|
funny - but i can understand your position. i was just getting ready to post back. i had some further thoughts about practical situations. I'm kind of doing the old devil's advocate, but I honestly don't know what how I'd feel about them:
1. A couple who is very public about their shared views on pro-life position. Regardless of what anyone else, or scientific consensus on the ambiguity of the beginning of life, etc - but they are very obviously pro-life in their positions. They are sexually active, and use birth control...but it fails. Civil court case: can the guy sue for some sort of damages, as a shared value was changed in the face of a real situation.
2. Inverse situation: very obvious casual sex couple, we never want babies, we'll definately get an abortion if our contraception fails, etc. Get pregnant, girl doesn't want abortion.
I guess I'm wondering what would happen in situation where it isn't a simple matter of he said, she said - but where there is pretty overwhelming evidence that a position was adopted as a couple, that was violated. Do essential verbal contracts about these types of situations become null and void, or is there a leg to stand on?
Interesting to me, but scary at the same time.
/ps. don't worry. If South Dakota goes through, you may soon be back on the side of advocating change on this issue again.
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
|