Innate Rights are Not Granted
Note that this meandering diatribe is in response to CipherPunk’s equally irrelevant non-sequitur.
While an amusing anecdotal diversion, the situation only illustrates an irrelevant contrived conjecture disjointed from the reality of freedom. From a simplistic biological perspective, “fatherhood” is an artifice purportedly entwined within the evolution of human society. The machinations of beneficial circumstance notwithstanding, the circumspect sanctity of human existence is itself questionable. One could stipulate a blood donor’s “rights” concerning the recipient of his or her life-sustaining red fluid, for all the effort involved in sperm donation.
Though such a chilly evaluation is unlikely in an equal and loving relationship based on compromise, circumstance may facilitate a purely logical default. Rights in this example imply ownership. Hence by diem of basic possession, nonsentient tissues are thereby the property of the mother who may or may not attach a sentimental value derived from infant potential or otherwise. Though unflattering choice phrases may be used for fathers who avoid parental responsibility, or mothers who impose undue financial hardship on a father are iconic and persuasive, legislation is hardly appropriate concerning distasteful personality foibles.
Hence this is not an issue of state or federal granted rights, but a simple reality of sexual reproduction impossible to declare illegal, making this particular example a messy personal argument.
To be sure, I do not advocate reducing legislation to component anarchy driven by human instinct! However Monty Python probably said it best with the satirical “Every Sperm is Sacred” allusion to the potential of egg/sperm interactions. As a child of a single-parent home I find the situation itself distasteful, and though an undeniable asshole my unknown father certainly is, after a nine-month inconvenience carrying a child, adoption was always an option. Deciding to keep a child against the wishes of a mere sperm donor is a de-facto decision to assume responsibility.
Note that in a kinder society, an unrepentant father could easily be socially pressured into contributing, as psychologically ostracized individuals commonly relent to regain social status. There are many avenues our society has chosen to ignore, instead following the path of unmaintainable laws driven by pure cause and effect with naive prescribed reactions wholly ignorant of circumstance. The constitution implies any such laws regulating personal behavior are technically illegal, but are commonly supported for “the common good.”
Thus I reject your scenarios and instead propose our entire totality of accumulated laws created since the inception of this country require a massive overhaul, rendering most of your arguments moot by proxy. Unlike geometry, laws are created by fallible people and cannot be used as support for proving necessity of further laws for risk of inviting meandering definitions over time. This is partially why jury nullification exists: to allow for the definition of a crime ignoring supposition of law. Sometimes laws are simply unjust, and though an infinite series of behaviors are dictated as illegal, they are patently unconstitutional since that document plainly implies morality can not be legislated by any level of government.
Abortion is not a constitutional matter because it is automatically reserved; the controversy simply refuses to die thanks to sentimental and religious overtones contained therein. The supreme court knows this, as does the administrative branch, though they enjoy paying lip-service to such a divisive topic.
Until Tomorrow