Quote:
Originally Posted by jwb
Not really. There's an obvious way to avoid the kid: an abortion.
Women have the say there because it's their body. Yet it's not psychopathic for them to kill the kid even if the man doesn't agree with it, simply cause that's not the direction she wants her life to go.
So there's nothing psychotic about a contract which is completely voluntary on both parties where they agree on the action to be taken in case of a pregnancy. If the woman or the man dont want to enter in said contract they don't have to. And if the contract says abort and the woman enters into it and changes her mind, that's fine too. She just assumes full responsibility for the kid since she single handedly decided to bring it into existence. There's nothing immoral about it.
|
I get that you're a robot who doesn't understand these things and so you're just concerned with the thing that helps your side but if I found out that my deadbeat dad not only left me when I was two, but had a contract that gave him the legal right to do so, it would be completely degrading and dehumanizing. I'd think that any man worth speaking of would tear up the contract and pay his child support no matter how mad he was at the mother. So I can only deduce that the only people who would benefit from such a contract would be psychopaths and pathetic man-children.