Abortion Rights

#1
PKT_VOL

PKT_VOL

Veni, Vidi, Vici
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
17,322
Likes
9,522
#1
A buddy of mine and myself were talking about what ought to be abortion rights (both legally and morally).

We both agreed that if the man, either before the pregnancy or immediately afterwards, makes it clear that he wants to terminate the pregnancy, then he should be released of both moral and legal duty.

Contract Theory

Contract Theory would be that there is an implied contract between two parties who engage in sexual intercourse. The contract would entail that like the sexual act, both parties are equal. They would both have equal rights to the fetus due to the fetus would be theirs equally (equal genetics), equal consenting in sexual activity, and subject to equal consequences of said actions. Thus, if the fetus could only be terminated if BOTH parties agree. If one party agrees then the fetus must be born but the other would be absolved of their moral and legal responsibilities. The problem here would be if the father wanted to keep the fetus and the mother wanted to terminate. The mother would have to carry the child to term against her will.

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?

Property (Trut)

Under this theory, the fetus would be nothing more than mere property and would be viewed solely as a property dispute. The problems with this theory would include property rights and responsibility.

Property rights. One could look at it one of two ways. First, property rights would be exclusive to the mother. The egg is always with the mother and so is the fetus. The sperm is merely "gifted" the sperm by the father. Under this premise, the mother would retain all property rights (I believe TRUT is here). The second would be equal property rights; equal DNA in the child. The fact that the mother carries would be irrelevant to the issue.

The responsibility factor, as raised by my buddy, would be that sperm would be more closely thought of as a gun than a pen. In the fact that ownership of a gun entails certain responsibilities (both moral and legal) with ownership or gifting. This would be in contrast of no responsibilities associated with ownership or gifting of pen.

Game Theory

I had never really thought about this. My buddy is a big Game Theory guy (I like it, studied it, but not to his extent). The Game Theory can be thought of as a version of Contract Theory but with a way around the girl carrying the fetus to term against her will.

In the game tree/box, the woman would be afforded two options/choices; yes or no. A man would be afforded veto power (no) and complimentary yes (yes if she says "yes"; not yes if she says "no")

Thus,

W: Y M: Y- Both parties have full legal and moral responsibilities.
W: Y M: N- Woman carries to term, has full moral and legal responsibility; man is absolved of both morel and legal responsibilities
W: N M: N- Pregnancy is terminated.

I tried to keep it short.

Thoughts?
 
#2
#2
Even in the case where the man disagrees and wants termination, he still has to live with the fact that his biological child will one day return and ask why he wanted him/her terminated....just an initial reaction of mine with no real thought behind it. It is still ultimately the woman's decision whether the man likes it or not.

I do like the idea though on legal grounds.
 
#3
#3
PKT_VOL said:
A buddy of mine and myself were talking about what ought to be abortion rights (both legally and morally).

We both agreed that if the man, either before the pregnancy or immediately afterwards, makes it clear that he wants to terminate the pregnancy, then he should be released of both moral and legal duty.

Contract Theory

Contract Theory would be that there is an implied contract between two parties who engage in sexual intercourse. The contract would entail that like the sexual act, both parties are equal. They would both have equal rights to the fetus due to the fetus would be theirs equally (equal genetics), equal consenting in sexual activity, and subject to equal consequences of said actions. Thus, if the fetus could only be terminated if BOTH parties agree. If one party agrees then the fetus must be born but the other would be absolved of their moral and legal responsibilities. The problem here would be if the father wanted to keep the fetus and the mother wanted to terminate. The mother would have to carry the child to term against her will.

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?

Property (Trut)

Under this theory, the fetus would be nothing more than mere property and would be viewed solely as a property dispute. The problems with this theory would include property rights and responsibility.

Property rights. One could look at it one of two ways. First, property rights would be exclusive to the mother. The egg is always with the mother and so is the fetus. The sperm is merely "gifted" the sperm by the father. Under this premise, the mother would retain all property rights (I believe TRUT is here). The second would be equal property rights; equal DNA in the child. The fact that the mother carries would be irrelevant to the issue.

The responsibility factor, as raised by my buddy, would be that sperm would be more closely thought of as a gun than a pen. In the fact that ownership of a gun entails certain responsibilities (both moral and legal) with ownership or gifting. This would be in contrast of no responsibilities associated with ownership or gifting of pen.

Game Theory

I had never really thought about this. My buddy is a big Game Theory guy (I like it, studied it, but not to his extent). The Game Theory can be thought of as a version of Contract Theory but with a way around the girl carrying the fetus to term against her will.

In the game tree/box, the woman would be afforded two options/choices; yes or no. A man would be afforded veto power (no) and complimentary yes (yes if she says "yes"; not yes if she says "no")

Thus,

W: Y M: Y- Both parties have full legal and moral responsibilities.
W: Y M: N- Woman carries to term, has full moral and legal responsibility; man is absolved of both morel and legal responsibilities
W: N M: N- Pregnancy is terminated.

I tried to keep it short.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think you and your buddy should drink more beer and talk about T&A like normal human beings
 
  • Like
Reactions: malinoisvol, FLVOL_79 and TennesseeOrange
#7
#7
Obsessed said:
Honestly I really like him. But he does get angry easily or maybe just frustrated.

Either way. When I finally get to meet him ill buy him a beer or three :)
Click to expand...

Angry? Just because I all but call someone a ****ing idiot doesn't mean I'm angry.

It just means I think they said something stupid.
 
#10
#10
Btw you didn't call him out. You offered no retort. Only condescending remarks.
 
#11
#11
Obsessed said:
Btw you didn't call him out. You offered no retort. Only condescending remarks.
Click to expand...

Because his original statement was soooo much better. C'mon now. That's selective of you.

We can drink a beer if you're more lax with abrasiveness than you are on here.
 
#12
#12
DinkinFlicka said:
Angry? Just because I all but call someone a ****ing idiot doesn't mean I'm angry.

It just means I think they said something stupid.
Click to expand...

PKT knows I was just messing with him about his deep thoughts and philosophizing....don't be so serious all the time....what do you have in common with a hockey goalie?
 
#16
#16
rjd970 said:
Even in the case where the man disagrees and wants termination, he still has to live with the fact that his biological child will one day return and ask why he wanted him/her terminated....just an initial reaction of mine with no real thought behind it. It is still ultimately the woman's decision whether the man likes it or not.

I do like the idea though on legal grounds.
Click to expand...

Interesting point.

Do you think if the man was to absolve himself (but still give his health/family history information, that he should have a standing restraining order from said child contacting him later in life if he so wishes? I guess that could be a compromise.
 
#17
#17
Carl Pickens said:
PKT knows I was just messing with him about his deep thoughts and philosophizing....don't be so serious all the time....what do you have in common with a hockey goalie?
Click to expand...

True.

Although I do think this thread is more relatable (less philosophy). Abortion threads always go the way of morality, where does life begin, and religion. Very rarely do we discuss what rights each individual ought to have in said situation.

Btw, I did a lot of A&T scouting in South East Asia. :)
 
#20
#20
PKT_VOL said:
Interesting point.

Do you think if the man was to absolve himself (but still give his health/family history information, that he should have a standing restraining order from said child contacting him later in life if he so wishes? I guess that could be a compromise.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#21
#21
PKT_VOL said:
A buddy of mine and myself were talking about what ought to be abortion rights (both legally and morally).

We both agreed that if the man, either before the pregnancy or immediately afterwards, makes it clear that he wants to terminate the pregnancy, then he should be released of both moral and legal duty.

Contract Theory

Contract Theory would be that there is an implied contract between two parties who engage in sexual intercourse. The contract would entail that like the sexual act, both parties are equal. They would both have equal rights to the fetus due to the fetus would be theirs equally (equal genetics), equal consenting in sexual activity, and subject to equal consequences of said actions. Thus, if the fetus could only be terminated if BOTH parties agree. If one party agrees then the fetus must be born but the other would be absolved of their moral and legal responsibilities. The problem here would be if the father wanted to keep the fetus and the mother wanted to terminate. The mother would have to carry the child to term against her will.
Click to expand...

Is that the only problem?

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.

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.
 
#22
#22
PKT_VOL said:
True.

Although I do think this thread is more relatable (less philosophy). Abortion threads always go the way of morality, where does life begin, and religion. Very rarely do we discuss what rights each individual ought to have in said situation.

Btw, I did a lot of A&T scouting in South East Asia. :)
Click to expand...

Is it true that the prostitutes in SE Asia solicit American men with phrases like "Fackie Sucky two bucky"?
 
#23
#23
PKT_VOL said:
Who should have what rights in an abortion/pregnancy situation?
Click to expand...

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.
 
#24
#24
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.

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).

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).

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.
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.
 
#25
#25
PKT_VOL said:
We both agreed that if the man, either before the pregnancy or immediately afterwards, makes it clear that he wants to terminate the pregnancy, then he should be released of both moral and legal duty.

Contract Theory

The problem here would be if the father wanted to keep the fetus and the mother wanted to terminate. The mother would have to carry the child to term against her will.

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?

Property (Trut)

Under this theory, the fetus would be nothing more than mere property and would be viewed solely as a property dispute. The problems with this theory would include property rights and responsibility.


Thoughts?
Click to expand...

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?

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.

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.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top