is to prepare for a decent and glorious death
-the purpose of life is to create more and more entropy to fuel the machine of some sick "crazy scientist" kinda god-like entity
-the purpose of life is to walk in circles. the more circles you have, the higher your rank
-etc...

 

[stillman]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

Ah, but Hege, testosterone in the neonate is secreted by the testes. This androgen hormone then enters the brain to masculinze the default female brain so that it becomes a male brain. And the testes grow in the first place because...

...of the presence of the Y chromosome.

Edit: So ultimately, it's all up to genes. Hormones are coded for by particular genes.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

totally true, stillman, but there's one little nitpick:

you won't come far against hege because he will say that genes don't even matter if you use injections to control hormones XD

 

[krischan]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

AFAIK the reproduction organs grow because of hormonal influences. I heard there are women with fully developed reproduction organs who are genetically men and vice versa. However, once you have become the one gender, you cannot grow organs of the other gender at a later time by hormone injections or something like that.

I'm not sure about that, however, so don't ask me what would happen if an egg cell with the Y half of the 23th cromosome set fuses with a spermium which has an Y chromosome as well. I guess the existence of a few forum members or ex-members could be explained with it :whistling:.

 

[Anyee]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

AFAIK the reproduction organs grow because of hormonal influences. I heard there are women with fully developed reproduction organs who are genetically men and vice versa. However, once you have become the one gender, you cannot grow organs of the other gender at a later time by hormone injections or something like that.

Correct. The "default setting" of the fetus is the female reproductive system. The presence of the Y chromosome causes testosterone to be produced and the reproductive system to develop as male. A woman can inject as much testosterone as she wants: it'll deepen her voice, change her muscle structure, alter her mood, etc. It won't make her grow testes.

In cases of so-called XY women, these women do have XY chromosomes and do produce testosterone. However, their bodies are missing the receptors or have malformed receptors for testosterone. So the fetus reacts as if there is no testosterone present and doesn't make a penis, testis, etc. Instead, it makes female genitalia (uterus, vagina, etc.), but instead of ovaries, she ends up with undescended sorta hybrid testis/ovaries. She'll look and act female, but have XY chromosome and be infertile

I'm not sure about that, however, so don't ask me what would happen if an egg cell with the Y half of the 23th cromosome set fuses with a spermium which has an Y chromosome as well. I guess the existence of a few forum members or ex-members could be explained with it :whistling:.

Can't happen. The egg doesn't carry the Y chromosome, ever. Only the sperm does. Two sperm don't fuse for weird molecular reasons.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

i am proud that i DO give different values to different types of humans not in terms of skin color or "race" but age and gender.

Oh, well then, discriminating based on race is bad, but age and gender is good.

*boggle*

In cases of so-called XY women, these women do have XY chromosomes and do produce testosterone. However, their bodies are missing the receptors or have malformed receptors for testosterone. So the fetus reacts as if there is no testosterone present and doesn't make a penis, testis, etc. Instead, it makes female genitalia (uterus, vagina, etc.), but instead of ovaries, she ends up with undescended sorta hybrid testis/ovaries. She'll look and act female, but have XY chromosome and be infertile

As featured in an episode of House, also. =P

 

[ulrira]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

…

Right, well, that said, at least according to Wikipedia, it could go either way. The site says only that "certain paternity laws give men no protection."

Allegedly, under Louisiana law, "a man is strictly liable for his sperm if he engages in consensual sexual contact." Note the terms strictly liable and consensual. In my lay understanding "strict liability" means something sort of specific under U.S. common law, and the use of "consensual sexual contact" would seem to me to exclude pregnancy as the result of nonconsensual sexual contact or no sexual contact at all.

Allegedly, under Kansas law, "a woman is entitled to sue the father of her child for child support even if conception occurred as a result of a criminal act […] committed by the woman" because "the state's interest in ensuring that a child receives child support outweighed its interest in potentially deterring crime." I think this is bat**** insane, and if the state has such an interest in it, then the state should pay for it.

It's important to note that these are state laws, so they of course only apply in those jurisdictions.

 

[Dondrei]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

Can't happen. The egg doesn't carry the Y chromosome, ever.

I guess there could be a mutation that could cause that, seems very unlikely such an egg could result in a viable fetus though. And it would probably have XYY or something rather than YY. Don't know if YY could even produce a working human.

Allegedly, under Louisiana law, "a man is strictly liable for his sperm if he engages in consensual sexual contact." Note the terms strictly liable and consensual. In my lay understanding "strict liability" means something sort of specific under U.S. common law, and the use of "consensual sexual contact" would seem to me to exclude pregnancy as the result of nonconsensual sexual contact or no sexual contact at all.

Hmm, the woman also did not engage in a consensual sexual act so presumably she isn't responsible for it either. Neat.

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

clark kent has the yy and he's rumored to be superman

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

XYY is supposed to have happened before, just like XXY, XXXY and XXX or XXXX

i'm not up to date on this (left biology class in memories...)

but one of these variants has the TURNER syndrome
one is a very aggressive man
and one is just... multi-X-syndrome or something...

google it if you're interested :crazyeyes:

 

[ulrira]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

Hmm, the woman also did not engage in a consensual sexual act so presumably she isn't responsible for it either. Neat.

Well, she blew 'im. You're right that that wasn't the proximal cause or whatever of her pregnancy if that's what you mean, but he chose to, like, spunk around her, and then she chose to use his spunk for what spunk's for. He asked for her help to make it available, and then just kind of left millions of half-babies there for her to do with what she willed.

I'm not sure what they'd say if he'd just beat off and left the room and she came in and took the Kleenex out of the trash. They said "consensual sexual contact" and not "consensual sex act," though. But, again, it's the strict liability thing. According to Wikipedia, "[a] classic example of strict liability is the owner of a tiger rehabilitation center. No matter how strong the tiger cages are, if an animal escapes and causes damage and injury, the owner is held liable." If "a tiger" is "your spooge," "how strong the cages are" is "how far away from the vagina you splatter it," and "damage and injury" is "pregnancy"… :scratchchin:

But, again, these rulings have binding precedent in their jurisdictions only. Courts in other jurisdictions—I think especially other state jurisdictions in the United States—might look at them for guidance, though, so I think the lesson here is to rinse and flush.

 

[stillman]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

So...are you saying something like this:

A woman breaks into a man's apartement, steals his sperm he left on a magazine, and uses it to impregnate herself. The man has to pay something for being the "father" of the resulting infant...

HOWEVER, the wonderful justice system of America allows the man to sue the woman's brains out for breaking into his premisis and causing whatever damages he and his lawyer can muster up. So she takes money from him (child support of w/e), and he takes money from her (suing her for damages) and this negates all the damage done to both parties?

I wonder if 'raising the child, costing me money' would count as part of the 'damages' he could sue for. What a strange place America is.

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

I'm not sure what they'd say if he'd just beat off and left the room and she came in and took the Kleenex out of the trash. They said "consensual sexual contact" and not "consensual sex act," though.

Of course, this leads us to the question:
"Is masturbation a consensual sex act?"

 

[BobCox2]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

Scientifically speaking
-the purpose of life is "To increase the rate of entropy in the universe."
That is all it really does that non-living things don't, and all forms of life do it.

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

Scientifically speaking
-the purpose of life is "To increase the rate of entropy in the universe."
That is all it really does that non-living things don't, and all forms of life do it.

Huh? First, there is no "rate of entropy". And second, entropy exists whether or not there are people on this earth.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

purpose is purely ethical, you can't narrow it down to science, so life is not there for the purpose of increasing whatever physical quantity unless you can "sense-makingly" link that up to ethics...

 

[Dondrei]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

You know someone is really talking out their *** when they bring thermodynamics into it.

Well, she blew 'im. You're right that that wasn't the proximal cause or whatever of her pregnancy if that's what you mean, but he chose to, like, spunk around her, and then she chose to use his spunk for what spunk's for. He asked for her help to make it available, and then just kind of left millions of half-babies there for her to do with what she willed.

I'm not sure what they'd say if he'd just beat off and left the room and she came in and took the Kleenex out of the trash. They said "consensual sexual contact" and not "consensual sex act," though. But, again, it's the strict liability thing. According to Wikipedia, "[a] classic example of strict liability is the owner of a tiger rehabilitation center. No matter how strong the tiger cages are, if an animal escapes and causes damage and injury, the owner is held liable." If "a tiger" is "your spooge," "how strong the cages are" is "how far away from the vagina you splatter it," and "damage and injury" is "pregnancy"… :scratchchin:

But, again, these rulings have binding precedent in their jurisdictions only. Courts in other jurisdictions—I think especially other state jurisdictions in the United States—might look at them for guidance, though, so I think the lesson here is to rinse and flush.

But her victim didn't consent, so it wasn't consensual sexual contact.

 

[BobCox2]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

Huh? First, there is no "rate of entropy". And second, entropy exists whether or not there are people on this earth.

Sure there is AJ, lets go with a ever expanding model of the universe just as the simplest example, without life the decay rate to the eventual heat death of the universe is fixed and immutable, but life by it's nature burns energy or matter up at a faster rate than it otherwise would have been used thus increasing the rate of entropy in the universe.
Everything that lives does so by using recourses in the universe around it to generate energy, that increases rate of the conversion of matter to energy and higher forms of energy to lower ones from what would have otherwise occurred and by reproducing lifeforms continue this process over a longer time and at a ever increasing rate until resources run out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
Life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit certain biological processes such as chemical reactions or other events that results in a transformation. Living organisms are capable of growth and reproduction, some can communicate and many can adapt to their environment through changes originating internally.[1] A physical characteristic of life is that it feeds on negative entropy.[2][3] In more detail, according to physicists such as John Bernal, Erwin Schrödinger, Eugene Wigner, and John Avery, life is a member of the class of phenomena which are open or continuous systems able to decrease their internal entropy at the expense of substances or free energy taken in from the environment and subsequently rejected in a degraded form (see: entropy and life).[4][5]