Disputes arising from unintended pregnancy, putting your money where your mouth is.

[SamuelS]

This is a followup to some ideas I outlined in this post. I started thinking about this in terms of a stateless society and DRO's, but I realized it might even work in the current statist system (though the govt likely would have to allow it as they've got incentives not to)...is this a good idea? a terrible idea? am I missing something? any feedback would be appreciated

Disputes arising from unintended pregnancy, putting your money where your mouth is.

People take risks. Smart people mitigate those risks, insurance is a common approach. Unintended pregnancy is one of the risks many take, and the consequences can be devastating -- emotionally, spiritually, and financially. What if this risk, too, could be mitigated through voluntary contractual obligations, unintended pregnancy insurance?

Below I've outlined, in a simplistic way, two "insurance plans" and the various ways that disputes could arise -- and be resolved -- between participants of those plans should an unintended pregnancy occur. These insurance plans could provide incentives for people to make better choices with regard to sex partners and could provide leverage to "get your way" in any disputes that arise. Being contract-based they're likely to hold more weight in court -- should things come to that -- as it's not just a "he said, she said" situation, but rather a contractual obligation.

If such a system were widely adopted, people could use inter-group sexual ostracism to further mitigate their risks. Sure, some people will always be irresponsible, but wouldn't it be great if you could just check the "insurance card" of a potential partner and *know* that your values align?


The plans:

Plan A - (A for abortion) prefers kids be aborted, or A(d)opted
Plan B - (B for baby) prefers kids not be aborted

Plan A gives discounts for birth control use, biggest discount for long-lasting injection-type. Also gives discounts for time without a claim. An optional additional premium goes toward incentivizing adoption over abortion, let's call this Plan A(d).

Plan B gives discounts only for time without a claim.


The players:

Manny the man-whore and Suzy the floozy are both on plan-a, they've agreed ahead of time that they do not wish to be responsible for their children and have insurance to cover contingencies. Manny has plan A(d), he doesn't want any children but would prefer his progeny be adopted over aborted. Suzy doesn't want to be tied down with the complications of pregnancy at all and therefore has plan A.

Sally the saint and Mark the moralist are both on plan-b, they would prefer that even unintentional pregnancies be carried to term.

Irene and Ivan are both irresponsible, they have no "abortion insurance" at all.

Vance and Veronica don't want any kids, ever, so they've chosen vasectomy and tubal ligation, respectively. They don't have to worry about any of this.


The scenarios:

Note that payouts/incentives would be an effect of the "level" of insurance one carries, if one party has a $500k policy and the other has a $50k policy, the one with a higher level of coverage is going to have much more leverage.

So, what happens when we mix up these variations of preference in the sexual arena, and unintended pregnancies result? Let's explore some of the possibilities.

I) Manny unintentionally impregnates Sally. Manny does not want to be responsible for his progeny, he doesn't want children, and he's got insurance to mitigate the financial impact of his poor decision making. Sally refuses to abort the child and has insurance to mitigate the financial impact. In this case Plan A and Plan B underwriters get together and come up with the following options:
 1 - Sally can be paid (by plan A(d), Manny's insurer) to abort the child.
 2 - Sally can choose to release Manny from any liability, for appropriate compensation, and to carry out the pregnancy and either -
  a) keep the child.
  b) give up the child for adoption and receive additional compensation in accordance with Manny's coverage.
 3 - Sally can opt out entirely, losing her insurance coverage, and go the "traditional" route of suing Manny for support.

II) Manny unintentionally impregnates Suzy. They've both agreed ahead of time that they do not wish to be responsible for their children...these are Suzy's options:
 1 - Suzy can have an abortion, paid for by Manny's insurer.
 2 - Suzy can choose to release Manny and their insurers from any liability and carry out the pregnancy and either --
  a) keep the child.
  b) give up the child for adoption and receive additional compensation from Manny's plan A(d) coverage.
 3 - Suzy can opt out entirely, losing her insurance coverage, and go the "traditional" route of suing Manny for support, her case will likely be thrown out of court as she's already signed agreements not to do this.

III) Manny unintentionally impregnates Irene. Manny is insured, Irene is not. These are Irene's options:
 1 - Irene can abort, Manny's insurance will cover part of the expense.
 2 - Irene can carry the child to term and either -
  a) keep the child, releasing Manny and his insurer from liability.
  b) give up the child for adoption and receive compensation from Manny's insurer.
 3 - Irene can follow the "traditional" court-based route.

IV) Mark ("the moralist") unintentionally impregnates Sally. They both prefer their progeny not be aborted. These are Sally's options:
 1 - Sally can carry the child to term, receive compensation from Mark's insurance and either -
  a) keep the child.
  b) give the child up for adoption (possibly to Mark.)
 2 - Sally can keep the child and follow the traditional route.
 3 - Sally can, at her own expense, abort the child. She will likely be dropped from her insurance coverage or her rates will increase significantly.

V) Mark unintentionally impregnates Suzy, the options for Suzy are much the same as II above, varying only in regard to compensation for the various options (i.e. Mark's insurance will not pay for an abortion and will offer incentives to carry out the pregnancy.)

VI) Mark unintentionally impregnates Irene. Mark is insured, Irene is not. These are Irene's options:
 1 - Irene can abort, at her own expense.
 2 - Irene can carry the child to term and either -
  a) keep the child and release Mark and his insurer from liability for just compensation.
  b) give up the child for adoption and receive compensation from Mark's insurer.
 3 - Irene can follow the "traditional" court-based route.

VII) Ivan unintentionally impregnates Irene. Neither are insured. Irene's options are:
 1 - no different than they are today.
 

[WorBlux]

I think it's rife with potential fraud.

 

As it stands today, generally child support obligation cannot be waived via contract with the mother (as its against public policy). Contracts to give up for adoption are also not enforced (at least as far as specific performance goes)

[SamuelS]

I understand that the state wouldn't allow it, I don't really know the ins and outs of that, but I get that its the case...

 

Could you expand on the "rife with potential fraud" bit?

[cab21]

in a free market wise, there is no costs for a male if the male just wants to leave for the most part. costs there might be social, but there aren't courts forcing child support or something like that.

 

people against abortion, at least one group, call abortion murder, so i don't think there is a financial price they have to be ok with murder.

 

so what financials do you think would happen as far as numbers of people in each pool, costs to be in the pools, and profitability for any insurance company that provides any of these plans?

[WorBlux]

I understand that the state wouldn't allow it, I don't really know the ins and outs of that, but I get that its the case...Could you expand on the "rife with potential fraud" bit?

 

How do you prove unintentional vs intentional.

 

 

Luke and Lisa are infertile and want a child, they pay Irene to "oopsie" with Manny.  Irene takes additional compensation from Manny's insurance to carry to term, and let Luke and Lisa adopt.

[SamuelS]

Hey guys, thanks for the feedback, I haven't forgotten about y'all, just haven't made the time to respond properly to your brilliant questions. I'll find some time in the next couple days to respond to them, thanks again

[SamuelS]

sorry again for the delay in responding, I've been rather busy and scatterbrained the last few weeks, also fairly ambivalent about this entire topic after some rather unproductive conversations in other arenas. 

in a free market wise, there is no costs for a male if the male just wants to leave for the most part. costs there might be social, but there aren't courts forcing child support or something like that.

Maybe, but I don't think so. I, myself, would want a DRO that enforced ostracism on "deadbeat" parents. I would want to see the costs of peoples choices borne by those who made the choices rather than socialized. I certainly have no problem ostracizing deadbeats in my day to day life, it'd be a whole lot more effective if others would do the same.Regarding courts in a stateless society, I'd encourage you to listen to podcasts 1-3 where a system of private dispute resolution is outlined and defended. I wouldn't be advocating anarchy, at all, if I didn't think there were a way to peacefully and civilly resolve disputes.

 

people against abortion, at least one group, call abortion murder, so i don't think there is a financial price they have to be ok with murder.

I understand that, and while I sympathize with the position I cannot support it, in a pregnancy dispute insurance scenario those people would be wise to carry huge policies. Again, this is just putting the costs onto the people making the decisions, rather than socializing them. 

 

so what financials do you think would happen as far as numbers of people in each pool, costs to be in the pools, and profitability for any insurance company that provides any of these plans?

 

this is a great question, but far outside the scope of both my knowledge of the topic and my desire to "flesh it out"...that said, let's look at a simple example:today a man "accidentally" impregnates a woman, he doesn't want children, she refuses abortion, he's ordered to pay $100/week in child support. that's $5200/year, and $93,600 over 18 years. so long as insurance is less than $5200/year, it may be a wise investment for him.what I can say about profitability is that if such a system were put into place, it would be profitable or it wouldn't be on the market. perhaps rabid religious folks would have their own agencies that would exert market forces making abortion prohibitively expensive, perhaps not, but they'd be welcome to "put their money where their mouth is" in attempt to persuade others toward the outcomes they're after. 

 

How do you prove unintentional vs intentional.

 

 

Luke and Lisa are infertile and want a child, they pay Irene to "oopsie" with Manny.  Irene takes additional compensation from Manny's insurance to carry to term, and let Luke and Lisa adopt.

 

Aha, the fatal flaw in my logic! Great example. I think the simplest way to get around this particular problem would be to not have Irene involved in choosing the adoptive parents, perhaps that would be part of the compensation agreement between her and Manny's insurer -- by accepting compensation she could be obligated to a "blind" adoption.Not to go off on too complex a tangent, but this made me think of a way to improve one aspect of adoption which I think would be relatively simple to do with today's technology. One of the problems with adoption is lacking knowledge about the (ongoing) medical histories of biological parents...with public/private key encryption it would be possible for the child's records to be regularly updated with the medical history of their biological parents while maintaining anonymity. 

[cab21]

Maybe, but I don't think so. I, myself, would want a DRO that enforced ostracism on "deadbeat" parents. I would want to see the costs of peoples choices borne by those who made the choices rather than socialized. I certainly have no problem ostracizing deadbeats in my day to day life, it'd be a whole lot more effective if others would do the same.

 

 

how would you define deadbeat here?

 

say the father wants to give the baby up for adoption, and the mother wants to keep the child, is the father a deadbeat if the father wants to not pay child support, or pay less child support than the mother wants the father to pay( where the money may or may not actually go to supporting the child)?

 

socialized costs are only a function of a socialized system.

 

for this a system of tracking and defining deadbeats needs to be established

 

I understand that, and while I sympathize with the position I cannot support it, in a pregnancy dispute insurance scenario those people would be wise to carry huge policies. Again, this is just putting the costs onto the people making the decisions, rather than socializing them.

 

such a person might be less inclined to have insurance and more inclined for violent action in response to what they consider a violent action. say a person thinks abortion violates NAP, that could put them more in the thought process to respond with violence than receiving money.

 

this is a great question, but far outside the scope of both my knowledge of the topic and my desire to "flesh it out"...that said, let's look at a simple example:today a man "accidentally" impregnates a woman, he doesn't want children, she refuses abortion, he's ordered to pay $100/week in child support. that's $5200/year, and $93,600 over 18 years. so long as insurance is less than $5200/year, it may be a wise investment for him.what I can say about profitability is that if such a system were put into place, it would be profitable or it wouldn't be on the market. perhaps rabid religious folks would have their own agencies that would exert market forces making abortion prohibitively expensive, perhaps not, but they'd be welcome to "put their money where their mouth is" in attempt to persuade others toward the outcomes they're after.

 

where is this order for child support coming from?

 

it still seems people would rather put response to violation of nap where their mouth is than put money. making abortion a punishment more than money is something i think such people would go for.

[SamuelS]

how would you define deadbeat here?

one who does not comply with the terms of voluntarily entered into contracts. 

 

where is this order for child support coming from?

the example was "current system", aka family court. 

 

it still seems people would rather put response to violation of nap where their mouth is than put money. making abortion a punishment more than money is something i think such people would go for.

I don't think abortion violates NAP (unless it's extremely late-term abortion), but that's a whole other can of worms...in short, I think there's a "grey" point at which a fetus becomes capable of sustaining life outside the womb (artificially, or otherwise), and at that point it becomes a "person" in regard to NAP/UPB/morality, while the point isn't concrete I do think it's an objective delineation and prior to that point one could argue that the mother is it's hostage if non-abortion were enforced....that aside, this is where the intergroup sexual ostracism would come into play -- if you think it's immoral to abort, don't have sexual relations with people that haven't signed contracts agreeing not to abort.

[Josh F]

I just shared this idea with my girlfriend, she said it would a great idea especially in the country she is from Costa Rica, which doesnt allow abortions and is super Catholic (with all that entails)  

[SamuelS]

Thanks for sharing it and for that feedback, Josh

[dsayers]

People offer/take out insurance for things they cannot plan for, which is not an accurate description of pregnancy.

 

The correct way to deal with the problem of unwanted pregnancy is negotiating with children and teaching them things like rational thought, deferred gratification, and long-term planning.

[cab21]

one who does not comply with the terms of voluntarily entered into contracts.

 

people can have sex and get pregnant without entering any voluntary contracts.

 

but if it is just deadbeat for violating a contract, sure that can be trackable. 

 

the example was "current system", aka family court.

 

ok, but current family court systems are not by voluntary contracts, so there would be a shift in how people deal with such situations if given the choice.

 

I don't think abortion violates NAP (unless it's extremely late-term abortion), but that's a whole other can of worms...in short, I think there's a "grey" point at which a fetus becomes capable of sustaining life outside the womb (artificially, or otherwise), and at that point it becomes a "person" in regard to NAP/UPB/morality, while the point isn't concrete I do think it's an objective delineation and prior to that point one could argue that the mother is it's hostage if non-abortion were enforced....that aside, this is where the intergroup sexual ostracism would come into play -- if you think it's immoral to abort, don't have sexual relations with people that haven't signed contracts agreeing not to abort.

 

more planning and responsibility for people would work