But you said you were okay with abortion...

[Falvlun]

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 ).

Here's a) for those who may be following: a) willing to legally penalize every single instance of a broken promise.

Your proposed legal system is not only unreasonable, but also impossible to implement, therefore, there's really no reason to debate this any more.

 

[HeatherAnn]

Option 2. The decision should be governed by the best interests of the child. Even though they didn't want the child, the child exists and has to be taken care of somehow.

Edit: if both parents agree and the mother has the resources to support the child on her own, I could go with option 3.

I agree & am glad to know others are concerned for the interests of children.

 

[Koldo]

Here's a) for those who may be following: a) willing to legally penalize every single instance of a broken promise.

Your proposed legal system is not only unreasonable, but also impossible to implement, therefore, there's really no reason to debate this any more.

I don't know what you are talking about.
It is reasonable and possible to implement.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't know what you are talking about.
It is reasonable and possible to implement.

You have failed to show that it is on both accounts.

 

[Koldo]

You have failed to show that it is on both accounts.

Considering how little you have done to support your position ( that my suggestions are unreasonable and impossible to implement ), i see no reason to do more than i what i already have.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Considering how little you have done to support your position ( that my suggestions are unreasonable and impossible to implement ), i see no reason to do more than i what i already have.

Here's the thing: there are a lot of people reading this thread. If you're going to refuse to provide them with your argument because you're not happy with Falvlun's argument, then you're not going to change any of their minds. If you don't care about convincing them, that's up to you, but frankly, I think what you've proposes comes across as vindictive and oppressive, so people aren't going to become magically convinced that you're right on their own.

 

[Koldo]

Here's the thing: there are a lot of people reading this thread. If you're going to refuse to provide them with your argument because you're not happy with Falvlun's argument, then you're not going to change any of their minds. If you don't care about convincing them, that's up to you, but frankly, I think what you've proposes comes across as vindictive and oppressive, so people aren't going to become magically convinced that you're right on their own.

If any reader thinks the same way as Falvlun, he/she is more than welcome to post on this topic explaining why and how he/she came to this conclusion and i will give a proper reply.

I have already explained the reasoning behind my argument and how it would be implemented ( which explains why it is not impossible to do so ). After doing so, there is nothing to debate when all the other side does is to tell me that my argument is unreasonable and impossible to implement.

 

[SteveGrayFTW]

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?

My take? It was agreed to be "acceptable", not a definite solution.

If there was some sort of signed contract saying that there would be an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy then, while that would be really weird, it would allow Harry to be off the hook and renounce his rights and financial obligation.

Otherwise, Harry should be financially responsible. If he that desperately didn't want a kid, he could have had a vasectomy, or you know, worn a condom. When you have sex you take the risk, no matter how small you think that risk is.

Hopefully they'd be able to work this out with the need for the judicial system to step in, because otherwise the kid is one who is getting screwed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If any reader thinks the same way as Falvlun, he/she is more than welcome to post on this topic explaining why and how he/she came to this conclusion and i will give a proper reply.

I have already explained the reasoning behind my argument and how it would be implemented ( which explains why it is not impossible to do so ). After doing so, there is nothing to debate when all the other side does is to tell me that my argument is unreasonable and impossible to implement.

You're the one proposing a change from the status quo. You're the one propising more restrictive laws. The burden is on you to show that what you propose is reasonable and workable. So far, you have not met that burden. Your opinion of Falvlun's or anyone else's responses to you doesn't change this.

 

[Falvlun]

Considering how little you have done to support your position ( that my suggestions are unreasonable and impossible to implement ), i see no reason to do more than i what i already have.

Feel free to go read back through my arguments. I have consistently argued that your proposed legal change is both unreasonable and impossible to implement. You are acting as if that post came out of the blue.

To recap, you have indicated that you would not only like to legally punish women for breaking their promise to abort, but you would like to punish any and all instances of a broken promise. This is unreasonable because promises are frequently broken and not generally about things the government should concern itself with, and it's silly, punitive, invasive, and most importantly, nearly impossible to implement. It would also burden our already burdened legal system with petty problems that should simply be resolved between two people. In addition, it makes no allowance for promises that should never be made, that are not in the promiser's best interests, which at least in the case of pre-nup laws, are not allowed to be made without legal counsel, and even in that case, can still be thrown out if the judge finds it unfair.

It is nearly impossible to implement, because you need to have some unbiased evidence that the promise actually was made, and that it was non-coerced, that it was seriously meant, etc. You have ridiculed the idea of requiring people to get taped recordings of the promises being made. So, unless you have texts or emails or some other documentation, the promise is going to be pretty much impossible to prove to have occurred; and most promises of the sort you are talking about are just verbal. If you get the promise in writing and notarized, then yes, the promise enters the legal realm and we already have rules covering that.

 

[Koldo]

My take? It was agreed to be "acceptable", not a definite solution.

Just so you know, this has been brought up before.
And I further explained the scenario: by ''acceptable',' i meant to say that was the solution that was agreed to be used.

 

[Koldo]

You're the one proposing a change from the status quo. You're the one propising more restrictive laws. The burden is on you to show that what you propose is reasonable and workable. So far, you have not met that burden. Your opinion of Falvlun's or anyone else's responses to you doesn't change this.

I have already done so.
I have explained how it perpetuates justice, and how it can be implemented.
You ( or anyone else ) saying that i haven't done so doesn't change the fact that i already did.

 

[Koldo]

Feel free to go read back through my arguments. I have consistently argued that your proposed legal change is both unreasonable and impossible to implement. You are acting as if that post came out of the blue.

That's not it. It is simply that you, in the end, couldn't say anything more than 'it is unreasonable and impossible to implement'.

To recap, you have indicated that you would not only like to legally punish women for breaking their promise to abort, but you would like to punish any and all instances of a broken promise. This is unreasonable because promises are frequently broken and not generally about things the government should concern itself with, and it's silly, punitive, invasive, and most importantly, nearly impossible to implement.

Who dictates what things the government should concern itself with?
When you say it is silly, all i need to say to counter your point is to say the opposite.
When you say it is punitive and invasive, how did you reach this conclusion?

It would also burden our already burdened legal system with petty problems that should simply be resolved between two people.

Burden justice with justice issues? That's the point of the legal system.
Some problems can't be solved between two people, otherwise i wouldn't have made the suggestion that i did.

It is nearly impossible to implement, because you need to have some unbiased evidence that the promise actually was made, and that it was non-coerced, that it was seriously meant, etc. You have ridiculed the idea of requiring people to get taped recordings of the promises being made.

I never ridiculed this idea. Quite in fact, i AM in favour of it.

 

[McBell]

I have already done so.

Please be so kind as to link to the thread in which you have done so.
Cause it has not been in this thread.

I have explained how it perpetuates justice, and how it can be implemented.

Perhaps you missed the part where it needs to be "reasonable and workable"?

You ( or anyone else ) saying that i haven't done so doesn't change the fact that i already did.

Jumping up and down screaming ad nauseum that have done something you have not done does not change the fact that you not done the somthing you have not done.

 

[Koldo]

Jumping up and down screaming ad nauseum that have done something you have not done does not change the fact that you not done the somthing you have not done.

Jumping up and down screaming ad nauseum that I have not done something that I have done does not change the fact that I have done the something you say i haven't done.

 

[McBell]

Jumping up and down screaming ad nauseum that I have not done something that I have done does not change the fact that I have done the something you say i haven't done.

please see the last part of post #734.

 

[Koldo]

please see the last part of post #734.

Please read my last post.

 

[McBell]

Please read my last post.

It is rather interesting how, with your apparent lack of understanding how the legal system works, you actually think that you have presented a reasonable and workable proposal.

Perhaps it is your definitions of 'reasonable' and 'workable' that are the problem?

 

[Koldo]

It is rather interesting how, with your apparent lack of understanding how the legal system works, you actually think that you have presented a reasonable and workable proposal.

Perhaps it is your definitions of 'reasonable' and 'workable' that are the problem?

I consider my definitions to both of these words to be pretty much the standard.

 

[McBell]

I consider my definitions to both of these words to be pretty much the standard.

Then I have no choice but to assume you have problems separating reality from fantasy.