1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI repeat my original statement, both parties took the risk. The guy didn't sterilize himself, the onus is equally on him. Most health care plans do it for FREE. You screw around and occasionally you have to pay your dues. Sometimes they are heavier than we would like.
Exactly. That's why it's also ridicule to exclude the father of the decision regarding abortion.
If the decision of giving birth or aborting were exclusively the mother's choice, I don't see why the man should be held responsible afterwards.
"If you aren't prepared to take the risks then you shouldn't play the field. Either abstain, get your ass fixed, or play the home team. Otherwise you don't have an excuse for taking a risk. Sex is a biological drive for a reason, to have children. And money is not the only issue on the table, custody is also an issue. Legally parent can not be d ...[text shortened]... n either party tries to shift blame for the consequences of their actions. Honestly grow up."
2 edits
Originally posted by DoctorDaraFirst of all, what is the law now is irrelevant to the debate. We're discussing what is the best possible law or the coherence of some positions.
Wow, laugh worthy. I don't know if you're that self-centered or that unaware. If there's anything we learned in class it's that no method of abortion is 100% effective, most are around 98-99% and some late term abortions actually result in live births (Oops). By law a woman has the right to choose if she will have an abortion a procedure which can have ma aving had one when questioned."16" http://www.realchoicespcc.org/abortion.html
Maybe I didn't express myself clearly about my position, if so I apologize. I'll try separating both my position and my critique of the position 'it's the woman's body, so it's her decision'.
My position: I think both parents should be included in the decision. It takes two to tango and if the pregnancy was involuntary then both are responsible for that mistake.
This position poses some problems. First of all, I don't think a father can force a woman to have a child that she doesn't want, since she carries (like you said) the burden and the risks of pregnancy. So how do I reconcile this two sides of the situation (mutual responsibility Vs separate burden)?
Obviously, if the decision is consensual, then there is no need to legislate. If the decision is not consensual, then I think there is an imbalance. There are two possibilities:
1) The father wants the child and the mother wants to abort.
The father gets a relatively small financial compensation (future payments or immediate) and the abortion proceeds.
- Why small? Obviously because of the burden difference mentioned earlier. Obviously, it must be indexed to the financial possibilities of the mother (and the father, i.e. both revenue differential and in absolute terms) and one can even think of a revenue limit where it becomes zero or negative in the case where the mother is very poor.
- Why do I think it exists? Because the unilateral decision implies that the father is in a position of inferiority by being left out of the decision. If the mother enforces that superiority, then she must compensate for it. The only possible way is financially, no matter how materialistic that may seem. I'm sure it would still seem small for the father. You can say: the risks and costs of having a baby are very high, it's still unfair for the mother. I'd say that being denied of a son also is.
2) The mother wants the child and the father wants to abort.
The mother gets a higher financial compensation (future payments or immediate) and the birth proceeds.
It's a similar case. The father buys out of his responsibility (which is a great cost) and this responsibility is decreased by an amount corresponding to the imposed decision of having a child. His responsibility is still there, but substantially lower than in a normal child support (say post-divorce).
---------------------------------------------
As to my critique of the 'it's her body, so it's her decision' falls on the fact that if in case 1, there's no compensation for the father, why should there be a compensation for the mother in 2?
Edit - A scheme like this might seem cynical but shares both burden and responsibility between the parents in case of non-agreement.
Originally posted by DoctorDaraWait a sec!
Sorry, another way of saying practice homosexual relationships/masturbation.
Hold on a minute there, young philly!
Are you tyin' a tell me that homosensu..homosegua..homosexila... what you said..relationships are the same as USIN' YER HAND?!?!?
Whal, I doan think you an me's on the sem page, Sister.
Originally posted by spruce112358Hahahaha, no...it's def not the same thing. Playing with the home team simply means playing with someone of the same gender. Be it yourself or someone else. Wow, I got a laugh out of that. Thanks spruce. ::wipes tears out of eyes::
Wait a sec!
Hold on a minute there, young philly!
Are you tyin' a tell me that homosensu..homosegua..homosexila... what you said..relationships are the same as USIN' YER HAND?!?!?
Whal, I doan think you an me's on the sem page, Sister.
Originally posted by PalynkaIt think that your scheme would make for way too may legal battles. How much money should be given, when should it be given, should it be a universal fee or depend on the circumstances, etc. There are already too many cases tying up the courts. I think there should be no compensation in either case. If the mother wants to have the child and the father doesn't, I don't think he should have to pay for 18 years. The abortion, yes, 18 years, definitely not. It would be pretty easy for him to sign a document saying he gives up any rights to the child, similar to an adoption really. Then the mother could chose to have the abortion or raise the child on her own. If she didn't want to keep the child and he did, he definitely cannot force her to carry it. Why should he be compensated? lack of a son? he could always go out and have a son with someone else. No, I think that in both cases there should be no compenstion, exept possibly to pay for an abortion.
First of all, what is the law now is irrelevant to the debate. We're discussing what is the best possible law or the coherence of some positions.
Maybe I didn't express myself clearly about my position, if so I apologize. I'll try separating both my position and my critique of the position 'it's the woman's body, so it's her decision'.
My position: I t ...[text shortened]... both burden and responsibility between the parents in case of non-agreement.
Originally posted by FrenchQueenLMFAO!😵....why didn't you answer my post to you?...scared? Slim has more meaningful things to do with his life-like make a living instead of playing chess...CM ain't worried about being banned; he has a life too besides dealing with, like you said, that *@*!*!@*!!* french girl....*sigh*
SlimJim will twiddle his thumbs, staring at his computer screen with a tear in his eye, having lost his raison d'être on RHP, cursing the *@*!*!@*!!* French girl who got his pal evicted... having no more posts to recommend and having no one to recommend his own posts now.
*Sniff*
Originally posted by FrenchQueenNo I'll just laugh at your silly posts as usual you whiny little French poodle you. Aren't you leaving? Bye Bye. For your information. I rarely recommended a post and when I did I made sure that the person I recommended knew about it. Adios Perrita de agua.
SlimJim will twiddle his thumbs, staring at his computer screen with a tear in his eye, having lost his raison d'être on RHP, cursing the *@*!*!@*!!* French girl who got his pal evicted... having no more posts to recommend and having no one to recommend his own posts now.
*Sniff*
1 edit
Originally posted by OlbloodandgutsIf you don't like my post, nothing stops you alerting it. If enough people alert it (minimu of 5 alerts), it'll get removed. It can't have been that bad if it's still up there, lol.
As a new member, I have to agree with you, as i was warned before joining this site. don't think I'll be a subscriber. That said, why is your one "harmless" post, that you claim have all been removed, about his mother still on the forums? Seems like you benefitted from the biased mod's decisions...how can you make such a reference about someone's mom?
Originally posted by PalynkaSecond that, I don't care who you got banned with your childish additude. Contribute to the discussion or go away!
I have no problem with your bickering, but could you please keep it on the other thread? There's no need to flood a lot of threads with it.
Originally posted by whiteroseI see your point.
It think that your scheme would make for way too may legal battles. How much money should be given, when should it be given, should it be a universal fee or depend on the circumstances, etc. There are already too many cases tying up the courts. I think there should be no compensation in either case. If the mother wants to have the child and the father does ...[text shortened]... ink that in both cases there should be no compenstion, exept possibly to pay for an abortion.
It needed to be fixed and not open to judgment. It could be set to a non-disputable percentage of taxable revenue, for example. I have some problems regarding fixed amounts.
My problem with your position is that it makes the father irrelevant and almost removes his responsibility entirely. For me, both should be held responsible even if the decision (if disagreement) must obviously be the mother's.
3 edits
Originally posted by DoctorDaraYou'll find that the forums are open to anyone, subs like myself and non-subs like yourself and I'm free to reply to the post Olbloodandguts addressed to me in this thread.
Second that, I don't care who you got banned with your childish aTTitude. Contribute to the discussion or go away!