[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[ArenaC]

Quite frankly people who want to abort should have the right to.

[The Free Joy State]

I always laugh at this ludicrous comparison some pro-lifers endeavour to make.

People who make this comparison always seem to overlook the potential for the comparison of forced pregnancy -- the stripping of bodily sovereignty from the body of a free human being (the woman -- who does have legal rights), the forced subjugation her body, unable to control her destiny, with the risk of death -- and Antebellum slavery.

Of course, I ascribe no motive to their total and obvious oversight...

Do you think that the child has any choice in the matter? You have a right to bodily sovereignty, but a child's right to life is simply more important. Murder is the worst crime which exists, period.

Fortunately, no children are killed and murder is an irrelevance to this topic (murder is, by definition, illegal, which abortion is not).

And "right to life" can be overridden if bodily sovereignty is threatened. As in the earlier rape comparison (suggested by your own comparison of the foetus to an adult "bad guy")

This is either a lie or an attempt to ignore the entire argument the pro-choice side has presented, considering that it all depends upon whether or not a fetus is a person.

Not true. Even if a fetus where a person, it still would not have the rights that the pro-life side are trying to grant it because no person has the rights that a pro-lifer is trying to grant.

That is actually why the "person"/"not a person" argument is much of a timewaste.

No person has the right to use another person's body for their own medical benefit (even to save their own life) against the other person's will (as the case McFall v. Shimp demonstrates).

Even if a foetus were a person, it has never yet been explained why it ought to have rights that no other person has.

[Genivaria]

Do you think that the child has any choice in the matter? You have a right to bodily sovereignty, but a child's right to life is simply more important. Murder is the worst crime which exists, period.

Fortunately, no children are killed and murder is an irrelevance to this topic (murder is, by definition, illegal, which abortion is not).

And "right to life" can be overridden if bodily sovereignty is threatened. As in the earlier rape comparison (suggested by your own comparison of the foetus to an adult "bad guy")

Not true. Even if a fetus where a person, it still would not have the rights that the pro-life side are trying to grant it because no person has the rights that a pro-lifer is trying to grant.

That is actually why the "person"/"not a person" argument is much of a timewaste.

No person has the right to use another person's body for their own medical benefit (even to save their own life) against the other person's will (as the case McFall v. Shimp demonstrates).

Even if a foetus were a person, it has never yet been explained why it ought to have rights that no other person has.

And no pro-lifer has yet been able to explain why a fetus has a right to their mother's body when a person who desperately needs an organ DOESN'T have the right to force anyone to give them an organ.

[Amblibahdesh]

Dude even those vary heavily depending on the stage in development that a fetus is in. Maybe he'll claim that fetuses are genderfluid humanfluid

It has nothing to do with stage of development! The arguments you're making would allow for you to claim that infants aren't human, because they aren't sentient or self-aware. It is a simple fact that a human is an organism with a certain genetic makeup. That's it. That, along with certain theological characteristics which come with such genetics, entitles a human to life, liberty, and property. It's not hard to understand. I defy you to come up with any stage or event other than conception at which a fetus "becomes" human.

Infants, new borns, and unborn babies respond to stimuli which makes them sentient, a fetus is not that. And that fetus reacts to pain at 20 weeks making it at that point, sentient. It becomes human probably around 30 weeks

https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal ... hesia.html

[The New California Republic]

Not true. Even if a fetus where a person, it still would not have the rights that the pro-life side are trying to grant it because no person has the rights that a pro-lifer is trying to grant.

That is actually why the "person"/"not a person" argument is much of a timewaste.

No person has the right to use another person's body for their own medical benefit (even to save their own life) against the other person's will (as the case McFall v. Shimp demonstrates).

Even if a foetus were a person, it has never yet been explained why it ought to have rights that no other person has.

I know that the personhood argument is mostly academic right now, but proving the pro-lifers doubly wrong acts as a safety net should McFall v. Shimp ever be contradicted by other cases.

[Antityranicals]

Fortunately, no children are killed and murder is an irrelevance to this topic (murder is, by definition, illegal, which abortion is not).

And "right to life" can be overridden if bodily sovereignty is threatened. As in the earlier rape comparison (suggested by your own comparison of the foetus to an adult "bad guy")


That is actually why the "person"/"not a person" argument is much of a timewaste.

No person has the right to use another person's body for their own medical benefit (even to save their own life) against the other person's will (as the case McFall v. Shimp demonstrates).

Even if a foetus were a person, it has never yet been explained why it ought to have rights that no other person has.

And no pro-lifer has yet been able to explain why a fetus has a right to their mother's body when a person who desperately needs an organ DOESN'T have the right to force anyone to give them an organ.

A fetus doesn't necessarily have a right to their mother's body, but he or she does necessarily have a right to life. So if you can remove the fetus from the mother without killing it , than the mother has the right to have that done. Otherwise, you, and not the child, are the rights-violator. The most common way of doing that is called "birth." If killing humans of any size were made a crime, the healthcare industry would have significant incentives to find other ways, and I'm sure they could. But for now, their default response is tragically: "Kill the baby!!!" And that needs to stop.

[Antityranicals]

Do you think that the child has any choice in the matter? You have a right to bodily sovereignty, but a child's right to life is simply more important. Murder is the worst crime which exists, period.

Fortunately, no children are killed and murder is an irrelevance to this topic (murder is, by definition, illegal, which abortion is not).

And "right to life" can be overridden if bodily sovereignty is threatened. As in the earlier rape comparison (suggested by your own comparison of the foetus to an adult "bad guy")

Not true. Even if a fetus where a person, it still would not have the rights that the pro-life side are trying to grant it because no person has the rights that a pro-lifer is trying to grant.

That is actually why the "person"/"not a person" argument is much of a timewaste.

No person has the right to use another person's body for their own medical benefit (even to save their own life) against the other person's will (as the case McFall v. Shimp demonstrates).

Even if a foetus were a person, it has never yet been explained why it ought to have rights that no other person has.

The action which put the fetus in a position of using another person's body for medical benefit was not the fetus's, but the action of nature itself. The fetus did not act, and therefore the fetus is not the violator of rights. As such, if it is to be removed from this situation, it must be removed in such a way as not to kill it. I've no problem with removing fetuses from the mother. I do have a problem with killing them.

[The Free Joy State]

Fortunately, no children are killed and murder is an irrelevance to this topic (murder is, by definition, illegal, which abortion is not).

And "right to life" can be overridden if bodily sovereignty is threatened. As in the earlier rape comparison (suggested by your own comparison of the foetus to an adult "bad guy")


That is actually why the "person"/"not a person" argument is much of a timewaste.

No person has the right to use another person's body for their own medical benefit (even to save their own life) against the other person's will (as the case McFall v. Shimp demonstrates).

Even if a foetus were a person, it has never yet been explained why it ought to have rights that no other person has.

The action which put the fetus in a position of using another person's body for medical benefit was not the fetus's, but the action of nature itself. The fetus did not act, and therefore the fetus is not the violator of rights. As such, if it is to be removed from this situation, it must be removed in such a way as not to kill it. I've no problem with removing fetuses from the mother. I do have a problem with killing them.

Yes, you've said all this before.

Now explain why the foetus should get rights -- even if it were a person -- that literally no-one else has.

Somebody cannot legally force you to give them a kidney (even if it the only available one to save their life). Someone cannot be made to lie still until a rapist finishes. Someone who walks into your home, without your consent, and refuses to leave can be forcibly removed. Someone who becomes violent (even though they may be utterly unaware of what they are doing) can be halted with the minimum force (even if that leads to their death).

Why are we meant to believe a foetus (who you want to treat as a person) gets special rights?

And do not answer with talk about "innocent little babies" -- it is not a baby until it's born, and, as several of those scenarios show, innocence is irrelevant in matters involving the invasion of your bodily sovereignty.

[The New California Republic]

And no pro-lifer has yet been able to explain why a fetus has a right to their mother's body when a person who desperately needs an organ DOESN'T have the right to force anyone to give them an organ.

A fetus doesn't necessarily have a right to their mother's body, but he or she does necessarily have a right to life.

According to what?

So if you can remove the fetus from the mother without killing it , than the mother has the right to have that done.

Since that can't be done in the time period that the vast majority of abortions take place, then I don't know why you are suggesting it.

Otherwise, you, and not the child, are the rights-violator.

It. Isn't. A. Child. I honestly think you are just doing this on purpose at this point, as there really is no excuse, given we have repeatedly told you that it isn't a child.

If killing humans of any size were made a crime, the healthcare industry would have significant incentives to find other ways, and I'm sure they could.

So "ban it and hope that the situation it creates is ameliorated further down the line"; sorry, but that's just not good enough.

But for now, their default response is tragically: "Kill the baby!!!" And that needs to stop.

It isn't a baby either. It is a fetus. You have been told about this too.

The action which put the fetus in a position of using another person's body for medical benefit was not the fetus's, but the action of nature itself. The fetus did not act, and therefore the fetus is not the violator of rights.

It is actually possible for rights to passively be violated by something without intent, including bodily sovereignty rights.

[Antityranicals]

The action which put the fetus in a position of using another person's body for medical benefit was not the fetus's, but the action of nature itself. The fetus did not act, and therefore the fetus is not the violator of rights. As such, if it is to be removed from this situation, it must be removed in such a way as not to kill it. I've no problem with removing fetuses from the mother. I do have a problem with killing them.

Yes, you've said all this before.

Now explain why the foetus should get rights -- even if it were a person -- that literally no-one else has.

Somebody cannot legally force you to give them a kidney (even if it the only available one to save your life). Someone cannot be made to lie still until a rapist finishes. Someone who walks into your home, without your consent, and refuses to leave can be forcibly removed. Someone who becomes violent (even though they may be utterly unaware of what they are doing) can be halted with the minimum force (even if that leads to their death).

Why are we meant to believe a foetus (who you want to treat as a person) gets special rights?

And do not answer with talk about "innocent little babies" -- it is not a baby until it's born, and, as several of those scenarios show, innocence is irrelevant in matters involving the invasion of your bodily sovereignty.

It all comes down to whether or not the fetus is an aggressor. All of these examples you give except are aggressors, the fetus cannot be, as it is not intentionally invading the mother's body. And the last statement you give is incorrect; if the person is not in sane mind (or at least as sane as his or her mind ever is...), you may not kill him or her, period. You may maim him or her, if necessary, but killing such a person is manslaughter, if you know that he or she is not in right mind.

[The New California Republic]

The action which put the fetus in a position of using another person's body for medical benefit was not the fetus's, but the action of nature itself. The fetus did not act, and therefore the fetus is not the violator of rights. As such, if it is to be removed from this situation, it must be removed in such a way as not to kill it. I've no problem with removing fetuses from the mother. I do have a problem with killing them.

Yes, you've said all this before.

Now explain why the foetus should get rights -- even if it were a person -- that literally no-one else has.

Somebody cannot legally force you to give them a kidney (even if it the only available one to save your life). Someone cannot be made to lie still until a rapist finishes. Someone who walks into your home, without your consent, and refuses to leave can be forcibly removed. Someone who becomes violent (even though they may be utterly unaware of what they are doing) can be halted with the minimum force (even if that leads to their death).

Why are we meant to believe a foetus (who you want to treat as a person) gets special rights?

And do not answer with talk about "innocent little babies" -- it is not a baby until it's born, and, as several of those scenarios show, innocence is irrelevant in matters involving the invasion of your bodily sovereignty.

If all had the same right in some strange circumstance where one's continued life depended on controlling the body of another for 9 months against their will, and the other had no form of redress to stop it, then he'd perhaps have an argument, but there are just no cases of such a thing happening; barring the relevant aforementioned McFall v. Shimp case, which indicates that such a thing would not be OK.

[The Free Joy State]

Yes, you've said all this before.

Now explain why the foetus should get rights -- even if it were a person -- that literally no-one else has.

Somebody cannot legally force you to give them a kidney (even if it the only available one to save your life). Someone cannot be made to lie still until a rapist finishes. Someone who walks into your home, without your consent, and refuses to leave can be forcibly removed. Someone who becomes violent (even though they may be utterly unaware of what they are doing) can be halted with the minimum force (even if that leads to their death).

Why are we meant to believe a foetus (who you want to treat as a person) gets special rights?

And do not answer with talk about "innocent little babies" -- it is not a baby until it's born, and, as several of those scenarios show, innocence is irrelevant in matters involving the invasion of your bodily sovereignty.

It all comes down to whether or not the fetus is an aggressor. All of these examples you give except are aggressors, the fetus cannot be, as it is not intentionally invading the mother's body. And the last statement you give is incorrect; if the person is not in sane mind (or at least as sane as his or her mind ever is...), you may not kill him or her, period. You may maim him or her, if necessary, but killing such a person is manslaughter, if you know that he or she is not in right mind.

The person who needs a kidney isn't an aggressor. The person who is unaware of what they are doing but is attacking you, perhaps out of fear, is not deliberately an aggressor. You still don't have to give a kidney and if the minimum force needed is to kill the person who is attacking you (if they will not stop and it is the only way to save your life) -- yes, you can.

You don't have to let yourself be slaughtered just because the other person's actions are not deliberate.

Similarly with the foetus. They don't mean to be there, they don't mean to risk the mother's life, to cause her distress and invade her bodily sovereignty -- but, with an unwilling pregnancy, they do. The minimum force to remove a foetus and preserve your bodily sovereignty with immediate effect is abortion.

[Godular]

Yes, you've said all this before.

Now explain why the foetus should get rights -- even if it were a person -- that literally no-one else has.

Somebody cannot legally force you to give them a kidney (even if it the only available one to save your life). Someone cannot be made to lie still until a rapist finishes. Someone who walks into your home, without your consent, and refuses to leave can be forcibly removed. Someone who becomes violent (even though they may be utterly unaware of what they are doing) can be halted with the minimum force (even if that leads to their death).

Why are we meant to believe a foetus (who you want to treat as a person) gets special rights?

And do not answer with talk about "innocent little babies" -- it is not a baby until it's born, and, as several of those scenarios show, innocence is irrelevant in matters involving the invasion of your bodily sovereignty.

It all comes down to whether or not the fetus is an aggressor. All of these examples you give except are aggressors, the fetus cannot be, as it is not intentionally invading the mother's body.

Such is irrelevant. One does not need to be presenting a threat of harm intentionally for measures to be taken.

And the last statement you give is incorrect; if the person is not in sane mind (or at least as sane as his or her mind ever is...), you may not kill him or her, period.

Yes you can. Period.

[Antityranicals]

A fetus doesn't necessarily have a right to their mother's body, but he or she does necessarily have a right to life.

According to what?

So if you can remove the fetus from the mother without killing it , than the mother has the right to have that done.

Since that can't be done in the time period that the vast majority of abortions take place, then I don't know why you are suggesting it.

Otherwise, you, and not the child, are the rights-violator.

It. Isn't. A. Child. I honestly think you are just doing this on purpose at this point, as there really is no excuse, given we have repeatedly told you that it isn't a child.

If killing humans of any size were made a crime, the healthcare industry would have significant incentives to find other ways, and I'm sure they could.

So "ban it and hope that the situation it creates is ameliorated further down the line"; sorry, but that's just not good enough.

But for now, their default response is tragically: "Kill the baby!!!" And that needs to stop.

It isn't a baby either. It is a fetus. You have been told about this too.

The action which put the fetus in a position of using another person's body for medical benefit was not the fetus's, but the action of nature itself. The fetus did not act, and therefore the fetus is not the violator of rights.

It is actually possible for rights to passively be violated by something without intent, including bodily sovereignty rights.

1. The fact that the fetus is human, and all humans have the right to life.
2. Then wait, rather than kill. We currently have the technology to do it in the second trimester, which isn't bad at all.
3. And you have repeatedly been wrong.
4. Yes, ban murder, and people will naturally find other solutions. They always do.
5. A fetus is a baby, just as both a baby and a fetus are children.

[Antityranicals]

It all comes down to whether or not the fetus is an aggressor. All of these examples you give except are aggressors, the fetus cannot be, as it is not intentionally invading the mother's body. And the last statement you give is incorrect; if the person is not in sane mind (or at least as sane as his or her mind ever is...), you may not kill him or her, period. You may maim him or her, if necessary, but killing such a person is manslaughter, if you know that he or she is not in right mind.

The person who needs a kidney isn't an aggressor. The person who is unaware of what they are doing but is attacking you, perhaps out of fear, is not deliberately an aggressor. You still don't have to give a kidney and if the minimum force needed is to kill the person who is attacking you (if they will not stop and it is the only way to save your life) -- yes, you can.

The minimum force to remove a foetus and preserve your bodily sovereignty with immediate effect is abortion.

The person who needs a kidney and tries to procure it from you with force is an aggressor. And this is some scary territory you're going into. Say you for some reason are sleepwalking (It's pretty easy to tell if someone's sleepwalking from otherwise), and you attack someone, and even though they know you're sleepwalking, they kill you anyway. This is okay, under your twisted definition of morality.

[The New California Republic]

And the last statement you give is incorrect; if the person is not in sane mind (or at least as sane as his or her mind ever is...), you may not kill him or her, period.

You are entirely wrong. If someone is attacking me and I consider my life in danger, then if the minimum force needed to stop them results in their death, then the fact that the person has paranoid schizophrenia or whatever is irrelevant.

The fact that the fetus is human, and all humans have the right to life.

That doesn't answer why the fetus has a right to life.

Then wait, rather than kill. We currently have the technology to do it in the second trimester, which isn't bad at all.

It's still asking the woman to sign over her bodily sovereignty for months, and then undergo a c-section to remove the fetus, so it isn't a solution at all.

A fetus is a baby, just as both a baby and a fetus are children.

Wrong. You have been repeatedly shown why you are wrong, and sticking your head in the sand doesn't change that.

Yes, ban murder, and people will naturally find other solutions. They always do.

I have no idea what the fuck you are trying to say with this statement, it makes no sense at all.

[Ifreann]

The person who needs a kidney isn't an aggressor. The person who is unaware of what they are doing but is attacking you, perhaps out of fear, is not deliberately an aggressor. You still don't have to give a kidney and if the minimum force needed is to kill the person who is attacking you (if they will not stop and it is the only way to save your life) -- yes, you can.

The minimum force to remove a foetus and preserve your bodily sovereignty with immediate effect is abortion.

The person who needs a kidney and tries to procure it from you with force is an aggressor. And this is some scary territory you're going into. Say you for some reason are sleepwalking (It's pretty easy to tell if someone's sleepwalking from otherwise), and you attack someone, and even though they know you're sleepwalking, they kill you anyway. This is okay, under your twisted definition of morality.

If someone is hurting me, or is about to hurt me, why should I ever have to allow that? Shouldn't I be allowed to use force to defend myself, regardless of whether the person is intentionally trying to hurt me or it's an accident or they're somehow unaware of what they're doing or not in control of their own actions or whatever?

[Antityranicals]

And the last statement you give is incorrect; if the person is not in sane mind (or at least as sane as his or her mind ever is...), you may not kill him or her, period.

You are entirely wrong. If someone is attacking me and I consider my life in danger, then if the minimum force needed to stop them results in their death, then the fact that the person has paranoid schizophrenia or whatever is irrelevant.

The fact that the fetus is human, and all humans have the right to life.

That doesn't answer why the fetus has a right to life.

Then wait, rather than kill. We currently have the technology to do it in the second trimester, which isn't bad at all.

It's still asking the woman to sign over her bodily sovereignty for months, and then undergo a c-section to remove the fetus, so it isn't a solution at all.

A fetus is a baby, just as both a baby and a fetus are children.

Wrong. You have been repeatedly shown why you are wrong, and sticking your head in the sand doesn't change that.

Yes, ban murder, and people will naturally find other solutions. They always do.

I have no idea what the fuck you are trying to say with this statement, it makes no sense at all.

1. That's why I added the additional requirement of knowing that the attacker is not in right mind. Everyone knows that much about a fetus.
2. Yes it does! It literally does! Unless you deny that humans have rights...
3. She's not signing over anything. In most cases, she voluntarily had sex, and such has consequences. Anyway, it's either that or birth, because killing the fetus is not acceptable, just like killing you for a heart transplant is not acceptable.
4. A child is simply an immature human. I don't know what's so complicated about that.

[Antityranicals]

The person who needs a kidney and tries to procure it from you with force is an aggressor. And this is some scary territory you're going into. Say you for some reason are sleepwalking (It's pretty easy to tell if someone's sleepwalking from otherwise), and you attack someone, and even though they know you're sleepwalking, they kill you anyway. This is okay, under your twisted definition of morality.

If someone is hurting me, or is about to hurt me, why should I ever have to allow that? Shouldn't I be allowed to use force to defend myself, regardless of whether the person is intentionally trying to hurt me or it's an accident or they're somehow unaware of what they're doing or not in control of their own actions or whatever?

Sure you can use force, just not lethal force.

[The New California Republic]

The person who needs a kidney and tries to procure it from you with force is an aggressor. And this is some scary territory you're going into. Say you for some reason are sleepwalking (It's pretty easy to tell if someone's sleepwalking from otherwise), and you attack someone, and even though they know you're sleepwalking, they kill you anyway. This is okay, under your twisted definition of morality.

If the minimum force needed is to kill the person who is attacking you, regardless of whether they are sleepwalking, then it would still be fine. Similarly in cases where someone has been unaware of what they are doing while under the influence of narcotics etc, then defending yourself against their attacks—if the minimum force needed results in their death—is still fine.

[The Free Joy State]

2. Then wait, rather than kill. We currently have the technology to do it in the second trimester, which isn't bad at all.

A. The woman doesn't want it in her body. This does nothing to solve the basic bodily autonomy problem.
B. Categorically misleading. The chance of it surviving at 24 weeks (the cut of for abortion in most countries) is less than 50%. Foetal viability is near zero before 22 weeks. The woman would have to be pregnant until the legal limit, to give birth to a baby with a small chance of surviving and with a high chance of severe health problems (including intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, chronic lung disease, severe visual impairment, hearing impairment, and cognitive developmental delay).

This would be cruel to the pregnant woman, and to their surviving offspring.

[Ifreann]

If someone is hurting me, or is about to hurt me, why should I ever have to allow that? Shouldn't I be allowed to use force to defend myself, regardless of whether the person is intentionally trying to hurt me or it's an accident or they're somehow unaware of what they're doing or not in control of their own actions or whatever?

Sure you can use force, just not lethal force.

That's a less clear distinction that you might imagine. There are instances of people surviving gunshots to the head. There are instances of people dying from a single punch.

[Kernen]

If someone is hurting me, or is about to hurt me, why should I ever have to allow that? Shouldn't I be allowed to use force to defend myself, regardless of whether the person is intentionally trying to hurt me or it's an accident or they're somehow unaware of what they're doing or not in control of their own actions or whatever?

Sure you can use force, just not lethal force.

Lethal force is justified when faced with a threat of significant bodily harm. Full stop.

[The New California Republic]

That's why I added the additional requirement of knowing that the attacker is not in right mind.

Yes, you added it. It isn't actually a thing.

Yes it does! It literally does! Unless you deny that humans have rights...

You are getting confused between people and humans again. Many of the rights we have are actually on the basis of being persons, as shown by fetuses not being extended such rights.

She's not signing over anything. In most cases, she voluntarily had sex, and such has consequences.

"Pregnancy as punishment for sex"! Everybody drink!

A child is simply an immature human. I don't know what's so complicated about that.

We have shown you repeatedly the definitions that demonstrate that your use of the words is wrong, but you continue to take a dump on the dictionary through your gross misuse of said words. Hence why I can only conclude that the misuse is entirely intentional. Rather ironic in light of what you said earlier:

Words are meant to convey meaning

[The Free Joy State]

The person who needs a kidney isn't an aggressor. The person who is unaware of what they are doing but is attacking you, perhaps out of fear, is not deliberately an aggressor. You still don't have to give a kidney and if the minimum force needed is to kill the person who is attacking you (if they will not stop and it is the only way to save your life) -- yes, you can.

The minimum force to remove a foetus and preserve your bodily sovereignty with immediate effect is abortion.

The person who needs a kidney and tries to procure it from you with force is an aggressor. And this is some scary territory you're going into. Say you for some reason are sleepwalking (It's pretty easy to tell if someone's sleepwalking from otherwise), and you attack someone, and even though they know you're sleepwalking, they kill you anyway. This is okay, under your twisted definition of morality.

I said "legally force", not "physically force" (as in the case of McFall v. Shimp -- where a man sued his cousin to force him to give him his kidney; unsuccessfully, because violating bodily sovereignty, even to save a life, would "defeat the sanctity of the individual and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn.", to quote the Judge).

And I find it rather more scary that anyone would think one ought to perform a full mental capacity assessment on the person attempting to kill them, before attempting to fully defend oneself. Fortunately, the courts do no such thing.

She's not signing over anything. In most cases, she voluntarily had sex, and such has consequences.

"Pregnancy as punishment for sex"! Everybody drink!

A range of sparkling waters and cordials are provided for those who prefer to remain sober today.