But you said you were okay with abortion...

[Me Myself]

The difference being, we are telling the man to take care of his existing, born child. We would say the same to a woman with an existing, born child. Your personal opinion on the morality of the various forms of birth control we have at our disposal are irrelevant. If there is a child to take care of, we can assume the genetic material from which it developed wasn't spilled on the floor, tangled up in a condom, diaphragm, cervical cap or blob of spermicidal jelly, prevented from implantation with a birth control pill or intentionally or naturally miscarried. Otherwise, there's no "child", so nothing to take care of.

Child: human being below puberty (oxford dictionary)

Yep, there is definitely a child there.

 

[NIX]

Child: human being below puberty (oxford dictionary)

Yep, there is definitely a child there.

From here it's just going to turn into a typical abortion debate.

 

[Alceste]

Child: human being below puberty (oxford dictionary)

Yep, there is definitely a child there.

There was no visible difference whatsoever between my chemically induced miscarriage and a totally normal period. Pretty sure I would have noticed a "human being" if there had been one in all that mess. If you want, I can try to get my hands on a few samples so you can compare. Then you might want to get the dictionary people to clarify what they mean by "human being".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Child: human being below puberty (oxford dictionary)

Yep, there is definitely a child there.

Also from the Oxford English Dictionary:

human being: a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/human+being?q=human+being

Setting aside the fact that this creates a big circle where your definition for "child" refers to a term that is defined in terms of the word "child", since when do fetuses have "superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance"?

 

[Alceste]

From here it's just going to turn into a typical abortion debate.

I'm fecking sick of those, to be honest, and it's always the usual suspects with the usual retarded, thoughtless bumper-sticker-slogan arguments. I think I should take steps to avoid getting baited. I don't think much of being called a murderer, but I love the ignore feature!

 

[Falvlun]

It would be enforceable.

You have failed to show how it would be, and further, you claimed that it was irrelevant when people brought it up.

Talk about justice.

yeah, I am. We have a rule that punishment should not be cruel or unusual. Or is that another one you would like to chuck out so that men can have consequence free sex?

As i said, unless you can prove it. It won't matter.

Why would it be required to plant a tape recorder in the bedroom?

Except by a written agreement or recording, how else do you suggest they prove it? Perhaps you think your buddy should be able to vouch for you. Oh wait. But you don't believe that he said/ she said will be an issue.

Laws are created for several reasons. Justice being one of them.

That still doesn't mean they are allowed to go against something that is already a law, unless you first change that law.

And also, explain exactly how it is just that this one, and only this one, instance of breaking a promise should be so punitively enforced, but every single other instance is ignored by the law.

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.

Oh, well, why should we ever have to look into these things? Koldo says that coercion didn't exist, so it didn't exist. Glad we got that out of the way.

Which is why i insist that 'breaking the cellphones' is the same as not doing the abortion.

Then your analogy is incomplete and therefore invalid.

This is ridiculous. She already undergoes these ''penalties'' as a result of the #1 responsibility.

Well, then good thing that her penalty for her second offense is already covered. Lucky her!

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?

You really fail at analogies. Come back when you have two robbers, and one promises not to rat the other one out, but ends up doing it anyway, and the rat now has to serve both robbers' terms.

Also, in general, sentences are reduced by the amount of time already spent in jail pre-sentencing. I think that would be more analogous to what is going on here.

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.

And I think that if you are so bent on the idea of having the women pay more for a broken promise, then you need to find a payment that does not eliminate the man's portion of the responsibility, especially since your argument for requiring the women to pay more rests on the concept that we should all be responsible for our actions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

I hope you realize that this analogy kind of gives away the fact that you understand that the system you propose is about punishing women.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't think Eve made any promise to Adam regarding that fruit. Did she?

You missed the point. The point was that, since the beginning of time (or so it seems), men have been blaming women for the consequences of their-- the men's-- actions. Your argument is no different.

What are you talking about?
The stupidity on the woman's part is to don't keep her word.
The stupidity you see on the man's part is to trust the woman. I don't see this one as being stupid at all. That's all.

No, the stupidity of the women was to make a stupid promise that she had no guarantee that she could keep; she relied on a form of birth control-- her ability to go through with an abortion-- that ultimately failed.

Similarly, the man's stupidity was to accept such a ridiculous promise, and to have the unrealistic expectation that this form of birth control was fail-proof.

They both made essentially the same error: Both thought that their birth control method would guarantee no children, and both rolled the dice, and both ended up wrong in their assumptions.

There is no guarantee that children won't result when two fertile people have sex. Historically, culturally, and biologically women have borne the brunt of the burden of an unexpected pregnancy, both bodily, financially, emotionally, and in the way society treats her. The fact is, that child support is an exceedingly, laughably small burden for the father, in comparison to that experienced by the mother, and is one that only begins to address the issue of balancing the amount of responsibility equally incurred by the decision of both parties to have sex. That's why, Koldo, that your argument is getting such a vehement response. It is so far removed from reality, and is so rooted in the deep-seated misogynistic response of society towards women who get pregnant out of wedlock, that it is so shocking to see it supported in this day and age.

 

[Willamena]

And I think that if you are so bent on the idea of having the women pay more for a broken promise, then you need to find a payment that does not eliminate the man's portion of the responsibility, especially since your argument for requiring the women to pay more rests on the concept that we should all be responsible for our actions.

Precisely. Child support payment isn't a consequence of breaking a promise, it's a consequence of making a baby.

 

[Magic Man]

Imagine the following scenario:

'Harry is dating Ana. They thoroughly spoke about how an unplanned pregnancy would be dealt it, and it was agreed that abortion would be an acceptable method. Months later, Ana got pregnant. And she decided she wouldn't go through the abortion anymore. Ana didn't try to deceive Harry when she agreed with abortion back then; she simply had a change of mind after she got pregnant.'

Both sides ( Harry and Ana ) agree to this version of the story.

How should the judiciary system ( laws ) deal with this situation?
Should Ana be forced to undergo an abortion ( of her fetus ), even though her health is being ( more or less ) compromised by this invasive procedure ?
Should Harry be forced to financially support the newborn, even though Ana had previously agreed to abort the fetus in cases of unplanned pregnancy ?
Should Harry be able to renounce his rights to the child to avoid financially supporting it?
How should this issue be settled?

I'd say option 3. Ideally, he'd decide to stick with Ana anyway and everything would work out fine. But realistically (even though it's very hypothetical), if they both had decided on abortion, and now she reneges, I'd say it's now her responsibility, and if he wants to leave, he should be able to without penalty.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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.

So you weren't suggesting that the mother be responsible for all child support payments?

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 ).

"Simply raising the baby"? How is it a "simple" task? Pregnancy in and of itself would be hard enough to go through, but raising a child as a single parent just makes the whole thing tremendously difficult for the mother.

And what is making the mother suffer in such a way going to achieve, anyway? If she's already facing the consequences of her actions — and I mean having to raise the child — then I see no reason whatsoever to try to chastise her even more, especially not in the way you're describing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'd say option 3. Ideally, he'd decide to stick with Ana anyway and everything would work out fine. But realistically (even though it's very hypothetical), if they both had decided on abortion, and now she reneges, I'd say it's now her responsibility, and if he wants to leave, he should be able to without penalty.

So in your mind, the question of whether the mother can support the child on her own isn't a factor?

 

[Willamena]

So you weren't suggesting that the mother be responsible for all child support payments?

The way I understand it, Koldo suggests that the father's obligation to child support is done when he makes his payments; however, he then needs to be recompensed by the mother as a consequence (read "penalty") for breaking her promise.

So while the end result is her making all the payments, the detail paints a different picture.

The argument is the plea to unfairness for him (the father). Where I think it fails is in looking at a very narrow picture at the expense of the other party's side. In other words, it's the argument of the lawyer, not the judge.

 

[Magic Man]

So in your mind, the question of whether the mother can support the child on her own isn't a factor?

No, because she's choosing to have it. Part of that decision should be knowing that she might have to do it on her own.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, because she's choosing to have it. Part of that decision should be knowing that she might have to do it on her own.

Forget the woman for a moment. What you're arguing implies that the rights of the man (edit: if he has this right at all, which I think is doubtful) override the rights of the child. Why? The child hasn't broken any promises.

 

[Magic Man]

Forget the woman for a moment. What you're arguing implies that the rights of the man (edit: if he has this right at all, which I think is doubtful) override the rights of the child. Why? The child hasn't broken any promises.

All I'm arguing is that he signed up for getting an abortion, if this situation was to present itself. She agreed to that. Now that she is pregnant, she wants to keep it, meaning she's breaking the agreement. Since she's breaking the agreement, he should be allowed to walk away penalty-free. I'm not saying he should; I'd rather see him stay. But he should not be forced to stay or even pay for it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All I'm arguing is that he signed up for getting an abortion, if this situation was to present itself. She agreed to that. Now that she is pregnant, she wants to keep it, meaning she's breaking the agreement. Since she's breaking the agreement, he should be allowed to walk away penalty-free. I'm not saying he should; I'd rather see him stay. But he should not be forced to stay or even pay for it.

That's a bit of a lopsided way of looking at things, IMO. Consider the child's perspective:

The child hasn't broken any agreement or done anything wrong. The child also has the right (IMO) to the resources needed to raise him or her properly. Regardless of whether the woman did anything wrong, if she doesn't have these resources on her own, then the child will be deprived of his or her right unless the man contributes (or unless there's some other source, but it seems like we can't assume that there would be).

So... I think it's clear that in this case, if we say that the man can get off free and there aren't any other sources available, then the child will be deprived of his rights.

OTOH, what right will the man be deprived of if we were to say that he had to pay?

Now... once we establish this - which includes establishing that what you propose really is a matter of rights for the man - I think you need to come up with some rationale for why the man's rights outweigh the child's.

You argue that the man's responsibility has been mitigated by the woman's actions, but the child has no responsibility at all. Why penalize the kid?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

All I'm arguing is that he signed up for getting an abortion, if this situation was to present itself. She agreed to that. Now that she is pregnant, she wants to keep it, meaning she's breaking the agreement. Since she's breaking the agreement, he should be allowed to walk away penalty-free. I'm not saying he should; I'd rather see him stay. But he should not be forced to stay or even pay for it.

I've argued that a non-custodial parent should have the right to go through the process of relinquishing parental rights and duties, as long as he or she works with the custodial parent and the circuit court in finding a suitable option that will meet the child's needs for food, shelter, medical care, and education.

Biological parents should not have the "right" to just walk away. That's being a deadbeat and ignoring the cost of raising a child into the community where his or her tax dollars are going for support anyway if the custodial parent needs to go on welfare or WIC.

 

[Falvlun]

I'd say option 3. Ideally, he'd decide to stick with Ana anyway and everything would work out fine. But realistically (even though it's very hypothetical), if they both had decided on abortion, and now she reneges, I'd say it's now her responsibility, and if he wants to leave, he should be able to without penalty.

Please read post 488. How exactly should a failed form of birth control be the responsibility of only one party?

 

[Magic Man]

You seem to all be ignoring the point that abortion is the other option. There is no kid yet. If she decides to go through with it, it's her decision, but she needs to realize that, since she's breaking the agreement they had, he's absolved of the responsibility.

Would it be nice if he stuck around anyway, or helped out at least? Sure. Should he be forced to? No.

Think of it this way: She decides she wants kids, but can't biologically have them, so she chooses to adopt. They had already agreed never to have kids because neither wanted them. Should he now be forced to help pay for or care for the adopted kid, or should he be able to walk away?