A secular debate about abortion

[Seth]

Therefore, in summary, women who have consensual sex with a man assume and consent to the known risks of pregnancy, including the known risks of pregnancy even when using birth control, and absent the consent of the other parties to the contract formed by that consensual act to termination of a pregnancy, both the father and the State have a right to intervene in any decisions regarding the welfare of the zygote/fetus, including preventing termination of the pregnancy and compelling specific performance of gestation through birth.

The only 'contractual' obligations I assume when sleeping with a woman are not to deliberately give me a retro virus and not to misrepresent it as rape later .

The value of a half copy of a man's DNA is virtually nothing ,biologically it is up to her body what happens to that information .

If I give a woman half the blue prints for a house and none of the materials needed to build it and no contract verbal or otherwise is entered into about her requirement to build it for me (say for example I drew a picture on the back and gave it her) , Can I or the state intervene to force her to build it ?

You make the assumption that the purpose of sex is making humans ,That there is a contractual obligation that a woman has to gestate a child that she under took by having sex even though and esp if contraception is used that is Clearly NOT an accepted or implied part of any contract .

The "purpose" of sex is irrelevant. What's relevant are the natural, known, predictable risks of having sex and the legal principle called "assumption of risk" and "implied contract."

Whether you agree or not, the legal fact is that when you have sex with a woman, if she gets pregnant, and she decides to keep the child, you ARE legally responsible for 18 to 24 years worth of child support, and the courts will coerce your specific performance in that implied contract.

I see no reason why women should be held to a lesser standard than men.

The contract involved means that IF the woman gets pregnant, then there is more than one interested party to the transaction, and before any irrevocable decisions are made, all interested parties must be consulted and agree to the action.

This means that if you and your girlfriend get knocked up, she can't abort the baby without your consent, and you can't force her to have an abortion if she wants to keep the baby without her consent.

The status quo would be that without express agreement on the part of both parties, natural gestation would continue. And that's leaving out the interests of the fetus as protected by the State, acting as guardian ad litem.

In other words, you should make an agreement, probably a written one, about what the dispensation of the fetus will be, one which comports with local laws on the subject, before having sex.

This allows both parties to set forth their duties and obligations under the contract. For example, your pre-coital contract would simply say that you take no responsibility for your semen or any child that might result from injecting it into a woman, and that you refuse to be responsible for the care or maintenance of any such child should the woman decide to gestate the child to term. Such a contract should absolutely absolve you of any liability for a child resulting from your sexual union. The woman can refuse to sign, and refuse to let you fuck her. But if she DOES let you fuck her, after you've informed her of the contract, even if she doesn't sign, she's still ratified the contract through performance. In other words, if you say, "Baby, if you get knocked up, I'm not paying a dime to support the rugrat." that's a binding oral legal contract if she spreads her legs and lets you inside.

In the same manner, the woman could require you to sign a contract saying that you WILL be one-half responsible for any child resulting from the sex act. Your choice is to decline to have sex.

But the default implied contract would be that if a child is conceived, neither the father nor the mother can knowingly or deliberately terminate that child without the express consent of the other parent and the State.

So, girls, get a signature or keep your knees together. Welcome to sexual freedom!

[Seth]

A human zygote is no more valuable than a zygote of any other species of multicellular eukaryote...

"Value" is an inherently subjective thing.

And there's no escaping the fact that, all the way during pregnancy, the foetus is scarcely sentient and questionably a person…

Again, this is not an objective determination...

That being the case, my argument that contractual obligations can bind a woman to specific performance stands as valid.

Orly? I suppose you can back the validity of the contractual obligations, as you define them here, by means of some objective standard? You know, the sort the lack of which apparently makes Lordpasternack's statements invalid in your eyes?

Methinks, at least one aspect of the Dunning-Kruger effect has been amply illustrated here.

What do you mean "objective standard?" The argument was over value, and I stated that value is not objective, it is subjective, and in the case of the value of a zygote or fetus, it's set by society to one degree or another.

[lordpasternack]

...it's a shame that males don't have any say in the matter after they ejaculate, even if they were taking precautions themselves to avoid impregnating the woman - but unfortunately biology can be discriminatory like that. On the bright side - people are currently developing male hormonal contraceptives, meaning that guys will likely at least have more choice available in future when it comes to controlling their fertility.

Well, I wrote that a few pages back, but now I've seen the light. I thought this was an unfortunate permanent inequality in biology - particularly indeed when a female wants to be a biological parent and the male doesn't. We had argued previously in other threads about the possibility of males abdicating parental responsibility for a pregnancy during the usual abortion limit time. I also thought that the scenario of the male wanting the pregnancy that the female doesn't would be permanently tricky at least until synthetic wombs are developed, and males can nurture their foetuses to viability with their own effort and resources…

But no! The solution is far simpler and more straightforward and cretinous and downright obnoxious than that! Men should just damn well have equal say in the use of the bodies of women they've spunked in! Women should be compelled to abort if the male doesn't want fatherhood, or at any rate should have their uteruses commissioned to give continuous unflagging support to the embryo/foetus, and should go through the ordeal of labour and birth, all at the male's behest.

No tip-toeing around a complex biological inequity, and looking to find some of the best or least worst solutions to avoid encroaching on the rights of either party - it really is just as easy as that! We can come up with all this high-sounding legalish contracty stuff to rationalise it and everything. And if we just march in, without reading the thread, and fill a long enough post with such drivel - people will be too busy gasping and facepalming and needing a cup of tea and a lie down by the time they've finished reading the post, that they probably won't even bother to respond and we have clearly squashed them with our mighty intellect and won the debate. Result!

Actually, it still doesn't sound quite like gender equality. I think biological fathers should be forced alongside the women they spunked inside to undergo procedures equivalent in pain and complications potential to either abortion, pregnancy or birth. I mean if the male gets his contractual right to forceably commission a female to produce a biological heir, or insist that she doesn't - it's only right that we obligate him to share properly in the experience.

[Seth]

...it's a shame that males don't have any say in the matter after they ejaculate, even if they were taking precautions themselves to avoid impregnating the woman - but unfortunately biology can be discriminatory like that. On the bright side - people are currently developing male hormonal contraceptives, meaning that guys will likely at least have more choice available in future when it comes to controlling their fertility.

Well, I wrote that a few pages back, but now I've seen the light. I thought this was an unfortunate permanent inequality in biology - particularly indeed when a female wants to be a biological parent and the male doesn't. We had argued previously in other threads about the possibility of males abdicating parental responsibility for a pregnancy during the usual abortion limit time. I also thought that the scenario of the male wanting the pregnancy that the female doesn't would be permanently tricky at least until synthetic wombs are developed, and males can nurture their foetuses to viability with their own effort and resources…

But no! The solution is far simpler and more straightforward and cretinous and downright obnoxious than that! Men should just damn well have equal say in the use of the bodies of women they've spunked in! Women should be compelled to abort if the male doesn't want fatherhood, or at any rate should have their uteruses commissioned to give continuous unflagging support to the embryo/foetus, and should go through the ordeal of labour and birth, all at the male's behest.

Well, you could just get a dildo and forgo all the problems.

No tip-toeing around a complex biological inequity,

It's not a biological inequity, it's biology. Women have babies. Fact of life. Get over it. As a fact of life, it should factor in to all decisions on how a woman operates her sex organs. Women have lots and lots of options available to them, beginning with chastity and ending with lesbianism. If you want cock, however, the real deal, with spunk and everything, then you take your chances with the natural order of things. You can reduce your risks in any number of ways, all of which have calculable odds of failure. So in the end you agree to take a known risk if you voluntarily choose to have sex with a fertile man.

and looking to find some of the best or least worst solutions to avoid encroaching on the rights of either party

Let's see, women want to be allowed to have cock whenever they please, without being held responsible for any consequences whatsoever. They get to say who, when and how, and they get to use whatever contraceptive method they like, and can insist that the man do so as well. But if all that fails, or the woman is imprudent and doesn't use anything, and gets pregnant, she also wants unlimited and absolute access to abortion, right up until the feet and body are outside the womb, but the head remains inside, at which point the abortionist sticks a pair of scissors into the infants brain and kills it, then delivers the dead baby. And the woman will often demand that the man pay for at least part of the abortion. And if the man wants to keep the child, he's told to fuck off because it's "her body."

At the same time, if the woman decides to keep the baby and raise it, she also gets to demand 18 to 24 years worth of child support from the man, without his consent or agreement.

So whose rights, exactly, are being encroached upon right now. It sure as fuck isn't the woman's.

- it really is just as easy as that! We can come up with all this high-sounding legalish contracty stuff to rationalise it and everything. And if we just march in, without reading the thread, and fill a long enough post with such drivel - people will be too busy gasping and facepalming and needing a cup of tea and a lie down by the time they've finished reading the post, that they probably won't even bother to respond and we have clearly squashed them with our mighty intellect and won the debate. Result!

Didn't need to read the thread, I was posing a unique aspect of the debate. If you don't want to debate, then bugger off.

Actually, it still doesn't sound quite like gender equality. I think biological fathers should be forced alongside the women they spunked inside to undergo procedures equivalent in pain and complications potential to either abortion, pregnancy or birth. I mean if the male gets his contractual right to forceably commission a female to produce a biological heir, or insist that she doesn't - it's only right that we obligate him to share properly in the experience.

It's her womb, and she invited him in. She didn't have to, but she did, for her own personal pleasure. If she doesn't know how to operate her womb properly, perhaps she should avoid inviting men into it.

But, if you want to hear my REAL argument, it's that since women have been liberated, and have attained sovereign control over their wombs, the correct social response is to put ALL the responsibility for what happens inside it on the woman, and the woman ONLY. Men, we are now free to find 'em, feel em', fuck em' and forget 'em. If they invite you into their pussy, it's now THEIR problem to deal with the semen. Consider it a housewarming gift.

That's the TRUE price of sexual freedom, ladies. You want a man inside you, it's up to you to deal with the mess left behind. I won't bitch at you if you have an abortion, but you don't get to demand ANYTHING from me, certainly not child support. If you don't like the mess, don't invite me to the party.

How's that for fair?

[lordpasternack]

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…

[hadespussercats]

Seth, I can see where you're coming from, even if you're, in my opinion, hopelessly misguided on the subject at hand. There's no implied contract when a couple decides to have sex, though-- at least not currently, in the United States. And your depiction of equal opportunity to demand or refuse parenthood doesn't reflect the far greater physical, financial, and emotional risks a woman undergoes when she carries a pregnancy to term, from pregnancy-induced diabetes, hypertension, pre-eclampsia, HELPP syndrome, placenta previa and other potential causes of fatal bleeding, to possible invasive surgery, caesarians, etc., to pregnancy-related depression or post-partum depression or psychosis, to lost hours of work due to required bed-rest or nausea-- not to mention more middling, but still life-affecting concerns like hemorrhoids, fallen arches, and other unwelcome body changes... and the list goes on.

These are risks all pregnant women face, that potential fathers simply do not. How do you address this inherent and severe inequity in your supposedly even-handed proposed contractual system? And how do you address cases of rape or incest, or situations where the health of the fetus is in question?

[lordpasternack]

But it's her womb, and she invited the guy in, like. She has to face that responsibility for being a slut taking that chance - and should only be allowed to abort with the consent of the male.

But aside from that, the male of course should shoulder zero further burden, because it was teh wimminz that did it, and the male who spunked of course was just passive and helpless in spunking in that woman and risk impregnating her. She's the one with the womb, and should just know better. Menz with their penises and spunk are just helpless victims. Women should go through pregnancy/abortion at the man's behest because it's "his foetus" - but males shouldn't be obligated to undergo anything simulating the experience of pregnancy/abortion because it's "her body, and her responsibility, as punishment consequence for her actions (which of course, spunker was passive in)".

[hadespussercats]

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.

[Coito ergo sum]

Let's see, women want to be allowed to have cock whenever they please, without being held responsible for any consequences whatsoever. They get to say who, when and how, and they get to use whatever contraceptive method they like, and can insist that the man do so as well. But if all that fails, or the woman is imprudent and doesn't use anything, and gets pregnant, she also wants unlimited and absolute access to abortion, right up until the feet and body are outside the womb, but the head remains inside, at which point the abortionist sticks a pair of scissors into the infants brain and kills it, then delivers the dead baby. And the woman will often demand that the man pay for at least part of the abortion. And if the man wants to keep the child, he's told to fuck off because it's "her body."

I don't think that's an abdication of responsibility. A man and a woman can both do what they want with their genitals. A woman is the one who gets pregnant, and if I were a woman I sure as hell wouldn't cede my right to what I want with my body to some guy because he stuck his dick in and didn't pull out fast enough.

When two people have sex, the issue should be, IMHO, between the two of them. If the woman gets pregnant, since she is the pregnant one then it's her choice how long it stays in her body. I don't see any way around that - if I had a daughter of child bearing years get pregnant, I sure as fuck am not going to have her required to ask for his permission to get an abortion.

So, the question then becomes - what do we do when a woman gets pregnant and the guy doesn't want anything to do with it. Well, logically, the possibilities are thus: (a) the man can metaphorically abort - by simply announcing his intention not to care for the child - and leave the woman solely responsible - she wants it, she can have it, or (b) we can require that the guy support his child, even when he doesn't want it.

In my view, option (a) is not practical or desirable. When the child is born, we don't just have two people to think about, we have 3. The mother, the father, and the child. Even if the father doesn't want to have anything to do with the mother, the child has a right to support from its father. So, while the father may feel that it is unfair that the mother could have aborted in month 3 or whatever, and he had no such opportunity, the fact remains that after birth we are now faced with a living, breathing child and that child has the right to be supported by its parents.

In addition, from the standpoint of the rest of us, whether a woman gets pregnant is between the man and the woman themselves, and should be none of the rest of our business. So, to the extent a man disclaims his obligation to pay child support from products of his ejaculations, that should not turn out to be society's problem to pay for it. They're the ones who fucked - so, I'm not to keen on chipping in for guys who impregnate women and then disclaim their support obligation.

At the same time, if the woman decides to keep the baby and raise it, she also gets to demand 18 to 24 years worth of child support from the man, without his consent or agreement.

He doesn't need to consent. He is strictly liable for the product of his balls, and she is strictly liable for the product of her ovaries. Whatever agreements between themselves is up to them. The child, once born, shares 1/2 the DNA of the father, and 1/2 of the mother. Those are the people who need to provide for the child.

So whose rights, exactly, are being encroached upon right now. It sure as fuck isn't the woman's.

We're really not talking about rights here, but obligations. Parents have a legal obligation to support their live children. If we want to talk about rights, then children have a right to support from their parents.

Individual adults have the right to sexual privacy, and part of that right is a woman's qualified or limited right to an abortion (states in the US are free to limit and regulate abortions, and they can do so almost completely in the third trimester). A man, not being physically capable of getting pregnant, naturally can't have a right to an abortion. That would be absurd. I mean, that would be like saying a woman has a right to a vasectomy.

That's the TRUE price of sexual freedom, ladies. You want a man inside you, it's up to you to deal with the mess left behind. I won't bitch at you if you have an abortion, but you don't get to demand ANYTHING from me, certainly not child support. If you don't like the mess, don't invite me to the party.

How's that for fair?

It's fair as between the man and the woman, but it's the child who is entitled to the support. So, the mother ought not to be able to bargain away that right, and the father ought not to be able to disclaim it. He need not be emotionally involved or physically present - nobody can force or compel that - but, both the mother and the father ought to pay child support to feed, cloth and shelter the product of their sexual congress. It certainly shouldn't be society's problem that two people decide to fuck and don't operate their genitals in such a way as to prevent the pregnancy.

[lordpasternack]

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.

[Coito ergo sum]

But it's her womb, and she invited the guy in, like. She has to face that responsibility for being a slut taking that chance - and should only be allowed to abort with the consent of the male.

I don't think that accurately states Seth's position. I think what he was saying was that she can abort or not abort as she pleases, but he would have the corresponding right to not provide child support if she chooses to have the child and he did not wish the child to be born.

I don't agree with his argument, but I don't think he was arguing for veto power over the abortion procedure.

I can understand where he is coming from - after all, women get pregnant and they can decide during the pregnancy to kill the fetus/embryo instead of having the child, irrespective of what the guy wants, and the guy is essentially at the mercy of the woman - if she wants to have the kid and it's born, then he's on the hook. The only way he's not on the hook is if she chooses to abort. The thing is, though, the way I see it is that unfortunately biology doesn't allow for equality in this instance and nature just is the way it is. And, once a baby is born, it now has rights - and those rights include support from its father whether the father wanted the child or not.

I don't see any logical way around that. I mean - what if the child wants to know and see his or her father? Can the father then, after birth, choose to associate with the child and provide emotional and parental guidance after he disclaimed his fatherhood when the child was in utero? Or, do we make the law that once the father makes his metaphorical abortion and disclaims support obligations, that he is legally prohibited from interacting with the child in any way? So, mothers would then say, "no, little Janey, I know you want to see your daddy, but he metaphorically aborted you in utero and is legally prohibited from being your dad unless he pays all the child support he would have paid from birth...."

But aside from that, the male of course should shoulder zero further burden, because it was teh wimminz that did it, and the male who spunked of course was just passive and helpless in spunking in that woman and risk impregnating her. She's the one with the womb, and should just know better. Menz with their penises and spunk are just helpless victims. Women should go through pregnancy/abortion at the man's behest because it's "his foetus" - but males shouldn't be obligated to undergo anything simulating the experience of pregnancy/abortion because it's "her body, and her responsibility, as punishment consequence for her actions (which of course, spunker was passive in)".

Can we just have manual and oral sex then? I mean - then neither of us have to worry about pregnancy and if we alternate, then it's fair.

[Seth]

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.

[hadespussercats]

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.

[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?

Seth, I can see where you're coming from, even if you're, in my opinion, hopelessly misguided on the subject at hand. There's no implied contract when a couple decides to have sex, though-- at least not currently, in the United States. And your depiction of equal opportunity to demand or refuse parenthood doesn't reflect the far greater physical, financial, and emotional risks a woman undergoes when she carries a pregnancy to term, from pregnancy-induced diabetes, hypertension, pre-eclampsia, HELPP syndrome, placenta previa and other potential causes of fatal bleeding, to possible invasive surgery, caesarians, etc., to pregnancy-related depression or post-partum depression or psychosis, to lost hours of work due to required bed-rest or nausea-- not to mention more middling, but still life-affecting concerns like hemorrhoids, fallen arches, and other unwelcome body changes... and the list goes on.

These are risks all pregnant women face, that potential fathers simply do not. How do you address this inherent and severe inequity in your supposedly even-handed proposed contractual system? And how do you address cases of rape or incest, or situations where the health of the fetus is in question?

[Seth]

Seth, I can see where you're coming from, even if you're, in my opinion, hopelessly misguided on the subject at hand. There's no implied contract when a couple decides to have sex, though-- at least not currently, in the United States.

Of course it isn't. It's a legal theory I'm developing that may one day be argued in court.

And your depiction of equal opportunity to demand or refuse parenthood doesn't reflect the far greater physical, financial, and emotional risks a woman undergoes when she carries a pregnancy to term, from pregnancy-induced diabetes, hypertension, pre-eclampsia, HELPP syndrome, placenta previa and other potential causes of fatal bleeding, to possible invasive surgery, caesarians, etc., to pregnancy-related depression or post-partum depression or psychosis, to lost hours of work due to required bed-rest or nausea-- not to mention more middling, but still life-affecting concerns like hemorrhoids, fallen arches, and other unwelcome body changes... and the list goes on.These are risks all pregnant women face, that potential fathers simply do not. How do you address this inherent and severe inequity in your supposedly even-handed proposed contractual system?

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.

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.

And how do you address cases of rape or incest, or situations where the health of the fetus is in question?

This is a very difficult moral dilemma. On one hand, the child is innocent, and does not deserve to be killed merely because the father was a rapist. On the other hand, bearing a rapists child can be tremendously stressful and an inequity imposed upon the woman, and the child may well suffer because of that mental stress as it's being raised. Therefore, I support voluntary abortion for women who have been made pregnant through rape or incest. Moreover, I'd fund such abortions, and pre-natal care if the mother decides to keep the child, from public victim's compensation funds.

However, I would LIMIT that right to abortions in the first and second trimesters, prior to fetal viability, on the "make up your damned mind and quit dawdling around" principle of estoppel. Sit on your rights for too long and you lose them.

By the way, that's the same metric I generally apply to abortion, if you're going to do it, do it early, don't dawdle. Late-term abortions should be exceedingly rare and only if the mother's LIFE is in grave danger, and EVERY late-term abortion should require approval by a court. Petitions for late-term abortions should be granted expedited status in the courts, and filing and court fees should be waived.