But you said you were okay with abortion...

[Alceste]

By the force of the current laws, they are.
But the current laws do not matter to this topic.
What matters is that if the law i proposed was added then the label 'deadbeat dad' wouldn't fit certain men anymore as they wouldn't have to pay any sort of legally-mandated support.
So it is very inaccurate to say 'deadbeat dads' would be let off the hook with my proposed law. Rather, they ( those who fit specific criteria ) wouldn't be 'deadbeat dads' anymore.

EDIT: I doubt many ( if any ) of the current 'deadbeat dads' would have a recording of the woman saying she promises to abort though...

I think you should tip your king. It's not sportsmanlike to make us chase you around the board like this.

 

[Draka]

Why is it when I hear "promises to abort" I start thinking of "I'll leave my wife, I promise". Things said before sex are things said in the heat of the moment and should not be actually taken to be contractual. Honestly. I still don't understand this concept. Why is it that people can't just not have sex if they don't want to own up to the possibility of having a child? What is just so gosh darn hard to understand about sex can = baby???? I don't get it, I just don't get it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why did you leave out the rest?

Why would you think it's relevant? It's defined in terms of the current law (i.e. the one that says that the man would have to pay in the situation in the OP), not in terms of what you think the law should be.

 

[Koldo]

Why is it when I hear "promises to abort" I start thinking of "I'll leave my wife, I promise". Things said before sex are things said in the heat of the moment and should not be actually taken to be contractual. Honestly. I still don't understand this concept. Why is it that people can't just not have sex if they don't want to own up to the possibility of having a child? What is just so gosh darn hard to understand about sex can = baby???? I don't get it, I just don't get it.

I don't get it, i just don't get it. Why is that people can't just not make promises if they don't want to be held responsible for them? Perhaps you could tell me!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By the force of the current laws, they are.
But the current laws do not matter to this topic.

They do to the matter of the definition of "deadbeat dad".

We have two definitions before us. Paraphrasing:

- "a man who does not provide child support for his child". A bit simplistic, I guess, but workable.

- "a man who is required (i.e required by current law) to pay child support but does not."

Neither of these definitions works for you.

What matters is that if the law i proposed was added then the label 'deadbeat dad' wouldn't fit certain men anymore as they wouldn't have to pay any sort of legally-mandated support.
So it is very inaccurate to say 'deadbeat dads' would be let off the hook with my proposed law. Rather, they ( those who fit specific criteria ) wouldn't be 'deadbeat dads' anymore.

But we're having this discussion now, not in your hypothetical fantasy future. When all that stuff happens, then you can change the definition. Not until then, though.

 

[Koldo]

Why would you think it's relevant? It's defined in terms of the current law (i.e. the one that says that the man would have to pay in the situation in the OP), not in terms of what you think the law should be.

It is relevant because of the context of your sentence.

Imagine drug trafficking was turned into a legal activity. Then all the ones who were jailed for this would be released. Then you come and say: "With this law you are letting those criminals off the hook''. I would reply: "No, i am not. They are not criminals (anymore)".

The same goes for what we are talking about. If you call them 'deadbeat dads' even though the law changes you are applying the label incorrectly. And that is what you were doing.

 

[Koldo]

They do to the matter of the definition of "deadbeat dad".

We have two definitions before us. Paraphrasing:

- "a man who does not provide child support for his child". A bit simplistic, I guess, but workable.

- "a man who is required (i.e required by current law) to pay child support but does not."

Neither of these definitions works for you.


But we're having this discussion now, not in your hypothetical fantasy future. When all that stuff happens, then you can change the definition. Not until then, though.

See the post above.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is relevant because of the context of your sentence.

Imagine drug trafficking was turned into a legal activity. Then all the ones who were jailed for this would be released. Then you come and say: "With this law you are letting those criminals off the hook''. I would reply: "No, i am not. They are not criminals (anymore)".

The same goes for what we are talking about. If you call them 'deadbeat dads' even though the law changes you are applying the label incorrectly. And that is what you were doing.

But I'm speaking from a point in time before your fantasy scenario came true.

We're not having this conversation in the future. We're having this conversation in 2012, not at some indeterminate point after your plan actually happened. They're deadbeat dads now and will remain so at least until you actually change the law... and I wouldn't put too much stock in that ever happening.

 

[Koldo]

But I'm speaking from a point in time before your fantasy scenario came true.

We're not having this conversation in the future. We're having this conversation in 2012, not at some indeterminate point after your plan actually happened. They're deadbeat dads now and will remain so at least until you actually change the law... and I wouldn't put too much stock in that ever happening.

It doesn't matter.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't get it, i just don't get it. Why is that people can't just not make promises if they don't want to be held responsible for them? Perhaps you could tell me!

It's because in this case, there is greater evil in trying to force someone into unwanted surgery than there is in letting them back out of a promise.

A few of my friends volunteered for drug trials when they were poor students in order to make ends meet. One of them signed up for a trial of "fear-inducing medication" (no word of a lie - I have no idea what it was for, but that's what they told him it would do). He managed to get through one day of a three-day trial before he couldn't take it any more and had to quit. Would you have had him strapped down and drugged for two more days?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It doesn't matter.

Yes, your fantasy scenario doesn't matter.

 

[Alceste]

I don't get it, i just don't get it. Why is that people can't just not make promises if they don't want to be held responsible for them? Perhaps you could tell me!

People are held accountable for their broken promises already. You are arguing that the taxpayer should fund state intervention into the millions of "he said, she said" lovers quarrels that are happening all around you, all the time, and exact some kind of financial compensation promises made in the heat of the moment and broken in the cold light of day. The rest of us think that would be impractical, costly, unnecessary, unrealistic, and foolish.

You already have access to the courts to sue anyone who does you wrong, and you can write a contract to help your standing in court, if it should ever come to that. You can already legally transfer your parental responsibility to some other willing party. Family courts are already set up to determine a fair contribution. What more do you want?

 

[Koldo]

Yes, your fantasy scenario doesn't matter.

Your pursue for injustice also doesn't matter to me.
But such is the world.

 

[Koldo]

It's because in this case, there is greater evil in trying to force someone into unwanted surgery than there is in letting them back out of a promise.

A few of my friends volunteered for drug trials when they were poor students in order to make ends meet. One of them signed up for a trial of "fear-inducing medication" (no word of a lie - I have no idea what it was for, but that's what they told him it would do). He managed to get through one day of a three-day trial before he couldn't take it any more and had to quit. Would you have had him strapped down and drugged for two more days?

Have i ever suggested the woman should be forced to abort?

 

[Koldo]

People are held accountable for their broken promises already. You are arguing that the taxpayer should fund state intervention into the millions of "he said, she said" lovers quarrels that are happening all around you, all the time, and exact some kind of financial compensation promises made in the heat of the moment and broken in the cold light of day. The rest of us think that would be impractical, costly, unnecessary, unrealistic, and foolish.

There is no ''he said,she said''.
There is only 'hear what he/she said'.

You already have access to the courts to sue anyone who does you wrong, and you can write a contract to help your standing in court, if it should ever come to that. You can already legally transfer your parental responsibility to some other willing party. Family courts are already set up to determine a fair contribution. What more do you want?

I have already said what i want more.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Have i ever suggested the woman should be forced to abort?

The implication of what you suggest is that the woman gets to choose between abortion and a massive financial penalty. In many cases, this would have the effect of pushing a woman into having an abortion that she doesn't want.

You know, for someone who gives quite a bit of lip-service to the idea of taking responsibility for one's actions, you seem awfully eager to ignore the consequences of what you propose.

 

[Koldo]

The implication of what you suggest is that the woman gets to choose between abortion and a massive financial penalty. In many cases, this would have the effect of pushing a woman into having an abortion that she doesn't want.

You know, for someone who gives quite a bit of lip-service to the idea of taking responsibility for one's actions, you seem awfully eager to ignore the consequences of what you propose.

I am not ignoring them at all.

Imagine we make a legal written agreement. You will send some goods to me and i will pay you a given much of money for them. I give you the money. Now you don't want to send the goods to me anymore. You are either forced to do something you don't want or face a massive financial penalty. Is this situation unfair?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not ignoring them at all.

Imagine we make a legal written agreement. You will send some goods to me and i will pay you a given much of money for them. I give you the money. Now you don't want to send the goods to me anymore. You are either forced to do something you don't want or face a massive financial penalty. Is this situation unfair?

Not enough information. Possibly yes, possibly no. There are many situations where the law recognizes that it would be unfair to strictly enforce the terms of a contract.

Edit: also, you're comparing apples and oranges. This new hypothetical adds consideration into the mix, which makes it materially different from the hypothetical in the OP. I touched on this issue in my other thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-debates/137419-fyi-what-constitutes-agreement.html

 

[Koldo]

Not enough information. Possibly yes, possibly no. There are many situations where the law recognizes that it would be unfair to strictly enforce the terms of a contract.

I suspect only if it is an unfair contract to begin with.

Edit: also, you're comparing apples and oranges. This new hypothetical adds consideration into the mix, which makes it materially different from the hypothetical in the OP. I touched on this issue in my other thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-debates/137419-fyi-what-constitutes-agreement.html

How does 'consideration' change anything?
In this case, if you don't send me the goods ( also known as keeping your word ), i will suffer massive financial loss.
In the abortion case, if Ana doesn't abort ( also known as keeping your word ), Harry will suffer massive financial loss.

 

[Alceste]

I suspect only if it is an unfair contract to begin with.



How does 'consideration' change anything?
In this case, if you don't send me the goods ( also known as keeping your word ), i will suffer massive financial loss.
In the abortion case, if Ana doesn't abort ( also known as keeping your word ), Harry will suffer massive financial loss.

There you go, Ana's promise to have an abortion is an invalid, unfair, implausible and unenforceable "agreement" given by a person who is not of sound mind and body. Harry is an idiot if he expects to benefit from it in any way, or if he expects any court in the world to give it any more that a moment's thought before slapping him with child support payments.

Issue resolved.