welsch@houxu.UUCP (Larry Welsch) (03/27/84)
This article is not against abortion, rather, I argue that the decision to abort is not the mother's decision alone. The decision should be a joint decision between the mother and father. I agree that while the mother carries the fetus, the decision about the event to potentialy have the fetus in the first place was made by both parties, ie. the decision to have sexual intercourse. It is well known that only two birth control methods really work, one is sterilization and the other is abstinance. With all others, there is finite chance of pregnancy. Sexual intercourse if done of free will contains an implicit contract for both parties. In the case of no pregnancy, the contract becomes null and void, but in the case of pregnancy then the contract is that if either party wants the fetus then the mother must birth the child and both parents are responsible for support. As for the argument of about control over bodies, I argue that, a. No body has ever used this argument against the draft, b. No body has ever used this argument against the death penalty, c. No body has absolute control over their body. Larry Welsch houxu!welsch
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (03/28/84)
> Sexual intercourse if done of free will contains an implicit contract for > both parties. In the case of no pregnancy, the contract becomes null and > void, but in the case of pregnancy then the contract is that if either > party wants the fetus then the mother must birth the child and both > parents are responsible for support. As far as I know the only valid contracts in the name of the law are written contracts or oral contracts. As far as I know too, a contract is an agreement between a group of people who are aware that they are making such an agreement. In the case you suggested, it seems that if the mother never mentioned the contract beforehand, and had no intention of ever agreeing to this type of contract if asked by anybody, then it never existed except in the mind of the father; so what is an "implicit" contract? a nonentity that people use to justify things they cannot justify otherwise. I consider this argument to be a non-argument, and as far as I can tell again, the only way you can stop somebody from breaking a contract is to have some proof that the contract existed - which makes it very hard to enforce oral contracts btw. In the case of the contract you mentioned, it seems that if that contract was not oral or written then it does not exist. ESP doesn't count. Your argument is good enough to make a few people feel very guilty about rejecting non-existing unwritten unsaid contract, but it does not stand up in any court of justice. It is just a non-argument cleverly hidden behind legalistic verbiage. Sophie Quigley ...!{decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigley
gam@proper.UUCP (Gordon Moffett) (03/30/84)
> From: welsch@houxu.UUCP (Larry Welsch) > Sexual intercourse if done of free will contains an implicit contract for > both parties. In the case of no pregnancy, the contract becomes null and > void, but in the case of pregnancy then the contract is that if either > party wants the fetus then the mother must birth the child ... I disagree with this entirely. Men are not obligated to donate sperm against their will, why should a woman be obligated to bear a child if only the man wants it? Your `implicit contract' is arbitrary. Why doesn't the `implicit contract' state that its solely the woman's choice? The woman and the woman alone should have the choice to bear a child or not. It would be nice if the father's feelings were considered, but I do believe women have the right to control their bodies, including reproductively. It is one of the unfairnesses of this world that women bear children and men do not. It is perhaps unfair that women should have this choice -- this authority! -- but the alternative is society's tyrranical control of the individual's body. > As for the argument of about control over bodies, I argue that, > > a. No body has ever used this argument against the draft, I do. > b. No body has ever used this argument against the death penalty, I do. > c. No body has absolute control over their body. `c.' is an empty statement. If a man desparately wants a child, he should find a woman would wants to bear it (including `rent-a-moms'), or wait for medical technology to advance to allow him to bear it.