So does Ana. Her financial loss equals Harry's. So if you have your way (your scenario working) then Ana suffers double the financial loss, paying her share of child support and Harry's. How is that fair?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
But you said you were okay with abortion...
- Thread starter Koldo
- Start date
And you don't think that a contract that would compel one of the people to undergo surgery would be unfair?
In most cases, if no consideration is exchanged, then it's considered a "gratuitous promise". The law considers gratuitious promises to be unenforceable and non-binding.
You make out like Harry is the only party injured by Ana's decision to change her mind/break her promise. That's not the case. Both she and Harry share financial loss.
The second issue, which you conveniently ingore, is Harry "breaking his word." If changing one's mind can be interpreted as a broken promise, then violating an existing law should also be interpreted as "breaking a promise," because as citizens we are all obligated (promised) to obey the law. Harry's refusal to pay is a broken promise.
The second issue, which you conveniently ingore, is Harry "breaking his word." If changing one's mind can be interpreted as a broken promise, then violating an existing law should also be interpreted as "breaking a promise," because as citizens we are all obligated (promised) to obey the law. Harry's refusal to pay is a broken promise.
Me Myself
Back to my username
Thats not an injure when it is her choice.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Should it be invalid?
Why is it unfair and implausible?
Why do you think she is not of sound mind and body?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Imagine in that analogy that the goods expired after some months. In other words, you suffered a financial loss equal to mine. However, both of our losses were caused by you. Why would it be unfair if you pay me for the loss i went through?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Compel as in force?
No contract forces you to do anything.
Either you do what you accepted to do when you engaged in the agreement, or you will face a given consequence.
This is not relevant.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
No, this is not the case.
In fact, both of them did.
It doesn't matter to my point though.
When did i say that Harry refused to pay, as the law says, anything?
Has anyone ever tried this sort of legal recourse and winning with it?
It's beyond preposterous.
It's beyond preposterous.
You didn't--rather, it's the point that you're forgetting/ignoring.
The argument that Harry shouldn't have to pay child support, because Ana made the choice she did, is also an argument that current child support laws should exempt Harry (men in his situation). Only that would result in another unfairness--Ana paying double the child support that she otherwise would have to pay, just because she wants a baby.
In other words, the argument that Harry should not have to pay child support is an argument that Ana should have to pay double child support.
No, by "compel", I mean that it's a term of the agreement. If she doesn't do it, she's in breach.
Frankly, I don't think you know enough about this subject to say what is and isn't relevant.This is not relevant.
Exactly that: You cannot force a woman to have an abortion.
You also cannot legally enforce a verbal promise; as others have noted, to make such a law would create ridiculous, dangerous, and unprovable (he said/ she said) circumstances. We don't have such laws for any other verbal promises, for all those reasons above, so I fail to see why we should make an exception in this case.
Written agreements are something different than a verbal promise, and even then, if you get a written agreement from your sweetheart that she will abort, you will also likely have to have it looked over by a lawyer to make sure that it is a reasonable agreement, otherwise judges will likely throw it out if they feel the person was coerced, lacked full understanding, or otherwise was entering into an unwise and unfair agreement (see pre-nup laws; even they aren't ironclad if a judge feels that they were unfair).
Additionally, relying solely upon a verbal promise as your ticket out of caring for your child that you helped create is simply dumb. People should be aware that people change their minds, that the decision to abort is exceedingly complex, and if they aren't aware, they are idiots. I don't think that we should make laws to protect stupidity.
Sex automatically comes with the risk of incurring financial loss. You accept that risk everytime you consent to sex. Likewise, the cell phones might not have broken, even though there was the risk; maybe you were smart and put yours in an Otter box.I didn't know sex automatically caused financial loss.
You have failed to make that case. How exactly is choosing to keep the child "relieving her of the responsibility" of breaking her promise? She has to pay dearly for breaking her promise to abort, namely, by carrying a child to term, by delivering it, and then by caring for it.
Maybe you are unclear of what "not aborting" entails. Generally, that means you carry a fetus to term, deliver it, and then (if you don't choose adoption), you raise it.
I find it incredibly strange that basically what it boils down to is that you don't think that Ana is being penalized enough. It's not that you don't understand that she's already being penalized for her decision; it's just not enough for you. And meanwhile, you are willing to let Harry off scot free for his responsibility in choosing to have sex in the first place. You are so concerned with Ana taking responsibility for her promise, that you are willing to completely let Harry drop all responsibility for choosing a course of action that resulted in the production of a child. Why are you not okay with one party not taking (what you deem to be) full responsibility, but are completely okay with the other party taking no responsibility at all?
Exactly that: You cannot force a woman to have an abortion.
You also cannot legally enforce a verbal promise; as others have noted, to make such a law would create ridiculous, dangerous, and unprovable (he said/ she said) circumstances. We don't have such laws for any other verbal promises, for all those reasons above, so I fail to see why we should make an exception in this case.
Written agreements are something different than a verbal promise, and even then, if you get a written agreement from your sweetheart that she will abort, you will also likely have to have it looked over by a lawyer to make sure that it is a reasonable agreement, otherwise judges will likely throw it out if they feel the person was coerced, lacked full understanding, or otherwise was entering into an unwise and unfair agreement (see pre-nup laws; even they aren't ironclad if a judge feels that they were unfair).
Additionally, relying solely upon a verbal promise as your ticket out of caring for your child that you helped create is simply dumb. People should be aware that people change their minds, that the decision to abort is exceedingly complex, and if they aren't aware, they are idiots. I don't think that we should make laws to protect stupidity.
Sex automatically comes with the risk of incurring financial loss. You accept that risk everytime you consent to sex. Likewise, the cell phones might not have broken, even though there was the risk; maybe you were smart and put yours in an Otter box.
You have failed to make that case. How exactly is choosing to keep the child "relieving her of the responsibility" of breaking her promise? She has to pay dearly for breaking her promise to abort, namely, by carrying a child to term, by delivering it, and then by caring for it.
Maybe you are unclear of what "not aborting" entails. Generally, that means you carry a fetus to term, deliver it, and then (if you don't choose adoption), you raise it.
I find it incredibly strange that basically what it boils down to is that you don't think that Ana is being penalized enough. It's not that you don't understand that she's already being penalized for her decision; it's just not enough for you. And meanwhile, you are willing to let Harry off scot free for his responsibility in choosing to have sex in the first place. You are so concerned with Ana taking responsibility for her promise, that you are willing to completely let Harry drop all responsibility for choosing a course of action that resulted in the production of a child. Why are you not okay with one party not taking (what you deem to be) full responsibility, but are completely okay with the other party taking no responsibility at all?
Prediction:
"When did I ever say I wanted Ana to be punished MORE? I only stated she should face the consequences of breaking her promise."
I predict you'll get some backpedalling here.....
Because people "agree" to all sorts of things when they haven't given them enough thought, and because they are prone to changing their minds all the time. Trying to enforce legal penalties on people for being people is both unreasonable and impractical, in my opinion.
I think the hypothetical law we're discussing here is far closer to draconian than "just," to be honest.
She would have to secure a living both for her and her child, in addition to raising and taking care of him/her. Putting all child support payments on her shoulders gives her an additional burden that is extremely taxing and forces her to work harder than if the father were to take responsibility for said payments.
One would think that raising a child is enough of a responsibility, no?
Or does she have to face all kinds of trials and tribulations as a form of poetic justice for "breaking her promise"?
The answer to this is the same as the quote at the beginning of the post.
She doesn't 'willingly' break them, though: she didn't choose to have an unexpected pregnancy. The way I see it, the law you're proposing would be like both cellphones breaking completely by chance and all the blame being solely put on the woman.
Last edited:
It just wouldn't and couldn't be binding unless they made out a contract stating the promise. The thing is, you're not supposed to trust anyone when they say things like that. If they say things like "I promise I will get an abortion" or "I am on the pill". A woman can say when she's not pregnant that she will get an abortion and when she is pregnant, she has a whole different attitude- that kind of thing happens all the time. The pill, condoms, and other contraception don't work 100% of the time- even men know this. The fact is that any sexual encounter outside of a few (being infertile, woman past a certain age, etc) may end up in pregnancy. And it is a fact that no woman can get pregnant all by herself.
Alceste
Vagabond
It's invalid because it's a false statement. Ana does not know with absolute certainty what medical decisions she will make when faced with an unexpected pregnancy. Enforcement of such an agreement would be unfair because it may require Ana to go against her own conscience in making the most important and life-altering decision of her life. It's implausible because no woman can know with total certainty what she is going to do when faced with an unexpected pregnancy until she finds herself in that situation, and there is little chance Ana alone, out of all the women in the world, is the only exception to the rule. She is not of sound mind because she's making an impractical, rash statement under the influence of sexual desire.
All of which Harry would have understood from the get-go, if he were not a total idiot.
In order for this analogy to represent Ana and Harry it woud have to go like this:
Imagine there is a law that says we both must pay a certain portion to a goods-handler for you to transport some goods to me. We agree to ship goods, but now you don't want to send me the goods anymore. The goods-handler already has money from both us, but now I want you to pay me back the amount I paid the goods-handler. So, you get to keep the goods and you have to pay double the amount for the goods-handler.
Why would it be fair?
Edit: Then, if the goods expired, it would be, "You don't get to keep the goods anymore, but you have still paid double the amount to the goods-handler."
Last edited:
At the risk of sounding too moralizing, "If you don't want a baby, keep it in your pants".
There's a song from the Eagles called "Get Over It". I think it may be appropriate in this discussion.