But you said you were okay with abortion...

[NIX]

Here's a legal twist. What if the couple is (legally) married?

 

[NIX]

The 'no children under any circumstances' pre-nup clause.

 

[NIX]

Just to add, any woman who simply says she's 'okay with (having an) abortion' makes for very sketchy odds.

A surer bet would be a woman who adamantly warns you she WILL NOT BE HAVING ANY (more) CHILDREN IN ANY CASE, COME HELL OR HIGH WATER.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

The 'no children under any circumstances' pre-nup clause.

How would they guarantee that? My best guess is that he can agree to a vasectomy and she can agree to other forms of surgery or implantation to prevent any pregnancies from occurring in order to meet the parameters of the clause.

But it's still their choice what they want to do with their bodies and under no circumstances should be forced into any procedure.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Just to add, any woman who simply says she's 'okay with (having an) abortion' makes for very sketchy odds.

A surer bet would be a woman who adamantly warns you she WILL NOT BE HAVING ANY (more) CHILDREN IN ANY CASE, COME HELL OR HIGH WATER.

I was thinking the same thing. Being "okay" with having an abortion can legally and ethically amount to coercian. It would be hard to prove, but it's open to interpretation. Which is why verbal agreements aren't worth a court's time.

 

[NIX]

How would they guarantee that? My best guess is that he can agree to a vasectomy and she can agree to other forms of surgery or implantation to prevent any pregnancies from occurring in order to meet the parameters of the clause.

But it's still their choice what they want to do with their bodies and under no circumstances should be forced into any procedure.

Obviously not. I guess we're looking at a divorce with no child support. Alimony would depend on the rest of the pre-nup I suppose.

Married people go back on their word and change their minds too. Life changes, their needs change, they change, under actual circumstances they find they actually feel differently. etc.

 

[Koldo]

Now if it was definitely agreed that any unplanned pregnancy would be handled through abortion, and ONLY abortion, I would personally consider that to be a verbal contract. In that situation, I would choose #3.

This is pretty much what was agreed upon.
Except, obviously, in the case where after the woman got pregnant, both parts wanted to have the baby even as the result of an unplanned pregnancy ( which is not an uncommon ocorrence, as far as i know ). It would be rather weird to go through an abortion if both man and woman wanted the baby, right?

 

[Koldo]

My husband and I agreed that once we were done having children, he'd get a vasectomy.

He changed his mind and has decided not to go through the procedure.

Oh well. Time to think of other options since he has the right to decide what to do with his body.

That was years ago. I haven't thought about how he lied to me, or betrayed my trust, or how it's his fault and I have to shoulder some burden because he was autonomous in his decision not to be snipped. The reason is that I DON'T think that about him. It's his choice what happens with his body, and I respect that first and foremost.

.

.

.

I look forward to the day when women can decide what happens with their bodies without people whining and shouting about how she shouldn't be able to for whatever reason.

If he told you he would get a vasectomy, he is clearly at fault, in my opinion.
Although it must said this isn't as severe as the case in the OP.

 

[Me Myself]

I like choice 3. Both get what they want within their rights.

Agreed.

 

[waitasec]

Imagine the following scenario:

'Harry is dating Ana. They thoroughly spoke about how an unplanned pregnancy would be dealt it, and it was agreed that abortion would be an acceptable method. Months later, Ana got pregnant. And she decided she wouldn't go through the abortion anymore. Ana didn't try to deceive Harry when she agreed with abortion back then; she simply had a change of mind after she got pregnant.'

Both sides ( Harry and Ana ) agree to this version of the story.

How should the judiciary system ( laws ) deal with this situation?
Should Ana be forced to undergo an abortion ( of her fetus ), even though her health is being ( more or less ) compromised by this invasive procedure ?
Should Harry be forced to financially support the newborn, even though Ana had previously agreed to abort the fetus in cases of unplanned pregnancy ?
Should Harry be able to renounce his rights to the child to avoid financially supporting it?
How should this issue be settled?

this...

if harry didn't change his mind....this seems to be the most fair option.

having said that, ana shouldn't be seeking for any type of financial support from harry if she was aware of his choice to not want to have children

 

[Koldo]

I personally see nothing wrong with drawing up legal agreements ahead of time.

Beyond that it's he said, she said. After the fact either one can say anything.

For all intents and purposes, both parts agree with that version of the story though.

 

[Koldo]

Just to add, any woman who simply says she's 'okay with (having an) abortion' makes for very sketchy odds.

A surer bet would be a woman who adamantly warns you she WILL NOT BE HAVING ANY (more) CHILDREN IN ANY CASE, COME HELL OR HIGH WATER.

That's too extreme though.
The man may want to have a child later on.

 

[Me Myself]

And he trusted that she would not change her mind (that moron )

Not knowing oneself is bigger moronicy than not knowing others, so I see Ana at bigger moronic fault of being moron

Now she has changed her mind and the fact that he didn't plan this doesn't make him any less the father.

It is not MORALLY RIGHT for Ana to require Harry to support the child, but it is however LEGALLY RIGHT.
Harry also knew that (or should have known that, that moron) before he managed to make Ana pregnant, so if Ana requires that Harry help support the child, he has to (that moron)

Legality should be supported by morality.

If the case is as you say, legality should change regarding that issue so that he does not need to be immoraly forced to do so.

 

[Koldo]

I was thinking the same thing. Being "okay" with having an abortion can legally and ethically amount to coercian. It would be hard to prove, but it's open to interpretation. Which is why verbal agreements aren't worth a court's time.

I don't understand what you meant here.
What do you mean by ''Being "okay" with having an abortion can legally and ethically amount to coercian.''? How so?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

If he told you he would get a vasectomy, he is clearly at fault, in my opinion.
Although it must said this isn't as severe as the case in the OP.

Finger pointing is immature and childish, in my opinion.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I don't understand what you meant here.
What do you mean by ''Being "okay" with having an abortion can legally and ethically amount to coercian.''? How so?

What does "being okay" mean to you?

Is your interpretation of such a position universal?

There is too much grey area to someone saying, verbally, that they're "okay" with something to establish clear expectations. Someone could just be going along with it for whatever reason, including being coerced into it.

 

[otokage007]

Both sides ( Harry and Ana ) agree to this version of the story.

How should the judiciary system ( laws ) deal with this situation?
Should Ana be forced to undergo an abortion ( of her fetus ), even though her health is being ( more or less ) compromised by this invasive procedure ?
Should Harry be forced to financially support the newborn, even though Ana had previously agreed to abort the fetus in cases of unplanned pregnancy ?
Should Harry be able to renounce his rights to the child to avoid financially supporting it?

1- No, she shouldn't be forced to undergo an abortion, of course.
2- It depends, if Harry can demonstrate that he didn't want the child, used precautions, and had an agreement with her girlfriend. Then no, he shouldn't be forced to support the newborn.
3- If he failed in point 2, then no, he can't renounce.

 

[Koldo]

Finger pointing is immature and childish, in my opinion.

In your case it wouldn't be finger pointing though.
It is simply breaking an agreement. You put your trust in him, and he willingly failed you. If finger pointing is getting facts straight, then i see nothing wrong with this act.

 

[Koldo]

What does "being okay" mean to you?

Is your interpretation of such a position universal?

There is too much grey area to someone saying, verbally, that they're "okay" with something to establish clear expectations. Someone could just be going along with it for whatever reason, including being coerced into it.

But to assume it is coercion is too extreme.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

In your case it wouldn't be finger pointing though.
It is simply breaking an agreement. You put your trust in him, and he willingly failed you. If finger pointing is getting facts straight, then i see nothing wrong with this act.

The facts are that we thought a vasectomy was the best option. He agreed to it. Then he changed his mind. Those are the facts.

Attributing blame is not stating any fact, but a distinction.

And in this case, pointing the finger at him for changing his mind about what he is going to do with his body is immature and childish.

I'll say this at least about your argument about attributing blame and finger pointing when people make promises with their bodies and then change their minds....at least you're consistent.