A secular debate about abortion

[Seth]

Seth, I see you're still discussing the supposed inequities of our reproductive laws, but you have yet to address the following concerns. Most contracts-- and certainly all equitable ones, consider the risks undertaken by each of its attendant parties. What's equal about men being absolved of all risk, or sexual responsibility?

Women wanted sexual freedom and autonomy. They achieved it. Good for them. They have vaginas and wombs, men don't. Part of sexual liberation is sexual responsibility.

If there is inequity as a result of the fact that women have the children, I guess women should have thought of that before they demanded complete sexual autonomy. Why should men be responsible for how women manage their vaginas? It's like saying that just because I bowl a line at your bowling alley, that somehow I'm responsible for cleaning the toilets and oiling the lanes. It's your bowling alley, you manage it.

[Coito ergo sum]

To the OP, the problem there is that the courts won't buy it. It's far easier to ban abortion than it is to give men a pass. This is because the courts already acknowledge the inequity of making men pay for children they father, but the courts, and society in general, subscribe to the "do it for the children" argument that says it doesn't matter what's fair or equitable, or even rational, the only thing that matters is what's in the "best interests of the children."

I don't agree with this. Courts don't acknowledge the inequity of making men pay for the children they father. Quite to the contrary, they find that children have an absolute right to child support from their parents, except in the case of donors to a sperm bank and such.

In that regard, the legal tomes are replete with cases of husbands who have discovered that the children they have been raising aren't theirs, but rather are the product of an adulterous affair, and yet the courts will still mandate that the man support the children, even though they aren't his, and what's more, they WILL give a pass to the true father.

Those cases do occur, and they are travesties of justice, but that's a different issue entirely. I don't think that most people, women included, think that men should have to support other men's children. In my view, the man put in that situation by a woman should have a lawsuit against the woman for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc. She should have to pay him back for the amount of money he had to pay to support some other guy's child. That, of course, doesn't happen, and the courts have thus far protected women who commit this kind of fraud.

This is why the "give the father a pass" won't work. When a child is born, the courts WILL hold the man accountable. This being the case, absent a substantial shift in precedent or explicit laws overruling the existing precedents, the only way to be to the man is to give him a say in whether the child is born or not. This means that if she wants the kid, and he doesn't, the child should be aborted (if abortion is allowed at all). For a conceived child to be permitted to gestate, it should require the consent of BOTH parents.

Oh - I didn't think you were advocating that. I find that an impossible rule to create. If I were a woman, my medical procedures would be none of anybody's business. I mean, a husband doesn't need his wife's permission to get a vasectomy, so I don't see why the wife would need hubby's permission to dust and clean the uterus. Moreover, Hadespussercats' points have to be given their due, don't they? The woman by bearing the child is inherently bearing risk the father does not bear.

Of course there's no way this is acceptable to women, because it requires they submit to an abortion against their will.

And, any law that would require women to submit to an abortion against their will is an abomination to individual liberty.

It's a real conundrum. Nowhere else in the law that I can think of is "ownership" of something determined by the whims and caprices of one party. When the child is a fetus, it's "the woman's body" and a "lump of cells," unless the woman WANTS the fetus, in which case it's a ticking time bomb for the father.

Well, the embryo is, in fact, part of the woman's body, and remains so. It's connected to her nervous system and her cardio vascular system. That's how humans develop - the fertilized egg starts dividing in the uterus and then attaches to to the uterus wall and becomes part of the woman's body.

And, the issue is not one of property ownership. It's one of liberty and privacy, and then one of obligation to support and a child's rights vis-a-vis parents. We're not talking about property ownership.

Therefore, the only equitable solution that I can see is the "contract for sex" theory I put forward. In it, women accept certain contractual obligations by having sex and becoming pregnant. By mutual consent, the child can be terminated according to law, but if either party objects, she's required to carry the child to term. And if she does not wish to keep the child, while she is obligated to carry it to term, at delivery, the child is removed and given to the other party, who becomes completely responsible for the child. The same legal burden accrues to the woman if she decides to keep the child over the father's objection.

I think if you did this, the woman would be entitled to charge the father of the child rent for the compelled use of her uterus. Nine months of illness, nausea, pain, aches, vomiting, mood swings, and other such effects of pregnancy, plus doctors appointments, bearing the health and medical risks of carrying the child, etc. Plus time off work, loss of income during the time where the father is compelling the pregnancy. To make it completely fair, wouldn't there have to be compensation to the woman in the instances where she says "I want an abortion" and he says that he wants her to have the child?

Then, when the child is born, what if when the child is 5 or 6 he or she wants to know who mommy is? Is the child now legally prohibited from contacting mom? Or, can mom get involved in the child's life, while still disclaiming financial obligations? What ought we say to the crying child who feels abandoned by mom, who lives maybe one town over but who will never even say hello....?

[Seth]

As I've also already stated, hades - scientists are also developing male hormonal contraceptives - which will mean men will have some similar options to women for controlling their fertility at the source besides sterilisation in future.

Sure, and that's wonderful, but they don't have to be sterilized now-- a properly used condom and spermicide is a very effective method of birth control-- 99 percent effective, according to many sites I've visited.

Another excellent method of birth control is to get to know your sexual partners before having sex with them-- enough at least to develop a contraceptive plan together that leaves an acceptable measure of risk to both parties. And men would be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to engage in sex with a woman who is uninclined to have an abortion, should the situation present itself. This kind of communication is sensible, and healthy-- much healthier than a system of tacit contracts that absolves men of all sexual responsibility.

All sensible, prudent vagina operating procedures. But that still shouldn't absolve women from accepting sovereign responsibility for what goes on inside their sovereign bodies. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you don't operate your vagina properly, it's your problem, not your guest's or your client's.

[Coito ergo sum]

Wah. Cry me a river. This isn't about comparative discomfort. Men who have to pay for an unwanted child suffer various physical ailments and face dangers as a result. That's irrelevant.

Women are, or should be, entirely responsible for what goes on in, and what goes into, their vaginas. Period. No whining, no complaining.

People have a first amendment right to whine and complain. And, women do have the responsibility for what goes on in and what goes into their vaginas. Both parents have the obligation to support their children. How do you get around the child's right to support? It seems to me that your legal theory entirely discounts that portion of the analysis.

An analogy is that you invite me to a party at your house. We have a good time, but it's a raucous party and there's a mess left over. Instead of being a good hostess and cleaning up the mess and not shifting the burden onto one's guests, you sue me in court, claiming that I'm now responsible for paying half your mortgage. It's your womb, you manage it.

A closer analogy would be that you both planned the party and agreed to have it at her house, and so as co-hosts you are equally responsible for cleaning up the mess. If she chooses to clean up the house without you, then you don't have to clean it up. If, however, she leaves it there then you have to help.

[Seth]

To the OP, the problem there is that the courts won't buy it. It's far easier to ban abortion than it is to give men a pass. This is because the courts already acknowledge the inequity of making men pay for children they father, but the courts, and society in general, subscribe to the "do it for the children" argument that says it doesn't matter what's fair or equitable, or even rational, the only thing that matters is what's in the "best interests of the children."

I don't agree with this. Courts don't acknowledge the inequity of making men pay for the children they father. Quite to the contrary, they find that children have an absolute right to child support from their parents, except in the case of donors to a sperm bank and such.

A distinction without a difference. If men had the right to control whether or not the child is brought to term, it wouldn't be an issue. They don't. And you're simply confirming what I said in different words.

In that regard, the legal tomes are replete with cases of husbands who have discovered that the children they have been raising aren't theirs, but rather are the product of an adulterous affair, and yet the courts will still mandate that the man support the children, even though they aren't his, and what's more, they WILL give a pass to the true father.

Those cases do occur, and they are travesties of justice, but that's a different issue entirely.

Not really. It's all part of the privilege that women enjoy when it comes to cavalier and imprudent operation of their vaginas.

I don't think that most people, women included, think that men should have to support other men's children.

If they don't, then why aren't there laws to that effect?

In my view, the man put in that situation by a woman should have a lawsuit against the woman for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc. She should have to pay him back for the amount of money he had to pay to support some other guy's child. That, of course, doesn't happen, and the courts have thus far protected women who commit this kind of fraud.

I agree. But the courts are a reflection of the moral beliefs of the society. And from the pragmatic standpoint, a woman who is requesting child support isn't likely to be able to pay a judgment.

This is why the "give the father a pass" won't work. When a child is born, the courts WILL hold the man accountable. This being the case, absent a substantial shift in precedent or explicit laws overruling the existing precedents, the only way to be to the man is to give him a say in whether the child is born or not. This means that if she wants the kid, and he doesn't, the child should be aborted (if abortion is allowed at all). For a conceived child to be permitted to gestate, it should require the consent of BOTH parents.

Oh - I didn't think you were advocating that. I find that an impossible rule to create. If I were a woman, my medical procedures would be none of anybody's business. I mean, a husband doesn't need his wife's permission to get a vasectomy, so I don't see why the wife would need hubby's permission to dust and clean the uterus.

Because killing a living human being is not "dusting and cleaning."

Moreover, Hadespussercats' points have to be given their due, don't they? The woman by bearing the child is inherently bearing risk the father does not bear.

Sucks to be a woman. That's no reason to impose a burden on men. Life isn't fair.

Of course there's no way this is acceptable to women, because it requires they submit to an abortion against their will.

And, any law that would require women to submit to an abortion against their will is an abomination to individual liberty.

Correct. But remember there's a nuance in the contract theory, which is that under the contract theory, the woman is WAIVING her right to absolute reproductive autonomy, and is therefore CONSENTING to some degree of control as a part of the contract. Thus, in that scenario, compelling a woman to have an abortion would simply be enforcing a contract she agreed to be bound by.

It's a real conundrum. Nowhere else in the law that I can think of is "ownership" of something determined by the whims and caprices of one party. When the child is a fetus, it's "the woman's body" and a "lump of cells," unless the woman WANTS the fetus, in which case it's a ticking time bomb for the father.

Well, the embryo is, in fact, part of the woman's body, and remains so. It's connected to her nervous system and her cardio vascular system. That's how humans develop - the fertilized egg starts dividing in the uterus and then attaches to to the uterus wall and becomes part of the woman's body.

Nope. it's a separate, distinct living human being from the instant that the parental chromosomes align along the spindle apparatus. It has it's own unique DNA that is distinct and different from either the mother or father, and it's essential nature as a unique human being never changes from zygote to fetus to infant to adult to death. It's never anything other than a separate, distinct human being that is being gestated and is developing inside the mother. It "attaches to" the uterine wall, it's not "part of" the uterine wall. It develops a placenta and has its own blood supply. It's the definition of a "parasitic organism." But it's NOT "part of" the mother.

And, the issue is not one of property ownership. It's one of liberty and privacy, and then one of obligation to support and a child's rights vis-a-vis parents. We're not talking about property ownership.

It's a metaphor of sorts.

Therefore, the only equitable solution that I can see is the "contract for sex" theory I put forward. In it, women accept certain contractual obligations by having sex and becoming pregnant. By mutual consent, the child can be terminated according to law, but if either party objects, she's required to carry the child to term. And if she does not wish to keep the child, while she is obligated to carry it to term, at delivery, the child is removed and given to the other party, who becomes completely responsible for the child. The same legal burden accrues to the woman if she decides to keep the child over the father's objection.

I think if you did this, the woman would be entitled to charge the father of the child rent for the compelled use of her uterus.

Yes, there is a valid argument to be made in that respect.

Nine months of illness, nausea, pain, aches, vomiting, mood swings, and other such effects of pregnancy, plus doctors appointments, bearing the health and medical risks of carrying the child, etc. Plus time off work, loss of income during the time where the father is compelling the pregnancy. To make it completely fair, wouldn't there have to be compensation to the woman in the instances where she says "I want an abortion" and he says that he wants her to have the child?

Yes, I believe that would be fair and equitable.

Then, one the child is born, what if when the child is 5 or 6 he or she wants to know who mommy is? Is the child now legally prohibited from contacting mom? Or, can mom get involved in the child's life, while still disclaiming financial obligations? What ought we say to the crying child who feels abandoned by mom, who lives maybe one town over but who will never even say hello....?

That's a commonplace problem that society deals with every day as the result of divorce or death of a parent. No real changes in the law needed except that the unwilling parent should be required to sign a document relinquishing all parental rights.

[lordpasternack]

Seth - making an informed decision about abortion counts as being responsible for what goes on in one's womb. Particularly considering abortion is far less risky than full-term pregnancy, and if parenthood is unwanted - it's far more responsible than allowing a child to develop.

Most abortions (90%) take place in the first trimester, most (almost 80%) before 10 weeks. The foetus is not a baby, and not likely sentient. Most abortions around this time are also medical rather than surgical, and surgical abortions mostly just involve straight suction of the uterus, no cutting up, no scissors...

it's a separate, distinct living human being from the instant that the parental chromosomes align along the spindle apparatus. It has it's own unique DNA that is distinct and different from either the mother or father, and it's essential nature as a unique human being never changes from zygote to fetus to infant to adult to death.

A zygote is a human being. And this is a bunch of sunflowers:

[Seth]

Wah. Cry me a river. This isn't about comparative discomfort. Men who have to pay for an unwanted child suffer various physical ailments and face dangers as a result. That's irrelevant.

Women are, or should be, entirely responsible for what goes on in, and what goes into, their vaginas. Period. No whining, no complaining.

People have a first amendment right to whine and complain. And, women do have the responsibility for what goes on in and what goes into their vaginas. Both parents have the obligation to support their children. How do you get around the child's right to support? It seems to me that your legal theory entirely discounts that portion of the analysis.

Indeed, and deliberately so, because it confuses the issue. The essence of that consideration is who is it that created the obligation to support the child? In the case of a woman who chooses to keep a child unwanted by the father, it's the mother who has created that obligation without the consent of the father. It's not equitable that he should be burdened with that obligation against his will, and that burden should be shifted to the one who created the obligation, the mother.

I dispute the notion that children are, or should automatically be entitled to support from both parents. Equity suggests that lack of consent to the obligation should absolve one of that obligation. However, as it stands, public policy holds that both parents are liable regardless of almost any other considerations, including, in some cases, a sperm-donor contract absolving the donor of all liability for child support. In one recent case, a sperm donor was held liable by the court for child support.

The theory behind this travesty is that under no circumstances should the PUBLIC be burdened with supporting a child merely because one parent does not wish to contribute, and since the child has a "right" to support, both parents are liable. I don't happen to agree with this construction, which is an argument from expedience and public parsimony, but that's how it is.

An analogy is that you invite me to a party at your house. We have a good time, but it's a raucous party and there's a mess left over. Instead of being a good hostess and cleaning up the mess and not shifting the burden onto one's guests, you sue me in court, claiming that I'm now responsible for paying half your mortgage. It's your womb, you manage it.

A closer analogy would be that you both planned the party and agreed to have it at her house, and so as co-hosts you are equally responsible for cleaning up the mess. If she chooses to clean up the house without you, then you don't have to clean it up. If, however, she leaves it there then you have to help.

That might be the case, but only if the planning was consensual and an agreement was formed. That's a contract argument very much like what I'm suggesting. The duties and obligations are set forth before the fact and form an enforceable legal contract on the part of both parties.

Absent such a meeting of the minds, however, an invitation to party implies no particular obligation on guests, certainly not a legally enforceable one to pay the mortgage merely for attending the party.

[hadespussercats]

Seth, I see you're still discussing the supposed inequities of our reproductive laws, but you have yet to address the following concerns. Most contracts-- and certainly all equitable ones, consider the risks undertaken by each of its attendant parties. What's equal about men being absolved of all risk, or sexual responsibility?

Women wanted sexual freedom and autonomy. They achieved it. Good for them. They have vaginas and wombs, men don't. Part of sexual liberation is sexual responsibility.

If there is inequity as a result of the fact that women have the children, I guess women should have thought of that before they demanded complete sexual autonomy. Why should men be responsible for how women manage their vaginas? It's like saying that just because I bowl a line at your bowling alley, that somehow I'm responsible for cleaning the toilets and oiling the lanes. It's your bowling alley, you manage it.

I absolutely agree: it's my bowling alley, and I'll manage it as I see fit-- including refusing service and occupancy to unwanted customers.

To be clear:
When you give a man the right to decide how a woman is going to use her womb and vagina, not to mention the rest of her body, as pregnancy requires, then women no longer have complete sexual autonomy. In fact, they have completely lost their autonomy, by being forced to give over their body to the wishes, needs, and demands of others-- namely, the men who impregnated them, the fetus, and, in a chilling aspect of your proposed contract solution, the state.

And I'll repeat, "if there is inequity as a result of the fact that women have the children," then men who want children but can't find women to bear them are shit out of luck until medical science advances to meet their needs, as it has in the case of women who get abortions. Until then, well, as you say, cry me a river.

[Seth]

Seth - making an informed decision about abortion counts as being responsible for what goes on in one's womb. Particularly considering abortion is far less risky than full-term pregnancy, and if parenthood is unwanted - it's far more responsible than allowing a child to develop.

Perhaps. But there are also public policy issues in play.

Most abortions (90%) take place in the first trimester, most (almost 80%) before 10 weeks. The foetus is not a baby, and not likely sentient. Most abortions around this time are also medical rather than surgical, and surgical abortions mostly just involve straight suction of the uterus, no cutting up, no scissors...

Correct. And if radical abortion proponents did not consistently argue for absolutely unlimited and unfettered access to abortion right up to the instant prior to full delivery as a "fundamental right," we would not likely be having such a vigorous debate.

The problem is that the sides are so polarized and entrenched that the pro-abortion contingent won't accept anything less than absolute abortion autonomy, and the anti-abortion contingent won't accept any abortion whatsoever.

I come down firmly in the middle, generally drawing the line at the stage where the fetus is capable of experiencing pain. Medical science is not certain when this occurs, but sufficient research into the matter would resolve this question.

The other potential limit point is fetal viability outside the womb, which is pretty much where the line is drawn today in many places. This limit can shift as medical technology advances its ability to keep preemies alive. When science develops artificial wombs that provide safe gestation of a fetus at any given stage of development, abortion after that time should be illegal, but at the same time, if a woman is denied an abortion in favor of removal of the fetus to an artificial womb, the State then becomes responsible and the "parent" of that child.

The one canard that I continue to vigorously argue against is the specious notion that a fetus is not a "human being." This is scientific nonsense. Science has thoroughly established that a new, living human being comes into being at the formation of the zygote, and it remains a genetically-unique living human being at ever stage of development thereafter.

Whether, and at what point in fetal development this living human being is endowed or imbued with civil rights and and protections thereby becomes a "person" is a POLITICAL and MORAL question, not a question of science.

It's always a human being. There is absolutely no question about that, and arguments to the contrary are only intended to derail the debate about when rights attach by dehumanizing the fetus as if it were a lump of cancer cells or a cyst. That's an intellectually bankrupt and irrational argument.

[Warren Dew]

There's no implied contract when a couple decides to have sex, though-- at least not currently, in the United States.

I'd argue that there is an implied contract in the U.S., and it has two clauses:

1. The woman, in her sole discretion, may decide to abort the pregnancy.

2. If the woman decides to bring the pregnancy to term, the man and the woman share equally in the responsibility for supporting the resulting child.

If you don't like that implied contract, write an explicit contract that says what you want it to say - if both agree the man shouldn't have responsibility, the woman can agree to indemnify and hold harmless the man from any paternal support costs, for example. If the man thinks the implied contract is unfair, he should make sure a satisfactory contract is signed before sticking his dick in.

[hadespussercats]

Seth wrote: "indeed, and deliberately so, because it confuses the issue. The essence of that consideration is who is it that created the obligation to support the child? In the case of a woman who chooses to keep a child unwanted by the father, it's the mother who has created that obligation without the consent of the father."

So in that case, a man may avoid the consequences of one-half responsibility for conceiving a child he doesn't want by refusing any kind of support, but a woman may not avoid the consequences of one-half responsibility for conceiving a child she doesn't want, if the man decides he wants it?

You are blatant here in favoring the rights of men over women in this scenario. I pity your sexual partners, and I am deeply grateful you aren't in charge of American reproductive policy.

Seth, I'm also curious why you so devoutly pursue the rights of a human being before it's born, but disclaim any responsibility for that same human being after it's born.

[aspire1670]

Seth - I AGREE with you that it's unfair that women get to make males biological parents against their will. We've already discussed the possibility of males abdicating parental responsibility while the female holds that complete right during pregnancy. That would work, for feminists and male chauvinists and all shades of decent people alike.

I just hope you're not really a completely thoughtless, arrogant, pseudo-intellectual, obnoxious, bitter misogynistic fucknut - and it's just a little game you're playing here, or that you just have a bad hangover, or have had too many drugs recently or something…

Oh, it's a game. Remember... "persona" It's called The Vigorous Debate Game™"

I'm actually one of those "nice guys" that always come in last.

To the OP, the problem there is that the courts won't buy it. It's far easier to ban abortion than it is to give men a pass. This is because the courts already acknowledge the inequity of making men pay for children they father, but the courts, and society in general, subscribe to the "do it for the children" argument that says it doesn't matter what's fair or equitable, or even rational, the only thing that matters is what's in the "best interests of the children."

In that regard, the legal tomes are replete with cases of husbands who have discovered that the children they have been raising aren't theirs, but rather are the product of an adulterous affair, and yet the courts will still mandate that the man support the children, even though they aren't his, and what's more, they WILL give a pass to the true father.

This is why the "give the father a pass" won't work. When a child is born, the courts WILL hold the man accountable. This being the case, absent a substantial shift in precedent or explicit laws overruling the existing precedents, the only way to be to the man is to give him a say in whether the child is born or not. This means that if she wants the kid, and he doesn't, the child should be aborted (if abortion is allowed at all). For a conceived child to be permitted to gestate, it should require the consent of BOTH parents.

Of course there's no way this is acceptable to women, because it requires they submit to an abortion against their will.

It's a real conundrum. Nowhere else in the law that I can think of is "ownership" of something determined by the whims and caprices of one party. When the child is a fetus, it's "the woman's body" and a "lump of cells," unless the woman WANTS the fetus, in which case it's a ticking time bomb for the father.

Therefore, the only equitable solution that I can see is the "contract for sex" theory I put forward. In it, women accept certain contractual obligations by having sex and becoming pregnant. By mutual consent, the child can be terminated according to law, but if either party objects, she's required to carry the child to term. And if she does not wish to keep the child, while she is obligated to carry it to term, at delivery, the child is removed and given to the other party, who becomes completely responsible for the child. The same legal burden accrues to the woman if she decides to keep the child over the father's objection.

This requires changes in the laws of parentage to recognize such contracts and effectively absolve the dissenting parent of legal or financial responsibility. This requires a commitment on the part of someone to support the child adequately. One might posit a pre-sex means test that would either prohibit sex between financially incapable persons, or that would require an abortion if the sole parent (or for that matter both parents) are incapable of properly supporting the child.

And of course that's something that might happen in Communist China, but would be completely unacceptable in any civilized society.

So, we're back to the status quo ante.

Now, potentially the courts could award DAMAGES for breach of contract if a woman has a child against the man's wishes, or if the woman refuses to abort a child unwanted by the father. This construction avoids all of the moral and social implications of forcing women or men to do something. A monetary penalty would be an inducement to cooperate with the other parent, and if cooperation is not possible, at least it will reduce the burden on the unwilling parent.

Anyway, the fundamental argument I'm making is that the current system is inequitious in the extreme in that it grossly favors women over men, which to me, makes any arguments about a woman's "right" to an abortion so much gross hypocrisy.

Until the inequities are resolved, I'm not particularly interested in hearing complaints about legal restrictions on the availability of abortion.

Well, unless you plan at some time to have sex with a woman you'll never have to face this dilemma, Seth.

[Seth]

Seth, I see you're still discussing the supposed inequities of our reproductive laws, but you have yet to address the following concerns. Most contracts-- and certainly all equitable ones, consider the risks undertaken by each of its attendant parties. What's equal about men being absolved of all risk, or sexual responsibility?

Women wanted sexual freedom and autonomy. They achieved it. Good for them. They have vaginas and wombs, men don't. Part of sexual liberation is sexual responsibility.

If there is inequity as a result of the fact that women have the children, I guess women should have thought of that before they demanded complete sexual autonomy. Why should men be responsible for how women manage their vaginas? It's like saying that just because I bowl a line at your bowling alley, that somehow I'm responsible for cleaning the toilets and oiling the lanes. It's your bowling alley, you manage it.

I absolutely agree: it's my bowling alley, and I'll manage it as I see fit-- including refusing service and occupancy to unwanted customers.

Exactly what I've been saying all along...just don't expect me to oil the lanes or clean the toilet...

To be clear:
When you give a man the right to decide how a woman is going to use her womb and vagina, not to mention the rest of her body, as pregnancy requires, then women no longer have complete sexual autonomy. In fact, they have completely lost their autonomy, by being forced to give over their body to the wishes, needs, and demands of others-- namely, the men who impregnated them, the fetus, and, in a chilling aspect of your proposed contract solution, the state.

Well, remember that the man is only "given the right" to determine what happens in the woman's womb BY HER CONSENT. This is not a law, remember, it's a contract negotiation. A "meeting of the minds" is required for any contract, and agreement is required. But in this case there is a "standard contract of coitus" that society hold to apply to all sex acts that imposes standardized burdens on both parties to the sex act, which may be adjudicated by a judge in the event of dispute. Consent to sex constitutes consent to the implied contract, which may include compulsory gestation. If you don't want to consent to that contract, don't have sex. It's just that simple.

And I'll repeat, "if there is inequity as a result of the fact that women have the children," then men who want children but can't find women to bear them are shit out of luck until medical science advances to meet their needs, as it has in the case of women who get abortions. Until then, well, as you say, cry me a river.

I'm with ya there.

[hadespussercats]

There's no implied contract when a couple decides to have sex, though-- at least not currently, in the United States.

I'd argue that there is an implied contract in the U.S., and it has two clauses:

1. The woman, in her sole discretion, may decide to abort the pregnancy.

2. If the woman decides to bring the pregnancy to term, the man and the woman share equally in the responsibility for supporting the resulting child.

If you don't like that implied contract, write an explicit contract that says what you want it to say - if both agree the man shouldn't have responsibility, the woman can agree to indemnify and hold harmless the man from any paternal support costs, for example. If the man thinks the implied contract is unfair, he should make sure a satisfactory contract is signed before sticking his dick in.

Aside from the disturbing nature of tacit contracts as a concept, I have no problem with this point of view. In fact, it's not that different from something i wrote earlier:

Hmmm.
It seems to me that currently the incentives/big sticks in the U.S. for people who don't want children to either abstain from sex or to regularly use reliable birth control are as follows:
-women face the possibility or either pregnancy, with all its attendant risks (including single custody and the significant possibility of being saddled with a dead-beat dad),or abortion, with all its attendant risks (if they can get one-- by no means a guarantee for the poor, or people who live in under-served areas),
-men face the possibility of being held financially responsible for a child they don't want.

I don't see how simply removing the men's risk could possibly result in equity between the sexes. And I have to agree with you, Seth paints a picture of remarkable passivity when it comes to men and conception. (Don't forget, men-- you can be in charge of contraception too! Use a condom and spermicide, or get a vasectomy. Women aren't the only ones who can take control of their fertility.)

As for men who want children but can't find a woman who wants to bear them for him, well, as I've mentioned before in this thread, there's a good reason for medical science to look into male pregnancy. Until the day such a thing becomes feasible, well, sorry Seth, but as you say, that's just the breaks of biology.

[Warren Dew]

The one canard that I continue to vigorously argue against is the specious notion that a fetus is not a "human being." This is scientific nonsense. Science has thoroughly established that a new, living human being comes into being at the formation of the zygote, and it remains a genetically-unique living human being at ever stage of development thereafter.

To the contrary, science doesn't define what a "human being" is. Is an anencephalic child a "human being"? Is the heart removed from a corpse for transplant a "human being"? Science doesn't say - it's a matter of personal opinion.

Now, science does say that it's "human life", in the sense that it's alive and has human genes. So is the heart removed from the corpse, though, or a clump of human cancer cells.