Actually he's got a good example here. He clearly shows how bodily autonomy works.accidents? you mean something that wasn't an activity that two people consented too . . . yeah your examples dont match and are totally not analogous to the topic here LMAO
I understood your point but contractual law interferes with your position. There are legal consequences that the person faces for conflicting with the desire of the parents. I think a man could extend the same argument by claiming when sex occurs their is an implied contract in place. When a woman does something that the Male does not agree to we have a contractual dispute.The surrogate example is one to show that the mother and father, as determined genetically, do not have a direct say in whether their offspring, in the form of a ZEF, gets aborted or not. If the ZEF is not in the mother's body, then she does not get a say, even though those are her genetics.
Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
1.)Wrong
2.), consenting to sex does not equal consenting to pregnancy.
3.) obviously, nobody wants to have an abortion, and if someone knew their actions were going to result in pregnancy they didn't want they would have taken better precautions. Therefore all abortions which are not required for medical reasons or the result of rape would very obviously be classified as accidents.
4.) When you consent to go skydiving you're not consenting to splatter into the ground. You know there is a risk, but you expect the safety measures in place to be more than adequate to save your life. Therefore when someone dies while skydiving we refer to it as an "accident" even though we all know that it's a possibility that could happen.
5.)When you get in your car and drive somewhere you're not consenting to a collision. Even if you're the cause of the collision that's not something you planned on or intended to have happen. Even though everyone who drives a car knows that if you drive a lot it's inevitable that someday you're going to be in some kind of accident we all consent to driving under the assumption that the safety measures in place are enough to prevent any real damage. Still, regardless of your foreknowledge of the potential for a collision we still conclude that said collision is an accident.
Why are you so vindictive and condemning? Why do you insist on forcing morality on others?
On who's authority are you trying to do this?
1.) Actually he's got a good example here. He clearly shows how bodily autonomy works.
It can also be argued, that where consent to sex is consent to the risk of the woman getting pregnant (a separate issue from what she chooses after learning she is), so to is consenting to being on a public road in a vehicle consent to the risk of getting into a car accident. To consent to any activity is to consent to all the possible known outcomes, regardless of probability, that could result.
Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
…
The state does not have to take the child. The father can be given custody or put the child up for adoption. Both options protects the states burden and it would discourage mothers from applying for assistance which would also lessen the states burden.
…
I understood your point but contractual law interferes with your position. There are legal consequences that the person faces for conflicting with the desire of the parents. I think a man could extend the same argument by claiming when sex occurs their is an implied contract in place. When a woman does something that the Male does not agree to we have a contractual dispute.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
1.) actually what I said is 100% right LMAO
1.)Once again, you think you get to just say something and have it be considered true with absolutely no rational backing.
2.) All you're proving here is that you're nothing more than a Troll that can be safely ignored
3.) so if you would like me to continue to engage your pointless drivel further you're going to have to start coming with substance.
Sorry we are done. I will not read your posts further.
Forms of servitude in the US - indentured servitude, Black slavery (& to a limited extent, Native Peoples slavery). Your definition is too broad, you'd have everyone who pays a fine - traffic ticket? - claiming to be in servitude.
In the case of a father who fails to pay child support - he may or may not have the money to pay. Incarceration is for failure to pay.
If we were to incarcerate a single mother for failure to pay (pay what, exactly?), then the state would have to care for the child(ren). Or are you advocating that any minor children accompany the woman in jail? Providing for child maintenance & care was the point to pursuing the non-custodial parent for child support in the first place. Your proposed line of action is a non sequitur.
Yes. And society and the law recognize the value of both parents in a child's life.Allowing men to opt out of fatherhood - actually helping raise the child - is doable, although not recommended for the child's sake. No society in the real world that I know of allows men (or the woman, if she's the one with the financial resources) to opt out of financial responsibility for their offspring.
What is rebirth in this context?
According to people it's unfair that the taxpayers are providing children welfare when they have the option of coercing unconsenting fathers to provide it or face the penalty of jail time.If the father is a non-custodial parent, he can't be given custody of the child without reviewing & revising the award of custody of the child.
Nor can the child be put up for adoption, for the same reason. You'd have to write & pass legislation stripping an incarcerated parent of his/her parental status - for the duration? Forever? & I don't think such legislation would pass, & it might not pass Constitutional review (cruel & unusual punishment).
What does this mean: Both options protects the states burden. What is the states burden?
discourage mothers from applying for assistance which would also lessen the states burden - The state's interest here is protecting the child. If a single mother & dependent child need state assistance, she should apply for it. In the long run, the child's welfare trumps all other concerns.
Do you see my point though?Oh, excellent! I suggest we call the implied contract (in place, yet!) a pre-Shtupping Agreement.
I understood your point but contractual law interferes with your position. There are legal consequences that the person faces for conflicting with the desire of the parents. I think a man could extend the same argument by claiming when sex occurs their is an implied contract in place. When a woman does something that the Male does not agree to we have a contractual dispute.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Lol. You missed it entirely. He was not trying to relate the two sets of laws. He was using another situation to illustrate how bodily autonomy works and how consenting to certain actions results in consenting to the risks they bring.no the unfair laws between a man and womans parental rights do not relate to a car accident in anyway lol
Let us know when you can defend your post with actual facts or sound logic. thanks!
Lol. You missed it entirely. He was not trying to relate the two sets of laws. He was using another situation to illustrate how bodily autonomy works and how consenting to certain actions results in consenting to the risks they bring.
Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
1.) Yeah, so basically the best response to this would be to just tell you to re-read your own post.
2.) As much fun as it was wasting my time on you I guess I can officially block you now. I mean if you're not even going to attempt to offer a basis for your insane claims there's nothing further to discuss. Congrats, you are officially the first poster whose posts are so devoid of substance or reason that it's not even worth starting to read anything you say.
Mind you this is only an intellectual exercise. If it's fair to argue that men accepted responsibility for being a parent when they consented to a sexual encountered. That argument is the same as saying men are entering into an implied contract because they knew of the potential for a pregnancy to occur. Why would applying that same standard be difficult to apply to a woman?I think he would have a hard time supporting such a claim, especially since there would be no standard upon which to base an implied contract upon. Whereas the surrogate situation would have a physical written contact upon which the tort would occur. This is also a key point. The breach of contract would fall under tort, but most anti abortion attempts seek criminal law.
Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
who said he was trying to relate the laws between them? I certainty didnt, i pointed out how his examples fails because THIS topic is about the unfair laws and NOTHING about a car accident relates to that. It doesnt matter what the laws are for a car accident this topic is about the unfair laws so his example completely fails and is no analogous. It doesn't relate on any level at all.
who said he was trying to relate the laws between them?
no the unfair laws between a man and womans parental rights do not relate to a car accident in anyway lol
I certainty didnt, i pointed out how his examples fails because THIS topic is about the unfair laws and NOTHING about a car accident relates to that. It doesnt matter what the laws are for a car accident this topic is about the unfair laws so his example completely fails and is no analogous. It doesn't relate on any level at all.
Mind you this is only an intellectual exercise. If it's fair to argue that men accepted responsibility for being a parent when they consented to a sexual encountered. That argument is the same as saying men are entering into an implied contract because they knew of the potential for a pregnancy to occur. Why would applying that same standard be difficult to apply to a woman?
Perhaps the man was hoping the opprotunity to sire a child was his goal and when she consented she agreed to enter into a contractual agreement of allowing that opprotunity.
Society is holding men liable to unwritten and unspoken contracts. Why not hold women to the same rigidness
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Mind you this is only an intellectual exercise.
If it's fair to argue that men accepted responsibility for being a parent when they consented to a sexual encountered.
That argument is the same as saying men are entering into an implied contract because they knew of the potential for a pregnancy to occur. Why would applying that same standard be difficult to apply to a woman?
If the man is hoping to sire a child and does not explicitly share that with the woman, that is a deceitful practice. It is no difference that a woman sabotaging a man's condom. Taking a risk of pregnancy (birth control methods failing) is different from one increasing the odds without the knowledge and consent of the other.Perhaps the man was hoping the opprotunity to sire a child was his goal and when she consented she agreed to enter into a contractual agreement of allowing that opprotunity.
1.) You started with the relate term, so regardless of whether it was laws or whatever you were addressing that's still not what was happening.
2.)Did you miss the part of how we can't force the person who cause the accident to contribute blood to the person he injured in an accident that was his fault? This was an example of how bodily autonomy works.
additionally he used the same example to show that when we consent to do a given activity, we consent to the known risk that come with that activity.
Bodily autonomy and risk consent work the same no matter what the situation. They don't have to relate.
Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Why are you so vindictive and condemning? Why do you insist on forcing morality on others?
On who's authority are you trying to do this?
LMAO
what vindictiveness are you referring too?
what condemnation are you referring too?
what force?
what morality?
seems you quoted the wrong person
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?