General

Re: A no-contract?

Marko — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 10:37:00 GMT

Only two replies? For an abortion topic this has to be some sort of a record.

Re: A no-contract?

Marko — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:16:58 GMT

BUMP

Re: A no-contract?

Jeremiah Dyke — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:07:22 GMT

I think this question has many ramifications to unpack.

The flaw I see with such a contract between a fetus/child and the mother is that the contract is implicit and thus illegitimate. Though most argue that implied-in-fact contracts carry legal weight, I can’t bring myself to subscribe. To contract is to forego or commit to a future action. Yet, in this situation, who is the mother contracting with? Surely if we accept that non-thinking entities like that of a fetus or a baby may enter into legal binding contracts via some implicit assumption then we may “implicitly” assign anyone or anything into a contract.

Re: A no-contract?

Valject — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:35:26 GMT

I would just like to address the first question. Not answer it, simply address it. There are those that have children and find they cannot raise them. A sad situation indeed, but humans are crafty creatures. We have adoption agencies. While it might be a pity that the parents of a child cannot raise them properly, I would point out that putting a child up for adoption is a form of providing for that child. I do not imply that your question is invalid, because I'm not answering it. I am merely pointing out that we have ways of providing for children that do not necessitate an unspoken contractual agreement with a fetus. My point in no way suggests that children are not ever abandoned. That would be ludicrous. Your suggestion, though, is in no way absurd. It does imply that we must make laws concerning such an implicit contract, and while I am always against new laws being made, my opinion on that matter does not make your idea absurd in any way. I am, however, quite interested as to how an adoption agency must be run that they actually turn away children. That sounds like a problem that could be profitably fixed. I have no idea, but is this an actual problem?

A no-contract?

Marko — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:11:13 GMT

Why isn't conceiving a child the same as entering into a one-sided contract with it which obliges you to provide for it until such a time as he is able to provide for itself?

Why couldn't a child who was abandoned at an early age and then grew up on the streets or with the wolves be able to sue his parents? (Lets say they offered him up for adoption before abandoning him but no one wanted him, not even an orphanage.)

I've seen this possibility mentioned but it was just shrugged of as absurd. Well what is so absurd about it? We recognise all sorts of implicit contracts, what is different about this one?