Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What are the obligations of a biological father?

Rate this topic


KevinD
 Share

Recommended Posts

if there was agreement prior to sex that she would have an abortion, then he has no obligations if she does not go through with it. that is simple and clear, she breached their contract (though it would get difficult if it was only a verbal agreement and the woman later denies there was one – not worth the paper it was written on and all that).

This thread is not about two people who have agreed to have a child, but who have agreed to have sex. In essence, it explores whether an agreement to have sex is an agreement to have a child. The answer is: no, those are not the same thing.

if I jump off a cliff, it is not my intention to break my leg. I may use a parachute to protect against that possibility, however, there is a risk that by jumping off a cliff, I might break my leg. so jumping off a cliff does not mean I agree to break my leg, but it means that I am risking breaking my leg. just as a couple who have sex may not intend to get pregnant, but they are risking pregnancy by having sex and they have to accept responsibility for their actions. Sophia is right, that you can’t divorce sex and procreation, you can use contraception, but the risk remains and must be accepted. since sex implies the risk of procreation, the man surely has obligations to the child that his volitional act has created? I understand sophia’s argument here, though why she excuses the woman (in allowing for the possibility of abortion) is beyond me. It is the hypocrisy that weakens her argument, holding the man fully accountable for his actions, whilst the woman has a choice to terminate the pregnancy. That is a double-standard and clearly wrong.

Instinctively, I feel that the man is obliged to look after the child and I don’t like it, (I really don’t!) but I see the logic in the argument that the man has no obligations, because the woman has the choice to kill the child - whereas he has no say. Ultimately, this question rests on the right to life of the foetus/unborn human – if it has no rights and abortion is the right of the woman, then (sadly imho) we have to conclude that, logically, the man has no obligation to provide for the child – though nothing is stopping him volunteering. This places the onus on the mother, to ensure she is not sleeping around with a bunch of losers, which should – long-term, lead to a more stable society (although the easy availability of abortion has negated this). If, however, abortion is not an option, then the fact that sex can lead to babies obliges that father to pay to support the child his volitional actions created. If the father does not want to support a child, he should keep his willy in his pants.

Hold on a second...

How can you say that one or two persons are obliged to provide for third?

For how long?

How much must they provide?

How can one have a legal right to be cared for?

Who should do the caring if the parents are dead? Or for some other reason the parents cannot?

The father cannot be held responsible for bringing up the child and neither can the mother.

No one has the right to impose people of caring for anyone, not even their own offspring.

two people are not obliged for a third person - unless they are responsible for bringing that third person into the world. It is not a matter of a legal right to be cared for, it is about holding people accountable for their actions. Creating life or at the very least choosing to give birth to a child, constitutes a unilateral contract, obliging you to ensure it is looked after for the eighteen years that is can not care for itself. you have the right to life which begins prior to your ability to reason and look after yourself, this means an obligation on your parents to care for you, or to arrange care (adoption).

Are you really advocating a situation where you can give birth to a child and then just leave it to die?

I am going on holiday for a week (hoping to finish atlas), so I won’t be able to respond, but I will check this thread when I come back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sophia is right, that you can’t divorce sex and procreation, you can use contraception, but the risk remains and must be accepted. since sex implies the risk of procreation, the man surely has obligations to the child that his volitional act has created?
That is far from clear. Possibly he has an obligation to the woman, but it isn't intrinsic to the act of having sex. For example, if a woman claims to be using contraception and does not announce an absolute refusal to get an abortion prior to the act, and since the man has no right to impose an abortion on the woman, then he has no obligation to the woman or the child (except insofar as the woman or the child remains of value to him). While it is reasonable to conclude that pregnancy is possible from the act of sex, it is unreasonable to conclude that birth is necessary. If the woman does get pregnant, he has to face that particular fact of reality, which however can be solved very reasonably by her having an abortion.

In terms of "actions creating obligations", one can just as reasonably (namely, not) claim that by having sex, the woman has an obligation to get an abortion in case of pregnancy.

Apart from the obvious case of the man actually valuing the woman or the child, a quasi-contractual obligation may arise if there is a clear agreement between the two parties that the man will financially support raising the child, if the woman becomes pregnant (with full knowledge that the woman will not get an abortion, and barring misrepresentation by the woman w.r.t. contraception).

If, however, abortion is not an option, then the fact that sex can lead to babies obliges that father to pay to support the child his volitional actions created. If the father does not want to support a child, he should keep his willy in his pants.
I disagree: if the woman is unwilling to face the consequences of her actions, she should not spread her legs.

The issue really is, what gives rise to an "obligation"? For example, if you have a big, old tree on your property that might fall down and destroy your neighbor's property, what is your obligation? Where does that obligation come from? If you are a hunter and offer a venison roast to your neighbor, what is your obligation to him (in terms of, say, bullet fragments or disease)?

Creating life or at the very least choosing to give birth to a child, constitutes a unilateral contract, obliging you to ensure it is looked after for the eighteen years that is can not care for itself.
I must remind you that there is no such thing as a unilateral contract.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why man needs to have a contract to be responsible for his actions. If he were to be let out of that responsibility maybe a contract would be necessary otherwise he's responsible. Given that a man has chosen to have sex with a woman the fact that a woman might have a child and that if she does he has contributed to that child's existence should be considered part of the metaphysically given to which man must adjust.

Nature is not egalitarian in regard to the matter. Both a man and a woman have to act for conception to occur but only a women gets to chose the abortion/birth question, because its her body. This gives women more control over the issue, along with the responsibility of birth or an abortion procedure. A rational man will recognize this and adjust accordingly, however even if he doesn't he's still responsible. If men don't like that they can get some agreement in advance basically putting themselves on more even ground. Baring such an agreement a man has put his fate in her hands with regard to the matter. If a man behaves irrationally and gets a stranger pregnant he can't very well complain that his fate is now in the hands of a stranger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that you guys are choosing not to answer this question:

What exactly would prevent a rational man from engaging in sex responsibly and as a part of that discussing the consequences of such act with that woman before hand?

Are laws meant to punish the irrational or the criminal?

No, I am not implying that a baby is a punishment.

There are many countless ways for a woman to trick a man into having a baby, especially if it guarantees her 18 years of child support payments, as the US system currently does.

The act of sex itself is not implicitly a contractual agreement to have a child. The state of modern contraceptives is such that pregnancy is 99% improbable when they are used correctly. If I went to a used car lot, and found a great car that I liked, and the seller told me that it was a great car with low miles that ran smooth. It even did well in a test drive, so I bought it, and I took it to my favorite mechanic after the first 1000 miles or so, and he said that the mileage had been tampered with, the engine parts are 10 years old, and it's amazing that the car hasn't already stalled on me. Am I forced to keep this car, and bear the cost of its maintenance, while the seller counts his cash? Or should he be held financially responsible for defrauding me? The situation is similar in the case of a woman deceiving a man about using contraceptives. Should I have checked the dealer out before I bought, and researched the car? Yes, but that is not a legal issue, that is just a mistake, that hopefully I will learn from.

I can think of countless different contexts in which a pregnancy could be the result of stupidity, or malicious intent on either the man's part, the woman's part, or both. As such it is impossible for an objective law dictating any obligation of the man towards a child, which he didn't want in the first place, to be established, beyond contractual obligations.

Edited by Jackethan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why man needs to have a contract to be responsible for his actions.
No contract is necessary. What is necessary is that we be actually talking about his actions. If a woman refuses to have an abortion, the birth of a child is not his responsibility, it is hers, because she refused to end the pregnancy. You should see that a woman has a responsibility for her actions, too. Because the choice to have an abortion is exclusively the woman's, the responsibility for that choice is also exclusively the woman's. Furthermore, because it is the woman who will get pregnant, it is her self-interested responsibility to assure that she is suitably protected, and if she covertly shirks that responsibility, the responsibility does not suddenly fall upon the man.

Of course, if the woman secures some kind of agreement from the man to the effect that he promises to support the child if their sex act results in pregnancy, he does have such an obligation. You cannot assume that there is any such automatic agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, if the woman secures some kind of agreement from the man to the effect that he promises to support the child if their sex act results in pregnancy, he does have such an obligation. You cannot assume that there is any such automatic agreement.

I'm not assuming an automatic agreement. I think the fact that sex may result in parenthood is a fact of nature. What would it mean for a man to agree to the fact that sex may lead to childbirth? The only thing I could think is that he recognizes the

metaphysically given. He may deal with this fact of nature by talking to the women in advance and alleviating himself of future responsibility. If he doesn't well then sex can still lead to childbirth and because he helped to make the child he's responsible for taking care of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... sex can still lead to childbirth...
It's very incomplete to say that sex leads to childbirth. That is true of animals. However, this is the 21st century, and we're talking about humans, not animals. So, no, sex most definitely does not "lead" to childbirth unless one consciously allows it to. It is the decision to go ahead with child birth that leads to childbirth. Sex is the first step. Taking the first step does not mean that it "leads" to the subsequent steps -- the decision taken every day for many weeks -- to continue the pregnancy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very incomplete to say that sex leads to childbirth. That is true of animals. However, this is the 21st century, and we're talking about humans, not animals. So, no, sex most definitely does not "lead" to childbirth unless one consciously allows it to. It is the decision to go ahead with child birth that leads to childbirth. Sex is the first step. Taking the first step does not mean that it "leads" to the subsequent steps -- the decision taken every day for many weeks -- to continue the pregnancy.

Thats the reason I used the word can ( against does). If it in fact does then I can point to the infant and correctly say that both the man and the women contributed to creating this new life, and thus both are responsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he doesn't well then sex can still lead to childbirth and because he helped to make the child he's responsible for taking care of it.
This is the non-sequitur part of your claim. If Smith kills Jones by driving drunk in his Ford, are Ford and the liquor-maker responsible for Jones' death, because they "helped" bring about the death? No, because Smith himself is responsible, because he had the choice to prevent the event, and chose not to do so. Ford and the liquor-maker are not responsible. Equally, then, the woman bears responsibility for the care of the child.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it in fact does then I can point to the infant and correctly say that both the man and the women contributed to creating this new life, and thus both are responsible.
However, as I pointed out you would be wrong that both the man and woman contributed to creating that life if it was only the woman who decided to go ahead and have the child. I'm speaking of legality and rights, not biology. Do you think that a sperm-donor should also be obligated to support his biological children?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the non-sequitur part of your claim. If Smith kills Jones by driving drunk in his Ford, are Ford and the liquor-maker responsible for Jones' death, because they "helped" bring about the death? No, because Smith himself is responsible, because he had the choice to prevent the event, and chose not to do so. Ford and the liquor-maker are not responsible. Equally, then, the woman bears responsibility for the care of the child.

A man is responsible for what he creates though the specific nature of that responsibility depends on what he has created. In cases where two or more people are involved there are mutual responsibilities. In the case of building trucks or making liquor the responsibilities are handled by the individuals involved. In the case of sales the purchaser agrees to take responsibility for the items which he has bought. The seller is then responsible for the use of the money. There is an exchange of obligations. The situation might be clearer in cases of bartering.

In the case of a man and a women making a baby well they could both decide to sell the infant (though that might not be moral). They could just give it up for adoption. Either case would alleviate them of responsibility. If this isn't the case well then they maintain responsibility for that which they have created. In this case a human life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, as I pointed out you would be wrong that both the man and woman contributed to creating that life if it was only the woman who decided to go ahead and have the child. I'm speaking of legality and rights, not biology. Do you think that a sperm-donor should also be obligated to support his biological children?

That which is given by nature is the standard by which legality and rights are established. Here the point is that babies result from the actions of men and women so they are both responsible. The fact that a women makes some specific choices that a man cannot is a fact of nature which man should recognize before going in. If he chooses not to well women still get to make those choices and the fact that he didn't get to dictate the whole process does not alleviate him of responsibility for the choices he did make ( or chose not to make).

I've never donated sperm or known anyone who has, but I would think there is some kind of agreement going in that would alleviate a man of obligations he would otherwise have. In those cases I would hope that a man would get something in writing saying that the woman ( or sperm bank ) agrees to take full responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of building trucks or making liquor the responsibilities are handled by the individuals involved....

In the case of a man and a women making a baby well they could both decide to sell the infant (though that might not be moral).

You've dropped the context of the discussion in this thread -- which is not about to decision to become a father, but the consequences of having sex. Read the prior posts. What remains undisposed of is the matter of an intrinsic obligation imposed on a man for having sex with a woman and her getting pregnant. This is in no way about a man and a woman "deciding to make a baby".

The point that you did not understand is that the nature of one's responsibilities to others are a function of what one does by right -- which means, by agreement with others, and agreement is man-made. Responsibilities are not metaphysically given. They do not pre-exist in nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand sophia’s argument here, though why she excuses the woman (in allowing for the possibility of abortion) is beyond me. It is the hypocrisy that weakens her argument, holding the man fully accountable for his actions, whilst the woman has a choice to terminate the pregnancy. That is a double-standard and clearly wrong.

You're operating under the pretense that a fetus is a child. Sophia is operating under the obvious observation of fact that it isn't. So no, it is not hypocritical for a woman to be the only one able to decide on medical procedures on herself.

One thing Sophia is wrong about is that the father is responsible for raising a child in case of unwanted pregnancy: he is responsible for for the consequences of unprotected sex, which is the pregnancy, not for a child. Since terminating the pregnancy (in 21st century America) depends on the woman, he is not responsible for anything really. (he could be sued for half the cost of the medical care, I guess)

He's not responsible for the existence of the child, unless he decides that, in order to prevent an abortion (for religious reasons) he wishes to raise it (and the woman agrees).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've dropped the context of the discussion in this thread -- which is not about to decision to become a father, but the consequences of having sex. Read the prior posts. What remains undisposed of is the matter of an intrinsic obligation imposed on a man for having sex with a woman and her getting pregnant. This is in no way about a man and a woman "deciding to make a baby".

The point that you did not understand is that the nature of one's responsibilities to others are a function of what one does by right -- which means, by agreement with others, and agreement is man-made. Responsibilities are not metaphysically given. They do not pre-exist in nature.

When a man decides to have sex he is risking becoming a father, this is part of the nature of the men which we are currently discussing (or else the point would not come up at all). Man can act to avoid this by using birth control but even then there is still a risk. Man can also act to avoid this by talking to the woman first.

The fathers responsibility is to the child which he helped create. Do you maintain that an infant must enter into an agreement with his parents for them to take care of it ? That would seem odd to me and I'm not sure what kind of agreement an infant would be capable of entering into. Still I would maintain that the parents have a responsibility to take care of what they made. The fathers responsibility to the child is based on the fact that he helped create it, unless he has some other agreement with the women involved or say a couple wanting to adopt.

Edited by Fred Kinnen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a man decides to have sex he is risking becoming a father.

Only if the woman he is having sex with refuses to resort to safe medical procedure which is 100% certain to prevent childbirth. So no, as long as a man is having sex with a reasonable person who doesn't wish to become a mother, he is not risking becoming a father.

And if the woman wishes to become a mother, then it is her responsibility to raise her child, not the man's who never agreed to it.

In 21st century America, a child is not the consequence of sex, a child is the consequence of the decision to have a child, on the part of a woman who is fertile and has access to human sperm. Not only does sex not lead to a child, as a general rule or as a potential consequence, but sex is in fact not even necessary to have a child.

I'd say the relationship between a man having sex (or donating sperm to a sperm-bank) and children is about as loose as the relationship between a metalworker and a car accident. It is completely outside the metalworker's area of control and responsibility what happens to the metal he pours: he is only responsible for the car-accident if he agreed to pour the metal knowing that it will become a car that's to be sold without breaks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Fred Kinnen @ Mar 22 2009, 05:43 AM) *

When a man decides to have sex he is risking becoming a father.

Jake_Ellison wrote,

Only if the woman he is having sex with refuses to resort to safe medical procedure which is 100% certain to prevent childbirth.

Well this part we agree on.

I take a moment here to add that if a man chooses to sleep with women he doesn't know very well then he risks sleeping with such a women and as you say the conclusion follows that he has risked becoming a father. Having chosen to take such a risk or having chosen not to choose, the man is then responsible for the results. In this case a newborn baby.

Edited by Fred Kinnen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a man decides to have sex he is risking becoming a father.

In the biological sense, yes. But the discussion is not about whether or not he's going to genetically carry on his lineage, it's about his moral obligation, which he has none when lacking an agreement with the woman. David is correct in noting that since the woman (metaphysically speaking) bears the only risk of becoming pregnant, a greater responsibility lies on her shoulders to be selective about who she has sex with, and about what agreement is in place in the event that an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy occurs. No agreement in advance means no agreement. A is A.

However, IF he had equal responsibility in creating the child (as opposed to the fetus), he should then have equal responsibility in determining that the child be aborted at the fetal stage if he does wish to be a father or to insist the child be born should he wish to be a father when the woman wants to abort. Since neither is the case, and the woman is SOLELY responsible for the decision to let the fetus continue development to a child, she SOLELY bears the moral responsibility of her decision. The mutual choice to have sex does not morally place him at the mercy of her decision to have the unplanned or not agreed upon child. His obligation should end at half the expense of the medical process to terminate the pregnancy if he does not wish to be a father.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the biological sense, yes. But the discussion is not about whether or not he's going to genetically carry on his lineage, it's about his moral obligation, which he has none when lacking an agreement with the woman. David is correct in noting that since the woman (metaphysically speaking) bears the only risk of becoming pregnant, a greater responsibility lies on her shoulders to be selective about who she has sex with, and about what agreement is in place in the event that an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy occurs. No agreement in advance means no agreement. A is A.

However, IF he had equal responsibility in creating the child (as opposed to the fetus), he should then have equal responsibility in determining that the child be aborted at the fetal stage if he does wish to be a father or to insist the child be born should he wish to be a father when the woman wants to abort. Since neither is the case, and the woman is SOLELY responsible for the decision to let the fetus continue development to a child, she SOLELY bears the moral responsibility of her decision. The mutual choice to have sex does not morally place him at the mercy of her decision to have the unplanned or not agreed upon child. His obligation should end at half the expense of the medical process to terminate the pregnancy if he does not wish to be a father.

I think the point of contention is whether a man must agree to the laws of nature or biology. What would such an agreement consist of ? If a man doesn't sign a contract agreeing to the laws of nature should we assume he isn't responsible for certain biological consequences? As having a child is a possible natural consequence then the man need not enter into any agreement to be responsible for such a consequence. A man could enter into an agreement alleviating him of the responsibilities ( i.e. transferring them all to the woman or to a third party). Otherwise he would be responsible. The fact that a women gets to chose what happens inside her body is yet another fact of nature to which man must conform. The fact that she gets the final say doesn't alleviate him of his part in the matter nor his responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take a moment here to add that if a man chooses to sleep with women he doesn't know very well then he risks sleeping with such a women and as you say the conclusion follows that he has risked becoming a father. Having chosen to take such a risk or having chosen not to choose, the man is then responsible for the results. In this case a newborn baby.

If I'm in the middle of the Mojave desert and choose to give a piece of bread to a stranger who would otherwise die, I am responsible for the results of this guy's survival. So I'm responsible for the next decision he makes. If he kills someone, it's on me, if he impregnates a woman I'm responsible for bringing that child into the world, etc.

Or am I?

Clearly, all those things happened as a consequence of my action to save the man's life. The question is, does that undeniable fact make me responsible for whatever he decides to do next, be it kill someone or have a baby? Or am I free and clear, even though I am fully aware that there's a chance the stranger I'm saving is a serial killer?

Are we responsible for the future, independent decisions of people we interact with?

Some people say we are.(that's why they try to sue gun companies for murders commited with their guns for instance)

Objectivism doesn't.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, there was this exchange:

Fred wrote:

When a man decides to have sex he is risking becoming a father.

Jake_Ellison wrote:

Only if the woman he is having sex with refuses to resort to safe medical procedure which is 100% certain to prevent childbirth.

Fred wrote:

Well this part we agree on.

Then, you said this:

"If a man doesn't sign a contract agreeing to the laws of nature should we assume he isn't responsible for certain biological consequences? As having a child is a possible natural consequence...

Well, what gives? Do you agree that one can "

and be certain to never have children or not?

If you agree, and there's an independent decision to be made by a human being between sex and a child, then how is a baby a biological consequence of sex?

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As having a child is a possible natural consequence then the man need not enter into any agreement to be responsible for such a consequence.

This is where the disconnect is. Having a child is NOT the natural consequence of sex. Creating a fetus maybe might possibly be a natural consequence of sex, but having a child is the SOLE consequence of the woman's decision to allow the fetus to continue developing into a child.

The fact that a women gets to chose what happens inside her body is yet another fact of nature to which man must conform.

With respect to the future of the fetus, yes, you are correct. This is exactly what absolves him of responsibility should he say "no baby" and she says "yes baby".

The fact that she gets the final say doesn't alleviate him of his part in the matter nor his responsibility.

Yes it does, with respect to whether or not the fetus becomes a child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where the disconnect is. Having a child is NOT the natural consequence of sex. Creating a fetus maybe might possibly be a natural consequence of sex, but having a child is the SOLE consequence of the woman's decision to allow the fetus to continue developing into a child.

With respect to the future of the fetus, yes, you are correct. This is exactly what absolves him of responsibility should he say "no baby" and she says "yes baby".

Yes it does, with respect to whether or not the fetus becomes a child.

I'm not saying having a baby is the necessary consequence I'm saying its a possible natural consequence. You seem to have went from my statement of "possible natural consequence" to yours as "the natural consequence". Then you said I had a disconnect.

Jake responded that only if a man sleeps with a women who won't have a safe medical procedure that is 100% certain to end the pregnancy then he is risking becoming a father. And I agree with that. Child birth is certainly not necessary, and the risk can easily be avoided through responsible behavior. The man could choose to get to know the women a bit first, discover her views on the issue and then make a determination. The fact that the determination is hers to make once conception occurs is just a fact of nature. The fact that it takes a man and a woman to make a baby is yet another fact of nature. Because two people created the child they are both responsible.

Jake, I don't see that making a baby is an independent decision in the case we are discussing. In this case the man and the woman were assumed to have consensual sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake, I don't see that making a baby is an independent decision in the case we are discussing. In this case the man and the woman were assumed to have consensual sex.

Well, if you don't see it, you don't see it. All I can do is urge you to look again: a pregnant woman is an independent human being who can make an independent decision to have or not have a child. What is not independent in that decision?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fathers responsibility is to the child which he helped create. Do you maintain that an infant must enter into an agreement with his parents for them to take care of it ?
No, there is no question that the mother has an obligation to care for the child, because of her decision to give birth to the child. The father has no such obligation, since he does not decide to give birth to the child.
The fathers responsibility to the child is based on the fact that he helped create it, unless he has some other agreement with the women involved or say a couple wanting to adopt.
Your reasoning would equally apply to the oligation of the car-maker or liquor-maker to compensate the victim of drunk driving, since they too "helped create" the accident.

RB points out an important distinction that you haven't acknowledged. The man has a responsibility for the creation of a fetus, but a fetus is not a child. The proper thing for the man to do (again, barring misrepresentation by the woman) is to share the cost of termination. Responsibility for the creation of a fetus does not translate into responsibility for the creation of a child, anymore than responsibility for the creation of a car does not translate into responsibility for what someone does with the car.

There is no law of biology whereby a child is an unavoidable consequence of sex, any more than there is a physical law that a car-crash is an unavoidable consequence of car manufacturing. If you claim that the mere possibility of a child is what creates the responsibility for the child, they you must claim likewise that the mere possibility of a car crash creates a responsibility on the part of car manufacturers. Each is a possible natural consequence of a prior act -- sex, or car-making. In fact, the grandfather should also be held responsible, because his decision to create a child who later grows up and impregnates another woman is yet another natural possibility. By having sex, a man must recognise the possibility that he will become a grandfather. Surely you will recognise the absurdity of the conclusion, yet you cannot avoid it if you attribute responsibility to any "playing a contributory role".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...