Douchebag tricks his girlfriend into taking abortion pills

[Alyrium Denryle]

Any finger pointing at men with regards to a child being born is ignoring the absolutely undeniable fact that choices do not end when pregnancy occurs. Only one person has the final say and choice on whether that pregnancy is carried to term. Therefore when a pregnancy is carried to term, there is only one person you can point a finger at as completely and fully responsible for that outcome. It isn't the man.

I have already addressed this argument. Namely, just because there is another step in the causal chain, provided the end result was forseeable, responsibility for earlier parts of the causal chain does not go away. If I create a machine that I know if handled a certain way (something easy to do by accident) will explode, and I then proceed to sell it to firms that I know have a poor safety track record, I am ultimately responsible for designing a dangerous machine.

If I give shitty advice and someone follows it, I am partly responsible for the outcome.

Same thing here. In the unlikely event that I ever have carnal knowledge of a woman, I am partly responsible for whatever consequences arise, because the consequences are foreseeable and can readily occur. Degree of removal matters, but one step? No. This is why Transocean, BP, and Haliburton are all on the hook for the Deepwater Horizon spill, while company that manufactured the widgets used in the blowout preventer is not.

Did you never learn how to deal with multi-step causal chains before?

As far as the abortion is concerned, taxpayer funding it is the best option. There is this funny thing about responsibility. It typically carries rights with it. The notion that with responsibility, comes the other half of the equation. The position of being a stakeholder. Once you make someone pay for a thing in a way that they notice, they have this inconvenient notion that they should have some say in the thing. This is dangerous when people's uteri come into the equation.

With the kid? Yeah, if the dude shoulders responsibility for the kid, that also means he has a stake in how the kid is raised, and that is just fine (to a point given that the kid is not owned by the parents.)

[Carinthium]

Question- Do people here at least all agree that if both parties have a written understanding regarding liabilities before engaging in sex in the first place, that said agreement should take precedence regarding responsibilities for child support? If the woman renounces child support rights of her own free will at such an early stage (admittedly I am given to understand this will be very rare), obviously it's her problem later...

[Scrib]

Question- Do people here at least all agree that if both parties have a written understanding regarding liabilities before engaging in sex in the first place, that said agreement should take precedence regarding responsibilities for child support? If the woman renounces child support rights of her own free will at such an early stage (admittedly I am given to understand this will be very rare), obviously it's her problem later...

Pretty sure that the law and the basis for child support means that no one really gives a shit about such contracts. Hard to disagree.

[Carinthium]

I was talking the moral should, not the legal should. I admit this is an extreme case, but if the woman really did sign a contract to that effect I see no reason why she should be allowed to wriggle out of it.

-You could argue that the child needs the money. Then again, unless we're talking the lowest socioeconomic bracket it'll be the case a lot of children are worse off than them in their own country. A lot of children in the Third World, in any event, will be worse off- and we don't force the man to support them.

-The argument about free choice where to put one's dick doesn't apply in this situation. The man was clearly doing it with an understanding that they weren't taking on any obligations.

The only other line I can possibly see is a rhethorical appeal to the man taking advantage of the woman emotionally, but although I can see how to put that together in a rhethorically effective way I don't see how that could possibly be made into a rational argument.

[Scrib]

I was talking the moral should, not the legal should. I admit this is an extreme case, but if the woman really did sign a contract to that effect I see no reason why she should be allowed to wriggle out of it.

She's being allowed to "wriggle" out of it because the contract concerns the child and what it needs and dare I say what it's "entitled" to so to speak and she can't give that away in the first place, especially before it's born.

-You could argue that the child needs the money. Then again, unless we're talking the lowest socioeconomic bracket it'll be the case a lot of children are worse off than them in their own country. A lot of children in the Third World, in any event, will be worse off- and we don't force the man to support them.

So what if people are worse off than them in their own country or in Africa or on Mars? So the solution when faced with possible harm is to point at poorer people, shrug and walk off?

As for responsibility:are you challenging the idea that the man is responsible for the child he spawned at all? Because that's the only argument I see.

[Singular Intellect]

I have already addressed this argument. Namely, just because there is another step in the causal chain, provided the end result was forseeable, responsibility for earlier parts of the causal chain does not go away. If I create a machine that I know if handled a certain way (something easy to do by accident) will explode, and I then proceed to sell it to firms that I know have a poor safety track record, I am ultimately responsible for designing a dangerous machine.

What a complete and utter load of bullshit. Men under no circumstances created, are responsible or are expected to provide owner instructions for women's bodies. Claiming men have any of that responsibility is pure fucking retardedness. Your argument at best might apply to parents who created a woman, and good fucking luck trying to claim parents are responsible for an adult woman's choice to carry to term.

If I give shitty advice and someone follows it, I am partly responsible for the outcome.

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

By that logic, if I advise someone to smash their vehicle window, I'm partially responsible for that damage. Are you on drugs?

Any woman is free to entertain the desires and opinions of a man if she gets pregnant. But the choice to carry to term is hers and hers alone.

Same thing here. In the unlikely event that I ever have carnal knowledge of a woman, I am partly responsible for whatever consequences arise, because the consequences are foreseeable and can readily occur.

The sole consequence being pregnancy, which I've pointed out a man is obligated to help fix if the woman doesn't want to be pregnant. That is a shared risk and burden. Carrying to term is her choice, and hers alone. No rational person actually thinks their personal choices can be excused by the advice and opinions and others.

"I know I'm driving drunk, officer, but my friends said it was okay so they're partially responsible for my choice to drive drunk!"

Gimme a fucking break.

Degree of removal matters, but one step? No.

I strongly advise you to smash your computer moniter.

If you do so, good fucking luck trying to place any responsibility on my shoulders. No one will care if I bought you the computer or gave you the cash to buy one. All your arguments in the world on how you wouldn't even have had the computer without my resources mean fuck all when you make unilateral uncoerced decisions regarding it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What a complete and utter load of bullshit. Men under no circumstances created, are responsible or are expected to provide owner instructions for women's bodies. Claiming men have any of that responsibility is pure fucking retardedness. Your argument at best might apply to parents who created a woman, and good fucking luck trying to claim parents are responsible for an adult woman's choice to carry to term.

So... you take an analogy meant to illustrate liability in a causal chain, and then bitch about the particulars of that analogy--particulars that do not apply to the moral question being addressed.

Here is an idea. Stop setting fire to your own strawmen. Either that, or try to be less intentionally obtuse. The point was about moral responsibility and legal liability in causal chains with intervening steps. It had NOTHING to do with men needing to provide training manuals. I selected that analogy because it illustrates the main principle I am attempting to discuss. Not because the situational particulars are exact analogues.

Actually, you know what. Fuck you. You want an exact analogue before you will behave in an intellectually honest fashion (something that I know is difficult for you), here you are.

Say I am part of a computer designing duo. We are creating a computer that when it is finished will be a fully sapient entity that the law will recognize as a person with actual rights (say for the sake of this analogy, the supreme court ruled in a legal exercise moot court and could be expected to do so again. Thus, governments have made the necessary acknowledgements). This entity cannot be expected to be autonomous for some two decades, because it has to learn like a human child. My partner and I work on the design specifications together (analogous to creating a diploid genome from two haploid gametes). We build the majority of the device--and it may or may not work at all, but the effort itself is extremely rewarding (analogous to human relationships and the pleasure derived from the act of mating). The last component is some quantum madness that only they know how to build, will take nine months, and will require exposure to marginally harmful amounts of gamma radiation. My partner may or may not choose to complete the work due to these costs. That choice is theirs and theirs alone because they are shouldering the risk.

Do they then shoulder all the responsibility for it working, should it do so because my partner and only my partner is capable of the last step in the causal chain? Of course not. Any honest appraisal of the situation would conclude that even with a high chance component, both of us are responsible for the outcome. When we publish, we would co-author the paper. We would both be hailed as visionaries. And we would both be the Hal 9000's parents for all intents and purposes.

On the same token, the choice to complete the Quantum Device is theirs. The risk is theirs. The benefit, such as it is, for the effort of completing the project in itself is theirs. If they elect not to complete it, and have to pay a surcharge to cancel the time they booked in the necessary facilities..that is when things get tricky. Ideally, such indirect costs would be paid for out of grant money, in order to facilitate the scientific process while also being ethical and not locking scientists into completing projects that are found to be too risky to complete safety. However levying half that fine on an individual who does not have much of a stake in the decision relative to the person who has to make it, might lead to that person feeling entitled to have a direct say--to the point of compulsion perhaps--in the decision itself. That would be highly unethical from what is in this case a medical standpoint. Akin to the say... the unethical situation we already broadly face with parents making decisions for older children who's beliefs regarding metaphysics and the afterlife differ from those of their parents. The parents wield the power of life and death over a life that is not theirs irrespective of the wishes of the individual most affected by the choice, and this I think we can both agree is wrong. Why does this happen? Because for financial and cultural/religious reasons, parents view themselves as having a compulsory stake in what happens to "their" child.

Any woman is free to entertain the desires and opinions of a man if she gets pregnant. But the choice to carry to term is hers and hers alone.

Well no shit. Here is an idea. How about you read what I have said in the rest of this thread, and in fact later in my own response, before you break your own nose with your knee jerk response to a strawman of your own creation. Here. Let me summarize my actual opinion, so you dont have the excuse of not having read a damn thing.

1. People are responsible for their decisions.

2. One step of causal removal with a foreseeable and reasonably likely end outcome is insufficient to remove that responsibility.

3. Those with an increased stake in the outcome of a decision should be the one to make it, up until the point that the "rights" of another individual are perhaps infringed. More to the point, increasing someone's stake in a decision should--and in fact does(at least in the perception of the individual, and how we deal with these sort of things must be at least in part determined by what IS because this is a practical rather than strictly philosophical question)--give them more of a say in the decision. You will note the part about rights, and the part about a perception of entitlement contradict. It is a contradiction that for a great many practical reasons needs to be resolved, for reasons not the least of which being that at the end of the day, people are not consistent in their moral behavior and you never know how the proverbial coin toss of that decision might go in terms of general policy. The best solution is to avoid situations where such a contradiction might occur.

4. To combine. When a child results from mating, both parents have a more or less equal stake in that child, moreover, children have certain rights--namely positive rights. Rights that oblige another. The equitable solution barring extremis, is that both individuals have a more or less equal say in the raising of that child and a more or less equal cost associated with so doing. When the decision to abort is at issue, if we conclude that ONLY the person who might have the abortion gets to make that decision, the other involved party cannot be made to have a financial stake in that decision, lest they feel entitled to have some direct obligation-imparting input into it. A situation we have decided a priori is not acceptable. So, the options are to have the woman shoulder the costs associated with an abortion, or to diffuse the cost out so no one person notices it, and thus does not claim some stake in the decision--and the input that they think goes with it.

[Carinthium]

I'm not going to argue about the case where the couple agreed nothing beforehand (since I consider the "default view" in lieu of such agreements, though unfair, to be far less important if op-out arrangements exist) nor about cases of rape (in which I'm sure nobody would dispute that the rapist should get the worse end of the bargain). However, on the areas I do argue:

Counter-Arguments:

She's being allowed to "wriggle" out of it because the contract concerns the child and what it needs and dare I say what it's "entitled" to so to speak and she can't give that away in the first place, especially before it's born.

Let's look at the logical consequences of this view.

Scenario A: Woman A steals Man B's sperm. Woman A gets pregnant. Woman A sues for child support.

By your lights, in this scenario A has the right to child support from B as the child is entitled to child support. Despite this, A has control over how the money is spent (for the most part) despite it being B's money. The only way to get out of this is to say that Man B's consent to take on a potential obligatoin comes into play. In this scenario, Man B has waived said obligations with agreement.

So what if people are worse off than them in their own country or in Africa or on Mars? So the solution when faced with possible harm is to point at poorer people, shrug and walk off?

As for responsibility:are you challenging the idea that the man is responsible for the child he spawned at all? Because that's the only argument I see.

Let's look at this logically. I'm going to assume you reject the Peter Singer-esque view that everybody in this world has responsibilities to help everybody else in need. If this is so, then it follows that EVERYBODY should contribute in supporting the child if they need it but that nobody should if they don't.

Thus, you are going to have to maintain the view that a father has special responsibilities to support their child. Under normal circumstances I would see a decent case for this- the man has agreed to take on a responsibility because he knew full well the responsibilities of his actions. However, in this scenario he waived said responsibilities and the woman agreed, thus implying intention either to raise the child herself or abort. In effect, the man has let the woman take over full rights regarding the child.

You can't say that a man is responsible to their child because they are the father of the child, regardless of anything else, or else you would have cases involving child support and rape or stolen sperm. Either you must accept that raped men can be compelled to pay child support, or you accept that a child's right to life support is limited. I would argue the latter- a father's special responsibility to their child only comes

Scenario B: Woman A and Man B have sex. Man B is sued for child support. Later on, Man B wants to commit suicide. He has an income but not enough assets to pay substantive amounts of child support.

Do you say that Man B can be forced to stay alive and work to support the child?

(EDIT: I just thought of the possibility as I was finishing that you might argue that a man should be forced to take responsibility because the child was created by their actions, analagous to how those who create messes should be obliged to clean them up. The problem with this is that the woman is NOT forced to take responsibility if they don't want to.)

Arguments:
The following is my guesswork as to your posistion:

-Peter Singer's claim that people are obliged to all those in need is a false one (or else the needs of children in Africca would come first).
-A child has an inherent right to child support from both parents.
-This right comes about because the child was brought into being by their parents and needs help to get started in the world.
(It can't be simply because children need support or you could advocate the government stepping in instead, and Third World children, or the children with the lowest material living standards regardless of parental status, would have first priority)
-These rights do not extend to emotional support (or else you could morally force parents to stay together for the sake of the child).

This is a very strange sort of right. You cannot say that the child's right to support comes simply from their parents being their parents (or else you would have to agree with raped parents paying child support), you cannot say the child's right is because they need the money (or else you would have to agree with Peter Singer), and you cannot say the child's right is because their parents took on an obligation (as they have waived the obligation in this case).

You could try to say that it is inherent in natural law that if a father brings a child into the world of his own free will he must support it. However, the problem with this is that in a pure "state of nature" (not the theoretical state of nature, but a Stone age tribe of Homo Sapiens bereft of civilisation), the father would gain rights of rape and dominance over the woman in exchange even if he were compelled to look after the child. If what is natural is just, you have to accept the father's rights as well (which in this case I am sure you will not do).

Furthermore, take a final Scenario C.

Scenario C: Say A and B have sex and have a child. By mutual agreement they give it up to a third party, C. C is a single parent. A and B, let's say, no longer have to pay child support. Is this unjust?

If you say it is unjust, you are advocating for a considerable amount of law reform. If you say it isn't, then why is this scenario any different? In both cases the child has support from only one parent.

[Torchship]

... but to say we ought do a thing, implies that we are actually capable of doing a thing.

No, no it really doesn't. If I say that some minority (whether women or transsexual people or various racial minorities or whatever) ought to have the same treatment (both legal and practical) as anyone else, that absolutely does not mean that I expect such to actually occur within the foreseeable future. Indeed, to start the ball rolling on such an equality movement, I have to be able to express this sentiment with no expectation of immediate success.

In this case, the problem is probably more social stigma than anything strictly speaking economic. The children of single parents are at social disadvantages in addition to economic ones. They are stigmatized, and have less time with their parents who have to support a household. Even with 50% support from the state that will still be the case. Divorce, death etc can create this situation, and are necessary/unavoidable occurrences. We acknowledge these as problems caused by death, or the solution to a much larger problem (the ability to divorce is itself a solution to situations that are in many cases worse than single parenthood). But why should we solve a relatively minor problem (addressing some perceived inequality in reproductive choice, one which is brought about by natural inequalities in stakeholdership and the assumption of risk), by causing a larger one?

Even if such a thing were to be passed, what sort of support could we meaningfully expect from the state? We already underfund every social program we have, particularly when governments go on Austerity binges.

And yet we're perfectly willing to put up with such disadvantages for the child when it comes to normal two-parent adoption? Adopted children have historically been discriminated against to a similar or larger extent than single-parent children, but obviously you believe that the detriment to the child is not large enough to warrant banning the practice.

[Batman]

... but to say we ought do a thing, implies that we are actually capable of doing a thing.

No, no it really doesn't. If I say that some minority (whether women or transsexual people or various racial minorities or whatever) ought to have the same treatment (both legal and practical) as anyone else, that absolutely does not mean that I expect such to actually occur within the foreseeable future. Indeed, to start the ball rolling on such an equality movement, I have to be able to express this sentiment with no expectation of immediate success.

He said capable of, not guaranteed to nor immediately. If we manage to do it X years down the line we still managed to do it and were thus capable of it.

[Torchship]

Well, in that case the original objection is essentially meaningless, since we are perfectly capable of doing almost anything, including the original suggestion of "half-adoptions".

[Carinthium]

Should I take it that nobody has an objection to my posistion then?

[Broomstick]

One of the problems here is that you're trying to impose rational conditions surrounding a matter where the logical brain is off-line and emotions in full sway. It's like saying everyone should have a will and delineate their preferences for certain types of medical treatment and so on but very few do, and even when compelled to do so (young people in the military being deployed to a war zone, for example) the provisions are often incomplete and then those people often fail to update things like beneficiary information... for the most part no one wants to think about being dead and/or disabled and no matter how rational future planning may be they shy away from it. Likewise, people about to engage in sex can have a hard time thinking about unwanted consequences down the line. Hell, people should probably all have pre-nups prior to marriage but they don't.

So, in theory, there is merit to the idea the problem is that in the real world I don't think it would work for most due to human factors. I don't think it would cut down on fraud because one of the parties is already misrepresenting him or herself.

However, there is the problem that child support is not for the adults in this situation. It's for the child. As a general rule one party can not sign away the rights of another party. That's exactly what you're proposing - that the parents sign away the rights of the child for financial support. I'm not convinced that would hold up in court.

[Gaidin]

However, there is the problem that child support is not for the adults in this situation. It's for the child. As a general rule one party can not sign away the rights of another party. That's exactly what you're proposing - that the parents sign away the rights of the child for financial support. I'm not convinced that would hold up in court.

The courts have let it happen before.

[Carinthium]

In the real world it's not likely that very many people will follow the system of pre-sex agreements- however, at least it would be possible to get out of it if you thought about it beforehand (making it a much easier issue to solve by talking it through in advance). The reason I am discussing this particular posistion is because it is the posistion where I am sure I am right (as opposed to if no agreement was made, where it gets more ambigious). In addition, I am an interested party in the sense that I would actually be sensible enough to talk such matters through beforehand.

Legally, of course, rights exist if constitutional authorities say they do- my argument is not about the current state of the law. But my argument was about what the law SHOULD be, not what it IS. Morally, why should there be such a right? I'll try and make a more compact variant of my earlier argument to adress yours:

-If the father is responsible because they are the father of the child, no matter what, then you would have to say that raped fathers are responsible for child support. This is self-consistent and doesn't have internal problems even if it clashing with common intuitions plus ideas of freedom.

-You could theoretically say that the father implicitly undertook a commitment to support the resulting children- just like it could be said a person who agrees to date somebody agrees not to cheat on them by having sex with other people. However, in this case the father has clearly not implicitly undertook to do anything.

-You can't appeal to the low living standards of children raised by single parents because otherwise you have to explain why you're not sending the money by force to the Third World instead.

-If the father is responsible because they created the child, then how do you reconcile considering single parenthood a perfectly acceptable phenomenon, allowing the child to be adopted by others along with renunciation of rights, and finally forcing the father to pay child support? He is essentially pre-agreeing that the woman will adopt the child as a single parent.

Just in case you reject the alternative, how about a woman contractually undertaking to have an abortion should sex result in childhood? Whether or not it would hold up in court, I can see no rational reason regarding the matter- if she were under pressure to agree, then the sex would be rape anyway making it a whole different matter.

[Torchship]

However, there is the problem that child support is not for the adults in this situation. It's for the child. As a general rule one party can not sign away the rights of another party. That's exactly what you're proposing - that the parents sign away the rights of the child for financial support. I'm not convinced that would hold up in court.

The child's rights are still being fulfilled; the only thing that is changing is who is fulfilling them. I see absolutely no reason to accept "support from one's biological parents" as a valid right, especially since it implies some very awkward things about adopted children.

[Simon_Jester]

Just to be clear, Torchship, are you proposing that we remove some or all of the requirements that people pay state-mandated child support, and that the state pick up the costs?

This sounds like it's very much distinct from Carinthium's ideas.

[Carinthium]

To be clear on the distinction between my ideas and Torchship's, I should make it clear I do have a lot of sympathy for his posistion. But what I am advocating as a lesser form is getting rid of state-mandated child support to an extent by limiting it based on the following principles (which would be followed if this came to be):

-Child support is a default extenstion of contract- it is assumed when two people have sex voluntarily that they have agreed the child will be supported by arrangements approximately equivalent to current law. (A little unfair and a massive legal fiction, but better than what we have currently)
-Whenever the two parties have clearly contracted in advance to amend the extent of their responsibilities, then their responsibilities are amended as per their contract. Standard contract law is followed, with no restrictions on what can and cannot be done with such agreements except those triggered by already existing laws. Custody can also be ceded exclusively to one or the other or partitioned according to agreement.

Because this is an agreement between individuals, "Protect against corporations" doesn't come into play.

[Broomstick]

-If the father is responsible because they are the father of the child, no matter what, then you would have to say that raped fathers are responsible for child support. This is self-consistent and doesn't have internal problems even if it clashing with common intuitions plus ideas of freedom.

I don't have a problem with rapists being required to supply money to their offspring. What I object to is any form of "parenthood" beyond that. No visitation, no nothing. In this case the money is being taken from one person (the rapist and guilty party) as a form of punishment. Hell, I'd be in favor of making them not only pay child support but financial reparations to their victims as well.

The situation of rapist father is different than the situation of unintended father after consensual sex.

[Broomstick]

Just in case you reject the alternative, how about a woman contractually undertaking to have an abortion should sex result in childhood? Whether or not it would hold up in court, I can see no rational reason regarding the matter- if she were under pressure to agree, then the sex would be rape anyway making it a whole different matter.

I have issues with anyone signing a contract to agree irrevocably in advance to a medical procedure. The ONLY way I could see any way for that to work is if the man agreed to pay at least half of all costs associated with the procedure and even then.... no, I'm not on board with that. Circumstances could change in the future that may have a huge impact on the situation.

In some ways this is related to surrogate parenthood, when the woman conceives but agrees in advance to surrender all claim on the child in favor of someone else. While it can work out there have been some nasty disasters as well. I've got a lot of reservations about how that plays out in the real world, too.

[Simon_Jester]

-Child support is a default extenstion of contract- it is assumed when two people have sex voluntarily that they have agreed the child will be supported by arrangements approximately equivalent to current law. (A little unfair and a massive legal fiction, but better than what we have currently)

Why do we need to make a contract out of it again? I mean, is there any actual benefit to be had from making this an issue of contract law?

[Terralthra]

-If the father is responsible because they are the father of the child, no matter what, then you would have to say that raped fathers are responsible for child support. This is self-consistent and doesn't have internal problems even if it clashing with common intuitions plus ideas of freedom.

I don't have a problem with rapists being required to supply money to their offspring. What I object to is any form of "parenthood" beyond that. No visitation, no nothing. In this case the money is being taken from one person (the rapist and guilty party) as a form of punishment. Hell, I'd be in favor of making them not only pay child support but financial reparations to their victims as well.

The situation of rapist father is different than the situation of unintended father after consensual sex.

I think you missed what he was saying. Not rapist fathers. Raped fathers. Fathers who were victims of rape.

[Dread Not]

-You could theoretically say that the father implicitly undertook a commitment to support the resulting children- just like it could be said a person who agrees to date somebody agrees not to cheat on them by having sex with other people. However, in this case the father has clearly not implicitly undertook to do anything.

You can't "consent" to all the rewards of sex and then shrug off any of the ramifications.

It's like if you and an idiot friend take turns with your new rifle for some target practice in your backyard, and when it's discovered that a bullet ended up in a kid's spine a block away you say "It's okay officer! I only consented to having a good time irresponsibly firing through the air. I didn't consent to having to pay for harming others. My buddy and I signed this form where he says he'll take full responsibility for any collateral damage that comes about because of our jackassery!"

Nobody cares! There's a third party with rights involved, and you can't shove responsibility for violating those rights off on someone else because you both signed a stupid piece of paper. This is the law, not Christianity.

-You can't appeal to the low living standards of children raised by single parents because otherwise you have to explain why you're not sending the money by force to the Third World instead.

You are suffering woefully from black-and-white thinking. Society at large does have certain obligations to children, but some of its members have greater responsibility, namely the parents. Society can provide public schools, school lunch programs, legal protections for juvenile offenders etc. while still telling parents "Raise your fucking kids!"

My government does send foreign aid to impoverished countries. Just because we can't fix all the world's problems doesn't mean we don't have a duty to see that children living amongst us are well looked after.

-If the father is responsible because they created the child, then how do you reconcile considering single parenthood a perfectly acceptable phenomenon, allowing the child to be adopted by others along with renunciation of rights, and finally forcing the father to pay child support? He is essentially pre-agreeing that the woman will adopt the child as a single parent.

Because adoption is regulated, and similarly only a court has the power to terminate a parent's rights or obligations.

Just in case you reject the alternative, how about a woman contractually undertaking to have an abortion should sex result in childhood? Whether or not it would hold up in court, I can see no rational reason regarding the matter- if she were under pressure to agree, then the sex would be rape anyway making it a whole different matter.

And what happens if she breaks said contract? We force her to abort? You're one sick puppy.

[Broomstick]

-Child support is a default extenstion of contract- it is assumed when two people have sex voluntarily that they have agreed the child will be supported by arrangements approximately equivalent to current law. (A little unfair and a massive legal fiction, but better than what we have currently)

Why do we need to make a contract out of it again? I mean, is there any actual benefit to be had from making this an issue of contract law?

It may or may not be the case here, but I often find that young adult geeks want to crowbar all human interactions into rules and contract law to make dealing with other people easier for the socially inept. I do understand that people are confusing, unpredictable, sometimes dishonest, and otherwise aggravating. However, the answer isn't a rigid society but greater social intelligence.

[Simon_Jester]

In this case, I would guess something else. I'd guess the usual hard-libertarian doctrine- the idea that we can build a working civilization out of contracts the way that human beings are made up of atoms.

But what I'd really like to hear from Carinthium is a coherent explanation of why he thinks contract law is a better way to handle this problem than the existing family law.