[anticlimatic]

Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And ToughLove is right, we're at another step in the plan, now. Which is why you may hear the phrase "gender egalitarian" thrown around instead of "feminist." Raising children is not just a choice for women - it's a choice for men, too. The house needs to be cleaned, it doesn't matter who does it. And if a little boy wants to grow up to be a nurse or an elementary school teacher or a stay-at-home dad, then he should be able to without society worrying about it. .

Until men get an equal "choice" on whether or not the child they helped conceive could be aborted, which will be never, I can't see any social enforcement of this coming to pass. I know women love having their cake and eating it too, but this is pushing it..
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Until men get an equal "choice" on whether or not the child they helped conceive could be aborted, which will be never, I can't see any social enforcement of this coming to pass. I know women love having their cake and eating it too, but this is pushing it.. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"condom".

[Eudoxus]

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	"condom".

Not really a legal right is it?

That's the currency being dealt in here it seems, so that is an invalid answer.

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by Eudoxus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not really a legal right is it? That's the currency being dealt in here it seems, so that is an invalid answer.

Might want to move to where one could legally buy a condom.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[anticlimatic]

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	"condom".

Invalid because it's precoitus, whereas pregnancy is postcoitus. I think abortion should just be illegal, on the grounds that it's sexist. I'm tired of women having men, and themselves, brainwashed into the idea that sexism only goes one way. The only way to make abortion fair is to either just make it completely illegal, and let women keep their child support, or let men have a 50/50 say in the matter, with the option of opting out of child support if they don't want it.

Feminism equals "equality," right?

[Valiyn]

In the US, abortion is legal based off a right of privacy. The fetus is "tresspassing" and stealing resources from the woman's body which she doesn't want stolen from her, and thus, the fetus' access to those resources are merely stopped. This results in a non-living fetus, just like stopping an adult theif from being able to steal food from a market can result in their death. But it's not murder. Pregnancies far enough along were the child will survive without the mother's body are Illegal because they will likely result in wrongful death.

This is all spelled out in Woe V Wade, haven't you read it?

[Persona]

	Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Until men get an equal "choice" on whether or not the child they helped conceive could be aborted, which will be never, I can't see any social enforcement of this coming to pass. I know women love having their cake and eating it too, but this is pushing it.. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I came up with the idea for The Matrix long before it became a movie. I want 50% of the box office and dvd sales revenue.

Conceiving a child is actually pretty easy and fun. Unless you think people should be able to demand royalties from their children for possessing their genetic material, then it doesn't make sense for a man to have rights to a child his sperm created.

	Originally Posted by Valiyn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is all spelled out in WRoe V Wade, haven't you read it?

Fixed

[anticlimatic]

Originally Posted by Valiyn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In the US, abortion is legal based off a right of privacy. The fetus is "tresspassing" and stealing resources from the woman's body which she doesn't want stolen from her, and thus, the fetus' access to those resources are merely stopped. This results in a non-living fetus, just like stopping an adult theif from being able to steal food from a market can result in their death. But it's not murder. Pregnancies far enough along were the child will survive without the mother's body are Illegal because they will likely result in wrongful death. This is all spelled out in Woe V Wade, haven't you read it?

I have not read that, unfortunately, as the wording in all things pertaining to "law" inspire suicidal urges in me. But if you're right, that's interesting, and I appreciate the summery. I'll add it to my endless list of instances where law contradicts reason; through a long chronologically stacked list of precedents, where each that came before the other was crafted for reasons not at all pertaining to the next. Combine this with most individuals lack of interest in core reasons, causes, and motivations, and you have a system of law with only the basic veneer of "S-type stapled-down" validity. It's easy enough to recognize our own self interests, and also easy to defend them when they are infringed upon, but stepping in to interfere with the evolutionary altruism that had until very recently been forced upon us by the eons, is crossing a line that we may not regret, but the species as a whole may.

	Originally Posted by Persona To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I came up with the idea for The Matrix long before it became a movie. I want 50% of the box office and dvd sales revenue. Conceiving a child is actually pretty easy and fun. Unless you think people should be able to demand royalties from their children for possessing their genetic material, then it doesn't make sense for a man to have rights to a child his sperm created. Fixed

Did you contribute something tangible, like an idea letter (or sperm), to whoever wrote the Matrix screenplay (the womb)? If so, you most certainly should be given royalties. Just coming up with the idea all by yourself, I'm afraid, mirrors little more than a sexual fantasy you might have while masturbating. What you're trying to use here, I think, is "copyright infringement," which is another perfect example of the law vs reason thing, if you look closely at it.

[Persona]

Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I have not read that, unfortunately, as the wording in all things pertaining to "law" inspire suicidal urges in me. But if you're right, that's interesting, and I appreciate the summery. I'll add it to my endless list of instances where law contradicts reason; through a long chronologically stacked list of precedents, where each that came before the other was crafted for reasons not at all pertaining to the next. Combine this with most individuals lack of interest in core reasons, causes, and motivations, and you have a system of law with only the basic veneer of "S-type stapled-down" validity. It's easy enough to recognize our own self interests, and also easy to defend them when they are infringed upon, but stepping in to interfere with the evolutionary altruism that had until very recently been forced upon us by the eons, is crossing a line that we may not regret, but the species as a whole may.

You're right; let's abolish medicine, since it helps the weak and un-fit survive and reproduce.

Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Did you contribute something tangible, like an idea letter (or sperm), to whoever wrote the Matrix screenplay (the womb)? If so, you most certainly should be given royalties. Just coming up with the idea all by yourself, I'm afraid, mirrors little more than a sexual fantasy you might have while masturbating. What you're trying to use here, I think, is "copyright infringement," which is another perfect example of the law vs reason thing, if you look closely at it.

Whatever, the point was that one little sperm released in a fit of passion (which imo is less valuable than a good idea, you may choose to contest this point) is nothing compared to 9 months of pregnancy.

If you were using an artificial womb or a surrogate, and the man and woman actually did donate equal parts - 1 sperm and 1 ovum - then it would make sense for them to have equal say in whether the child gets aborted or not. Since the child infringes on the woman's body for 9 months and not the man's, it's fair that she is the one who gets to decide.

But then, once the child is past the point of viability - where it can survive without being in her body - it's usually better to induce labour instead of aborting. So at that point even if the man and the woman both decide they want an abortion, that fetus/baby is going to an orphanage instead.

[anticlimatic]

	Originally Posted by Persona To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Whatever, the point was that one little sperm released in a fit of passion (which imo is less valuable than a good idea, you may choose to contest this point) is nothing compared to 9 months of pregnancy.

If the point was time relativity for conception vs pregnancy, how about 9 little months of pregnancy vs 18 years of development? Development, I might argue, that is impacted by the father even more than the mother. Pregnancy is just part of being a woman. Time to suck it up, and save the whining about it for your boyfriend/husband while you're going through it. Just one of the many reasons men used to open the door for you ladies, and stand up when you walked into a room. (It is a shame that feminists had to go and throw THOSE parts out along with the injustices, but better than than the alternative) If it's any consolation, most of my female friends who have been pregnant said they really enjoyed the process, right down to the labor.

And isn't it a bit ironic: if a fetus is guilty of trespassing and privacy violation, wouldn't it have to be a human being in order to do so? Particularly when most people like to pretend that the child being aborted is pre-human? If murder was an appropriate response to trespassing, I'd have never made it to my sixth birthday. (Though I admit, I don't live in Texas either).

	Originally Posted by Persona To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You're right; let's abolish medicine, since it helps the weak and un-fit survive and reproduce.

Medicine is not murder. Abortion is not medicine.

[Purgatid]

I don't think it's reasonable to abolish abortion per definition. The question to me isn't if it should be allowed, the question is rather when. And condoms shouldn't be an automated answer either. Nor should birth control pills be. I mean - prevention is excellent, and solves a lot of problems, but it can't be the only solution to an unwanted pregnancy. Compare with something else. If you've been punched on the nose, the doctors remedy will not be to teach you how to dodge punches. If all we did was prevention, we'd still end up with unwanted pregnancies.

[Thrasymachus]

	Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Medicine is not murder. Abortion is not medicine.

I always figured the safe removal of an unwanted parasite from a host was always medicine. Including but not limited to, tapeworms and ticks.

[Persona]

	Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If the point was time relativity for conception vs pregnancy, how about 9 little months of pregnancy vs 18 years of development? Development, I might argue, that is impacted by the father even more than the mother.

How is that relevant? The child is not at any point thereafter solely dependent on any one person's body for survival. I don't care who impacts the development (well, I do, but not for this question).

	Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Pregnancy is just part of being a woman. Time to suck it up, and save the whining about it for your boyfriend/husband while you're going through it.

That's not an argument at all, or if it is it's circular.

	Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Just one of the many reasons men used to open the door for you ladies, and stand up when you walked into a room. (It is a shame that feminists had to go and throw THOSE parts out along with the injustices, but better than than the alternative) If it's any consolation, most of my female friends who have been pregnant said they really enjoyed the process, right down to the labor.

Oh, yes, absolutely. I would love to if it wasn't such a bad idea for me, for various reasons. But not everyone loves children and not everyone wants them. And they have every right to not want to. Meanwhile I'd like to have the opportunity to make something of myself since my odds of successfully bearing healthy children are so low. I'd rather not have to masquerade as a man to avoid being thought of as a worthless, broken brood-mare. I mean, I'm really smart, and this is the information age, so surely there's something else I can do that will be of benefit to society. Like revolutionizing the way we interact with computers.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


And really, although I have an excuse, a lot of women don't. And they shouldn't have to. Having children is a choice, and one which should be made in good faith.

	Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And isn't it a bit ironic: if a fetus is guilty of trespassing and privacy violation, wouldn't it have to be a human being in order to do so?

No, that's just a hypothetical. "Even if it WERE a human being (which it's not) it would still be guilty of bodily domain violation, which means (Mcfall v. Shimp) that the woman has the right to deny access to her biological faculties even if it would mean the death of the other." In practice, it's not even conscious until ~20weeks and it doesn't even begin to develop a personality or long-term memories until it's around 3 years old.

	Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Medicine is not murder. Abortion is not medicine.

And abortion isn't murder! Glad we got that cleared up.

---------- Post added 08-22-2011 at 08:45 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Eudoxus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why bother engaging in these kinds of strategies?

'Cause it's funny :D and contrary to what you said, it does help if you change it up once in a while, instead of just repeating the same points over and over again.

[anticlimatic]

Originally Posted by Persona To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Oh, yes, absolutely. I would love to if it wasn't such a bad idea for me, for various reasons. But not everyone loves children and not everyone wants them. And they have every right to not want to. Meanwhile I'd like to have the opportunity to make something of myself since my odds of successfully bearing healthy children are so low. I'd rather not have to masquerade as a man to avoid being thought of as a worthless, broken brood-mare. I mean, I'm really smart, and this is the information age, so surely there's something else I can do that will be of benefit to society. Like revolutionizing the way we interact with computers.

Most people, I've found, actually believe and shamelessly defend the ludicrous notion that they themselves are the center of the universe, and everything else swirls and rotates around them. As I mentioned earlier, it's quite easy for people to not only argue for their best interests, but also believe that their best interests line up with some shade of universal righteousness. It's here that most pro-life and pro-choice fall victim; if the pro life argument is based on religious obligation, while the pro-choice argument is based on a fear of lack of control, and self justification.

Where this morally capitalist system of everyone defending their best interests, particularly in law, runs into an ethical snag, is in the fact that the unborn have no voice with which to argue for their best interests. Rationalize it away all you want; don't call it a person until 20 weeks, or six months, or until it's birthday; logically it doesn't change the fact that beyond the moment of conception, barring intervention, there will be another human present, in all it's long or short years of life to follow.

I'd love some evidence that an abortion helped someone further their "career" to the point of benefiting mankind. Until then, i'll let this brilliant little video speak for itself:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[nowt]

	Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	<snip appeal to meathood>

Wake me when it passes the Turing Test.

[Persona]

Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Most people, I've found, actually believe and shamelessly defend the ludicrous notion that they themselves are the center of the universe, and everything else swirls and rotates around them. As I mentioned earlier, it's quite easy for people to not only argue for their best interests, but also believe that their best interests line up with some shade of universal righteousness. It's here that most pro-life and pro-choice fall victim; if the pro life argument is based on religious obligation, while the pro-choice argument is based on a fear of lack of control, and self justification. Where this morally capitalist system of everyone defending their best interests, particularly in law, runs into an ethical snag, is in the fact that the unborn have no voice with which to argue for their best interests. Rationalize it away all you want; don't call it a person until 20 weeks, or six months, or until it's birthday; logically it doesn't change the fact that beyond the moment of conception, barring intervention, there will be another human present, in all it's long or short years of life to follow. I'd love some evidence that an abortion helped someone further their "career" to the point of benefiting mankind. Until then, i'll let this brilliant little video speak for itself: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Honestly, I'm just sick of arguing abortion with people who think they have some kind of moral high ground. If you're *really* bright, you'll eventually turn around on your own, and if you're not, then you never will. So I'll take a page out of your books and let nature run its course.

If you think I'm being lazy, consider that I've been around this block with literally thousands of individuals over the course of about 10 years and that I started out pro-life.

It's just not rewarding for me anymore. If you meant anything to me, I might care to try. But you're just some random guy on the internet who thinks he's superior to me.

[anticlimatic]

	Originally Posted by Persona To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Honestly, I'm just sick of arguing abortion with people who think they have some kind of moral high ground. If you're *really* bright, you'll eventually turn around on your own, and if you're not, then you never will. So I'll take a page out of your books and let nature run its course.

The "moral highground" approach to arguing for pro-life is just as erroneous as the "my own self interests" approach is to arguing for pro-choice, which I mentioned previously but may not have been clear on. My contention is that there is a very overlooked angle with which to debate pro-life; that of straight old fashioned logic and reason.

I appreciate your involuntary assistance in letting me share it with whoever might be reading, and apologize if it caused you any degree of frustration. Truly, I didn't even realize we were debating (arguing?) until you got personal there at the end, which is more my fault than yours. Either way, I accept your concession, and also apologize to the OP for hijacking his or her thread to run off on my own tangent here.

[Persona]

Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The "moral highground" approach to arguing for pro-life is just as erroneous as the "my own self interests" approach is to arguing for pro-choice, which I mentioned previously but may not have been clear on. My contention is that there is a very overlooked angle with which to debate pro-life; that of straight old fashioned logic and reason. I appreciate your involuntary assistance in letting me share it with whoever might be reading, and apologize if it caused you any degree of frustration. Truly, I didn't even realize we were debating (arguing?) until you got personal there at the end, which is more my fault than yours. Either way, I accept your concession, and also apologize to the OP for hijacking his or her thread to run off on my own tangent here.

What concession? That's a really arrogant thing to say and presenting such poorly tested arguments as though they're simultaneously obvious and incontrovertible just reeks of hubris.

"Good old logic and reason" doesn't change the fact that you have to view an undeveloped zygote as more important than a woman of child-bearing age in order for your logic to unfold.

As for women with careers that benefit society who have had abortions - I know dozens. My aunt is one of them. I don't see why you get to judge who's 'worthy' anyway. Just because it appeals to your sense of reason doesn't mean it's universal.

[anticlimatic]

	Originally Posted by Persona To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What concession?

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were bowing out of our discussion. My bad...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Silly personal attacks aside, and getting back to the subject, a fetus does not have to be more important than the woman carrying it to merit life, simply as important. It's not like we're in the dark ages here, where childbirth carries significant risk of killing the mother...and if you have it in your head that being a mother completely defines a woman, and limits her ability to accomplish other great things, you're not even as much of a feminist as I am. In fact, I think the personality-shaping maturity aspect of parenthood might even go as far as to launch someone even farther towards success than they would without children...but that's something that could only ever be apparent in hindsight.

Maybe it all comes down to optimism vs pessimism. That's another pattern I've noticed that distinguishes the pro-lifers from the pro-choicers. Most feminists/pro-choice advocates I've met certainly seem to lack that certain joie de vivre, as the french say. And if you translate it literally, it's certainly easy to see why.

[Persona]

	Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were bowing out of our discussion. My bad... To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

:/ I was, but how can I turn you down when what you want is so obvious?

	Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Silly personal attacks aside, and getting back to the subject, a fetus does not have to be more important than the woman carrying it to merit life, simply as important.

No, it has to be more important, because its life has to override the woman's right to bodily integrity.

	Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's not like we're in the dark ages here, where childbirth carries significant risk of killing the mother...and if you have it in your head that being a mother completely defines a woman, and limits her ability to accomplish other great things, you're not even as much of a feminist as I am.

You don't have to put words into my mouth. I'm perfectly capable of following an explicit line of reasoning, so if you think there's a flaw in mine, go right ahead and point it out, don't make wild intuitive leaps and try to paint me as a moron.

In any case, the ongoing lack of equal contribution from male partners does in fact put a mother at a disadvantage compared to a father, and 9 months of pregnancy alone is a huge setback for a career woman. "Super moms" are a fraud - nobody can survive and have healthy relationships under that level of stress, woman or man. That doesn't mean we won't try, but some aspects will suffer - quite often the children, whom we thought we were saving.

	Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In fact, I think the personality-shaping maturity aspect of parenthood might even go as far as to launch someone even farther towards success than they would without children...but that's something that could only ever be apparent in hindsight.

Nope. Have you seen any of the threads here about parental entitlement? Having children doesn't make people more mature. It makes them think they are more mature, sure, but the reverence with which parenthood is (rightfully) treated results in a lot of misconceptions about what it actually entails.

	Maybe it all comes down to optimism vs pessimism. That's another pattern I've noticed that distinguishes the pro-lifers from the pro-choicers. Most feminists/pro-choice advocates I've met certainly seem to lack that certain joie de vivre, as the french say. And if you translate it literally, it's certainly easy to see why.

I'm a pretty obvious counterexample, actually, but it would be foolish of me to expect you to do your research.

[ManWithNoName]

Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Silly personal attacks aside, and getting back to the subject, a fetus does not have to be more important than the woman carrying it to merit life, simply as important. It's not like we're in the dark ages here, where childbirth carries significant risk of killing the mother...and if you have it in your head that being a mother completely defines a woman, and limits her ability to accomplish other great things, you're not even as much of a feminist as I am. In fact, I think the personality-shaping maturity aspect of parenthood might even go as far as to launch someone even farther towards success than they would without children...but that's something that could only ever be apparent in hindsight. Maybe it all comes down to optimism vs pessimism. That's another pattern I've noticed that distinguishes the pro-lifers from the pro-choicers. Most feminists/pro-choice advocates I've met certainly seem to lack that certain joie de vivre, as the french say. And if you translate it literally, it's certainly easy to see why.

You're entire argument seems to be based around the 'potential' of the unborn life and how the 'potential' of the unborn life is a significant reason enough for a woman to stick it out and have the child. This is kind of pointless because the bottom line is we don't know what the child's life will be like and any attempts at arguing from 'potential' is just speculation.

Is it fair that a man might really truly want and care for the child he helped conceived but it's aborted because the woman he conceived it doesn't want it? No.

But lets face it, generally if you're in a situation where getting an abortion comes up as an option as a solution then generally a mistake has been made somewhere along the line. If the man truly wanted to be a father and truly wanted a baby he should have knocked up a woman who wanted the child also or at least was willing to go through pregnancy and give it to him. It's hard for him him to argue from a position of morality or argue about what is right or wrong in such a circumstance when the real moral decision would have been to not knock up a woman who didn't want a baby.

As for the whole question of choice I'd say let the woman choose as it's her body. She's the one who's going to have to go through the entire pregnancy process. Sure I personally think it's unfair to the guy and yeah in a way her actions can be very self-centered but the fact of the matter is that if you're in this kind of situation it's kind of a shitty situation in general as mistakes have already been made and until we can make some artificial womb to just stick the fetus in so the woman doesn't have to deal with the pregnancy it's going to be a harsh shitty reality. If you're in such a predicament you're not so much as figuring out what is right or wrong but trying to figure out which option screws up the lives of everyone involved the least.

I'd argue that really nobody has the moral high-ground as if they did they would not be in the predicament they are. I think yeah abortion is basically murder anyway you look at it as your destroying a life. But murder I view as a neutral act (people murder in self defense do they not? and it's seen as justifiable) where what matters is your reason for murder. I think it's justifiable murder and should stay as a valid option because sometimes it is necessary due to the reality of the situation where the mother cannot afford nor wants to take care of the child and child is going to grow up in a shitty environment and largely have a shitty life. Of course you are going to get people who abuse abortion and sleep around like crazy and have like ten abortions and basically use it as contraceptive which is should not be used as or thought of as, but with giving people the choice for anything you run the risk of having them abuse it.

[Equinox]

Better yet! Don't let there be any choice at all and make all abortions illegal. That way you solve the dilemma of who has a right to know, and in the mean time you're letting "potential" lives go their merry way. Isn't it better to air on the side of caution?

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Persona To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	:No, it has to be more important, because its life has to override the woman's right to bodily integrity.

The woman gives up that right when she went heels to Jesus and paid her homage to the O god, and invited a fetus to be formed in her body.

[Arcanist]

I think there should be some sort of contractual system implemented for new couples. I can see an "Initiation of Sexual Relations" document which will outline what happens in the case of pregnancy. So if either party doesn't like the terms, they can walk away. Some people will have sex regardless, so what's left is determining what happens, the default scenario, if no contract exists. These contracts can be standardized form documents which outline some common outcomes.

[Equinox]

Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think there should be some sort of contractual system implemented for new couples. I can see an "Initiation of Sexual Relations" document which will outline what happens in the case of pregnancy. So if either party doesn't like the terms, they can walk away. Some people will have sex regardless, so what's left is determining what happens, the default scenario, if no contract exists. These contracts can be standardized form documents which outline some common outcomes.

Then you'll just get the same lousy excuses that you get in other contracts cases: fraud, inducement, inadequacy of consideration, lack of mutual assent...