Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just to be clear, I've never had an abortion, if that's you're suggesting. I'm pro-choice, but not reflexively so. And that's because I've experienced pregnancy, something you can't understand, and perhaps will never even respect.
And how exactly do you know that I can't understand pregnancy? After all, imagination can certainly be an extremely powerful thing.
Also, though, what I wrote here is certainly valid. Indeed, I wish that I could purposely get pregnant and get an abortion afterwards just to prove you wrong in regards to this.
In addition to this, though, who exactly said that I don't respect pregnancy or pregnant women? Rather, what I said is that potential certainly isn't actuality; indeed, I certainly still stand by this statement of mine.
...Generally speaking, the law only imposes involuntary obligations and responsibilities on people if these people have committed harm, negligence, and/or illegal activities. Neither having consensual sex nor causing a child to exist meet any of these criteria. Rather, causing a child to exist is a gift, not a harm.
To elaborate on this, causing a child to exist does not cause a child to be worse off than this child previously was; rather, causing a child to exist arguably causes this child to be better off than this child previously was. Indeed, other than in the case of child support, we certainly don't impose involuntary obligations on people for providing gifts to other people.
For instance, if I will donate my kidney to some poor kid or (hypothetically) create a cure for some poor kid's cancer, then I am certainly not going to be forced to pay child support to this poor kid even if the alternative to this is going to be having the taxpayers help financially support this kid. Why? Because extending a child's life is a gift, not a harm.
Now, if extending a child's life is a gift, then causing a child to have a life in the first place is likewise a gift. Thus, ideally, parents of both genders should have a unilateral opt-out from paying child support. Indeed, as far as I know, even in cases of actual harm, such as accidentally hitting your friend in the head with a baseball and having this friend of yours die as a result of this injury afterwards, involuntary obligations are not imposed on people unless there was negligence involved (and there appears to have been no negligence in this baseball case; thus, it appears that you are not going to be forced to pay financial support to your friend's family even if the alternative to this is having the taxpayers help financially support your friend's family and even though you are certainly much more responsible for your friend's death than the taxpayers are).
...
I had to break it up in to paragraphs to be able to read it. And I'm not even going any further until this first part is addressed. If it has already been addressed, perhaps it bares repeating:
You are speaking of the "gift of life". Let's just move on from that first part.
You state that no law requires anyone to have any responsibility to another unless there is negligence, harm, or some other illegal activity. So let's go with that.
You and another have a kid. According to you, that's a gift. Ok. But the problem with your theory is that now that the kid is here, you have to keep him alive. The kid is not capable of surviving on its own, it relies on you. To fail to keep the kid alive would be considered "harm, neglect, or some other illegal activity".
The kid needs food. The kid needs clothing. The kid needs water. The kid needs milk. The kid needs shelter. The kid needs a place to sleep. The kid needs protection against diseases and illnesses, so it will need sanitary diapers-you will need to change them and put on clean ones. The kid needs bottles to be able to eat its food when younger.
As the kid grows, the kid will continue to need food, more clothes, shelter, water, a place to sleep, comfort and protection against diseases and illnesses - so kid needs clean clothes, clean plates, clean bedding, and a place to clean himself.
You are the one who provides those. If you don't provide those, the kid will indeed suffer from harm/neglect/illegal activity, so your first argument is completely voided.
A kidney transplant to a stranger's kid is not the same thing as YOU bringing a kid in to the world. It most certainly is your responsibility to care for that kid since that kid was the result of you doing something that you wanted to do. The kid had no say.
You intentionally not paying for the kid's well being, is you intentionally causing that kid harm, and you intentionally neglecting that kid, and you intentionally committing illegal acts.
I had to break it up in to paragraphs to be able to read it. And I'm not even going any further until this first part is addressed. If it has already been addressed, perhaps it bares repeating:
You are speaking of the "gift of life". Let's just move on from that first part.
You state that no law requires anyone to have any responsibility to another unless there is negligence, harm, or some other illegal activity. So let's go with that.
OK.
Quote:
You and another have a kid. According to you, that's a gift. Ok.
OK.
Quote:
But the problem with your theory is that now that the kid is here, you have to keep him alive. The kid is not capable of surviving on its own, it relies on you. To fail to keep the kid alive would be considered "harm, neglect, or some other illegal activity".
The thing is, though, that you are certainly not responsible for this kid's inability to earn a living by himself or herself. Indeed, by your logic, we should prosecute parents whose children die as a result of these parents refusing to donate kidneys or blood or bone marrow to their children.
Quote:
The kid needs food. The kid needs clothing. The kid needs water. The kid needs milk. The kid needs shelter. The kid needs a place to sleep. The kid needs protection against diseases and illnesses, so it will need sanitary diapers-you will need to change them and put on clean ones. The kid needs bottles to be able to eat its food when younger.
As the kid grows, the kid will continue to need food, more clothes, shelter, water, a place to sleep, comfort and protection against diseases and illnesses - so kid needs clean clothes, clean plates, clean bedding, and a place to clean himself.
You are the one who provides those. If you don't provide those, the kid will indeed suffer from harm/neglect/illegal activity, so your first argument is completely voided.
By your logic, we should prosecute parents whose children die as a result of these parents refusing to donate kidneys or blood or bone marrow to their children.
Quote:
A kidney transplant to a stranger's kid is not the same thing as YOU bringing a kid in to the world. It most certainly is your responsibility to care for that kid since that kid was the result of you doing something that you wanted to do. The kid had no say.
So, should parents be forced to donate their body parts (such as kidneys) to their children as well?
Quote:
You intentionally not paying for the kid's well being, is you intentionally causing that kid harm, and you intentionally neglecting that kid, and you intentionally committing illegal acts.
Again, by your logic, we should prosecute parents whose children die as a result of these parents refusing to donate kidneys or blood or bone marrow to their children.
The thing is, though, that you are certainly not responsible for this kid's inability to earn a living by himself or herself. Indeed, by your logic, we should prosecute parents whose children die as a result of these parents refusing to donate kidneys or blood or bone marrow to their children.
By your logic, we should prosecute parents whose children die as a result of these parents refusing to donate kidneys or blood or bone marrow to their children.
So, should parents be forced to donate their body parts (such as kidneys) to their children as well?
Again, by your logic, we should prosecute parents whose children die as a result of these parents refusing to donate kidneys or blood or bone marrow to their children.
Moderator cut: Charged Language The leaping that you had to do to go from: feed, shelter, clothe or at least provide the money for it all to: parent should be arrested for not giving up a kidney - is nothing but pure deflection.
Number of people (adults and kids) who need a transplant (including kidney, liver, pancreas, heart, lung, heart/lung, intestine): 121,799 https://www.unos.org/
Reasons why someone may not be able to donate blood or marrow:
medical conditions, medication being taken, and in some cases, if you lived in X country between X time and X time, they won't take your blood or marrow no matter how much you want to donate it, (personal experience - state of FL)
If your kid gets sick, it is your responsibility to get that kid medical care. What that means, because apparently it needs to be spelled out to you, is that you take the kid to the doctor for care and treatment.
Your "argument" is inane and totally flawed. Please, tell a judge that you have zero responsibility for a kid that YOU brought in to the world because one day the kid may/may not need a kidney.
The thing is, though, that you are certainly not responsible for this kid's inability to earn a living by himself or herself. Indeed, by your logic, we should prosecute parents whose children die as a result of these parents refusing to donate kidneys or blood or bone marrow to their children.
By your logic, we should prosecute parents whose children die as a result of these parents refusing to donate kidneys or blood or bone marrow to their children.
So, should parents be forced to donate their body parts (such as kidneys) to their children as well?
Again, by your logic, we should prosecute parents whose children die as a result of these parents refusing to donate kidneys or blood or bone marrow to their children.
I have never met any parent who would let their child die when their kidney or bone marrow was a match for him or her. That by itself is ridiculous, as I doubt it happens at all.
No. There is nothing you could say or any angle you could present that would make me think this is a good idea. And honestly all your arguments are really reaching and relying on unusual circumstances that don't really apply to the situation you are presenting.
The fact is a woman can not get pregnant on her own. She chooses to become pregnant just as much as the man chooses to impregnate her. Even if everyone is doing everything they can to prevent pregnancy, sometimes it still happens and it occurs because of a sexual act between TWO people.
FACT: The woman has complete control over her body and any actions that affects her body. SEXUAL INTERCOURSE with a male human with no conceptive protection is a risk SHE is taking.....PERIOD! The male who is allowed to partake of the sexual contact is being allowed to by the female.....he is NOT assuming any risk of becoming pregnant!
It is cruel to make a woman sign a contract to have an abortion, because you can't know what you will want to do in that situation until you are actually presented with that choice, and she is only put in that situation because of an act she did with ANOTHER person. She did not get into that situation all on her own and she should not be held responsible for the consequences all on her own. You are correct the woman should not be tied to any contractual arrangement concerning the possibility of pregnancy, but SHE ALLOW controls her body and what the results of any physical action to her body,,,NO ONE ELSE PERIOD!!
If she chooses to keep the baby against the man's wishes, he still needs to be held financially responsible for his sexual actions, even if he does not want to be physically involved in the child's life. The woman is doing the hard work of raising HIS kid on her own because of something THEY did TOGETHER, the least he could do is assist in the financial aspects of the kid's life. Nothing more is required. UNLESS the pregnancy was a result of a forced sexual act (which is a felonious crime), then again the woman has complete control of her body and is responsible for the actions that affects her body. The act of sexual intercourse with a human male without conceptive protection is a risk that she voluntarily decides to take! If the man does not want to contribute than that is HIS right!!
Lastly, this will undoubtedly lead to more unintentional pregnancies with more children being raised by single mothers. With men having the option to "opt-out" and have zero accountability for their actions, they will have little motivation to act responsibly in the first place to ensure pregnancy doesn't occur, because they'll know they can just walk away.
If you are that dead set against bearing ANY responsibility for a child, then you better make good friends with your hand, because that is the only place your member has any business being.
You are correct that there are other means for a man to sexually stimulate and please himself as there are for females (which you fail to mention).
FACT: The woman has complete control over her body and any actions that affects her body. SEXUAL INTERCOURSE with a male human with no conceptive protection is a risk SHE is taking.....PERIOD! The male who is allowed to partake of the sexual contact is being allowed to by the female.....he is NOT assuming any risk of becoming pregnant!
But you are wrong, it is not a fact. In fact there are laws in place that state a person does not have complete control over their body. Pregnant women are governed by abortions laws and even what they may put into or do to their bodies while pregnant. The law also stipulates that both mother and father are responsible for any children they produce. Just because one is allowed to do something does not relieve them of the consequences of their actions.
Quote:
You are correct the woman should not be tied to any contractual arrangement concerning the possibility of pregnancy, but SHE ALLOW controls her body and what the results of any physical action to her body,,,NO ONE ELSE PERIOD!!
Once a fetus becomes viable it is no longer her body. It is protected by the state as an individual.
Because if the man lagitimatly fails then the kid gets nothing and the whole family lives in poverty, that sounds like it would suck. I suppose the mom could work and be a high power CEO and the dad could raise the child and collect support.
If the mom wants to be a high power CEO then dont have kids or make sure your having kids with someone who has their stuff together and stay together and be happy.
I wonder what the stats are of which gender initiates break ups more with kids involved broke up into various demographics?
Quote:
Originally Posted by christiner81
Lol at the easy solutions in some of these posts. if you've been paying attention to Planned Parenthood you know that getting an abortion has become very difficult, especially for the poorest mothers. And the idea that it's so easy to just give away a child you've been growing in your body is laughable. women are expected to embrace pregnancy, unless daddy is a deadbeat and then they should want to give that baby away to absolve him of any financial obligation. heaven forbid a woman decides to raise her child and require a man to pay his share. Even when men pay 100% of the child support, women still lose out on salary and job opportunities solely on the basis of their sex and familial status. no sympathy here for those men owing child support...despite their debts society is still set up for them to succeed.
If your kid gets sick, it is your responsibility to get that kid medical care. What that means, because apparently it needs to be spelled out to you, is that you take the kid to the doctor for care and treatment.
And if doctors are unable to save this kid and this kid dies due to the fact that he or she needs a new kidney? Also, assume that your kidney is a match for your kid in this scenario.
I have never met any parent who would let their child die when their kidney or bone marrow was a match for him or her. That by itself is ridiculous, as I doubt it happens at all.
Parents certainly aren't legally forced to do this even when they are a match for their kids and even if their kids cannot get another kidney or bone marrow from someone else (in time, at least), though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
