But you said you were okay with abortion...

[Koldo]

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

You assume too much.

 

[Storm]

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?

It's Ana's choice, and no Harry doesn't get to get out of support.

 

[goatus17]

Abortion should be outlawed in virtually all cases.

It should only be allowed to save the womans life, if she were in direct harm from her pregnancy.

 

[Falvlun]

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'.

Not true. Did you just miss the recap where I said a whole lot more? You are the only one saying "It's reasonable and possible!" and leaving it at that. I provided a recap of my arguments, perhaps you'd have the courtesy to do the same, since apparently most people don't think you've yet to provide one.

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.

Voters? You are in a very small minority in this thread. Most people think it's silly, therefore, for all intents and purposes, it is.

When you say it is punitive and invasive, how did you reach this conclusion?

Punitive: Your proposal places a very high emotional, physical, and fiscal punishment upon a woman for something as relatively minor as a broken promise.
Invasive: Your proposal would heavily blackmail women into getting abortions when they no longer want to. If there was a similar proposal forcing men to get vasectomies, I doubt you'd even have to ask why it's invasive.
I've also used the word "unusual": We currently don't punish any other form of broken promise, so why should we make an exception for this one?

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.

Should we also punish every lie? The point of the legal system is not punish every form of injustice; the point of the legal system is to provide for the smooth functioning of society.

And apparently this has been able to be solved between two people up to now.

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

Hahaha. That image is pretty funny. Good luck with that.

 

[Koldo]

Not true. Did you just miss the recap where I said a whole lot more?

I was talking about post #721 on that occasion.

You are the only one saying "It's reasonable and possible!" and leaving it at that. I provided a recap of my arguments, perhaps you'd have the courtesy to do the same, since apparently most people don't think you've yet to provide one.

Provide a recap of my arguments? For what reason?
We have been debating over them all this time.

Voters? You are in a very small minority in this thread.

So what if i am a very small minority in this thread?

Most people think it's silly, therefore, for all intents and purposes, it is.

Argumentum ad populum.

Punitive: Your proposal places a very high emotional, physical, and fiscal punishment upon a woman for something as relatively minor as a broken promise.

Minor? I thought anyone would consider a life changing decision to be far from minor. It looks like I have been proven wrong.

Invasive: Your proposal would heavily blackmail women into getting abortions when they no longer want to. If there was a similar proposal forcing men to get vasectomies, I doubt you'd even have to ask why it's invasive.

Invasive, as you use it, is redundant then.
The government constantly "blackmails" men/women to pay child support.

I've also used the word "unusual": We currently don't punish any other form of broken promise, so why should we make an exception for this one?

We should punish any other form of broken promise ( as long it can be proven to have happened and as long as it is objective enough to do something about it ).

Should we also punish every lie? The point of the legal system is not punish every form of injustice; the point of the legal system is to provide for the smooth functioning of society.

Let me re-word what i said to better represent what i think: The point of the legal system is to mantain justice.

And apparently this has been able to be solved between two people up to now.

How so?
In my country, you go to jail if you don't pay child support, just to cite an example.

Hahaha. That image is pretty funny. Good luck with that.

What image?

 

[Falvlun]

I was talking about post #721 on that occasion.

And, as pointed out before, I have tens of other posts in this thread that led up to that post, plus the recap. That post didn't come from nowhere. Or are you only in the habit of reading one post out of 700?

Provide a recap of my arguments? For what reason?
We have been debating over them all this time.

As far as I can tell you have not actually shown how this is reasonable or how it would be implemented. You've just said that they are. A recap would be nice. Unless you're too scared.

So what if i am a very small minority in this thread?
Argumentum ad populum.

Silliness is a subjective thing; it's not objective. It's like the concept of beauty in this regard. Therefore, no, it's not a fallacy to point out that because most people think it silly, it's likely that it's silly.

Minor? I thought anyone would consider a life changing decision to be far from minor. It looks like I have been proven wrong.

A broken promise is a minor thing. That's why our legal system generally doesn't care about it. Caring for a child is a major thing. That's why our legal system cares about that.

Invasive, as you use it, is redundant then.
The government constantly "blackmails" men/women to pay child support.

You are seriously equating forcing a medical procedure on someone with having to pay money? Hey, the moment you are okay with the legal system being set up to blackmail you into getting a vasectomy, I'll not think you're hypocritical for being so blase about desiring to set a legal system which blackmails women into having abortions.

We should punish any other form of broken promise ( as long it can be proven to have happened and as long as it is objective enough to do something about it ).

I find it suspect, however, that you only cared enough about abortions to mention this.

Okay, let's start with the promise to "pull out in time". Should the man be solely responsible for the care of the child, should one be produced?

Let me re-word what i said to better represent what i think: The point of the legal system is to mantain justice.

And as I have already stated, that is not true, neither in theory and certainly not in practice.

How so?
In my country, you go to jail if you don't pay child support, just to cite an example.

That's not the result of a broken promise. That's the result of doing something illegal.

What image?

The image of anybody with a person they are attempting to have sex with asking them to speak clearly into a tape recorder that they solemnly promise to have an abortion should conception take place. Let's just say, I doubt that that person will be having much sex.

 

[Debater Slayer]

We should punish any other form of broken promise ( as long it can be proven to have happened and as long as it is objective enough to do something about it ).

What if a man promises to pull out but doesn't or fails to do it?

Unless you suggest that he record a verbal promise, of course... such as "my name is [name here] and I promise to pull out at minute 50:23 of having sex, or else I'll go to jail."

Does that sound reasonable to you at all?

 

[Koldo]

And, as pointed out before, I have tens of other posts in this thread that led up to that post, plus the recap. That post didn't come from nowhere. Or are you only in the habit of reading one post out of 700?

After that post our debate had come to a halt.
So, as i said: in the end you couldn't come up with anything else other than merely saying that it is unreasonable and impossible to implement.
You couldn't get past this, nor provide arguments that could convince me of your conclusion.

As far as I can tell you have not actually shown how this is reasonable or how it would be implemented. You've just said that they are. A recap would be nice. Unless you're too scared.

As far as I can tell you have not actually shown they are not reasonable or impossible to implement. You have just said so.

A recap is a waste of time for our conversation.

Silliness is a subjective thing; it's not objective. It's like the concept of beauty in this regard. Therefore, no, it's not a fallacy to point out that because most people think it silly, it's likely that it's silly.

You backpedal like a pro.
That's not what you said.

A broken promise is a minor thing. That's why our legal system generally doesn't care about it. Caring for a child is a major thing. That's why our legal system cares about that.

I disagree.
A broken promise can be a minor or a major thing.
The legal system is made to cover both minor and major things.
To cite an example, if you steal 20$ from someone, that is a minor thing. However, it is still a crime.

You are seriously equating forcing a medical procedure on someone with having to pay money? Hey, the moment you are okay with the legal system being set up to blackmail you into getting a vasectomy, I'll not think you're hypocritical for being so blase about desiring to set a legal system which blackmails women into having abortions.

I don't particularly agree with the word 'force' as used. But if that is how you want to see it, then i would say 'yes' to the cases where the woman agreed to go through it beforehand.

I find it suspect, however, that you only cared enough about abortions to mention this.

Okay, let's start with the promise to "pull out in time". Should the man be solely responsible for the care of the child, should one be produced?

The same i suggested to the abortion case applies to this 'pull out' case, except that men and women have reversed responsibility here.

And as I have already stated, that is not true, neither in theory and certainly not in practice.

Saying so doesn't make it so.

That's not the result of a broken promise. That's the result of doing something illegal.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here.
I thought you were talking about child support specifically and not about broken promises.

If you are talking about broken promises in general, then it is also completely possible to solve several issues between two people, which are, however, already covered by law. The possibility to solve it without a law doesn't make a law to solve it useless.

The image of anybody with a person they are attempting to have sex with asking them to speak clearly into a tape recorder that they solemnly promise to have an abortion should conception take place. Let's just say, I doubt that that person will be having much sex.

That is exactly the situation i ridiculed.
Why does it have to be like this?
You see it as either black or white for some reason.
That's not the only use to what i suggest.

 

[Koldo]

What if a man promises to pull out but doesn't or fails to do it?

Unless you suggest that he record a verbal promise, of course... such as "my name is [name here] and I promise to pull out at minute 50:23 of having sex, or else I'll go to jail."

Does that sound reasonable to you at all?

It doesn't have to be as specific as that.
An example:
'My name is [name here], and i promise to pull out my penis before i ejaculate today while having sex with [insert name here]. Today is [insert date here]'.

 

[Storm]

It doesn't have to be as specific as that.
An example:
'My name is [name here], and i promise to pull out my penis before i ejaculate today while having sex with [insert name here]. Today is [insert date here]'.

And you think this should be legally enforceable? Seriously?

 

[Koldo]

And you think this should be legally enforceable? Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

 

[Storm]

Yes, seriously.

How? Why?


ETA: Bear with me, I came in late.

 

[Koldo]

How? Why?

ETA: Bear with me, I came in late.

If he, at some moment, makes past a certain mark of income, he will be fully responsible for the financial costs of the child. Otherwise, once the child completes 18 years old, the man will have to restitute all of the money the woman spent with the child.

 

[Storm]

If he, at some moment, makes past a certain mark of income, he will be fully responsible for the financial costs of the child. Otherwise, once the child completes 18 years old, the man will have to restitute all of the money the woman spent with the child.

That strikes me as probably unworkable, and a LOT more unfair than the current state of things.

It also doesn't even attempt to address the "why."

 

[Koldo]

That strikes me as probably unworkable, and a LOT more unfair than the current state of things.

Why do you think it is unfair and unworkable?
Elaborate, please.

It also doesn't even attempt to address the "why."

Oh, yes. I forgot the 'why'?'.
To grant justice.

 

[Storm]

Why do you think it is unfair and unworkable?
Elaborate, please.

Well, let's stick to unfair for now. The woman had sex, too, did she not? She also had complete control over the decision of whether or not to keep the baby.

I just think that pretending EITHER party bears sole responsibility for a child is really ******* stupid.

Oh, yes. I forgot the 'why'?'.
To grant justice.

"While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers."

How is that justice?

 

[Koldo]

Well, let's stick to unfair for now. The woman had sex, too, did she not? She also had complete control over the decision of whether or not to keep the baby.

I just think that pretending EITHER party bears sole responsibility for a child is really ******* stupid.

He assumed the responsibility the moment he said he would pull out before he ejaculated. It is worth note that what i suggested isn't so simple as bearing the 'sole' responsibility for a child though.

"While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers."

How is that justice?

How can that not be justice?
If you make a promise, you keep your word.
By allowing people off the hook, injustice is created.

 

[Storm]

Nearly forgot to respond to this.

He assumed the responsibility the moment he said he would pull out before he ejaculated. It is worth note that what i suggested isn't so simple as bearing the 'sole' responsibility for a child though.

"he will be fully responsible for the financial costs of the child" I figured you could fillin the blanks, rather than having me repeat every detail word for word.

At any rate, have you ever raised a kid? Do you really expect a single mom to track every candy bar purchased for 18 years? That's before you even get into shared expenses like, you know... food and utilities.

It doesn't really matter, though. You have yet to provide any justification for completely ignoring the fact that the woman in the situation presumably consented to unprotected sex. Which brings me to my next point:

Could you have possibly picked a worse example for your argument? Coitus interruptus is THE single most unreliable method of family planning, to the point of being counter-productive.

How can that not be justice?

Simple: it's completely ridiculous. Should people keep their promises? Absolutely. Should the legal system take responsibility for enforcing honesty and good faith? No. That's completely impractical, and more than a little dumb.

 

[Koldo]

"he will be fully responsible for the financial costs of the child" I figured you could fillin the blanks, rather than having me repeat every detail word for word.

The full sentence is:

"If he, at some moment, makes past a certain mark of income, he will be fully responsible for the financial costs of the child."

Which is why i said it is not so simple.
Plus, there is another sentence after that one to make things a tad more complex.

At any rate, have you ever raised a kid? Do you really expect a single mom to track every candy bar purchased for 18 years? That's before you even get into shared expenses like, you know... food and utilities.

It doesn't have to be a value as exact as that.

It doesn't really matter, though. You have yet to provide any justification for completely ignoring the fact that the woman in the situation presumably consented to unprotected sex. Which brings me to my next point:

She consented to unprotected sex with the man's promise to prevent the pregnancy. I do not ignore this point, i merely balance it with the promise made by the male.

Could you have possibly picked a worse example for your argument? Coitus interruptus is THE single most unreliable method of family planning, to the point of being counter-productive.

Just so you might be interested in knowing: I didn't pick this example.

Simple: it's completely ridiculous. Should people keep their promises? Absolutely. Should the legal system take responsibility for enforcing honesty and good faith? No. That's completely impractical, and more than a little dumb.

Why do you find it impractical and dumb?
Let us not get into the adjectives themselves as this doesn't add anything to the debate. I have said something along these lines before: I could simple call it reasonable and possible to implement. The line of thinking that made you arrive at this conclusion is what matters.

 

[Storm]

The full sentence is:

"If he, at some moment, makes past a certain mark of income, he will be fully responsible for the financial costs of the child."

Which is why i said it is not so simple.
Plus, there is another sentence after that one to make things a tad more complex.

Yes, I'm aware. I am capable of remembering context, and I choose my words based on the assumption that you are as well. My comments were made within the context of the conditions that YOU stipulated.

This is pointless.