In the last conversation about abortion (at my personal blog) my frequent interlocutor, Jewish Atheist (JA), depends in part on arguments drawn from the Violinist question. This is odd, because JA himself finds the Violinist argument poor. In that discussion however, I’d like to concentrate on the reasoning the pro-choice/pro-abortion community uses to deny the father any say in the matter, with a blanket excuse “it’s the women’s body.” I’m going modify my narrative around the violinist argument to highlight why I think setting the father out of the picture in a point blank fashion is a violation of common sense contractual ethics. For the story, duck below the fold:

  1. A “contract” is drawn up, between the wealthy powerful sick “famous” violinist and a young couple. The arrangement of the contract is that, on signing of the contract there will be an immediate payoff to the couple (who are both paid), ratifying their acceptance of the contract.
  2. Tests will be subsequently done, if a match is made, then one of the couple (the female as it happens) will then be bound to undergo treatment for a period of up to nine months with the understanding that these treatments will be more onerous toward the end. If the match does occur, after that initial period there is a payoff, of mixed value to the couple (contains good and bad). Again on that final reward/payoff,  both members of the couple benefit.
  1. The couple is paid their signing bonus, in the “real world” this might be viewed as the payoff of sexual enjoyment and togetherness obtained from their intercourse.
  2. A match, corresponds to pregnancy.
  3. The final payoff is of course the child.

A contract to be binding and valid must entail commitment and payoff for all the parties involved. Contractually speaking the couple are bound in that they get their original payoff (the sex) and to share in the possible final payoff (the child). Additionally it is normally expected that the father provide whatever emotional, financial, and other assistance to help (his beloved) through pregnancy. It may perhaps be viewed, that the woman may unilaterally break contract with the violinist without breach of contract with the father if he has already failed in his commitment to her because of a prior breach by him, but of course it remains a breach of contract with the violinist. Therefore, I’d argue that a supportive husband/father should indeed be an equal party in decisions to make a contractual breach with the violinist (abortion).

Abortion doesn’t just doom/kill the violinist, but additionally, if done unilaterally on the part of the woman violates the agreement between the couple originally made when entering into the contract. The father was part of the original “signing” of the contract with the violinist. The woman breaking contact both dooms the violinist doing him harm via that contract breach, but also involuntarily breaches the contractual agreement made with the father.

Denial that this is the nature of the arrangment is a fundamental denial of the nature of sexual intercourse and its consequences. It is my contention that that very denial of the “facts of life” is at the heart of the “heat” of the pro-choice/pro-abortion crowd.

Related posts:

  1. Abortion — Some Remarks
  2. Seeking Understanding: Abortion
  3. H1N1, Vaccinations (and Abortion)
  4. Barbara Boxer compares access to Viagra with that of getting an abortion
  5. Two Arguments in the Abortion Mixer

Filed under: Abortion • Ethics & Morality • Mark O.

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!