welsch@houxu.UUCP (Larry Welsch) (03/28/84)
This is a follow up to an article I wrote and mistakenly posted in net.women. The original article was entitled "Abortion - Men's Rights" and was stimulated by articles by Sophie Quigley and Laura Creighton in this news group. Sophie wrote follow up article which she also posted to net.women. While I am not debating the whether or not abortions should be legal, I am arguing that both genetic parents have an equal say in whether or not to abort. I consider sexual intercourse to be an implicit agreement (contract), that gives the father an equal say with the mother on whether or not to abort, and I further argue that it gives both parties equal responsibilities for raising the child. Unfortunately most western law has only recognized the responsibility of the father to pay child support. To continue the debate: To quote Sophie Quigley: As far as I know the only valid contracts in the name of the law are written contracts or oral contracts. While this is true some of the time it is not necessarily true all the time. For example, on many purchases, if you buy a defective product, even though no words were exchanged, you have the right to get your money back or to exchange it for a non defective product. (used car salesmen excepted :-) Retail companies that have a high return rate like record retailers tend to formalize this contract by spelling out explicitly for customers the conditions of the return, but many retail businesses do not. Another unwritten contract is that property owners are responsible for the safety of others on their property. For example, if someone trespasses on my property and falls and breaks a leg, I am still responsible. Most property owners carry insurance against such things. Also while it is unusual, contracts can be modified without agreement from both parties. The case that comes immediately to mind was when the U.S.A called reserve troops to active duty during the Vietnam War. The U.S.A. broke the contract it had with the reserve troops, since according to the contract they could only be called to active duty if congress declared war. Another interesting case where one party is modifying agreements made with another is bankruptcy, where companies in the U.S.A. go declare themselves bankrupt and then get their labor, and other contracts modified, by the court. Under bankruptcy contracts are rewritten without the agreement of all parties. 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. I was only referring to sexual intercourse where everybody participating in the act was in agreement. Usually contracts are between two entities, group orgies I hadn't anticipated. Most people are aware of the sexual intercourse when they are engaged in that activity. As a matter of fact by long western tradition and even some civil law marriage is not considered to be consummated until intercourse has occurred and some marriage laws consider the lack of sexual intercourse to be grounds for divorce. Sexual intercourse is indeed a contract under current laws for the male, he has contracted to pay for whatever child support may result from his act of intercourse. I believe this holds for Europe as well as the U.S.A. where I read recently of a "paternity suit" against a rock musician. Far from being a non argument, it has a long tradition in western law and culture. Larry Welsch houxu!welsch