http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7024930/ns/health-sexual_health/
A women impregnated herself with sperm she saved from giving oral, claiming it was a gift. How does libertarian property rights theory treat this?
From what you described, that seems like a gift to me. If you don’t want someone making a baby with your sperm, maybe you shouldn’t give it out.
Certainly it’s not what you expect to happen and that makes it a very unnice thing to do, but purely morally speaking, it’s hers.
What’s important though is that the current legal environment requires the previous owner of the sperm to give payments to the mother; which is not libertarian.
It sounds like she is the gift giver to me.
He does not owe her a penny for child support. That’s a complete crock.
I’ll give her the sperm, but he shouldn’t have to pay child support, his labor was not used in the act that could produce a child, she used the sperm at a later date to impregnate herself, so his labor for child production is out of question. Can he sue that his sperm was misused? I say not, because he did voluntarily release sperm to her. What she does with it at a later time has no direct relation to him.
Sounds fine. She shouldn’t be able to sue him for support though, as the title transferred to her, she is fully responsible.
Assuming it was a gift, the original holder of the gift has since transferred title, thus no longer held liable for its use or lack thereof.
He should go for full custody for mom is a whore.
Once its out, its unowned. It comes (no pun intended) to be owned by the first person to put it to economic use, the fine lady in this stance.
Whores should be moms?