Douchebag tricks his girlfriend into taking abortion pills

[Torchship]

My apologies. I somehow missed Carinthium's post and assumed that Broomstick was responding to me.

[Carinthium]

The reason I want to make this an issue of contract law is to change the law to accomodate the moral stance I have been contending this entire thread- that IF agreed to in advance, the father should be allowed to renounce any responsibility for the child.

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.

Your hypothetical would be a case of criminal law, not civil law. Regarding civil law, it certainly would be justified for the idiot friend to agree to pay for all the damage resulting.

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.

O.K- onto my next point then. Why should a parent have special responsibility towards their children? Don't just assume it- myriad ethical thinkers, from Peter Singer to Jeremy Bentham (basically the entire Consequentialist school of thought in ethics, including all utilitarians) have disputed this. To establish this "obvious" point you have to:
-Refute Consequentialism (I'll make it easy for you and say "Refute utilitarianism"). I disagree with it, but on grounds you can't use consistent with your arguments.
-Establish a special moral right or duty in this case
-Establish why Courts should be allowed to interfere with this moral duty, yet others cannot

In addition, isn't the procedure in this case very similiar to an adoption by a single parent? Assuming the child comes to term, the mother has effectively adopted the child from the child's parents (the mother and father).

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

If you're going to trust the mother with the child (since you clearly are under current rules), and if you trust single parents with adopted children (which you clearly do under current rules), why not trust the mother exclusively with the child?

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

The mother signed a contract. You're suggesting she should be able to dodge her obligations... just because?

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.

Don't straw-man by assuming I'm just a geek. I have no problems with ordinary social conventions. However, within the constraints of practicality (at least in terms of what I advocate politically) I wish to maximise liberty because I find it a pathetic farce that people in modern society call themselves "free" with the myriad number of restrictions upon them.

The society I would make is actually LESS rigid as a result, as people are more flexible to do as they will.

[Simon_Jester]

The reason I want to make this an issue of contract law is to change the law to accomodate the moral stance I have been contending this entire thread- that IF agreed to in advance, the father should be allowed to renounce any responsibility for the child.

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.

Your hypothetical would be a case of criminal law, not civil law. Regarding civil law, it certainly would be justified for the idiot friend to agree to pay for all the damage resulting.

I'm not sure family law (and child support) should be modeled strictly in terms of civil law.

O.K- onto my next point then. Why should a parent have special responsibility towards their children? Don't just assume it- myriad ethical thinkers, from Peter Singer to Jeremy Bentham (basically the entire Consequentialist school of thought in ethics, including all utilitarians) have disputed this. To establish this "obvious" point you have to:
-Refute Consequentialism (I'll make it easy for you and say "Refute utilitarianism"). I disagree with it, but on grounds you can't use consistent with your arguments.
-Establish a special moral right or duty in this case
-Establish why Courts should be allowed to interfere with this moral duty, yet others cannot

The parent's responsibility toward the child is a rule of the sort one often finds in "rule utilitarianism." As a rule, it is best if the people who caused a thing to happen bear responsibility for the consequences of that thing. Maybe they can't handle the full consequences by themselves, but they should still be accountable.

Removing accountability has bad utilitarian consequences, and having a rule of "there should be accountability" has, on the whole, pretty good consequences. So if you're looking for a moral right or duty...

The moral argument is that...

1) Moral agents (adults) should be responsible for their own actions. Especially when those actions affect a helpless and vulnerable person, such as a child.

2) Causing someone to exist affects them strongly, so if you should have a responsibility for affecting someone, then you should have a responsibility for creating them.

3) You shouldn't be able to make an agreement with a second party that waives your responsibility for an action that affects a third party.

4) This is particularly important when the cost of responsibility can be very large, so that as a practical matter the second party may not be ABLE to fulfill the responsibility alone, no matter what they agree to: you can't get blood out of a stone. Since raising children is expensive and requires constant new streams of resources spread out over twenty years of time, this matters.

Now, in special cases someone may step in and, in the interests of the child (who cannot look out for themself) decide that the parents' responsibility to the child cannot be carried out. Or that the parents need supplementary resources, in the interests of the child. Or in the interests of the general public, which has reasons of its own to make sure there are resources for children to grow up healthy, stable, and educated.

But in general, as a rule, the goal of securing an accountable, responsible society is best served by making the parents' responsibility the first line for taking care of kids. And by making that a responsibility which cannot be waived lightly, because it's so large and onerous.

The mother signed a contract. You're suggesting she should be able to dodge her obligations... just because?

Because we normally don't allow contracts to interfere with that sort of matter. Trying to enforce a contract telling a woman not to have children, by forcing her to have an abortion, is a deeply disturbing act.

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.

Don't straw-man by assuming I'm just a geek. I have no problems with ordinary social conventions. However, within the constraints of practicality (at least in terms of what I advocate politically) I wish to maximise liberty because I find it a pathetic farce that people in modern society call themselves "free" with the myriad number of restrictions upon them.

The society I would make is actually LESS rigid as a result, as people are more flexible to do as they will.

Pretty much what I thought- you think you can maximize freedom and have a functional society by using one-on-one contracts as the building blocks.

Personally I challenge this for several reasons.

ONE: The freedoms we talk about as freedoms (freedom to choose lifestyle, freedom to express oneself) depend on deeper things that people need. Think Maslow here. People need food, shelter, security, and the physical and mental tools to pursue their goals, before they really have choices in life. When those things are imperiled people are trapped by physical conditions, and cannot free themselves to experience the life they desire.

TWO: Securing those underlying foundations ("freedom from want, freedom from fear," if you will) takes a social structure that cannot be lightly or easily modified. There are far too many ways for one person's actions to damage the social fabric for others, especially when that person is part of a whole class of fabric-breakers who are making the system worse.

In other words, we need a constitution of "meta-laws" to have the rule of law (even under libertarian systems, as long as you don't go outright anarchist). And I submit that we need a similar "social constitution" of rules that are not negotiable by individuals seeking more personal freedom. Otherwise, all the high-order freedoms we want fall apart, because the more essential ones cannot be provided. People will be too busy trying to secure their physical well-being against threats, to actually enjoy the freedom to alter their life.

THREE: This is why we can't cover everything with contract law. The fundamental rules have to be laid down in ways that I can't just waive, even if at that time I think I want to. Because I need that rule as much as everyone else, even if I don't realize it at that moment in time when it inconveniences me.

[Carinthium]

I'm not sure family law (and child support) should be modeled strictly in terms of civil law.

Strictly speaking an argument by analogy isn't valid anyway unless you can demonstrate that all the relevant facts remain the same. I was just trying to show the problems involved.

The parent's responsibility toward the child is a rule of the sort one often finds in "rule utilitarianism." As a rule, it is best if the people who caused a thing to happen bear responsibility for the consequences of that thing. Maybe they can't handle the full consequences by themselves, but they should still be accountable.

Removing accountability has bad utilitarian consequences, and having a rule of "there should be accountability" has, on the whole, pretty good consequences. So if you're looking for a moral right or duty...

The moral argument is that...

1) Moral agents (adults) should be responsible for their own actions. Especially when those actions affect a helpless and vulnerable person, such as a child.

2) Causing someone to exist affects them strongly, so if you should have a responsibility for affecting someone, then you should have a responsibility for creating them.

3) You shouldn't be able to make an agreement with a second party that waives your responsibility for an action that affects a third party.

4) This is particularly important when the cost of responsibility can be very large, so that as a practical matter the second party may not be ABLE to fulfill the responsibility alone, no matter what they agree to: you can't get blood out of a stone. Since raising children is expensive and requires constant new streams of resources spread out over twenty years of time, this matters.

Now, in special cases someone may step in and, in the interests of the child (who cannot look out for themself) decide that the parents' responsibility to the child cannot be carried out. Or that the parents need supplementary resources, in the interests of the child. Or in the interests of the general public, which has reasons of its own to make sure there are resources for children to grow up healthy, stable, and educated.

But in general, as a rule, the goal of securing an accountable, responsible society is best served by making the parents' responsibility the first line for taking care of kids. And by making that a responsibility which cannot be waived lightly, because it's so large and onerous.

If you're a rule utilitarian, tell me. Dread Not, I'm pretty sure, is a Deontologist- hence the method of argument I used.

Because we normally don't allow contracts to interfere with that sort of matter. Trying to enforce a contract telling a woman not to have children, by forcing her to have an abortion, is a deeply disturbing act.

From this I infer that you are not, in fact, a rule utilitarian. A rule utilitarian would not take into account how disturbing or non-disturbing an act was. I will therefore assume that as of present (people can change their minds) you are a Deontologist.

From a Deontological perspective, I will point out that there are a number of disturbing things involved here, even if you ignore the problematic case of .

1: Post-sex, if pregnancy occurs a woman can opt out of their responsibilities by having an abortion whilst the man cannot opt of their responsibilities no matter what they do.
2: The right to raise the child will almost always go to the woman. Father's acess rights are ignored. Hence, the father ends up having to pay child support which the mother has control over- effectively paying her, not the child, the money.
3: The father is not allowed to contract out of this right in any circumstances.

As a result, you have a deeply unfair situation where women can have casual sex and simply have abortions (which is traumatic for some and not others) whilst men who have casual sex have no such right. If 'disturbing' is permitted as an argument, then 'unfair' is as well.

To an extent this can actually be disturbing. Since women as well as men can be douches, I'll give you an extreme scenario tailored to show how this can easily get disturbing:

-The man is somebody who has been "burned" in the past by women running out of him, taking the baby, and suing him for child support. He's in a new relationship (being a gullible sap), but is afraid to have sex because he doesn't want that to happen to him again.
-The woman not only contractually agrees (both being ignorant of the legal situation) but swears that she will not force that sort of responsibility on him. However, she then has the baby (either due to a screwup, or for maximum disturbingness value because she lied). Being an amoral git, she then goes ahead and has the baby and sues for child support.
-Since there is no accountability in the modern system, the woman then spends the money on things far better tailored to her own selfish interests than the child. There is nothing the betrayed man can do about this.

I don't like the 'forced abortions' solution either (I'd prefer to use contracts), but there is clearly a problem with the current situation.

Pretty much what I thought- you think you can maximize freedom and have a functional society by using one-on-one contracts as the building blocks.

Personally I challenge this for several reasons.

ONE: The freedoms we talk about as freedoms (freedom to choose lifestyle, freedom to express oneself) depend on deeper things that people need. Think Maslow here. People need food, shelter, security, and the physical and mental tools to pursue their goals, before they really have choices in life. When those things are imperiled people are trapped by physical conditions, and cannot free themselves to experience the life they desire.

TWO: Securing those underlying foundations ("freedom from want, freedom from fear," if you will) takes a social structure that cannot be lightly or easily modified. There are far too many ways for one person's actions to damage the social fabric for others, especially when that person is part of a whole class of fabric-breakers who are making the system worse.

In other words, we need a constitution of "meta-laws" to have the rule of law (even under libertarian systems, as long as you don't go outright anarchist). And I submit that we need a similar "social constitution" of rules that are not negotiable by individuals seeking more personal freedom. Otherwise, all the high-order freedoms we want fall apart, because the more essential ones cannot be provided. People will be too busy trying to secure their physical well-being against threats, to actually enjoy the freedom to alter their life.

THREE: This is why we can't cover everything with contract law. The fundamental rules have to be laid down in ways that I can't just waive, even if at that time I think I want to. Because I need that rule as much as everyone else, even if I don't realize it at that moment in time when it inconveniences me.

My current posistion given the arguments I have heard from several sources (including StarDestroyer.Net), in which there is no inconsistency, is that people have negative rights but not positive rights. Limits to the usefulness of these negative rights are irrelevant, as those are the only rights they have.

In this particular case most of this argument is irrelevant anyway as none of it applies to the cases under dispute. However, ignoring the fact that your argument effectively infantilises humanity, I will point out the following:

-IF you accept a right for individuals to commit suicide, you must also accept a right for them to self-sabotage, inadvertently or not
-There is no reason to think any sort of social constitution is needed beyond the enforcement of contract and the existence of non-enforcable social norms.
-If individuals do not have a right to be supported by others but do have negative rights, then that's just the way it is. No appeal to the lack of pragmatic values can change that. Therefore your argument does not get off the ground.
-The claim that absolutely every human individual needs the law is ridicolous. Even you have to admit (statistically very rare) cases of individuals who can get by in life with no need for society or law. One-in-a-billion or not, they exist. Forcing them to obey the social structure makes no sense, as they are being forced into a social contract that does them no good.