But you said you were okay with abortion...

[MysticSang'ha]

:sarcastic

:sarcastic:sarcastic

I win.

 

[Koldo]

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

I don't remember any. Why?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't remember any. Why?

Because you seemed surprised when I suggested that your plan to let deadbeat dads off the hook might be unpopular.

 

[Koldo]

Because you seemed surprised when I suggested that your plan to let deadbeat dads off the hook might be unpopular.

'Deadbeat dad' implies someone who should be paying child support but isn't.
My plan doesn't let deadbeat dads off the hook.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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

I'm assuming you mean this:

It would be along the lines of:

1) If she makes past a certain mark of income, the child won't receive child support anymore. The woman will fully pay for the expenses.
2) Once the child completes 18 years old, no more child support will be given and the woman will have to give back all the ammount received to support the child, monthly, or, if possible, in a single time, accordingly readjusted ( if needed ).

If so, then I still think that such a law would be cruel and unjust. Raising a child in and of itself is enough of a burden; such a law would only serve to cruelly chastise the mother and possibly affect the child who is already being raised by a single (and in this case, overly burdened) parent.

Not to mention that it would be a pathetic world we live in if men abandoned their responsibilities and started taking advantage of such a law.

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.

As has already been said many times throughout this thread, verbal agreements are not legally binding. Also, the mother has the responsibility of raising the child, so she doesn't exactly get to take the easy way out. Both parties involved incur a "loss" one way or the other.

 

[Alceste]

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.

You think it's morally wrong for a woman to change her mind about having an abortion?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

'Deadbeat dad' implies someone who should be paying child support but isn't.
My plan doesn't let deadbeat dads off the hook.

You're basing your position on your personal opinion of what people "should" do. I think you'll find that this view isn't shared very widely at all.

 

[Alceste]

'Deadbeat dad' implies someone who should be paying child support but isn't.
My plan doesn't let deadbeat dads off the hook.

It lets all dads who want to get out of the responsibility of helping raise their own kids off the hook as long as they can show the mother mentioned at one point that SHE didn't want kids. That's the very definition of a deadbeat dad. Someone who doesn't want the responsibility of caring for their own kids. They generally blame the mother.

 

[Koldo]

I'm assuming you mean this:

Yes.

If so, then I still think that such a law would be cruel and unjust. Raising a child in and of itself is enough of a burden; such a law would only serve to cruelly chastise the mother and possibly affect the child who is already being raised by a single (and in this case, overly burdened) parent.

How can it cruel and unjust?
By breaking her word she generated a financial loss on another person.
This loss has to be restituted. It would be cruel and unjust to not do so.

Plus, how would this affect the child?

Not to mention that it would be a pathetic world we live in if men abandoned their responsibilities and started taking advantage of such a law.

It is pathetic to let women abandon their responsibilities.

As has already been said many times throughout this thread, verbal agreements are not legally binding.

It doesn't matter for this topic. The point is that they should be.

Also, the mother has the responsibility of raising the child, so she doesn't exactly get to take the easy way out. Both parties incur a "loss" one way or the other.

But that is simply the result of her choice.
In an analogy, imagine i lend you my cellphone, and you put it in a bag with yours. You slam the bag against a wall several times and both cellphones get broken/destroyed. We both went through a loss, but both were caused by you. Therefore, you still must restitute what i lost.

 

[Koldo]

You think it's morally wrong for a woman to change her mind about having an abortion?

No. I think it is morally wrong to break your word.

 

[Koldo]

You're basing your position on your personal opinion of what people "should" do. I think you'll find that this view isn't shared very widely at all.

Who knows?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. I think it is morally wrong to break your word.

I think it's morally wrong to try to compel someone to have surgery that they realize they don't want, or to create a financial penalty if they don't do it. Where does this leave us?

Who knows?

Anyone who's had a moderate amount of experience talking to people, I would think.

 

[Koldo]

It lets all dads who want to get out of the responsibility of helping raise their own kids off the hook as long as they can show the mother mentioned at one point that SHE didn't want kids.

I ask you to read again what i said.
Unless the mother makes past a certain a mark of income, he has to pay child support. Plus, it is not simply mentioning she didn't want kids. That's too vague. He has to show she agreed to have an abortion if an unplanned pregnancy were to happen.

That's the very definition of a deadbeat dad. Someone who doesn't want the responsibility of caring for their own kids. They generally blame the mother.

As i said, 'deadbeat dad' implies someone who should be paying child support, but isn't.

 

[Falvlun]

Harry is going to take responsbility. Quite in fact, even he didn't want to, he would be forced to, currently.

But what should happen to Ana?
I am very much in favour of people taking responsibility too.

Sorry, I'm sure this is has been responded to in the following 10 pages, but the sheer ignorance of this knocked my breath away.

You are acting as if Ana has no repercussions for "breaking her promise" not to abort. If she chooses to carry the fetus to term, then she would have the exact same responsibilities as the father PLUS the additional expense of the toll a pregnancy takes on her body PLUS the higher likelihood that she will be the primary care giver for the child. How exactly is this Ana not taking responsibility, both for her broken promise and for her decision to have sex (which inherently, despite nearly all precautions, can still result in a baby)?

Yeah, Ana really is being let off the hook on this. :sarcastic

 

[Koldo]

I think it's morally wrong to try to compel someone to have surgery that they realize they don't want, or to create a financial penalty if they don't do it. Where does this leave us?

I also agree it is morally wrong to try to compel someone to have surgery that they realize they don't want. On this part, we agree.

However, the financial penalty part is too vague.

Anyone who's had a moderate amount of experience talking to people, I would think.

That would be me then.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As i said, 'deadbeat dad' implies someone who should be paying child support, but isn't.

And you're begging the question by deciding who "should" be paying child support in an argument over who should be paying child support. Your line of reasoning (and I use the term generously) is invalid.

 

[Koldo]

Sorry, I'm sure this is has been responded to in the following 10 pages, but the sheer ignorance of this knocked my breath away.

You are acting as if Ana has no repercussions for "breaking her promise" not to abort. If she chooses to carry the fetus to term, then she would have the exact same responsibilities as the father PLUS the additional expense of the toll a pregnancy takes on her body PLUS the higher likelihood that she will be the primary care giver for the child. How exactly is this Ana not taking responsibility, both for her broken promise and for her decision to have sex (which inherently, despite nearly all precautions, can still result in a baby)?

Yeah, Ana really is being let off the hook on this. :sarcastic

First of all, those consequences were a direct result of her choice. They are not being imposed on her.

And as i mentioned a few posts ago:

"By breaking her word she generated a financial loss on another person.
This loss has to be restituted."

"In an analogy, imagine i lend you my cellphone, and you put it in a bag with yours. You slam the bag against a wall several times and both cellphones get broken/destroyed. We both went through a loss, but both were caused by you. Therefore, you still must restitute what i lost. "

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I also agree it is morally wrong to try to compel someone to have surgery that they realize they don't want. On this part, we agree.

However, the financial penalty part is too vague.

Not for me.

I mean the sort of financial penalty that your plan would create: a situation where a woman who knows the father and where the father is capable of paying his share would be confronted with the prospect of paying for the entire cost of raising the child unless she aborts.

This is economic coercion. I think that coercion is immoral.

That would be me then.

Except you seem to have wrapped your perception in all sorts of false impressions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"In an analogy, imagine i lend you my cellphone, and you put it in a bag with yours. You slam the bag against a wall several times and both cellphones get broken/destroyed. We both went through a loss, but both were caused by you. Therefore, you still must restitute what i lost. "

A more apt analogy: both of our cell phones are broken and I promise to get yours fixed when I bring mind in. For whatever reason (the repair shop is closed when I get there, for instance), I don't fix either one. I give yours back to you in the condition you gave it to me in.

You have lost nothing, and are therefore owed nothing by me.

 

[Koldo]

And you're begging the question by deciding who "should" be paying child support in an argument over who should be paying child support. Your line of reasoning (and I use the term generously) is invalid.

That part of the argument was about who is a deadbeat dad. Not about who should pay child support.