• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Got curious about something... (regards abortion and father`s duties)

Me Myself

Me Myself

Back to my username
9-10ths_Penguin said:
Me Myself, here's an analogy:

Say you're at fault (or partly at fault) in a traffic collision. The other driver's car is damaged so badly that it needs to be towed.

The first tow truck on the scene is a tilt-bed. The truck driver explains that his rate is twice as much as a regular tow truck, and he can call for a regular tow truck, but it will take 2 hours to get there. The car can be towed with a regular tow truck; it doesn't need a tilt-bed, though it will do the job. The driver decides to use the tilt-bed instead of wait.

In that situation, you would still be liable for your share of the cost of the tilt-bed, not just your share of the cost of a regular tow truck, because in that situation, the drive was acting reasonably when he decided that he didn't want to wait two hours with a tow truck right there.

Does this help, or did it just muddy things more?

Edit: my point is that the general principle is that a person's duty is only to act reasonably, not to act in a way that absolutely minimizes costs for the other responsible party.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I did get lost because I easily get lost with car jargon even in my language :eek: , its ironic cause I gave you another automobilistic example in my post above :D.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Me Myself said:
I am not arguing that it is unreasonable, I am arguing that it is HER choice.
Click to expand...
You're not only arguing that, though. You're implicitly arguing some sort of general principle that when one person's choice affects the liability of another, that person has a responsibility to keep that person's liability down to the minimum that would be physically possible. The problem here is that this principle is false.
 
Me Myself

Me Myself

Back to my username
Mestemia said:
So then it is your argument that the man should not have to take responsibility because the woman can get an abortion?
Click to expand...

Lets put it this way, you have a venereal disease and the woman you have sex with knows it and still had consensual sex with you using a condom so that the disease would maybe not be passed.

Still, it was.

Should you take "responsibility" of her medical bills now?
 
Me Myself

Me Myself

Back to my username
9-10ths_Penguin said:
You're not only arguing that, though. You're implicitly arguing some sort of general principle that when one person's choice affects the liability of another, that person has a responsibility to keep that person's liability down to the minimum that would be physically possible. The problem here is that this principle is false.
Click to expand...

Lets put it this way, you have a venereal disease and the woman you have sex with knows it and still had consensual sex with you using a condom so that the disease would maybe not be passed.

Still, it was.

Should you take "responsibility" of her medical bills now?
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Me Myself said:
Sorry, I did get lost because I easily get lost with car jargon even in my language :eek: , its ironic cause I gave you another automobilistic example in my post above :D.
Click to expand...

The jargon's not important. Here's a re-phrasing:

- option 1 is more expensive, but it's available right away.

- option 2 is cheaper, but he'd have to wait a long time to get it.

In that case, it's reasonable for the person to want to avoid waiting, so if the person chose option 1, you'd be liable for your share of option 1, not just your share of cheaper option 2.

What I'm trying to do here is illustrate that people don't have a duty to absolutely minimize costs generally, only to keep their costs within the range of what is reasonable. If you're going to appeal to some general principle here, you'll need to demonstrate that having the baby in this situation is unreasonable. If you don't do this, then you're creating a double standard where child support isn't treated like any other similar case.
 
Koldo

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Mestemia said:
And?
Until such time as the fetus is not required to exploit the womans body, it is the womans choice.
Click to expand...

"If an unplanned pregnancy occurs, that is a result of your personal choices. Therefore, you should be woman enough to accept the consequence."

Just like when a man makes his choice the moment he has sex with a woman, a woman also makes her choice the moment she has sex with a man. :)
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
Me Myself said:
Lets put it this way, you have a venereal disease and the woman you have sex with knows it and still had consensual sex with you using a condom so that the disease would maybe not be passed.

Still, it was.

Should you take "responsibility" of her medical bills now?
Click to expand...

What does here heart condition, diabetes and cancer have to do with the venereal disease?
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
Koldo said:
"If an unplanned pregnancy occurs, that is a result of your personal choices. Therefore, you should be woman enough to accept the consequence."

Just like when a man makes his choice the moment he has sex with a woman, a woman also makes her choice the moment she has sex with a man. :)
Click to expand...
She did accept the consequences, she had the baby.
Thus the reason the man is whining about how unfair it is that he has to pay child support.
 
Me Myself

Me Myself

Back to my username
Mestemia said:
She did accept the consequences, she had the baby.
Thus the reason the man is whining about how unfair it is that he has to pay child support.
Click to expand...

He should have the right to not pay child support just as the woman has the right to not pay child support.
 
Me Myself

Me Myself

Back to my username
Mestemia said:
nope.
She knew the risks.
Click to expand...

Is it moraly fair that you do not become "responsible" of this? do you think it is okay that the legal position is such as you speak, that you do not have to pay the bills of her disease because she knew she could get it from you if you had sex?
 
Me Myself

Me Myself

Back to my username
9-10ths_Penguin said:
Why? You still haven't adequately explained this.
Click to expand...

and you have not adequately answered this :p

Lets put it this way, you have a venereal disease and the woman you have sex with knows it and still had consensual sex with you using a condom so that the disease would maybe not be passed.

Still, it was.

Should you take "responsibility" of her medical bills now?

And now by all means, why is it different with pregnancy?
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
Me Myself said:
He should have the right to not pay child support just as the woman has the right to not pay child support.
Click to expand...
the reason the woman doe snot pay child support is because the woman is raising the child.

f the man is raising the child, then the woman is the one who is supposed to pay child support.

just ask my ex-wife.
 
Me Myself

Me Myself

Back to my username
Mestemia said:
the reason the woman doe snot pay child support is because the woman is raising the child.

f the man is raising the child, then the woman is the one who is supposed to pay child support.

just ask my ex-wife.
Click to expand...

How much the woman pays or raise after she puts the little guy/gal for adoption?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top