I realize that's what you meant but that still isn't what you said, sorry. I summarized your position as I understood it and gave you a chance to tell me I wasn't correctly understanding you, and you didn't. You told me I was right in assuming these contracts would render a woman unable to obtain an abortion. Either you admit that's not what you meant, and this ends with me saying that's a bad idea but that I can't currently think of a good reason to make it illegal, or you maintain that's what you meant and we're back to talking about whether or not people can sign away their bodies.
Also, you said yourself we're not operating on how contracts currently work; if we were, pretty sure yours would not be binding and nothing would happen to a violator.
Yes, clearly. You're being dishonest by trying to pretend you didn't say a woman would not be able to get an abortion in these cases. Not 'be allowed, without consequence' - 'be able.' I asked if it was the case that a woman would not be able to get an abortion and you yes, that was the case. If I asked if cars were legally allowed to speed, then asked if cars were actually able to speed, I'd get different answers.
If that's not actually what you meant, fine. But correct yourself instead of acting like it's your audience's problem for not guessing that you meant something different than what you said. There's a reason I made an effort to clarify your stance first.
Seriously? You're not able to formulate a distinction between a brain dead person being taken off life support, and rape? I hope this is a red herring that we can just ditch here and I won't actually have to explain this.
The very first question I asked was if these contracts would mean a woman would be prevented from getting a legal abortion. You did not say, 'No, she can get one but will have to pay damages.' You said, 'Yes.' That clearly states a procedure for legally ensuring that the terms of the contract are met, not just exacting punishment if they're not. The latter is weird to me but less objectionable, and if that's what you envisioned, then you did not communicate that.
Disagreeing with the terms of these contract being legally enforced has zero impact on the people who want to write a contract and follow it.
Conception requires two people and both parties should consent because they're both involved in the process.
Incubation only requires one person and the only party who's consent should matter is the one doing the incubating. I said this before and you didn't really answer; even if you have partial ownership of something, you don't own whatever is holding it.
Someone choosing death for themselves doesn't in any way violate that statement. This is not even comparable; we are talking about situations where Person A wants to usurp Person B's bodily autonomy, and Person B is against it when it comes time for it to actually happen; if we substitute the administration of death for the usurping of bodily autonomy, it would be called murder, not euthanasia.
As well, it is not about ownership.
'Livelihood of a fetus' - we're talking about contracts that could be drafted and signed years before a fetus even exists, aren't we? What about a man and a woman who sign a contract to get pregnant and have a kid x years, and the man is the one who changes his mind when the time's up? Couldn't he be subject to forced electroejaculation and made responsible for a child he didn't even consent to create? Wouldn't these contracts also obligate a woman to get an abortion if she signed a contract to do so, even if she decided she wanted the baby? There's much more involved in this than the livelihood of the fetus, not to mention the livelihood of a fetus depends on the mother's body and so changes hands depending on who is allowed to own the mother's body.
Removing someone's ability to consistently decide what happens to their own body, and giving it to someone else, is certainly an issue of ownership. You have a degree of control over the things you own, and less or no control over the things you don't own, at the discretion of the person who does own it. Transferring control of one person's body to another person, which is exactly what you're talking about, necessitates a shift in ownership, at least for awhile.
what would be the point in a contract?
I already said I think contracts concerning a person's reproductive future are ridiculous and pointless. People can draft them and sign them to their heart's content but legal ramifications for breaking the terms are a bad idea.
It is about changing your mind because in your scenario, that's exactly what would cause problems.
Yes, I am against contracts unless it's void for whatever reasons the owner of the body in question chooses, even if they aren't specifically outlined. I think signing a contract to farm out the future use of your body to someone else is ridiculous and pointless. No amount of legal obligation should transfer ownership of an autonomous adult's body to someone else.
Only idiots would change their minds about giving up control of their body?
I did some 'celebrity breach of contract' searches and didn't bring up anything relevant so I'd be interested to see what specific source you're using.
While that definitely falls within the realm of what I was asking for, it's a case if someone being punished for making a choice with their body, not literally being prevented from making a choice. Unless I'm mistaken, ThePyg's proposition involves a woman being prevented from an abortion because of a contract, not just punished for getting one...which is also problematic.
The way it was phrased made me think you were basing this off a current legal precedent.
If we're talking about the way things should be, then I don't think it should be illegal to change your mind about what you want to do with your body. Pregnancy is a huge investment and a person's life can quickly and unexpectedly change. People can't always predict how or if a pregnancy will fit into their lives when it happens, and things like illnesses, family deaths, loss of a job, depression, etc., etc., can sap a woman's emotional and financial resources beyond what's required to withstand a pregnancy.
In short, it just sounds like a nightmare to have your body legally co-opted against your will no matter what you thought or said at an earlier time.
In some states, men do have a say in whether the woman can have an abortion
Which states are these? I'm not sure this is correct.
If I signed a contract promising to get a tattoo in nine months, and then nine months I decide I don't want a tattoo, pretty sure it would be illegal to give me one anyway. You can draft all the contracts you want but I don't think that means you can legally force someone to do or not do certain things, abortion being one of them.
What if the couple signs a contract agreeing that she will get an abortion if she conceives, and she later changes her mind?
What about potential for suffering and damage in the future? I know that prosecuting based on future crimes is silly, but at the point someone is already facing life in the system for absolutely horrendous, inhuman crimes, why not?
If someone is this dangerous, then they should be in a situation where they don't have the opportunity to hurt anyone. Once they're in that situation, then I don't see the point of killing them except to solve the problems of cost and space, which aren't invalid, but are secondary to the principle of not allowing anyone to choose what deserves death as a punishment and what doesn't.
We could put them in solitary confinement for life, never let anyone close enough to get hurt, but that seems to me to be more a cruel and unusual punishment than death.
If a criminal were to be in this situation and decide they would rather be dead, that should be an option.
And I think for the families of the victims, knowing that some kind of substantial justice was dealt does bring peace of mind. At least, it's better than dragging the grieving families back to court every year to listen to the criminal appeal to the judge on why he should be let out early for good behavior.
As much as I can't even imagine how difficult it is to lose a loved on like this, I think it's dangerous to base a justice system on retribution instead of prevention. There are lots of terrible things we could do to criminals that would make their victims feel better.
In situations where a person is violating someone else's right to their body, I think they forfeit their own. People have to be able to defend themselves, and sometimes that means killing someone, even if the offender didn't intend to kill their victim.
Beyond that, I would answer no. Killing a person doesn't alleviate any of the suffering or damage they caused in the past.
Compared to other options, that's a relatively benign especially since, in theory, the kids won't be harmed by it. At least not in their most dependent years.
Honestly, though, any punishment just because someone makes an unpopular reproductive choice doesn't sit right with me.
For aesthetics we have zoos.
Maybe aesthetics was not the right word to use, I was having trouble summarizing it. I don't just mean giving people pretty things to look at. Protecting endangered species preserves the amazing diversity of the earth; an incredible variety of life lives here, it took billions of years to form and it will probably never be repeated again. When a species disappears, it's gone from the universe forever. A less diverse planet is a less interesting planet.
And it just might as well unbalance it. As you said its an unpredictable science, sometimes.
If the species is already present in an ecosystem, as they would be pre-extinction, it's safe to say they have a niche. I don't think any endangered species are also recent and invasive implants.
I think it's the notion that humans aren't animals that has colored your beliefs.
I disagree. I recognize that we are animals but I also recognize we have capabilities and awareness that are unique to us, and with that, comes a greater degree of both control and responsibility.
If beavers building a dam killed off the last few fish of some species, interfering to save the fish would be working to alter the "natural" course of the ecosystem.
It's interesting you say I have the notion that humans are not animals, and in the next breath deliberately separate our actions from 'natural' actions.
Beavers are not very smart. They don't know what they are doing. This is like an adult having a public temper tantrum and saying it's okay because they saw a toddler do the same thing.
Seeing as how we often can't predict the course of nature, I think it's better to plod along our natural course and let the chips fall wherever they were going to naturally.
What is 'naturally'? Again it seems like you're drawing distinctions between human actions and natural actions. Why do 'natural' actions seem to automatically mean doing nothing to preserve another species? Why isn't it a natural action for humans to use their intelligence and planning abilities to reinforce or protect an ecosystem that's in danger? If that's not a natural action, what kind of action is it?
If they're not contributing to our existence I don't see why we should contribute to theirs.
While I can't really argue against this because it's just the way you've organized your priorities, it seems pessimistic, short-sighed, and selfish. If you have ever been moved by the sight of animals in the wild, even on video, know that it this attitude will destroy any opportunity to create more of that.
Is this not a scary thought to you? It reduces the woman to an incubator for a kid someone else wants, regardless of her wishes or the consequences to her. How many women would be put through a pregnancy to carry a baby for a man with whom they'd broken up/divorced and no longer wanted anything to do with? How many domestic abuse victims would have to carry the baby of their abuser? It's not an uncommon tactic for abusers to use pregnancy and children to control their victims and it seems like a disproporionate amount of people who would disregard a mother's wants and make her carry a baby would be abusive.
Abortion is a solution to pregnancy, not parenting, and you're proposing a solution to parenting.
if there had been animal rights advocates around the save the dodo, do you think our world would be better off today?
If they had been successful, we would be a more diverse world. I see that a huge aesthetic benefit if not a practical one, and it might also be practical to preserve ecosystem stability. Not all effects of extinction are immediately discernible or even predictable.
Why should the worth of a species come from whether or not they are required by humans?
