• Heiko
    519
    A thought that might lead to interesting controversy. In some radio talkshow there was a man who said, that, because of the possibility of unwanted children, for which he might have to pay upkeep, he preferred to stick with "sexual services", where, while not on paper, the possibility of him being held responsible for such children does not exist in practice because of the nature of such services. At first glance this seems to conform with the bible (i.e. all sex outside marriage is and has to be fornication). Interesting thoughts arise if this put into contemporary judicial context. One might easily say in good faith the man was paranoid. On paper, however, the decision to actually give birth to children might be made unilaterally by the mother (if she actually has that choice, i.e. we are not in Texas). In Denmark, an explicit consent has to be given to sexual activity (google "iconsent app"). If two declared wills contradict in an important point, it is both parties' duty to seek clarification of the matter. If no agreement can be made, there can be no "deal". At least this is what responsible and civilized behaviour would imply in general. Yet lawful agreements on the proceedings if unwanted fertiliation happens are not an established social practice. The implication seems to be that the decision to have sex is potentially held equivalent to the decision to have children, which is not obviously the case. At first, there is chance. This can very well and easily be assorted to "risk assessment". But then there is also the decision of another human being that might have very different interests.
    In jurisdictions where abortion is not an option the second factor is taken out of the equation: Both parties are subject to chance, ie having sex implicitely means the readiness to have children (prevention or not).Paradoxically not giving the woman the option eliminates the alledged necessity of a formal agreement before the act, which might be felt as oppressive and cruel afterwards when things get concrete (ie: hormones kick in and the decision made is not distant and abstract anymore), and ensures parity of parties in that matter.

    Not a question, just thoughts.
  • tim wood
    9.3k
    ...to conform with the bible (i.e. all sex outside marriage is and has to be fornication).Heiko
    Tangential point, but that is not in the bible, because "fornication" is not in the bible. What is in the bible and how it differs from what many think is in the bible another topic, but for present purpose, not the same. Thus at least on that account, the bible not a source.

    Imo, there should be available a standard written legal form for women to give to men to sign in which the man commits to paying $2000 per month adjustable for inflation to her or her estate for 300 months should she become pregnant. And this mainly for Texan women or women anywhere cut off from access to legal abortion. If men can control a woman's body, then as counterbalance she gets a firm grip on his wallet.
  • Michael
    15.6k
    And this mainly for Texan women or women anywhere cut off from access to legal abortion. If men can control a woman's body, then as counterbalance she gets a firm grip on his wallet.tim wood

    Most of these men aren't the lawmakers who passed the law, and many of these men oppose the law. Seems like a misplaced "revenge".

    And just skimming the names here on who voted for the bill, ~17 were women. Gender doesn't seem much of a determining factor in the vote. It really just came down to party. All 99 Republicans voted for it, along with 2 Democrats, with 76 Democrats voting against.
  • tim wood
    9.3k
    Most of these men aren't the lawmakers who passed the law, and many of these men oppose the law. Seems like a misplaced "revenge".Michael

    Abortions rights are one problem, but underlying is unwanted pregnancy. Such a contract, enforced a few times and reported, might have an impact. In any case it would provide long-term support for mother and bairn.

    As for misplaced revenge, who do you think pays for most unwanted children?
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    As for misplaced revenge, who do you think pays for most unwanted children?tim wood
    :100:
  • Heiko
    519
    As for misplaced revenge, who do you think pays for most unwanted children?tim wood

    If an "unwanted (by both) child" exists this would indicate either lack of proper health-care or constitutional rape in the form laws. Both I am not concerned with here.
    It is not only about money - this is just a form. If, for example, a man had ethical doubts about reproduction and simply does not want to be responsible in any way for children in the current context it is a hoax to take this to mean that, because in raw nature sexual activity seems to have a mainly reproductive function, to take this to mean that sexual activity in a modern social context served no other (function).
    As the political climate would hardly permit to even have a serious discussion about the implied duty of a citizen to reproduce the population to have this broken down to purely material claims seems to have the greatest chance of success.
    The purpose of sperm objectively seems to be clear, as is the purpose of blood. But that does not mean that a man has to use all his sperm for reproduction and it does not mean that it would prevent anyone to donate some blood to save victims of accidents. If I lend you a piece of property for a given purpose it is my right to withdraw this permission at any time - let alone if you use it for a different purpose. If I would simply give you a piece of property as a gift, you would have no chance to make me responsible in any way for the consequences of you using it in any way.
    To cut this short: Sexual activity, due to legislation, always has an implied contractual character. My primary concern here was the analysis of the implied presumptions. I determined the collaboration of equals and the doctrine of free will as relevant social norms and came to the result that even less barbarian judictions than that of the state of Texas fail to provide sufficient reason for the wanted or unwanted material results of such activity. So far, so good - the less regulation, the better?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.