But you said you were okay with abortion...

[Koldo]

Yeah. It's almost as useless as proposing a law that the vast majority of people would consider unreasonable.

Why would it be considered unreasonable by the vast majority?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

That's it. I call Poe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why would it be considered unreasonable by the vast majority?

You don't think it would be?

 

[Koldo]

That's it. I call Poe.

:sarcastic

 

[Koldo]

You don't think it would be?

No. It fits perfectly one thing the majority wants: justice.

 

[NIX]

The law that sets the standards could just be used if there is no written contract.

The laws that set the standards for marriage still REQUIRE A WRITTEN CONTRACT and witnesses.

The laws that set the standards for business agreements still REQUIRE PROPER WRITTEN CONTRACTS outlining those agreements between specific parties.

People do these things to PROTECT themselves. Look at the contract as your final line of PROTECTION. To be whipped out after the condom doesn't work.
As well, if the woman doesn't want to sign it- you have weeded out a one night stand who doesn't feel completely secure in any promise to abort. in this case the woman's unwillingness to sign can easily be translated as her unwillingness to promise. So figure you have done yourself and any potential child a favor from the onset. Then go find a woman who WILL sign the promisory agreement. What on earth should be so difficult about that? Any woman who knows she can remain true to her word/promise should have no qualms signing the thing. Right?

 

[Alceste]

A law could easily set all the standards for those bases.

There is a law already. Unless other legally binding arrangements for custody and care have been made, parents are automatically responsible for the wellbeing of their children at birth. Is there something wrong with that law?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. It fits perfectly one thing the majority wants: justice.

But what you consider justice is very different from the view of anyone else I've ever talked to.

 

[Koldo]

The laws that set the standards for marriage still REQUIRE A WRITTEN CONTRACT and witnesses.

The laws that set the standards for business agreements still REQUIRE WRITTEN CONTRACTS outlining those agreements.

People do these things to PROTECT themselves. Look at the contract as your final line of legal PROTECTION. To be whipped out after the condom doesn't work.
As well, if the woman doesn't want to sign it- you have weeded out a one night stand who doesn't feel completely secure in any promise to abort. So figure you have done yourself and any potential child a favor from the onset. Then go find a woman who WILL sign the promisory agreement. What on earth should be so difficult about that? Any woman who knows she can remain true to her word/promise should have no qualms signing the thing. Right?

What the laws do currently is unimportant to my point. As it is a debate about how an issue should be settled, and not as to how it is settled currently.

Either way, now that you mentioned it...
What is your opinion about a particular kind of marriage: common-law marriage ?

 

[Koldo]

There is a law already. Unless other legally binding arrangements for custody and care have been made, parents are automatically responsible for the wellbeing of their children at birth. Is there something wrong with that law?

No. It has nothing to do with the law i proposed though.

 

[Alceste]

No. It has nothing to do with the law i proposed though.

What law did you propose? That statements made during courtship should have the force of a legally binding contract, and that anyone who later changes their mind should be punished by paying damages? And that all such statements should be recorded?

Sounds impractical to me. Why not just write up that casual sex contract and work within the existing laws?

 

[Koldo]

But what you consider justice is very different from the view of anyone else I've ever talked to.

Really?
Whenever i turn on the television, i can watch several people asking the authorities to make the ones who did (morally) wrong to pay for it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Really?
Whenever i turn on the television, i can watch several people asking the authorities to make the ones who did (morally) wrong to pay for it.

So it is just sour grapes and not about "justice"?

 

[Koldo]

What law did you propose? That statements made during courtship should have the force of a legally binding contract, and that anyone who later changes their mind should be punished by paying damages?

I never mentioned 'courtship' specifically.

And that all such statements should be recorded?

Only if you expect the government to do something if one part doesn't keep the word.

Sounds impractical to me. Why not just write up that casual sex contract and work within the existing laws?

Because there is no need to.
That still remains as an option though.

 

[Koldo]

So it is just sour grapes and not about "justice"?

Sorry but i don't comprehend what you meant here.

 

[NIX]

What the laws do currently is unimportant to my point. As it is a debate about how an issue should be settled, and not as to how it is settled currently.

Either way, now that you mentioned it...
What is your opinion about a particular kind of marriage: common-law marriage ?

I don't really understand how common law marriage works- even after discussing it in another thread.

I will say this though, I would HIGHLY RESENT finding myself in some kind of marital status that I did not specifically persue and sign for of my own legal violition.
It is something I will find out more about, when the time comes, to make sure I never find myself 'inadvertently married". But as I said, I still don't understand how it works- if the couple 'activates it' or the state.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Sorry but i don't comprehend what you meant here.

Your argument that "the ones who did (morally) wrong should pay for it" gave me the impression that you think the woman in this scenario should be punished for the sake of revenge/payback rather than "justice," especially considering that what is "morally wrong" is subjective.

 

[Koldo]

I don't really understand how common law marriage works- even after discussing it in another thread.

I will say this though, I would HIGHLY RESENT finding myself in some kind of marital status that I did not specifically persue and sign for of my own legal violition.
It is something I will find out more about, when the time comes, to make sure I never find myself 'inadvertently married". But as I said, I still don't understand how it works- if the couple 'activates it' or the state.

I don't know about other countries, but in Brazil, if you and your loved one live as if you were married, you are in a 'common-law marriage'.

 

[Koldo]

Your argument that "the ones who did (morally) wrong should pay for it" gave me the impression that you think the woman in this scenario should be punished for the sake of revenge/payback rather than "justice,"...

Please do read what i proposed as a consequence to the woman.
There is no revenge in it.

especially considering that what is "morally wrong" is subjective.

Can we agree that the majority considers breaking agreements to be morally wrong particularly when doing so brings financial loss to the other part?

At least that is how i perceive it to be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Really?
Whenever i turn on the television, i can watch several people asking the authorities to make the ones who did (morally) wrong to pay for it.

And how many people do you see on television saying that there's nothing (morally) wrong about being a deadbeat dad?