cjh@csin.UUCP (Chip Hitchcock) (03/28/84)
<to the lineater>
implicit contract my ass. try telling the next woman you are about to [make
love with] that you feel that her present sharing of her body gives you a
nine months' irrevocable lease on her womb and she'll probably walk out on you.
another problem with this is that it treats the result of intercourse as
a property in which both parties have an ownership interest, which is a hell of
a way to start trying to raise a human being. If you're that desperate to have
a child, try adopting; you'll probably get the answer you deserve
If she takes any precautions, or encourages you to take any, she's stated
her choice in the matter; if you disagree with that choice find yourself some
other victim beforehand instead of telling her "I'm all right Jack" afterwards.
CHip
(Chip Hitchcock)
ARPA: CJH@CCA-UNIX
usenet: ...{!decvax,!linus,!sri-unix}!cca!csin!cjhsaquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (03/30/84)
I believe that when a man has sex, he has made an implicit contract to
give away all his rights to the sperm that he puts in the woman's body.
After all he did leave the sperm in her body didn't he?
Just joking, folks. This is just to point out the idiocy of "implicit"
contracts. You can make them do or say anything that suits you without
having to provide any proof. If people start using "implicit" contracts
against women to further their aims, we can start using implicit contracts
against them to further ours. Fair's fair.
So as I said before, this argument of "implicit" contracts is just plain
crappy.
Sophie Quigley
...!{decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigleymazur@inmet.UUCP (03/31/84)
#R:csin:-37000:inmet:10900065:000:1143
inmet!mazur Mar 28 18:22:00 1984
< let's try this again >
another problem with this is that it treats the result of intercourse
as a property in which both parties have an ownership interest, which
is a hell of a way to start trying to raise a human being.
Well if you replace property with child, and delete ownership, I think you'll
come alot closer to what Larry was trying to express. While I don't agree that
the father's wishes should take precedence over the mother's, it is an issue
that is raised occasionally. As far as treating the potential child as
property, this is not much worse than what usually happens to children during
the divorce of their parents. Actually, it is worse; the children are usually
aware of it then.
If she takes any precautions, or encourages you to take any, she's
stated her choice in the matter;
I tend to agree with this statement. The reason a woman may not want to carry
a child to term for the father to raise are more or less similar to the reasons
a woman may not want to carry the child to term to be adopted.
I'll go quietly to net.abortion now, sorry :-).
Beth Mazur
{ima,harpo,esquire}!inmet!mazur