Abortion - An age old issue

  • 🔧 Site instability resolved. You can report double-posts and broken attachments. For bigger issues, use the Technical Grievances thread.
    🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Destacado
Corbin Dallas Multipass dijo:
Well, like you said, both parties have to consent to sex, so they both know what they're getting into. Once they've both consented to sex, they have nobody to blame but themselves if a pregnancy occurs. This is the man's last chance to avoid a pregnancy, you claim both sexes have equal rights over it, so I was assuming you meant by that this should be the last chance for the woman to avoid the pregnancy.

Really my point is you pulled that "men can choose not to impregnate a woman" as if that countered "Women have the final say on the existence of the child, and whether or not the man owes her 18 years of work, while men have no such option".

So are we gonna dance around another circle, or will you stop playing weird semantic games with me. It's fine if you believe women's biological disadvantages in the arena of pregnancy entitle them to extra reproductive rights, just say that if that's what you think and stop pretending that's somehow "equality".
Presiona para expandir...

Both have equal rights to their own bodies, and both decide to have sex, with the knowledge that it is the woman's body who would bear any babies. If men could bear children, they should have the same right to decide what happens with their own body. That is not equal due to biology (in that men can't get pregnant), but I would argue it's not inequitable.
 
Dial M for Misgender dijo:
Both have equal rights to their own bodies, and both decide to have sex, with the knowledge that it is the woman's body who would bear any babies. If men could bear children, they should have the same right to decide what happens with their own body. That is not equal due to biology (in that men can't get pregnant), but I would argue it's not inequitable.
Presiona para expandir...

Ah. Well that's a consistent position. I personally disagree, but I find nothing invalid about your logic.

I think I've laid out the inequality as I see it, which is after the decision by both parties to have (potentially) unsafe sex, in the case where one of the parties doesn't want a child and the other one does, the woman has the sole authority to decide what happens to that baby, and by extension, what the man's responsibilities will be for potentially the next 18 years. Yes, biologically, the woman has to actually carry and bear the child, and yes, this certainly creates certain medical realities (The man isn't going to need surgery no matter what he chooses here).

I feel biological hardship doesn't (or shouldn't) grant extra rights as compensation. I feel the biological fact that a woman always carries the baby doesn't invalidate the idea that men should have equal rights to women (or as best as we can come) regardless.

So, at least we understand one another's positions now, I think, at least I'm pretty sure I understand yours, hopefully I've managed to write my thoughts in a clear enough way you can kinda see my point of view.

At the end of the day, the only conclusion I can really definitely come to is "The abortion debate is very complex and both sides have valid reasons for their views", so that's generally the position I argue from. That means I find myself arguing from both the pro and anti sides.

I'm better at framing what the debate actually is than coming to any spectacular conclusions, unfortunately.
 
I believe women should have a right to murder their unborn babies and that culture should reinforce the truth, that it is murder.

People claim this ownership of body and then evict the baby for not paying rent.

Corbin Dallas Multipass dijo:
Once they've both consented to sex, they have nobody to blame but themselves if a pregnancy occurs. This is the man's last chance to avoid a pregnancy,
Presiona para expandir...

Legally speaking, if a woman takes the condom out of the trash and inseminates herself with his jizz, he still has to pay alimony.

Same if the man was 15 and legally raped by a 27 year old woman. Has to pay alimony.

Edge cases I'm sure, but the law is anything but equal in regards to this.
 
Última edición por un moderador:
lowkey dijo:
Legally speaking, if a woman takes the condom out of the trash and inseminates herself with his jizz, he still has to pay alimony.

Same if the man was 15 and legally raped by a 27 year old woman. Has to pay alimony.

Edge cases I'm sure, but the law is anything but equal in regards to this.
Presiona para expandir...

The law itself is equal, it's reality that isn't. Both parents have a legal obligation to support children that spring from their genes.

The issue is that it is the child who has the right to support, not either parent.

If a parent is not the custodial parent, the other parent has the obligation of financial support. If it's the father who ends up the custodial parent, that's the mother.

While this is unfair, and in some cases, utterly unfair to one or both parents, it's still more fair than requiring absolute strangers, like the taxpayers, to support an abandoned child under all circumstances. The child should never be punished for the stupidity or irresponsibility of the adults, at least to the extent it is possible to avoid that.

The state will go after the non-custodial parent in the case where the child ends up supported by state welfare dollars, too, and collect the back payments, so a father or a mother who has dodged support obligations and then ends up winning the lottery or something will end up with a big bill.

Guess what? Life isn't fair. But if it's going to be unfair to anyone, and there's a choice about it, society has decided it would rather be unfair to grown adults than an innocent child.
 
AnOminous dijo:
The law itself is equal, it's reality that isn't. Both parents have a legal obligation to support children that spring from their genes.

The issue is that it is the child who has the right to support, not either parent.

If a parent is not the custodial parent, the other parent has the obligation of financial support. If it's the father who ends up the custodial parent, that's the mother.

While this is unfair, and in some cases, utterly unfair to one or both parents, it's still more fair than requiring absolute strangers, like the taxpayers, to support an abandoned child under all circumstances. The child should never be punished for the stupidity or irresponsibility of the adults, at least to the extent it is possible to avoid that.

The state will go after the non-custodial parent in the case where the child ends up supported by state welfare dollars, too, and collect the back payments, so a father or a mother who has dodged support obligations and then ends up winning the lottery or something will end up with a big bill.

Guess what? Life isn't fair. But if it's going to be unfair to anyone, and there's a choice about it, society has decided it would rather be unfair to grown adults than an innocent child.
Presiona para expandir...

The child has right to support, apparantly but not to not be killed by its mother before birth.

You can use "it isn't fair" to justify anything at all and you can use "society decided" to prevent any social or legal change. These type of discussions are about whether these decisions were right or not and if they should be changed. If you admit they're unfair (better word: unjust) then you should agree that both cultural values and legal framework should change.
 
Última edición:
AnOminous dijo:
A clump of cells isn't a child. Arguably a newborn isn't a full human either but that's where the law draws the line, and to some extent in the last trimester.
Presiona para expandir...
Yet we still punish the mother for drinking and harming this clump of cells that isn't a child. We punish someone who causes that clump of cells not to end up as a baby as a murderer.
 
Corbin Dallas Multipass dijo:
Yet we still punish the mother for drinking and harming this clump of cells that isn't a child. We punish someone who causes that clump of cells not to end up as a baby as a murderer.
Presiona para expandir...

The former, yes, the latter, no.

Once someone comes into being damaged and is a person, they have the rights to redress for harms they are suffering due to the acts of another. Someone who doesn't exist doesn't have rights.
 
AnOminous dijo:
Once someone comes into being damaged and is a person, they have the rights to redress for harms they are suffering due to the acts of another. Someone who doesn't exist doesn't have rights.
Presiona para expandir...

Again this is a principle you do not extend to a 15yo boy who was raped; though he too was done harm, he deserves no redress for having to pay 18 years, apparantly.
 
lowkey dijo:
Again this is a principle you do not extend to a 15yo boy who was raped; though he too was done harm, he deserves no redress for having to pay 18 years, apparantly.
Presiona para expandir...

Redress from whom? He could still sue the rapist.
 
lowkey dijo:
Pardon me, language barrier. In my country they are both under a word similar to alimony. I had no idea they were seperate in english.
Presiona para expandir...

Okay. Just to clarify, though, child support is an obligation to the child. Because things don't work perfectly, sometimes the custodial parent (often the mother) will be able to divert the money to herself rather than the child. This isn't what is supposed to happen, though.

Alimony is payment specifically to the spouse. The rapist is not going to be a spouse, in all likelihood, and even if she is, is probably not entitled to alimony.

What I meant by the victim could sue the rapist is that any harm that came to a minor through being victimized, including the child support obligation, could be set off by a claim against the rapist. The rapist is obviously liable for damages directly resulting from the rape as well. So in the unlikely event that, for instance, a minor male was raped by an adult female, and a child was born, the child support obligation owed by that minor would be the result of a wrongful act by the adult.

So if she were actually much more wealthy than he was, he could end up owing nothing. It would just take separate legal action, and unfortunately for most people in this situation, there isn't a giant pile of money at the end of the rainbow.
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo