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!"
It would be enforceable.
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!
Talk about justice.
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.
As i said, unless you can prove it. It won't matter.
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.
Why would it be required to plant a tape recorder in the bedroom?
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.
Laws are created for several reasons. Justice being one of them.
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?
No. I don't. It is fair, there is no coercion by default, and the mental ability should be on the standard held for consent.
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.)
I don't see what the man did as stupid.
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.
Which is why i insist that 'breaking the cellphones' is the same as not doing the abortion.
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.
This is ridiculous. She already undergoes these ''penalties'' as a result of the #1 responsibility.
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.
Indeed this is the direct consequence of her choice.
However, if you are a robber and you jump over a wall while running away from a house and as a result you end up losing your shoes, should your jail time be reduced because you lost your shoes?
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.
I don't know what is so hard to understand.
If the woman is able to do it, she is going to pay for breaking her promise ( the responsibility #2 ) by assuming the full responsibility of #1. That is the price i suggest that she should pay.
