But you said you were okay with abortion...

[Koldo]

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.

We do not know with absolute certainty anything at all when we engage in a ( written ) agreement either way. So what?

She is not of sound mind because she's making an impractical, rash statement under the influence of sexual desire.

This would mean that consent can't be given under the influence of sexual desire. :sarcastic

Other than this, i never mentioned Ana being under the influence of sexual desire when she made this promise.

All of which Harry would have understood from the get-go, if he were not a total idiot.

I don't care if you think of him as an idiot.

 

[Koldo]

At the risk of sounding too moralizing, "If you don't want a baby, keep it in your pants".

At the risk of sounding too moralizing, "If you don't want to be held to your word, keep your mouth shut".

 

[Koldo]

Tried saying this much as well. Don't think he wants to hear it. He's too busy trying to paint a poor poor victim picture of the guy who just can't not have sex.

And you are too busy with your double standards.

 

[Koldo]

Hey, Koldo, how is Harry going to be able to prove to the court that if Ana hadn't expressed a willingness to have an abortion if she got pregnant, he wouldn't have had sex with her anyway?

It doesn't matter.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The same goes for written agreements though.



Why?



Did you actually read what i proposed?
This seems not to be case. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying this.



Those are distinct responsibilities.



She did WILLINGLY break them.
Breaking them is choosing not to abort.

I did read what you proposed; I even quoted it a few pages back for reference. I still don't agree with it, though.

The main point of disagreement here seems to be that you believe the woman should be forced by a state law to abort the baby. Everything else follows from that and is just detail, in my opinion. Discussing what follows from the view that women should be legally bound to abort babies under certain conditions isn't going to lead anywhere as long as the main issue is still disputed. And on that note, forcing a woman into something like aborting a baby is why I see this as a draconian, unjust, and oppressive law.

 

[Koldo]

Correction....female promise breakers. I never heard any support for going after the multi-millionaire who promised me all kinds of goodies for having sex with him in the back of his stretch limo in Manhattan.

I do support you being given what was promised to you.
Although you would have to prove it happened...I mean the promise(s).

 

[Koldo]

For her, it is.

So if i think you replied to that post because you like me, then you do like me.
Makes sense...

 

[Koldo]

In fairness, he did acknowledge that my ex owes me a house, although he was rather conservative in saying he only owes me HALF a house, and no child support, even though I was promised a whole house and two kids to go with it.

He didn't promise a complete house to you though from the look of it.
And indeed you should be given child support once you have the children ( from him ).

 

[Koldo]

I did read what you proposed; I even quoted it a few pages back for reference. I still don't agree with it, though.

Are you certain?
Perhaps you forgot what exactly i said because you said: "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.".
This doesn't fit what i said at all.

The main point of disagreement here seems to be that you believe the woman should be forced by a state law to abort the baby. Everything else follows from that and is just detail, in my opinion. Discussing what follows from the view that women should be legally bound to abort babies under certain conditions isn't going to lead anywhere as long as the main issue is still disputed. And on that note, forcing a woman into something like aborting a baby is why I see this as a draconian, unjust, and oppressive law.

I don't believe that women should be forced by a state law to abort the baby. I have already said so. What i do defend is that if women promise to abort, and don't do it, they must face consequences ( other than simply raising the baby ).

 

[McBell]

I don't believe that women should be forced by a state law to abort the baby. I have already said so. What i do defend is that if women promise to abort, and don't do it, they must face consequences.

You mean like raising a child with a dead beat dad?

 

[Draka]

And you are too busy with your double standards.

Do better than that, come on. At least something valid.

 

[Falvlun]

And you are too busy with your double standards.

Hahahaha! OUR double standards? This is too much.

 

[Draka]

Hahahaha! OUR double standards? This is too much.

Was he meaning everyone or was he meaning just me?

 

[Falvlun]

Was he meaning everyone or was he meaning just me?

I took the "your" in the double standard comment to refer to anyone who wasn't agreeing with him. But in case he only meant you, let me amend that to:

"Hahahaha! Draka's double standards? This is too much."

 

[Willamena]

So if i think you replied to that post because you like me, then you do like me.
Makes sense...

No, that genuinely makes no sense...

 

[Falvlun]

I agree. But the same goes for several other things. So it doesn't matter.

Whether we have a law that enforces a verbal promise is not relevant.
The matter is whether there should be one.
The 'he said/she said' problem wouldn't exist.
Either you prove 'he said/she said' or no action will be taken by a judge.
And i don't care what you find to be ridiculous.

You don't see how it is relevant whether or not such a law would be enforcable? How does that make sense? "Hey, everyone, I have a great idea! Let's make a law that no one can fairly enforce and let's see how many women we can screw over in the process!"

1. I am fully aware that your ridiculous law is currently not a law. The purpose behind me stating that we currently do not have any laws regarding verbal promises is the fact that your ridiculous law would be a first. It would be extraordinary. It would place a never-before-seen burden on making a verbal promise that would effect only women, in one particular circumstance, and would have the effect of either coercing her to get an abortion she no longer wants or make her pay a huge financial penalty. Talk about cruel and unusual!
2. Haha! The "he said/she said" problem wouldn't exist? This position displays an extreme lack of experience with Judge Judy, or , I don't know, real life.
3. Okay, so you're going to get a written copy of this promise, or plant a tape recorder in your bedroom? Nice. Good luck with that. Not to mention the time and money that would be wasted on such a ridiculous law. Deciding whether to keep the fetus or not should preferrably be decided on as soon a date as possible. Tying the female up in a lawsuit, where she has no assurance which way the law will fall, is a great way to ensure a higher percentage of later abortions. But hey, we gotta make sure all those mens can have sex without any repurcussions.

As i said, it doesn't matter how things are. It is all about how they should be.

You know, laws aren't created in a vacuum. Usually they are based off of other laws, and at the very least, must not contradict what is already on the books.

Do you think that the promiser's mental ability, mental status at the time of making the promise, understanding, level of coercion, or the general unfairness of the agreement should not be taken into consideration as to the legitimacy of an agreement, as it currently is?

Do you think that, if we made your ridiculous law the law of the land, that your law should be exempt from the current practice as stated above?

I am also against laws that protect stupidity. However, what i see as stupidity is to make a promise, break it and expect to face no consequences.

So, in other words, you want to protect the stupidity of men, but you want to punish the stupidity of women? Why should one stupidity trump the other? If we were being fair-- as you claim to desire-- shouldn't both stupidities cancel each other out, and both parties split the results of their stupidity equally? (Oh wait, that's what is legally done right now.)

In the analogy, there is no risk of financial loss.
Once you smash the cellphones several times against a wall, they will break. This is certain.

Apparently, you've never seen an otter box.

Regardless, if you want to say that it is guaranteed that the outcome is certain, then your analogy is faulty. Because, when it comes to sex and birth control, the outcome is never certain. Therefore, your analogy should reflect that risk.

She is not paying by her promise when she takes care of the baby.
That is a result of her #1 responsibility.

Exactly. That's the part that is split between both parents, since it is the responsibility of both.

The part where she pays for her promise is by carrying the fetus to term and delivering it and by being the primary care giver, penalties which the male partner does not incur, since it was not his choice to keep the fetus.

It doesn't matter to me if you don't have one of your limbs, for example. You might be penalized enough by life, but that doesn't exempt you from going to jail for stealing my car.

I am not talking about some karmic retribution, and it is disingenuous of you to equate the two. Breaking her promise to abort directly leads to her having to carry that fetus to term, deliver it, and should she choose to keep it, become its primary care giver. This is the direct penalty for her for breaking her promise.

It doesn't matter if she screwed herself financially by breaking her promise. The financial loss Harry went through has to be restituted because she was one who caused it.

She is suffering the consequences of her #1 responsibility. Period.

Meanwhile, Harry gets off scot free for his responsibility of producing a child. Again, why don't you care about Harry paying his dues? Why are you only concerned about making sure the female pays even more than she already pays for choosing to keep the baby?

Harry paying child support is the direct consequence of his responsibility for choosing to have sex with a women who ultimately chose not to abort. He had no guarantee that a child would not result from his actions, and yet, he chose to do it anyway.

Oh, and virgin births only happen in religion and Star Wars. "She" was not the one who caused the birth of a child. They were.

 

[Koldo]

You mean like raising a child with a dead beat dad?

No.

 

[Koldo]

Do better than that, come on. At least something valid.

Are you so busy you can't even notice my statement is valid?

 

[Koldo]

Hahahaha! OUR double standards? This is too much.

What's funny about it?
I want everyone to take responsibility for their actions.

 

[Koldo]

No, that genuinely makes no sense...

I thought so too.