But you said you were okay with abortion...

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Something just occurred to me. Think back to an exchange we had a while ago:

Alternative scenario: Harry and Ana agree to have sex. Afterward, Ana decides that she doesn't want to have sex, but Harry has sex with her anyway. Has he committed rape?

Yes.

So... you agree that it would be rape if Harry did this. Still, he's just taking Ana at her word. Her word that she later rescinded and changed her mind about, but still: her word has been given, and as you've argued, a person should suffer the whole consequence of others taking them at their word.

Let's say that Ana presses charges against Harry and he goes to jail for several years. Because of this, he has a fair bit of financial loss: while he was in jail, he lost his job, his house, his car, etc. Should Harry be able to sue Ana to recover these damages?

After all, in your abortion hypothetical, you argued that Harry shouldn't have any liability for Ana breaking her word. In the rape example I gave, Ana gave her word ("yes, I'll let you have sex with me"), but then later broke it.

In your mind, how are these two scenarios different? Or are they different in your mind?

 

[Falvlun]

Koldo, unless you are a) willing to legally penalize every single instance of a broken promise and/or b) willing to legally penalize any decision not to use birth control (such as a vasectomy), your position is completely without merit.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Depends on what you mean by this.
I said that she should be responsible for all the payments if she makes past a certain mark of income. And later on, she should pay the father all the money he spent on child support.

Okay, so she still has to pay child support "if she makes past a certain mark of income" in addition to raising the child. She has two responsibilities instead of one because the (hypothetical) law allows the father to get off the hook solely based on the mother's "promise," which can't be reliably verified to have taken place to begin with.

In other words, the mother's economic status for the rest of her life supposedly falls into the hands of a promise she may or may not have made, and the father has the right to use that to shirk his responsibility.

I don't see how that is "just" at all; in fact, I see it as a tool for vengeance against the mother by an irresponsible, sore father.

I never said raising the baby is a simple task. What i did say is that raising the baby is not compatible with taking responsibility for breaking the promise.

Imagine someone has an accident and loses a limb. This person is, later on, proven to be a murderer. Should he not go to jail because he doesn't have a limb?

I don't think that analogy accurately fits the situation. How about this:

Imagine someone has an accident and loses a limb. This person, later on, is falsely accused of being a murderer. Should he go to jail for a crime he never committed even though he doesn't have a limb (and even though he isn't guilty as charged)?

 

[Koldo]

Okay, so she still has to pay child support "if she makes past a certain mark of income" in addition to raising the child. She has two responsibilities instead of one because the (hypothetical) law allows the father to get off the hook solely based on the mother's "promise," which can't be reliably verified to have taken place to begin with.

In other words, the mother's economic status for the rest of her life supposedly falls into the hands of a promise she may or may not have made, and the father has the right to use that to shirk his responsibility.

I don't see how that is "just" at all; in fact, I see it as a tool for vengeance against the mother by an irresponsible, sore father.

Read once again what i have been saying.
What can't be verified won't be enforced.

I don't think that analogy accurately fits the situation. How about this:

Imagine someone has an accident and loses a limb. This person, later on, is falsely accused of being a murderer. Should he go to jail for a crime he never committed even though he doesn't have a limb (and even though he isn't guilty as charged)?

This has nothing to do with the situation at hand.
You are suggesting that a person that suffers a bad consequence for something must be excused for another bad consequence related another thing.

Her responsibility to the baby doesn't excuse her from her responsibility to Harry.

 

[Koldo]

Koldo, unless you are a) willing to legally penalize every single instance of a broken promise and/or b) willing to legally penalize any decision not to use birth control (such as a vasectomy), your position is completely without merit.

Read once again what i have been saying.
I am in favour of (a) as long it can be proven to have happened ( and it is objective enough to be enforced ).

 

[Koldo]

So... you agree that it would be rape if Harry did this. Still, he's just taking Ana at her word. Her word that she later rescinded and changed her mind about, but still: her word has been given, and as you've argued, a person should suffer the whole consequence of others taking them at their word.

Let's say that Ana presses charges against Harry and he goes to jail for several years. Because of this, he has a fair bit of financial loss: while he was in jail, he lost his job, his house, his car, etc. Should Harry be able to sue Ana to recover these damages?

After all, in your abortion hypothetical, you argued that Harry shouldn't have any liability for Ana breaking her word. In the rape example I gave, Ana gave her word ("yes, I'll let you have sex with me"), but then later broke it.

In your mind, how are these two scenarios different? Or are they different in your mind?

No, he shouldn't. These are different scenarios. The rape one is comparable only to Harry forcing Ana to have an abortion.

It was Harry's action of forcing Ana to keep her word that caused his financial loss.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, he shouldn't. These are different scenarios. The rape one is comparable only to Harry forcing Ana to have an abortion.

It was Harry's action of forcing Ana to keep her word that caused his financial loss.

But she broke her word. Before, you argued that this is all that mattered.

In your story, if Ana hadn't broken her word, the kid wouldn't have been born. In the hypothetical I gave, if Ana hadn't broken her word, then what Harry did wouldn't have been rape. In both scenarios, if Ana stuck to what she originally said, things play out completely differently. If she's liable for that difference in the one case, why isn't she liable in the second?

Or perhaps the relevant question would be this: if she's not liable for her rapist's damages in the event of her rape, what makes her liable to pay for a joint child all by herself?

The answer can't just be "she broke her word", because she "broke her word" in the case of the rape too, but you seem to agree that she shouldn't be liable in that case. You need something extra... so what is it?

 

[Koldo]

But she broke her word. Before, you argued that this is all that mattered.

In your story, if Ana hadn't broken her word, the kid wouldn't have been born. In the hypothetical I gave, if Ana hadn't broken her word, then what Harry did wouldn't have been rape. In both scenarios, if Ana stuck to what she originally said, things play out completely differently. If she's liable for that difference in the one case, why isn't she liable in the second?

Or perhaps the relevant question would be this: if she's not liable for her rapist's damages in the event of her rape, what makes her liable to pay for a joint child all by herself?

The answer can't just be "she broke her word", because she "broke her word" in the case of the rape too, but you seem to agree that she shouldn't be liable in that case. You need something extra... so what is it?

The result of breaking her word in the case you proposed is that Harry wouldn't have sex ( with her consent ). In this scenario, Harry is between Ana's choice and the rape. Harry's choice is what determines the event. Ana's choice to break her word doesn't automatically causes her rape as Harry could have chosen not to rape her. While in the OP, it is Ana's choice what determines the event ( the baby's birth ).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The result of breaking her word in the case you proposed is that Harry wouldn't have sex ( with her consent ). In this scenario, Harry is between Ana's choice and the rape. Harry's choice is what determines the event. Ana's choice to break her word doesn't automatically causes her rape as Harry could have chosen not to rape her. While in the OP, it is Ana's choice what determines the event ( the baby's birth ).

In the rape scenario, it was Ana's choice after the event, too: I said when I first gave it that she chose to press charges. She could have chosen not to do this and he wouldn't have received any penalty.

In both situations, here's what we have:

- Ana gives her word and then breaks it.
- Harry relies on her original word.
- Ana makes a choice after the fact that has major implications for Harry.

So why should we treat the one differently from the other?

 

[Koldo]

In the rape scenario, it was Ana's choice after the event, too: I said when I first gave it that she chose to press charges. She could have chosen not to do this and he wouldn't have received any penalty.

It doesn't change the fact he raped her though.
A criminal shouldn't receive a refund if someone reports the crime he committed.

In both situations, here's what we have:

- Ana gives her word and then breaks it.
- Harry relies on her original word.
- Ana makes a choice after the fact that has major implications for Harry.

So why should we treat the one differently from the other?

Because there is an extra step between the second and third in the scenario you proposed:

- Harry forces Ana to keep her word ( by committing a crime ).

 

[Willamena]

It doesn't change the fact he raped her though.
A criminal shouldn't receive a refund if someone reports the crime he committed.

A "criminal" is legally defined; a "parent" is legally defined. Both have a legal "cost" associated with them. I agree these are slightly different scenarios, but (solely for the baby's sake) a parent shouldn't be able to forego a payment if someone reports the fact that he's a parent. She (no doubt) would have no choice but to report the fact that she is and make her payments, and if he has a conscience, he should report it too.

 

[Koldo]

A "criminal" is legally defined; a "parent" is legally defined. Both have a legal "cost" associated with them. I agree these are slightly different scenarios, but (solely for the baby's sake) a parent shouldn't be able to forego a payment if someone reports the fact that he's a parent. She has to report it, and if he has a conscience, he should report it too.

What i suggested doesn't present any harm to the baby though.

 

[Willamena]

What i suggested doesn't present any harm to the baby though.

True: you'd rather penalize the mother for a broken promise rather than find someone else to take on his legal duty--which is simple, effective, commonly done and conscientious.

Promises aren't that important. They are trivial.

 

[Willamena]

They are the trivial contract--that's all they are. Take away the trivial part and you have just a contract. You've lost the promise.

 

[Koldo]

True: you'd rather penalize the mother for a broken promise rather than find someone else to take on his legal duty--which is simple, effective, commonly done and conscientious.

Promises aren't that important. They are trivial.

That's where we simply disagree.

Promises are important.

 

[Willamena]

That's where we simply disagree.

Promises are important.

We disagree. It (triviality) is all that distinguishes them from the verbal contract.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It doesn't change the fact he raped her though.
A criminal shouldn't receive a refund if someone reports the crime he committed.



Because there is an extra step between the second and third in the scenario you proposed:

- Harry forces Ana to keep her word ( by committing a crime ).

But it wouldn't have been rape if she had kept her word, just as in your scenario, Harry wouldn't have been responsible for child support if she had kept her word. Didn't you just say "promises are important"? If they're not important in the case of rape, what makes them important in the case of child support?

 

[Koldo]

But it wouldn't have been rape if she had kept her word, just as in your scenario, Harry wouldn't have been responsible for child support if she had kept her word.

There is a man taking action between the woman's choice in the rape scenario and the consequence. There is no such thing on the OP case.

You seem to compare the pregnancy with Harry's action ( rape ) as being equal.
Ana's choice doesn't force Harry into raping her, while it does force the pregnancy to take its natural path.

Didn't you just say "promises are important"? If they're not important in the case of rape, what makes them important in the case of child support?

They are important in every case. I do think Ana should have kept her word when she said she would have sex with Harry. This doesn't excuse Harry though.

 

[Willamena]

Ana's choice doesn't force Harry into raping her, while it does force the pregnancy to take its natural path.

I would just like to point out that this is an oxymoron. The natural path is the one not deviated from ("forced").

 

[mickeyaarthur002]

abortion is not the only solution to solve any problem I think it may generate some other problem also.