A secular debate about abortion

[Seth]

Good point. Thanks for finally bringing it up. This means that you are correct in saying that a woman cannot be compelled by another to serve a term of involuntary servitude to gestate a child. But if the State simply makes abortion illegal, then there is no "involuntary servitude" because no requirement is being imposed by another, rather conduct by the woman is being prohibited. That much we know is the case in the law as it exists now. The Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade said that at some point, the interests of the State in preserving life come into play, and that therefore the individual States are permitted to regulate or ban abortion after the second trimester. This is not seen as imposing "involuntary servitude."

Also, if we now discard the notion that a woman may be compelled by either the father or the State to gestate the child, but leave in place a right to an abortion, we now come to tort law, where the harm to the interests of the father, and the State, become compensable injuries.

I agree we come to tort and contract law. As I mentioned earlier, I don't think your desired default is the actual default in the U.S. given statutory law about child support.

I do think that if before having sex, the man says, "if you get pregnant, you're going to abort, right?" and the woman agrees, then the man has a case: more specifically, he should have recourse against the woman for any money damages if she gets pregnant and has a child, which in particular means she can't usefully sue him for child support, since he can countersue for the amount as damages. It seems to me this solves the problems many people are mentioning in most cases, without having to change the present defaults.

The exception comes when the woman simply isn't able to support the child and the taxpayer has to step in - assuming that we're not willing just to let the child starve. In this case, I think it's legitimate for the state to recover child support from the father; the father can try to collect from the mother, but if she's bankrupt, he's out of luck. This is basically equivalent to the counterparty risk in a contract: the father's "contract" with the mother says that the she pays his share of support for the child, but if she can't, he's out of luck; when you agree to a contract, you always take some risk that the other person goes bankrupt and can't deliver. I think this is reasonable because while the father bears less responsibility for the child in this case, the taxpayer bears no responsibility at all, and shouldn't be forced to pay if any of the responsible parties - namely the father and mother - have the money.

This seems a bit like going around your ass to get to your elbow, but I do recognize that the law does this all the time.

The fact that the State can be burdened (at least theoretically) with an unwanted child, and that therefore the State can impose a financial burden on the male, who never agreed to the existence of the child, is not particularly persuasive, given the fact that the child can be given up to the state for adoption by the mother. Why cannot the father "give up for adoption" his share of the financial burden imposed on him against his will and without any right of control by him of the outcome of the pregnancy.

We know that current law DOES impose such burdens on both parents in the interests of the child, but the question here is SHOULD the law do so, or should it be changed to be more equitable to the man, whose sole contribution in the entire transaction could easily be depositing sperm after an invitation to do so by the woman. He loses ALL control after that point, and equity demands that he be absolved of responsibility, and indeed that the State assume his role, if the State is going to permit the pregnancy to proceed and not intervene to prevent the birth of an "unwanted" child.

Perhaps there should some "means testing" in the event of a disputed pregnancy where the father disclaims responsibility, and if the mother is not sufficiently situated to raise the child on her own, the State should compel an early abortion. That's another approach to building some equity into the equation.

[Copyleft]

Are people in persistent vegetative states not actually people, then? I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with this (I support euthanasia, as well), but it does introduce a bit of slippery-slope to your sentience=personhood distinction.

Absolutely. Without brain activity, a body is just meat. The meat may be active or still, but there is no person present.

I also think fetal extraction is an interesting possibility-- still, it's unlikely the fetus could actually live, suspended in a jar, without some means of (probably expensive) life support-- or cryogenic preservation, like extra embryos kept at an IVF clinic. Who pays for this?

I'd be willing to pony up tax dollars to supplement this backup procedure, as an add-on to freely avaialble birth control also paid for with public funds. And, of course, a good social safety-net system for any children actually born and in need of care as well.

[hadespussercats]

Are people in persistent vegetative states not actually people, then? I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with this (I support euthanasia, as well), but it does introduce a bit of slippery-slope to your sentience=personhood distinction.

Absolutely. Without brain activity, a body is just meat. The meat may be active or still, but there is no person present.

I also think fetal extraction is an interesting possibility-- still, it's unlikely the fetus could actually live, suspended in a jar, without some means of (probably expensive) life support-- or cryogenic preservation, like extra embryos kept at an IVF clinic. Who pays for this?

I'd be willing to pony up tax dollars to supplement this backup procedure, as an add-on to freely avaialble birth control also paid for with public funds. And, of course, a good social safety-net system for any children actually born and in need of care as well.

Well, at least you're willing to put your money where your mouth is-- good luck getting popular support for that kind of taxation, though...

[Copyleft]

My argument is that the consent to sex does not imply what Seth says it implies.

The question of whether the current arrangement is truly just and equitable... and whether it should be modified if not... needs to be addressed.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But, do you think that consent to sex constitutes the contractual agreement Seth says it does?

No, I would say not. But then, I also don't think that consent to sex should constitute the contractual agreement you describe either (that the man is legally liable to bear the parenting costs if an unwanted pregnancy occurs AND if the woman chooses not to abort or adopt out)... even though the current law says otherwise.

[Copyleft]

Well, at least you're willing to put your money where your mouth is-- good luck getting popular support for that kind of taxation, though...

Ha! I'm also an American pushing for a true social-democratic society... I know the odds of getting popular support for an idea like this.

[Warren Dew]

For what it's worth, my definition of "human being" is a genetically and phenotypically human animal which can reason about spatial relationships and understand language. Note that, as Seth noted might be possible, this is different from what the definition of a legal person is, or even what it should be.

From the "personhood" perspective, this is very Singer-like in that it would deny human rights to born infants as much as several months old. I cannot agree. But the definition is consistent with secondary and tertiary definitions of "being" in the dictionaries, which allude to a degree of cognitive ability.

As you stipulated in the original question, our definitions of "human being" is not necessarily the same as the legal definition of "person", so we do not yet have a basis to impute the existence or nonexistence of "human rights".

I agree that my definition, as with Seraph's definition, excludes most newborn infants from the category of "human being". That is consistent with my experience with newborn infants, including at least one of my own. Now, it's true that newborns have a hard wired mechanism of making eye contact with adults and convincing them, through the cuteness of the infants' huge eyes, that they are human beings. If you actually observe their behavior and reactions, though, you can't really conclude that there's a mind inside that brain anywhere near as complex as even a mouse has. Even reactions to pain take a couple of seconds to occur, if they occur at all. That's consistent with what's known about the biology of their nervous systems - most of the nerves in the central nervous system are not yet myelinated, and conduct nerve impulses slowly and erratically, which seems to make more complex sequences and patterns of nerve impulses impossible.

However, the point at which an infant comes to meet my definition - or Seraph's - is difficult to determine and varies from infant to infant. I would therefore argue that the appropriate line to draw is not such a scientifically justified line, but rather a simpler, and conservative, legal line, for defining what legally constitutes a "person". Many traditional societies draw the line from a few days to a month after the birth. To me, given the availability of abortion before birth, attaching legal personhood at birth seems to draw a very clear line that is adequately conservative.

This is not to say that unborn fetuses should have no rights at all. Nonhuman animals have rights; we're allowed to kill them, but we aren't allowed to vivisect them, or torture them for our entertainment, for example. I'd suggest that those rights are the appropriate rights to attach at the point where the fetus has a central nervous system. It's okay to abort them, but the method shouldn't be unnecessarily inhumane, and we shouldn't be able to remove a live fetus for experimentation.

Are people in persistent vegetative states not actually people, then? I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with this (I support euthanasia, as well), but it does introduce a bit of slippery-slope to your sentience=personhood distinction.

For me, people who have actually lost higher brain function are not "human beings", although I question whether that situation really applies to many of the people who are classified as being in persistent vegetative states. I would still classify them as legal "persons", for simplicity and conservatism. Still, it's generally legal to remove them from life support and deny them extraordinary care, and I agree with that approach.

[Seth]

I think that there needs to be some objective, scientifically-determinable point in the development of a fetus at which it becomes, legally, a "person" endowed with rights.

Fair enough. I''m in agreement with the detectable-brainwaves approach as well. Sentience = personhood. Prior to that point of development, the fetus is not a person. It's a lifeform, certainly, and deserving of some level of regard for its welfare (much as a mouse or tree does)... but its standing is not comparable to that of a full-fledged person.

And in that, the Court didn't punt its responsibility at all. They explicitly discussed the demarcation point of viability as a useful guideline, helping to establish the concept of first trimester / second trimester / third trimester for further discussion. And I believe you'll find, in most U.S polls, that the majority of U.S. citizens are aware of that distinction and make use of it themselves in offering opinions on when abortion is more or less justified.

And while we're talking about technological advancement: I'm looking forward to the day when fetal extraction becomes a viable alternative to abortion. "You want to keep the fetus alive? Fine. We extract it from the woman who doesn't want it and store it in a jar until somebody decides to gestate and deliver it. It's still alive, but she's not forced to carry it around. Problem solved."

It would sure leave the religious bigots sputtering and spewing, and that's always fun.

The court's exegesis on the subject in Roe v. Wade took only passing notice of biological milestones, saying that "at some point" the State's interest in preserving life supersedes the woman's right to privacy, but it did not set any firm metric by which the states can judge when this interest comes into play. That is probably consistent with the separation of powers doctrine, in that its best, under federalism, to not assume federal government authority where the state's authority will suffice (and I wish they were far more consistent and rigorous in that regard), but it still would be useful to have a solid milestone that everybody has to abide by BEYOND which the fetus is statutorily a "person." Of course, Congress can make that determination with the stroke of a legislative pen, if it's got the courage.

And I agree in re artificial gestation. The farther back in gestation artificial gestation can be safe and effective, the farther back in gestation the ban on abortion should be pushed, the default being "point of fetal viability outside the mother's womb."

[Coito ergo sum]

And as for LP's worries about a woman using that sperm against a man's wishes, well, there are many, many good reasons for sexually active men to wear condoms-- pregnancy prevention being one of the lesser of them. And if a man is concerned about the contents of said condom after the act, well, he doesn't have to leave it lying around, does he? He can take it with him, or flush it down the toilet, or...

Fair enough, but not all guys would necessarily be wary enough, and condoms may break or be deliberately sabotaged - by either partner. When men sabotage women's contraception of course it's FUCKING AWFUL that they're doing that to women. Women do it to men and it's the men's fault for not getting a vasectomy, and for ejaculating... 

Let's add another brick to the load: Let's say that a man and a woman have sex, and they agree beforehand to use contraception, and do. The man uses a condom, and it works properly, and he disposes of it in her bathroom wastebasket. Later, after he's left, she recovers the condom, extracts the semen, and injects it into herself, and becomes pregnant.

What rights does the man now have regarding the gestation, abortion or support for the child?

I believe in most states he would be liable for child support if the child is born, and he would not have the right to order her to have an abortion. See, for example, State v Frisard, a Louisiana case where a woman impregnated herself with a guy's sperm after blowing him (he ejaculated into a condom, she took the sperm, and injected into her uterus). http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of- ... 40516.html - basically, the rule in Louisiana is that a man is strictly liable for his semen. So, the best legal advise is to keep control of your condoms post orgasm. Just make sure you flush them or let them cool down without being in the sole possession of anyone else.

The Frisard case has been misinterpreted as being decided based on the the fact that any sexual contact with a woman makes a man responsible for her child. That's not it - the only issue for the court in Frisard was whether paternity was established. That's done based on a preponderance of the evidence and there was a paternity test indicating 99.94% chance of paternity - but, in Louisiana the test alone is insufficient to prove paternity as a matter of law - so, the court looks at all the facts and circumstances - there was the paternity test, a resemblance between the father and child, and testimony that sexual contact was had at the time of conception - so, taken together the facts indicate that he was the father. Once paternity was established, the father is liable for child support. End of story.

It would be interesting to see how the facts of this case would lie in civil court under a fraud or intentional infliction of emotional distress or other tort claim.

I have wondered that myself.

Fraud would not be a great claim, because fraud requires very specific elements in order to be actionable: (1) an intentional representation of material fact, (2) the representation was false when made, (3) the plaintiff relied on the representation to his detriment, and (4) he suffered injury and damages as a result. The missing element here appears to be "representation." A representation is a statement that some state of affairs is the way it is. Fraud has to be pled "with particularity" - which means you have to be able to allege who said what to whom and when.

Things that are not included as actionable fraud are "promises of future performance." I.e. it's not fraud for me to say "I'll pay your Tuesday for a hamburger today" -- that's a breach of contract. Fraud is - I'll give you this hamburger, for $2, and then you take the $2 and give him what looks like a hamburger but really is dirt on a bun.

So - I don't think it's fraud.

On the issue of "intentional infliction of emotional distress," there are several elements that need to be pled and proven:

1. Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; and
2. Defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous; and
3. Defendant’s act is the proximate cause of distress and the defendant desired to inflict severe emotional
distress or knew that severe emotional distress would be certain or substantially certain to result from
his conduct. ; and
4. Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress as a result of defendant’s conduct.

The conduct must be so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Liability does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities. Persons must necessarily be expected to be hardened to a certain amount of rough language, and to occasional acts that are definitely inconsiderate and unkind.

A better argument for intentional infliction of emotional distress can be made on the facts of Frisard. But, intentional infliction cases are notoriously difficult to prove because courts don't like to expand the number of these cases, lest people sue for minor indignities. These cases have to result in SEVERE emotional distress, too - so even if the conduct is outrageous, if the actual distress actually suffered by the plaintiff wasn't much, then you have a problem here. A plaintiff would, at a minimum, need to present evidence that their emotional trauma is very severe and they'd want a psychiatric expert to testify about it, and to connect it up to the conduct. That makes this kind of case expensive, because doctors don't testify for free - so, either the plaintiff is going to have to have a lot of money to fund the case, or the defendant must have a deep pocket from which the case can ultimately be funded.

[Seth]

Coito, there are too many contenders for quotes for me to list them all, but I am a big fan of your "unconditional gift of sperm" argument. I almost want to make a sex film, just so I can use the title "A Gift of Sperm."

And as for LP's worries about a woman using that sperm against a man's wishes, well, there are many, many good reasons for sexually active men to wear condoms-- pregnancy prevention being one of the lesser of them. And if a man is concerned about the contents of said condom after the act, well, he doesn't have to leave it lying around, does he? He can take it with him, or flush it down the toilet, or...

Why thank you hadespussercats. Haven't gotten any counter-argument directed at that yet. It seems to have been largely ignored.

It's probably been ignored because it's a good argument, and difficult to counter.

Edited to Add: I see Seth has made an attempt-- I think you still came off on top of that encounter.

I'm now waiting to see if there is any response to the argument that by agreeing to have sex with a woman a man makes an implied contract to provide that woman with satisfactory performance and deliver the expected orgasm. Certainly, orgasms are more common and more expected from sex than pregnancy, so if anything it is easier to imply a contract to give an orgasm rather than an obligation to ceded dominion and control of a uterus for 9 months. So, the question becomes, if a guy has sex with a woman and fails to perform or fails to perform satisfactorily or to deliver her an orgasm, does she have a cause of action against him for either specific performance or money damages to compensate her for the loss of enjoyment associated with the failed sexual experience?

I'm sure some women might like to be able to have legal recourse when their guy comes home at 2am, smelling of booze and sporting wood, and proceeds to skip the foreplay, move straight in for a quick fuck, and then rolls over and proceeds to snore loudly while the woman is left without an orgasm. She does have his sticky mess, though, which according to Seth was so valuable to her that she was impliedly willing to risk complete loss of her sexual and procreation autonomy and to cede complete control of her reproductive organs, to the now snoring party....

Earlier in the thread, Seth made the decree that women would be wholly responsible for their own orgasm, of course, and the man is under no obligation to deliver any level of satisfaction in the sexual experience. So, he finds it completely reasonable to imply that a woman contractually trades her sexual and procreative autonomy to the man in exchange for his semen, whereas the man makes no implicit agreements at all other than to agree to fuck her. Hmmmm.....

Well... Hmmm.

I'm not generally a fan of the implied contract, and personally, I think it's an undue burden on a man who might suffer from ED or other sexual problems to be held legally liable for a woman's inability to achieve orgasm with him. On the other hand, I do think women have the right to expect a satisfying sexual experience from their partner-- and if that partner can't provide, that she'd be well-advised to move on. As for the foreplay-challenged or the otherwise selfish lover, I think gaining a reputation as a bad lay might be punishment enough...

Still, if we're talking about implied contracts, your theoretical is certainly just as valid as Seth's.

The problem, as I see it, with this bit of legal logic is that orgasms are quintessentially a "I got mine, you get yours" proposition. Neither party can effectively determine whether or when the other will orgasm, if at all. And there is no harm other than perhaps disappointment that occurs as a result of a failed orgasm.

On the other hand, in the event of a failed condom, or other like situation, the man can be burdened unwillingly, without any choice, and against his consent with 18 to 24 years of child support. That's a very real and immediate wrong.

So, your "contract for orgasm" argument doesn't hold water because there are no damages involved.

[Seth]

Are people in persistent vegetative states not actually people, then? I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with this (I support euthanasia, as well), but it does introduce a bit of slippery-slope to your sentience=personhood distinction.

Absolutely. Without brain activity, a body is just meat. The meat may be active or still, but there is no person present.

And yet while the law permits the withdrawal of artificial life support, it does not allow actual killing of the person. Even if food and water are cut off, things are allowed to progress naturally to the natural end. With a pregnancy, that would mean allowing the gestation to proceed normally to delivery, without artificial intervention in the natural processes involved.

[Coito ergo sum]

My argument is that the consent to sex does not imply what Seth says it implies.

The question of whether the current arrangement is truly just and equitable... and whether it should be modified if not... needs to be addressed.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But, do you think that consent to sex constitutes the contractual agreement Seth says it does?

No, I would say not. But then, I also don't think that consent to sex should constitute the contractual agreement you describe either (that the man is legally liable to bear the parenting costs if an unwanted pregnancy occurs AND if the woman chooses not to abort or adopt out)... even though the current law says otherwise.

See, but the thing is, I haven't suggested that there is any contract at all. Quite the opposite. There isn't a contract - there is no offer, acceptance, consideration or manifestation of mutual assent to reasonably specific terms - at least not merely because the parties consent to have sex. If they say things to each other that constitute an offer/acceptance and agree to exchange something of value under certain terms, well then there'd be a contract. But, in my entire life I can honestly say that I've never negotiated a contract with a woman under sexual circumstances - we generally just consent to fuck.

The current law just imposes the obligation on both parents to support their biological children, except where the law says they don't have to like when there has been a lawful adoption or in a sperm bank scenario. The woman has the right to abort a child after fertilization because individual liberty rights requires that a person have the right to do with their own body what they see fit, and to require a woman to have a child merely at behest of a third party would be indentured servitude, peonage and slavery. A man has just as much of a right to do with his own body as he chooses, but simply can't have an abortion because it's physically impossible.

[Warren Dew]

I think you can donate to specific clinics-- I'll check that out and get back to you.

Thanks in advance.

I also agree that forced fetus extraction is a terrible idea-- but if a woman is planning to get an abortion, she's planning on having a fetus extracted (unless we're discussing termination before the fetus stage-- which, for the purposes of discussion, I'm dismissing.) An abortion is the removal of the fetus and placenta from the womb. If that fetus needn't be destroyed in the process, and if the biological parents of said fetus are not held legally responsible for it in any way (for instance, if another couple wanted to adopt said fetus), I don't see how keeping the fetus alive is in any way an infringement on the woman's rights.

In most abortion procedures, the fetus is dead before it's extracted. If using a procedure that keeps the fetus alive involves extra risk, inconvenience, or discomfort to the woman, I think forcing her to use that alternative procedure is an infringement on her rights. I would agree that if the only difference is whether the fetus, after removal, gets put in the dumpster or, say, transplanted into another woman, keeping it for transplant would not infringe on her bodily autonomy rights.

[hadespussercats]

I'm now waiting to see if there is any response to the argument that by agreeing to have sex with a woman a man makes an implied contract to provide that woman with satisfactory performance and deliver the expected orgasm. Certainly, orgasms are more common and more expected from sex than pregnancy, so if anything it is easier to imply a contract to give an orgasm rather than an obligation to ceded dominion and control of a uterus for 9 months. So, the question becomes, if a guy has sex with a woman and fails to perform or fails to perform satisfactorily or to deliver her an orgasm, does she have a cause of action against him for either specific performance or money damages to compensate her for the loss of enjoyment associated with the failed sexual experience?

I'm sure some women might like to be able to have legal recourse when their guy comes home at 2am, smelling of booze and sporting wood, and proceeds to skip the foreplay, move straight in for a quick fuck, and then rolls over and proceeds to snore loudly while the woman is left without an orgasm. She does have his sticky mess, though, which according to Seth was so valuable to her that she was impliedly willing to risk complete loss of her sexual and procreation autonomy and to cede complete control of her reproductive organs, to the now snoring party....

Earlier in the thread, Seth made the decree that women would be wholly responsible for their own orgasm, of course, and the man is under no obligation to deliver any level of satisfaction in the sexual experience. So, he finds it completely reasonable to imply that a woman contractually trades her sexual and procreative autonomy to the man in exchange for his semen, whereas the man makes no implicit agreements at all other than to agree to fuck her. Hmmmm.....

Well... Hmmm.

I'm not generally a fan of the implied contract, and personally, I think it's an undue burden on a man who might suffer from ED or other sexual problems to be held legally liable for a woman's inability to achieve orgasm with him. On the other hand, I do think women have the right to expect a satisfying sexual experience from their partner-- and if that partner can't provide, that she'd be well-advised to move on. As for the foreplay-challenged or the otherwise selfish lover, I think gaining a reputation as a bad lay might be punishment enough...

Still, if we're talking about implied contracts, your theoretical is certainly just as valid as Seth's.

The problem, as I see it, with this bit of legal logic is that orgasms are quintessentially a "I got mine, you get yours" proposition. Neither party can effectively determine whether or when the other will orgasm, if at all. And there is no harm other than perhaps disappointment that occurs as a result of a failed orgasm.

On the other hand, in the event of a failed condom, or other like situation, the man can be burdened unwillingly, without any choice, and against his consent with 18 to 24 years of child support. That's a very real and immediate wrong.

So, your "contract for orgasm" argument doesn't hold water because there are no damages involved.

It all depends on how you define damages, Seth.

[hadespussercats]

I think you can donate to specific clinics-- I'll check that out and get back to you.

Thanks in advance.

I also agree that forced fetus extraction is a terrible idea-- but if a woman is planning to get an abortion, she's planning on having a fetus extracted (unless we're discussing termination before the fetus stage-- which, for the purposes of discussion, I'm dismissing.) An abortion is the removal of the fetus and placenta from the womb. If that fetus needn't be destroyed in the process, and if the biological parents of said fetus are not held legally responsible for it in any way (for instance, if another couple wanted to adopt said fetus), I don't see how keeping the fetus alive is in any way an infringement on the woman's rights.

In most abortion procedures, the fetus is dead before it's extracted. If using a procedure that keeps the fetus alive involves extra risk, inconvenience, or discomfort to the woman, I think forcing her to use that alternative procedure is an infringement on her rights. I would agree that if the only difference is whether the fetus, after removal, gets put in the dumpster or, say, transplanted into another woman, keeping it for transplant would not infringe on her bodily autonomy rights.

Absolutely-- thanks for clarifying.

Re your question-- email's out, just waiting for response.

[Coito ergo sum]

The problem, as I see it, with this bit of legal logic is that orgasms are quintessentially a "I got mine, you get yours" proposition. Neither party can effectively determine whether or when the other will orgasm, if at all. And there is no harm other than perhaps disappointment that occurs as a result of a failed orgasm.

It's the breach of the implied promise - she is expecting that they have real sex, and he goes for 2 minutes and shoots off. Unless he warns her in advance that he's a two-pump-chump, then she can expect at least a "reasonable" performance, under the "reasonable man" standard.

On the other hand, in the event of a failed condom, or other like situation, the man can be burdened unwillingly, without any choice, and against his consent with 18 to 24 years of child support. That's a very real and immediate wrong.

If it's the male wearing the condom, then it can reasonably be implied that it's his obligation to ensure that the condom works. There is such a thing as a "female condom," and if the burden is to be placed on the woman to take all the risk, then he should have required her to wear a female condom.

So, your "contract for orgasm" argument doesn't hold water because there are no damages involved.

Hedonic damages - loss of enjoyment - and loss of the vale of the time wasted (opportunity cost). She could also sue for specific performance, meaning that he has to fulfill the contract, and he loses his bodily autonomy until he delivers the impliedly promised orgasm.