Should pregnancy be treated like any other medical procedure and require consent prior the beginning of the pregnancy? In a landmark case in the UK women now have to be fully informed of the risks of vaginal birth https://www.newscientist.com/articl...y-starting-warning-women-of-childbirth-risks/ It is not too much of a stretch to insist that all pregnancies have to have consent prior. After all there are the issues of ABO compatibility which can endanger the woman and any future children she has, there is the issue of risk of infections, from the sexual act itself and then there is the issue of, well the issue. Who carries the burden of care if the child is not genetically perfect?
Absolutely, in fact I would go further (especially in the US) where an abortion clinic now has to give information on unconfirmed "issues" that may arise due to an abortion, they should also give advice on the known issues of pregnancy and child birth.
Pregnancy isn’t a medical procedure and there is nobody “performing” a pregnancy to seek consent in the first place. I’m sure you’re trying to make a point here but you’ve failed to make it apparent.
It has a medical, financial and social impact ergo we should have required consent beforehand Besides pregnancy does not happen spontaneously - there is a procedure that precedes it. Just because that procedure can and most commonly is used for recreational purposes does not negate the requirement for consent to pregnancy After all opioids can be prescribed for specific purposes or used for recreation. Just because you can obtain some opioids on the black market does not mean you do not need to know the full impact of a prescribed drug
True. Although if someone consented to sex but not pregnancyand you could establish that the person used that opportunity to intentionally impregnate the woman against her willyou might be able to make a case for assault or fraud without any additional legislation.
Sounds to me like you want a 4 corners contract. That being, what is inside the 4 corners of the written, signed contract is what governs. Since I understand what makes a legal contract, yours to fit the law has to contain these elements. 1. Lawful consent. 2. Lawful purpose 3. Consideration from party A to party B 4. Capacity to contract 5. Offer and acceptance 6. Be in writing This is about the safest form of contract one can use.
Nature is a kind of fraud. Few would be likely to put themselves through the hazard of 9 months of discomfort and pain - not to mention the high risk of death (at least in primitive societies). You get your reward now, and the risk comes later.
It’s still not a medical procedure and there still isn’t anyone “performing” the pregnancy to grant consent to. This is a silly statement presumably in an attempt to make a particular point (though I’m still not clear what that is). There’s obviously questions of consent for actions that can lead to pregnancy (which includes some medical procedures as it happens) but that’s not what you’re presenting here. In general terms, you consent to a specific action as a whole, not to the individual potential consequences of the action. You need to be fully aware of the potential consequences but it isn’t the consequences you’re consenting to directly.
IF as pro-lifers want the unborn become persons from conception then the specific action as a whole is purely sexual intercourse, the action of pregnancy is instigated and sustained by a separate person and as such requires separate consent from the female. There could be an argument for implied and/or informed consent, however both of these become moot the second the female, by word or action, explicitly says 'no' If the unborn are not deemed as persons then they have no rights and the female can do as she pleases.
Does not matter if this legal finding in the UK holds up Vaginal delivery is "Natural" but the ruling stated that consent had to be granted before delivery
It’s still not about “consent to pregnancy”. If nothing else, it’d be about nine months too late to be seeking consent for their pregnancy at this point. The ruling and any subsequent policy changes relate to information provided in relation to delivery. A pregnant woman, like any other (aware and legally competent) patient, will already have to consent to whatever procedures are involved and that won’t change either way. The only difference is the information explicitly provided (rather than just being available on request) to support their decision on how to proceed.
I was extrapolating If vaginal delivery is the "natural" and default option and it requires consent then surely pregnancy itself requires consent. The essence of consent is information - which is why it is more commonly referred to as informed consent. What I am advocating is that unless the male has obtained consent from the woman prior to pregnancy then he has no say in that pregnancy whilst still being financially responsible
IF the situation ever occurs where the unborn are deemed as persons from conception then there certainly would be a person "performing" pregnancy, especially as it is the fertilized ovum that instigates and maintains the pregnancy for it's own benefit and as such consent would be required from the female.
The natural delivery is going to happen regardless. The woman could stay at home and handle it without any medical assistance if she wanted. What they’re primarily consenting to is medically assisted delivery but within that there will be a range of decisions and options to be made (and individually consent to). One of those decisions is the fundamental delivery method and the ruling was that even though vaginal delivery is generally viewed as the “default”, the same form of advice and information should be provided about it as is for the alternatives. I think that’s a major logical stretch. I also think it’s a bit questionable hijacking an important question of patient safety and rights to make an only vaguely related political point.
you'd have to get consent in writing or you'd be stuck with just another he said / she said scenario I think it's one for the too hard basket ... excuse the pun
Yeah but can you IMAGINE what that contract would look like? I the undersigned, whilst consenting to sex withhold the right to consent to pregnancy. The consent to pregnancy will be negotiated at a time of the woman's choosing, and will be irrespective of any male blandishments, enticements and foot massages Any pregnancy fostered upon the woman without her prior consent will be considered to be the product of non-consensual action and therefore all future economic and social obligations caused by the pregnancy will be met in full by the person impregnating the woman
Why are you advocating the above when that is the current state of the law with one small declaimer that until a child in born not only does the father have zero said even if married to the mother but is not responsible for the medical bills when it come to an unmarried couple.
This would put everything out in the open so to speak. The man would know exactly what he is responsible for and if the contract were agreed upon then he would have a say in the outcome of that pregnancy There are already contracts for surrogacy so why not treat all pregnancies the same way - after all a woman, whether or not she is married to the man, is in fact his surrogate for his offspring
Because human nature does not work that way and most people who are open to having children just stop birth control to see if they will product a child and a fairly large percent of couples just have unprotected sex without thinking about producing children one way or another let alone signing legal papers beforehand.
