DEGREES OF PREGNANCY

     I forgot which article I was reading when I had this quick thought but I know what it stems from. It's the idea that all pregnancies carried to term are treated the same regardless of the reason behind it. In often angry comments, there's no reason ever to excuse a man from his responsibilities for an unwanted pregnancy.

     Reasons such as, but not necessarily limited to, "if you're gonna have sex, you have to accept the consequences" or "the only way to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is to not have sex" or "if you didn't want to have kids then you shouldn't have been having sex" and other kinds of admonishments that miss the point.

     These are all valid reasons...to a degree. But they also fail because the choice whether or not to have sex is not really in our machinery. It's a hardwired evolutionary imperative. It's why we're here. You don't really get to choose. The fact that we've learned to subvert evolution somewhat via contraceptives shows that the need for sex cannot be subdued. Abstinence is not a valid option, it's more the result of a lack of opportunity and I'd motion that those who do willfully abstain are closer to the mentally insane than those who unwillfully abstain.

      And it's really hard to have this conversation with anyone, especially women. I think what bugs me about it is the man really has no choice in the matter. The ability to carry a pregnancy to term or to abort is solely the decision of the woman. No man can force her to give birth when he wants the baby and she does not. The power dynamic is one-sided to an extreme degree. Half the time, the man gets what he wants and 100% of the time, the woman gets what she wants.

      And it is from that discussion where the admonishments referred to above come in. And I think because of the emotions inherent in this matter, it is not possible to discuss what I am thinking unless we use an analogue.

      Now understand, this is rough, unpolished thinking. This is not an actual argument but merely the seeds for one. My analogue is with murder. Murder comes in degrees as well as categories. Why can't pregnancy come in degrees as well and have the child support owed, if any, be determined by these degrees? Because I agree, once a child is born responsibility must be borne by both parents.



      Just as murder can be willful and premeditated (first degree), passion-driven or heat-of-the-moment (voluntary manslaughter), accidental (involuntary manslaughter), etc., so can pregnancy. Here's a possibly complete list of ways pregnancy can occur:

• Pregnancy can also be willful and premeditated (both partners desired a pregnancy, i.e. "first degree pregnancy" or "intentional pregnancy")
• It can be accidental and that accident can be passion-driven/heat-of-the-moment (one or both partners did not desire pregnancy but did not take precautions, i.e. "negligent pregnancy")
• It could be the result of contraceptive failure (one or both partners took active precaution to prevent pregnancy but failed, i.e. "involuntary pregnancy" or "unintentional pregnancy")
• It could be the result of deception (one partner convincing the other of their inability to cause/become pregnant such as, but not necessarily limited to, a woman claiming to be on birth-control or having had a tubal ligation or a man claiming to have had a vasectomy, i.e. "deceptive pregnancy" - I'm not sure what the criminal law term for deception in this case would be)
• It could be the result, however unlikely, of malicious intent (say the man or woman deliberately causing a condom to fail by poking a hole in it or from what may be an urban legend, scrounging up the semen in the discarded condom and invaginating it, i.e. "pregnancy with malice aforethought" - malicious pregnancy?)
• It could be the result of rape (I shouldn't have to explain this one, i.e. "criminal pregnancy" - Again, not sure what the criminal law term for that might be when using definitions of murder for analogy)
• Any other methods I have missed, please point them out in the comments section. Thank you.

      And with the differing degrees of murder come different levels of punishment depending on the court's determination of the perpetrator's intent. The same should be true here for pregnancy.
      How would this be gone about in the court systems? The intent of the partners would have to be determined as best as possible and possibly by jury. Did she/he desire to become pregnant? Did she/he behave negligently resulting in pregnancy? Etc.

     Now this whole premise rests on the idea that the man does not wish to become a father but the woman has chosen to carry to term regardless. The woman fully controls whether or not she will give birth. But just as custody is weighted, the amount of responsibility the father has for the pregnancy must be determined.

     Obviously with "first degree pregnancy" where both partners desired the child, child support from the father would be 100% of his legal obligation. The mother would always be responsible for 100% of the child support if she loses primary custody because she made the decision to have the child in the first place meaning she has no legal ground to stand on (unless she was held in captivity and forced to give birth or other similar scenarios) to challenge child-support obligations.
     He would also be 100% obligated in "deceptive pregnancy" provided he was the one who lied about his infertility (I'll get to the other half of that equation later).

     Now I'm not suggesting these be actual percentages. I'm just throwing them out there for the purpose of example and not because I think they're fair.

     But what of other "degrees of pregnancy"? Heat-of-the-moment "negligent pregnancy" shows a degree of risk being assumed by both partners. However, since both partners were aware of the risks (meaning it's not a "deceptive pregnancy" like she claimed she was on birth-control but rather, say, a promise to pull out) some culpability needs to be mitigated. The pregnancy was negligent, yes, but on account of both partners' negligence, not just the man's. He had an obligation not to fuck without contraception...but then...so did she. They assumed the risk and for whatever reason, she chose not to abort but because she chose not to abort, it makes her claim to not desire a pregnancy suspect.
     In a case like this, I'd say the man is responsible for at least 75% (but no less than 67% and no more than 90%) of his child-support obligation, but not 100%, because pregnancy was not intended by the man but no preventative measures other than assurances were taken either. The reduced percentage is designed to reflect this. His degree of responsibility I think would hinge on the more coercive party. He would owe more if he were more coercive in encouraging her to take this risk and would owe less if she were the more coercive party.

     In the case of "involuntary pregnancy", that is contraceptive failure, the percentage I think would depend on whose contraception failed. If the man's contraception failed, the fact that he was using a condom at all is strong evidence that he did not intend a pregnancy at all. His liability should thus be lessened. I would think in this case, his child-support obligation should be say 33% of the full obligation.
     If it were her contraception that failed, maybe it ought to be 50% of the full obligation because he was assuming a greater risk by not wearing a condom (barring some other mitigating factor(s)).
     If both were using contraception and both methods failed, I think this ought to result in the lowest degree of responsibility, say 25% of the full obligation.

     In the case of "deceptive pregnancy" on the part of the woman which could be the result of not actually being on birth-control pills, not having an intra-uterine device, diaphragm, etc. the man should bear a lesser responsibility due to this deception, say no more than 25% with the percentage perhaps reducible (or increased) depending on the length of the relationship, the idea being a longer relationship can be thought of as having trust in one's partner and a shorter relationship showing negligence on the part of the man.

     In the case of "pregnancy with malice aforethought", if it was the man who rendered the birth control ineffective in an effort to take advantage of a woman whom he knew would not terminate, he should not only have 100% of the obligation upon threat of prison but perhaps also a denial of custody (perhaps even a restraining order). If the woman did this, then the man's responsibility should be nullified as the pregnancy was the result of criminal activity. He perhaps also should be given the option to gain custody of the child which, if taken, would result in the mother having a 100% child-support obligation upon threat of prison (and perhaps also a restraining order). Imprisonment is optional in either case for the deceiver.

     In the case of "criminal pregnancy", that is pregnancy-by-rape, in addition to prison and a permanent restraining order, his assets would be seized and auctioned to pay for his criminal pregnancy. The balance that he would owe would be paid for out of a state fund whose assets could come from a small payroll deduction on people's paychecks (e.g. like disability insurance & unemployment insurance is now) or a portion of sales tax revenue, whichever is better.

These are just some opening thoughts meant to provoke discussion. I view it as a compromise. I know there are arguments for allowing paternal emancipation and while I don't object to them in principle, there would need to be a way to allow for it but also come with a penalty for violation or a means for "buying back in" should the father wish to be a part of the kid's life again.
     Maybe that's where a tax to fund child-support comes in.
     I also don't object to paternal emancipation for the following reasons:

• Adoption. Adoption would negate either or both the bio-mom and bio-dad's obligation(s).
• An anonymous sperm donor would be automatically emancipated. The woman could collect from the tax-supported fund in this case.
• A willing (i.e. known) sperm donor. In other words she wants a baby but cannot find a willing partner to do so with or her husband/partner is infertile or is perhaps one of a lesbian couple who wants the genetic material to come from a close friend/male sibling of the partner rather than an anonymous donor. Anyways, reasons of that ilk. But it would be contracted from the start and thus the bio-dad would be legally "not the father" despite the genetic inheritance. I'm assuming this would be done solely by in-vitro fertilization (see below).
• An egg donor for women who have husbands/willing partners but who cannot conceive themselves would also come with emancipation for the bio-mom making her legally "not the mother" despite the genetic inheritance.
• And provided certain legal precautions take place to prevent women in desperate circumstances from doing what I'm about to describe, I'd also support emancipating bio-moms who willingly get in-vitro pregnant to enable a man who otherwise cannot find a willing partner to have a baby. I say in-vitro because doing it the regular way in this case makes it seem less altruistic (on the part of the man).