Abortion Rights

[PKT_VOL]

Honestly, I think it should totally be the woman. She has to carry it and there's no guarantee that the father will actually stick around.

If she tells him that she is on birth control or that she is incapable of getting pregnant AND he tells her that he does not want a child at the present time because he cannot support a child financially or emotionally (would want to abort an unintended pregnancy within the first couple of weeks), should the man morally or legally be responsible for the child after it is born?

 

[PKT_VOL]

It would be a compromise, but at the end of the day biology is still at play. The man would have half his DNA and part of him walking around with no say so in the decision.

But should (ought) he have no power in the decision?

 

[PKT_VOL]

Is that the only problem?

I don't necessarily subscribe (fully) to the contract theory. Although it's essence is after my own heart (a social contract theorist heart).

Here is more criticism that I stated in my post:

Furthermore, many sexual activities happen under the influence of alcohol. Would such a condition negate an implicit contract or would it be viewed as the same as two horny individuals who engage in sexual activity without a care for possible long term consequences? Does it matter if the terms of the contract as stated above includes immediately after knowing about the pregnancy?

If one is arguing an implicit contract takes place, then doesn't that contract include the assumed responsibility to support the future child? Simply declaring, "I want out of this contract" does not normally absolve individuals of contractual responsibilities.

After a short amount of time afterward the pregnancy has been announced, yes.

What would make this contract different?

Seems to me that according to your contract theory, if the man wanted out of the responsibility, he only gets out if the other party to the contract absolves him. This takes place either if the other party proceeds and has an abortion or if the other party explicitly releases the father from any and all fatherly duties. If not, then it seems that the father still has his duties to the future child, whether he wants them or not. That is, the father still must pay child support.

As part of the contract, he would be able to opt out within a short amount of time after the pregnancy is announced (if he has not already opted out before the sexual act).

 

[PKT_VOL]

Is it true that the prostitutes in SE Asia solicit American men with phrases like "Fackie Sucky two bucky"?

Naw. They all have pimps or (male madams?) who solicit with pretty vaguer language. Pretty repulsive actually.

 

[PKT_VOL]

If the man is financially obligated to support her, why doesn't he get a say.? We always talk about it's her right to choose, but depending on how you count people there are are 2-3 parties whose right to choose is in question. Not just the Mother's.

Agreed. It should go both ways.

I have a hard time getting my head around why a man should be financially obligated to pay for an unwanted child when he makes is intentions known before the sexual act or immediately after he is informed of the pregnancy.

I guess more than anything I would like to see the whole decision process be more above board and fair/equal as possible.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Assuming both parties entered into this "agreement" with the same mutual consent, I think the female has majority ownership of any decision up until birth because she is the "carrier". One could use the old analogy of making eggs and bacon... the chicken was involved but the pig was committed.

By majority, you mean over 50%, which would mean that the man is powerless, correct?

Once the child is born, however, it becomes a 50/50 contract with equal ownership, and the courts at that time would decide "rights" if either party later decides they want out of the contract (this assumes the aggrieved party decides to pursue legal action).

So both the man and the woman are equals for sex.
Unequals for pregnancy (even in the very early first trimester).
Then, become equals again the moment the baby is born?

If the male wants out of the contract prior to birth, penalties should be applied (e.g. medical costs, etc. and perhaps even continued costs for the first year or two).

So he can opt out, not requiring an abortion, be morally absolved immediately but legally responsible for up to two years?

If the female wants out of the contract prior to birth the situation is obviously more complicated.

• As the majority owner she could currently decide to abort.
• If the male party prefers to have the child delivered then it could be a standard negotiation process with the female party (e.g. what is the female party willing to accept... if anything... to carry the child through birth). Assuming they reach an agreement, the female party would have waived all rights of ownership at the time of birth.

Would it be morally acceptable for the man to pay the woman to carry an unwanted child? Would it be acceptable for the woman to accept such money? I am talking above and beyond the basics (copays, extra food, etc); payment for carrying.

If neither party wants ownership (but neither prefer the abortion option), then both are equally responsible for finding other ownership options which must be agreed to mutually.
If neither party wants ownership (but one does not favor abortion while the other would be okay with that decision), then the party that does not prefer abortion will have primary ownership and responsibility for the child including transference of ownership to another party.

I generally agree with these points.

For the second point, if the father is the one that prefers not to abort and the mother would be ok with that decision, does it fall back on what you stated about female ownership during the pregnancy? The female would just abort? Or, are you differentiating between one merely being "ok" with abortion vs "wanting" an abortion; being that the "ok" female would also be "ok" with carrying to term them giving up the child for adoption.

 

[PKT_VOL]

These are interesting hypothetical exercises. Under the current laws and customs, the father has no legal standing to force a woman to abort or carry. Furthermore, the father will be required to provide financial support even if he opted for the mother to abort.
The contract theory is the closest to something I would support in the absence of my usual moral objections. However, how does one force a woman to carry to term? There are many things a woman can do while pregnant which effect gestation and the ultimate development. Would she be held criminally responsible if, for example, she smoked 2 packs a day and the baby had significant, long term health issues?

That is the biggest weakness in my opinion with the contract theory. I feel carrying against one's will is cruel. On the other hand, we able to support a fetus from earlier and earlier within the range of development. I guess one could also advocate for women's pregnancy prison for forced carrying. Sounds pretty sadistic.

The game theory twist would be an out for this dilemma.

Entering into the contract while intoxicated isn't compelling enough for me to change my view. The parties, even while intoxicated are in control of their choices and can terminate the act at any time o choose where to place the ejaculate.

I would have a bigger problem with it if it wasn't for the immediate post conception clause.

Property Theory is a novel way of viewing this issue. However, I have a huge problem with the concept of sperm being gifted to the female. This notion is a recent development and a by product of our current society. If sperm is a gift, the man should make sure he presents his gift in a wrapped package. preferably latex covered in nonoxinal 9.

I'll defer to TRUT. He is can play devil's advocate for this point far better I can.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Would like to see all of this rewritten with the premise that the "contract" is reached prior to sex (i.e. conception) and not either or. Much like choosing to donate to a lottery pool after the pool wins or loses.

I would agree with this if it wasn't for the weakness of this position that I outlined in my OP:

Furthermore, many sexual activities happen under the influence of alcohol. Would such a condition negate an implicit contract or would it be viewed as the same as two horny individuals who engage in sexual activity without a care for possible long term consequences? Does it matter if the terms of the contract as stated above includes immediately after knowing about the pregnancy?

Assuming Y is to bring the pregnancy to term:

W: Y M: Y- Both parties have full legal and moral responsibilities.
W: Y M: N- Sex does not occur (unlikely). At this time, the M decides to either use BC or get the woman pregnant. Woman carries to term, has full moral and legal responsibility; man is absolved of both morel and legal responsibilities

So is the man only absolved of both morel and legal responsibilities if he lets his partner know before the sexual act? Or does it apply afterwards (conception but before birth)? If so, how long afterwards?

W: N M: Y- Sex does not occur or if it does, W insists on BC and if it fails the pregnancy is terminated.

Due to mother not being forced to carry against her will?

W: N M: N- Pregnancy is terminated or use birth control for pete's sake.

I thought you weren't for abortion. What point into the pregnancy do both parties retain this right?

 

[therealUT]

After a short amount of time afterward the pregnancy has been announced, yes.

Other contracts do not work like this, though. Again, it seems to me that if the consent and contractual rights and obligations go further than simply the intercourse and attach to the fetus, then the two parties are, at the time of coitus, signing up with the mutual understanding that both are signing up. I see no other way the contract theory can get off the ground in this argument.

Further, you state below that you just see it as cruel to force a woman to carry against her will; but, where does cruelty come in to play in the contract argument? First, cruelty ought not play a part; and, second, seems like it would not be against her will if she implicitly or explicitly consents to the contract.

As part of the contract, he would be able to opt out within a short amount of time after the pregnancy is announced (if he has not already opted out before the sexual act).

Is this understood by both parties ahead of time? Seems like there are plenty of reasons to think it is not understood and must, then, be made explicit in order to hold.

Take the case of a man deciding to have intercourse with a woman sans condom. It is reasonable to believe that he should know, from a simple biological standpoint, that he is risking pregnancy. Thus, it is reasonable for the woman to believe he recognizes and accepts said risk. Why should this man be allowed to "opt out" thus saddling the woman with either the physical cost of having an abortion (and, yes, there are physical costs involved in said procedure, to include the possibility of not being able to conceive and carry in the future) or following through with the pregnancy and having to support the child on her own?

I don't think an "implied contract" can excuse the man from such obligations and responsibilities.

I also want to clarify that it is not the physical costs, in itself, that would render the contract null. It is the foreseeable knowledge of the physical costs (just as it would be the foreseeable knowledge of the cruelty) that make the stance of "implied consent" for these things unreasonable.

Implied consent can only be argued for where it would be reasonable to expect an individual to accept the consequences of their action/deed/etc. If such expectations are not reasonable, then explicit consent is needed for a contract theory.

 

[VOLinthaNATI]

If she tells him that she is on birth control or that she is incapable of getting pregnant AND he tells her that he does not want a child at the present time because he cannot support a child financially or emotionally (would want to abort an unintended pregnancy within the first couple of weeks), should the man morally or legally be responsible for the child after it is born?

How about he just wears a rubber?

Too easy?

 

[FLVOL_79]

Is it true that the prostitutes in SE Asia solicit American men with phrases like "Fackie Sucky two bucky"?

Yes. They say "You got girlfriend Vietnam/Thailand/Philippine/Cambodia?". You want party? You boom boom GI? Take me to big PX in the sky GI! For serious.

 

[tumscalcium]

Yes. They say "You got girlfriend Vietnam/Thailand/Philippine/Cambodia?". You want party? You boom boom GI? Take me to big PX in the sky GI! For serious.

I love SE Asia. Sigh.

 

[Carl Pickens]

Naw. They all have pimps or (male madams?) who solicit with pretty vaguer language. Pretty repulsive actually.

Sounds like a real mood killer....I think I'd rather hear the two bucky

 

[Carl Pickens]

Yes. They say "You got girlfriend Vietnam/Thailand/Philippine/Cambodia?". You want party? You boom boom GI? Take me to big PX in the sky GI! For serious.

I was gong to include #1 G.I. To the facky sucky two bucky line and would have had I known this....I would tell them my name is John Rambo

 

[OrangeYankee]

I agree with the concept behind the Game Theory leg: If Woman wants and man doesn't then woman is responsible etc.

However, the impression I am getting is that the OP is thinking people are going to sit down and go over an agreement (be it paper or verbal), and I am just not sure this is at the forefront of anyone's mind when they are about ready to do the nasty.

Now at the time of discovery (OMG I'm pregnant!), I do believe the male partner at the very least should be notified of the fact. The easy way to say this is he would have to sign an affidavit declaring his true intentions in the matter: Yes I will keep it even if it means I am on my own with the child. No, I don't want it and thus relinquish all rights moving forward. How enforceable that could be if the Woman is opting "No" while the man opts "Yes." I'm not sure.

In a perfect world, I believe that child is just as much the man's as the woman's. And in a perfect world I think if the man is morally opposed to abortion the woman should go ahead with the pregnancy and the man will keep it. But when you actually say that, it does sound really sick forcing a woman to be pregnant against her will. However, I also can't help but think that if you are that opposed to having children then you should take all necessary precautions to prevent pregnancy: BC, permanent sterilization, or even total abstinence (gasp).

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vImyKp5M5OQ[/youtube]

 

[Cdywolfe]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vImyKp5M5OQ[/youtube]

Heard this story the other day and went off on a 20 minute rant saying basically saying the exact same thing TS said. This may have been the best video of his you've posted.

 

[golfballs]

[twitter]https://twitter.com/edatpost/status/958116970179825665[/twitter]

How can someone go 20 weeks and then decide to abort?

 

[BigO95]

It is a shame that society is so wicked and ungodly and devoid of enough decency that little innocent babies aren't even safe in their mothers womb! Their own mothers having a wicked devil that calls themselves a doctor murder their precious innocent little baby!
It's amazing how gracious God is not to destroy mankind.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

It is a shame that society is so wicked and ungodly and devoid of enough decency that little innocent babies aren't even safe in their mothers womb! Their own mothers having a wicked devil that calls themselves a doctor murder their precious innocent little baby!
It's amazing how gracious God is not to destroy mankind.

Hahahahahahahahaha

 

[volsarelife1]

Hahahahahahahahaha

Hopefully all the drugs you've taken has made you sterile so you can't reproduce.

 

[1972 Grad]

Hopefully all the drugs you've taken has made you sterile so you can't reproduce.

Is Junior the Junkie mainlining something again tonight?

 

[Squints]

Is Junior the Junkie mainlining something again tonight?

He’s wanking in a solo cup over abortion.

 

[alaVOL]

Abortion rights?

Convenient murder rights is a more truthful statement.

Debate it, say it's legal and whatever spin you want to put on it.
In the end it stops a heart beat.

It's a totally murderous barbaric practice done 99% of the time for pure birth control.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Abortion rights?

Convenient murder rights is a more truthful statement.

Debate it, say it's legal and whatever spin you want to put on it.
In the end it stops a heart beat.

It's a totally murderous barbaric practice done 99% of the time for pure birth control.

Truth. Look up how many were murdered just in the US last year. If it doesn't break your heart, you have a heart problem. So sad.