1) Sexual relationships between men and woman are exquisitely designed to produce pleasure - and this is normally the reason couples engage in sex. Sex for the purpose of creating a child is relatively rare by comparison. 2) "A life is created". This is both vague and obfuscation. It is true that a zygote is alive - it is a human cell - all of which are alive -blood, brain, liver, heart cells and so on. That a single human cell has been created - does not mean a child has been created and you seem to be conflating the two. In the case of an unintended pregnancy - when the intention was not to create a child - the responsible thing to do is often to stop the process that will end up creating a child = end the pregnancy. It is the decision to carry an unintended pregnancy to term that results in the creation of a child. If this decision is made unilaterally, it is the person who made that decision who is responsible for that decision. In this case - the sperm was obtained through trickery and deception - That sperm was then used to create a child. To punish one person actions of another is a violation of the Rule of Law. In this case the action was the decision to carry an unintended pregnancy to term. This is also a violation of 'Equal justice under the Law". The State grants one party the ability to avoid the consequences of an unintended pregnancy but not the other.
There is no responsibility on the basis of human life. You are conflating "human life" with a human. The skin cells that you destroyed while typing the last post are "human life". Responsibility comes on the basis of a child, not necessarily on the basis of "human life". Quit using stupid terminology that designed to be vague and evasive. Your argument is then - It is OK to violate the Rule of Law, individual liberty, and the founding principles by which law is to be interpreted because "Life's not fair". If I have to explain to you how ridiculous and evil this argument is - then you are not putting on your thinking cap.
I'm speaking to the likelihood that your ideas on this will achieve progress in any congress. You are suggesting that a woman should lose the support of the biological father if she doesn't get an abortion. That is a strong motivator FOR abortion. Plus, in many cases it will push support for the single mother onto the state. I'm asking if you realy think Republicans will vote for such a law that encourages abortion and increases the instances of state support. I know you've tried to argue on the basis of what you think is "right". I don't agree with you on that, but over the years I've come to accept that you aren't likely to change on that. So, I'm taking a different and more practical approach here, asking if you really think you have any chance of making changes in our laws such as what you want. I pointed to Republicans, because they campaign for MORE laws against abortion, and because I think you will agree that you won't win over many Dems.
What is disingenuous is FAILING to acknowledge that your "definition" of the law was seriously FLAWED which is what I was pointing out. Only ONE ASPECT of the law deals crime and punishment. The law also regulates commerce, property rights and how we govern ourselves to name just a couple of other areas of the law. https://www.brown.edu/academics/college/advising/law-school/fields-law/fields-law
. To me this is not about "Abortion" - it is about violating the Rule of Law, individual liberty, the founding principles and the horrible legal precedent set when this is done. Abortion is just one example. This is not just about laws on the basis of these violations making progress in Today's political climate. This is about the removal of safeguards and the effect this could have on all future political climates. Regardless - the above is already happening. In both Missouri and Alabama laws have been made which violate individual liberty. You don't get to pick and choose how this bad law gets applied either today or in the future. Belief in the rule of law/individual liberty is not belief that these rules should be applied - Only for things you agree with. Everyone believes in that. If you don't agree with application of these principles for things you disagree with - then you don't believe in these principles. If you think it is OK for the state to force someone (a man in this case) to be responsible for the consequences of another persons decision (a woman in this case)- with respect to an unintended pregnancy - then you are supporting violation of the Rule of Law, individual liberty, and the founding principles - "Full Stop" Once this safeguard is removed - its removed. What is to stop another person from saying the exact same thing - just reversing the gender. "Equal justice under the law" So on the basis of the precedent that YOU AGREE with. It is OK for the state to force a woman to be responsible for the consequences of another persons decision with respect to an unintended pregnancy. = If the man decides that the unintended pregnancy should be carried to term - the State should be able to force her to be responsible for the consequences of this decision = carry the pregnancy to term. If respect for the Rule of Law results in women not using trickery and deception to obtain a mans sperm - because they will not be able to make this man be responsible for her using that sperm to create a child - GOOD. Then you go on to say that you do not agree with me wanting to uphold the rule of law. OK you have a right to your opinion. Where I disagree is you wanting to violate these rules on the basis of "what is practical". This is absurd. We might as well throw all the safeguards that protect individual liberty into the garbage if the bar for violation is some person or groups opinion of "what is practical". Who are you (or anyone else for that matter) to force your beliefs on others through physical violence (Law) on the basis of "what is practical" ? The fact of the matter is that this type argument (Utilitarianism as justification for law) is at plague proportions. What you have not done is considered the long term ramifications to Utilitarian Justification for law - a justification which only looks at "what will increase happiness for the collective"/ harm reduction - but completely ignores individual liberty. For example: "If it saves one life" / Harm reduction as justification for law. Is this valid justification for law ? "if it saves one life". I realize it sounds good on the surface (who does not want to save one life?) but in reality it is very insidious and evil as it allows for an end run around safeguards which protect individual liberty. If this is valid justification - should we not ban skiing tomorrow ? Would this not save one life ? How about boating -that is really dangerous - one could drown. Driving a car ? forget it. "Super Size" ? - no no no. In fact you might as well not rise from bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck. Get rid of "innocent before proven guilty" ? why not if its "practical". Why would we try to stop one innocent person from going to prison or getting the death penalty if this will result in 5 who are guilty going free. This is not "hypothetical" - this is reality. How many real world examples would you like ? In a free society one has the right to risk a reasonable amount of harm to themselves - regardless of whether or not you happen to think "its practical". If you don't believe in freedom - OK - but realize that removal of or ignoring the safeguards that protect individual liberty is a one way trip to Tyranny and abuse of power.
What is disingenuous is you pretending to not understand that the "crime and punishment" aspect of law was what was being referred - and not the context of what was being discussed.
Your FAILURE to QUALIFY your erroneous "definition" is NOT my problem. If I made a mistake like yours I would just admit to it and move on because it is no big deal. That you can't says volumes.
This isn't a matter of innocence vs guilt. And, there isn't any logical path to see this as precedent in cases not involving the responsibility of biological parents for childcare.
You have no clue what you are talking about with respect to precedent and this is matter of innocent vs guilt. The man is not guilty of trickery and deception the woman - The woman is guilty of this. The man did not break a contract - the woman is guilty of this. The man did not make the unilateral decision to carry the unintended pregnancy to term - the woman did. The man is not responsible for the irresponsible decision to bring a child into this world - the woman is. Yet - you think it is ok to punish one person for the deceitful and nasty actions of another which is a violation of the rule of law - one among numerous violations in this case. The idea that violation of the rule of law and liberty in in one area does not carry over to violations in another via precedent shows lack of understanding of how our justice system works on your part. But aside all that - it is a moral wrong what you are doing - a violation of the golden rule (which is one of the main principles on which the founding principles is based) - Don't do to others what you don't want done to you. If you don't want others punishing you for the actions of others - violating equal justice under the law against you - messing with your individual liberty - Then don't do this to others. If you don't want a women to be forced to be responsible for the consequences of the decisions of another with respect to an unintended pregnancy (which would force her to carry the pregnancy to term) - Then don't condone one person being forced to be responsible for the decision of another with respect to an unintended pregnancy. What part of this principle is so difficult for you to understand ? You posts are normally quite intelligent = you are not a stupid person. Give your head a shake and quit trying to blind yourself from reality. You are acting exactly like the anti aborts who want to force their beliefs on others through law - an in doing so completely disregard the rule of law, respect for individual liberty - and the Golden Rule. (which is really messed up and pure hypocrisy in the case of religious right anti aborts as the Golden Rule is the rock on which Jesus bases his teachings)
Puerile ad hom PROJECTION duly noted and ignored for derogatory reasons. But thanks for DISQUALIFYING yourself on your own thread topic from any further meaningful interaction as far as I am concerned. Have a nice day!
It isn't ad hom if pointing out your infantile disingenuous responses is not directed at proving a claim true. Your claim that the State forcing a particular individual to pay large sums of money by law is not "punishment" is false.
Maybe if you repeat your weak position 10 more times, ... Try your argument in front of a judge and see if it works. It failed here.
The guy I was replying to wants to release the bio dad from responsibility and place it on the shoulders of the tax payer. Women can choose to abort responsibility, men cannot.
Lying about my position is lame and pathetic - as is claiming that equal justice under the law does not apply to men.
I already gave you a win. As we speak, deadbeat dads are making money under the table while you and I pay for their children. Paying your taxes should give you a warm feeling.
I already trashed this silly utilitarian argument- with respect to society- six ways to Sunday. Your retort was to complain that the posts were too long. You have a woman who through deceit, lies and trickery obtains some dudes sperm. This woman then that sperm to create a child. - an action which explicitly breaks the contract she entered in by stating she would not do this. In some cases this deceit involves intentionally not taking birth control pill or putting a hole in the condom. You then claim that it was the the victim of this deceitful woman's actions who is the "deadbeat" and want the state to punish the victim for this woman's deceitful and irresponsible actions. You then ignore the fact that it is because the woman can use lies and deceit to create a child and then be awarded financial gain and avoid responsibility for earning her keep in society. This incentive increases the number of children brought into this world under disfuctional and impoverished circumstances which ends up costing society. Then - after agreeing with the incentive that increases costs to society - you complain about increased costs to society.
Use a condom and flush it. No man with half a brain can be tricked into impregnating a woman. Take some responsibility and stop playing the victim.
The above is an obvious falsehood and you know it. If you want to live in hypocrisy by accepting equal justice under the Law - only for things you agree with - while ignoring this and other violations principles in instances that you disagree with - then you don't belief in equal justice. This is exactly the same thing the anti -aborts do and it is acceptance of such violations and perversions of Justice that has led to yet another State (Louisiana) making law (abortion law) that violates individual liberty. You are just as much at fault as the anti aborts for these violations of the founding principles.
You are not qualified to call for the operation of my mind. You have made your case and have only succeeded in exposing your unwillingness to have an honest discussion. Good day.
"Call for the operation of my mind" ? what kind of nonsense is this - what does this even mean. I have not claimed anything that has not come out of your mouth. You are the one that is being dishonest and disingenuous - quit projecting your issues onto me. You claim that it is OK for the State to force Person A to be responsible for the consequences of the unilateral decision of Person B with respect to an unintended pregnancy. Further - you claim that the above is OK when Person A is Man but no OK when Person A is a woman. What is preposterous dishonesty is to pretend this is not hypocrisy and a violation of the rule of law - and this is exactly what you have been doing. This is exactly the type of hypocritical violation of the founding principles, rule of law, and individual liberty that the religious right engages in - violations which have resulted in the current bans on abortion in 3 States after 6 weeks. You can lie to me if you like but quit lying to yourself.
Sure he should support the child he created. It isn’t punishment, it is responsibility. Jst because left wing nuts don’t know the difference, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. He can’t force her to commit homicide against her own child.
Not sure why you bring left wing nuts into the conversation other than due to the fact that you have no argument so have to engage in demonization. It is carrying a pregnancy to term which creates a child. Your inferred claim that a zygote is a child is laughable silliness in that you and I both know that you can not prove this claim true.
You are not qualified to tell me what I think. You couldn't argue against my position, so you projected your own image of me and are arguing with that. My position is clear and simple. The needs of the child supersedes your opinion. Since the bio parents bear more responsibility than tax payers, your argument of one paying for the actions of another supports my position.
I have not told you what you think. It is you that has stated your thoughts = that the state has the right to punish one person for the consequences of a unilateral decision of another with respect to an unintended pregnancy. Further - you have stated utilitarian justification for law (your silly tax payer argument which was refuted 6 was to Sunday) - an argument which has no respect for individual liberty, the rule of law, or the founding principles. You now claim "more responsibility" which is laughable because obviously the woman is the responsible party and even if you were to make some valid argument for the responsibility of the man (something you have never bothered to do - never mind giving a valid argument)- it would be orders of magnitude less than the woman such that she would be on the hook for 90% and the man perhaps for 10 %. Your argument once again puts you into a position of wild hypocrisy because you don't believe in the above ratio.
