The Aborted Contract :: essays research papers

<a href="http//www.geocities.com/vaksam/">Sam Vaknins Psychology, Philosophy, Economics and Foreign Affairs vane SitesThe issue of abortion is emotionally loaded and this often makes for poor, not soundly thought out arguments. The questions "Is abortion immoral" and "Is abortion a put to death" ar often confused. The pregnancy (and the resulting foetus) are discussed in terms usually reserved to natural catastrophes (force majeure, in legal lingo). At times, the embryo is compared to crabby person after all, they are both growths, clusters of cells. The difference, of course, is that no one contracts cancer volitionally (except, to some extent, smokers --but, then they gamble, not contract). When a woman engages in intended sex, does not use contraceptives and gets pregnant - one can say that she mug- wrangle(a) a contract with her foetus. A contract entails the demonstrated existence of a reasonably (and reasonable) reposition will. If the fu lfilment of the obligations in a contract could be life-threatening - it is fair and safe to assume that no rational free will was involved. No reasonable person would sign or picture such a contract. Judith Jarvis Thomson argued convincingly ("A Defence of Abortion") that pregnancies that are the result of forced sex (rape being a special case) or which are life threatening should or could, morally, be terminated. Using the transactional language the contract was not entered to willingly or reasonably and, therefore, is null and void. both actions which are intended to terminate it and to annul its consequences should be legally and morally permissible.The same goes for a contract which was entered into against the express will of one of the parties and disdain all the reasonable measures that the unwilling party adopted to prevent its crystallization. If a mother uses contraceptives in a manner intended to prevent pregnancy, it is as good as saying I do not urgency t o sign this contract, I am doing my reasonable best not to sign it, if it is signed - it is contrary to my express will. There is little legal (or moral) uncertainness that such a contract should be voided. Much more solid problems arise when we study the other party to these implicit agreements the embryo. To start with, it lacks cognisance (in the sense that is needed for signing an enforceable and valid contract). Can a contract be validated even if one of the "signatories" lacked this sine qua non singularity? In the absence of consciousness, there is little point in talk about free will.