[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[Equai]

The women.

(Posting with the assumption you meant that as "the woman" and not a group of unnamed women who approve or deny abortions)

So you've conceded women are the only relevant half of the equation.

Yes because its in their body and their health depends on it? It's quite simple if you think about it. It's their rights, their choice and their body. No one elses really. It would be the same if you men were the unlucky ones to be able to be pregnant instead of women. Even tho if men were the pregnant ones the abortion would've been legalized long time ago.

[Des-Bal]

Yes because its in their body and their health depends on it? It's quite simple if you think about it. It's their rights, their choice and their body. No one elses really. It would be the same if you men were the unlucky ones to be able to be pregnant instead of women. Even tho if men were the pregnant ones the abortion would've been legalized long time ago.

Well 1) you just agreed with me and 2) that's just not right men our society gleefully imposes responsibility on men.

You don’t seem to understand my argument or it’s context, this is it : people who can get pregnant are only half the equation when it comes to getting pregnant but during and after pregnancy we, biologically or because of sexism, hold the vast majority of the responsibilities of having or expecting a child this means that abortion should be entirely in the hold of the person who can be pregnant, not the person who got the, pregnant. It also means that banning abortion only hurts people who can get pregnant.

No I do. Asymmetrical risk warrants asymmetrical responsibility it's just that whether you agree or disagree with that is keyed to whether responsibility comes with benefits.

[New haven america]

Yes because its in their body and their health depends on it? It's quite simple if you think about it. It's their rights, their choice and their body. No one elses really. It would be the same if you men were the unlucky ones to be able to be pregnant instead of women. Even tho if men were the pregnant ones the abortion would've been legalized long time ago.

Well 1) you just agreed with me and 2) that's just not right men our society gleefully imposes responsibility on men.

You don’t seem to understand my argument or it’s context, this is it : people who can get pregnant are only half the equation when it comes to getting pregnant but during and after pregnancy we, biologically or because of sexism, hold the vast majority of the responsibilities of having or expecting a child this means that abortion should be entirely in the hold of the person who can be pregnant, not the person who got the, pregnant. It also means that banning abortion only hurts people who can get pregnant.

No I do. Asymmetrical risk warrants asymmetrical responsibility it's just that whether you agree or disagree with that is keyed to whether responsibility comes with benefits.

Imagine being a libertarian and arguing that people shouldn't have a choice in what they want to do with their lives.

Oh wait, that's exactly what you're doing.

[Islamic Essarn]

Yes because its in their body and their health depends on it? It's quite simple if you think about it. It's their rights, their choice and their body. No one elses really. It would be the same if you men were the unlucky ones to be able to be pregnant instead of women. Even tho if men were the pregnant ones the abortion would've been legalized long time ago.

Well 1) you just agreed with me and 2) that's just not right men our society gleefully imposes responsibility on men.

You don’t seem to understand my argument or it’s context, this is it : people who can get pregnant are only half the equation when it comes to getting pregnant but during and after pregnancy we, biologically or because of sexism, hold the vast majority of the responsibilities of having or expecting a child this means that abortion should be entirely in the hold of the person who can be pregnant, not the person who got the, pregnant. It also means that banning abortion only hurts people who can get pregnant.

No I do. Asymmetrical risk warrants asymmetrical responsibility it's just that whether you agree or disagree with that is keyed to whether responsibility comes with benefits.

Sometimes responsibility comes worth benefits but in this case they don’t. As evidenced by postpartum depression, death in childbirth, 43% of formally pregnant people leave the work force. If you want to argue that those are positive responsibilities then i’m all ready.

[Des-Bal]

Imagine being a libertarian and arguing that people shouldn't have a choice in what they want to do with their lives.

Oh wait, that's exactly what you're doing.

Point to literally any instance of me saying a person shouldn't be able to have an abortion. Fetuses aren't people, having an abortion has the same moral weight as sunbathing- you're allowed to kill your cells.

I don't stop pointing out bullshit rhetoric just because I agree with the general position of those espousing it.

[Stellar Colonies]

(Posting with the assumption you meant that as "the woman" and not a group of unnamed women who approve or deny abortions)

So you've conceded women are the only relevant half of the equation.

Yes because its in their body and their health depends on it? It's quite simple if you think about it. It's their rights, their choice and their body. No one elses really. It would be the same if you men were the unlucky ones to be able to be pregnant instead of women. Even tho if men were the pregnant ones the abortion would've been legalized long time ago.

Even tho if men were the pregnant ones the abortion would've been legalized long time ago.

I have my doubts regarding this considering that infant circumcision still festers on, but giving control over one's body to the one with the body is indeed the morally correct choice.

[Des-Bal]

Sometimes responsibility comes worth benefits but in this case they don’t. As evidenced by postpartum depression, death in childbirth, 43% of formally pregnant people leave the work force. If you want to argue that those are positive responsibilities then i’m all ready.

Are you arguing women deserve those things?

[Islamic Essarn]

Sometimes responsibility comes worth benefits but in this case they don’t. As evidenced by postpartum depression, death in childbirth, 43% of formally pregnant people leave the work force. If you want to argue that those are positive responsibilities then i’m all ready.

Are you arguing women deserve those things?

No, I’m arguing that in this current day and age the person who can get pregnant suffer far more then person who got her pregnant

[Des-Bal]

No, I’m arguing that in this current day and age the person who can get pregnant suffer far more then person who got her pregnant

Okay so you're not in any way contradicting the statement you responded to.

Asymmetrical risk warrants asymmetrical responsibility it's just that whether you agree or disagree with that is keyed to whether responsibility comes with benefits.

If you were saying "women deserve to suffer!" I would say "while totally insane that does rebut my argument, clearly you are consistent in your beliefs."

[Islamic Essarn]

No, I’m arguing that in this current day and age the person who can get pregnant suffer far more then person who got her pregnant

Okay so you're not in any way contradicting the statement you responded to.

Asymmetrical risk warrants asymmetrical responsibility it's just that whether you agree or disagree with that is keyed to whether responsibility comes with benefits.

If you were saying "women deserve to suffer!" I would say "while totally insane that does rebut my argument, clearly you are consistent in your beliefs."

No I’m not. I’m arguing that the pregnant person should get to decide because in this day and age she, he, or they will be the one pay the consequences of having that child despite the fact that the person with the egg and the person with sperm hold equal responsibility in forming that pregnancy.

[Des-Bal]

No I’m not. I’m arguing that the pregnant person should get to decide because in this day and age she, he, or they will be the one pay the consequences of having that child despite the fact that the person with the egg and the person with sperm hold equal responsibility in forming that pregnancy.

Who should decide if a woman is going to get an IUD?

[Islamic Essarn]

No I’m not. I’m arguing that the pregnant person should get to decide because in this day and age she, he, or they will be the one pay the consequences of having that child despite the fact that the person with the egg and the person with sperm hold equal responsibility in forming that pregnancy.

Who should decide if a woman is going to get an IUD?

The person who is getting the IUD implanted

[Des-Bal]

The person who is getting the IUD implanted

Of course, it makes sense because it's totally asymmetrical and you agree because it involves a power.

[Islamic Essarn]

The person who is getting the IUD implanted

Of course, it makes sense because it's totally asymmetrical and you agree because it involves a power.

Feel that you never understood my argument

[Des-Bal]

Feel that you never understood my argument

I understood it completely, understood it so well I called my shot twice. Women have vastly more control over whether or not they become pregnant and have more reason to be concerned they may become pregnant than any men they're associated with. Despite having more control and a greater stake you're able to get to 50/50 responsibility because there's no advantage in not getting there.

[Islamic Essarn]

Feel that you never understood my argument

I understood it completely, understood it so well I called my shot twice. Women have vastly more control over whether or not they become pregnant and have more reason to be concerned they may become pregnant than any men they're associated with. Despite having more control and a greater stake you're able to get to 50/50 responsibility because there's no advantage in not getting there.

First of all, both you attempts to break my arguments were both unsuccessful and showed a lack of understanding for my argument.
Do you seriously think that when it comes to reproduction men are discriminated against.

[Des-Bal]

First of all, both you attempts to break my arguments were both unsuccessful and showed a lack of understanding for my argument.
Do you seriously think that when it comes to reproduction men are discriminated against.

You behaved as predicted in 100% of simulations.

Yes, men are required to pay child support to their rapists but that's not really relevant. Assuming no discrimination exists against men in any arena whatsoever it doesn't actually change the equation. If women have the power, which we have agreed is appropriate, and women face the risks which we have agreed is the case, women have a larger share of the responsibility.

[Stellar Colonies]

Hermesmann v. Seyer

Hermesmann v. Seyer (State of Kansas ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer, 847 P.2d 1273 (Kan. 1993)), was a precedent-setting Kansas, United States case in which Colleen Hermesmann successfully argued that a woman is entitled to sue the father of her child for child support even if conception occurred as a result of a criminal act committed by the woman. The case was brought in her name by the then Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services.

Hermesmann was a babysitter for Shane Seyer during 1987 and 1988. When Hermesmann was 16, she began a sexual relationship with Seyer who was 12 years old. When she was 17 and Seyer was 13, she became pregnant and their daughter was born in 1989. Criminal charges had been brought against Hermesmann by Shawnee County, Kansas, accusing her of "engaging in the act of sexual intercourse with a child under sixteen" whilst she herself was a juvenile.: 448  In the event she stipulated as a juvenile offender to "contributing to a child's misconduct" which is not a sexual offense.: 448 

In 1991, the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, in Hermesmann's name, took Seyer to court seeking child support. Hermesmann's criminal culpability was not addressed in this trial, as this was purely a civil court case. The Department also sought and was awarded $7,000, equivalent to $13,900 in 2021, for its own costs. However, in the later Supreme Court hearing, the Department stated it never had any intention of collecting its award.

In 1993, the Kansas Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Seyer that he was not liable to pay for child support. The court held that the admitted facts established that, because being under 16 he had been legally unable to consent to sex, a crime against him had been committed under statutory rape law, but that Seyer had actually given consent to the acts under civil law. The court ruled that "at no time did Shane register any complaint to his parents about the sexual liaison with Colleen". The court also ruled that a mother's potential culpability under criminal statutes was of no relevance in determining the father's child support liability in a civil action. The court stated "The State's interest in requiring minor parents to support their children overrides the State's competing interest in protecting juveniles from improvident acts, even when such acts may include criminal activity on the part of the other parent".

The case established a precedent which has subsequently been used in the Kansas courts. It is one of the earlier cases now cited in U.S. child-support guidelines which say that in every case that has addressed the issue the court has decided that an underage boy is liable for the support of his child even when the conception was the result of criminal conduct by the mother.

In a 1997 case before the Florida District Court of Appeal, the court's decision cited Hermesmann, saying that the Kansas decision was taken even though the Kansas statute states "a person under 15 years of age is incapable of consent as a matter of law". The court also remarked that "the Kansas court did not address the question of whether lack of actual consent (apart from the statutory definition) could form the basis of a defense to an action to establish paternity". In this case also the question of whether actual non-consent might be a defense was not before the court.

[Islamic Essarn]

First of all, both you attempts to break my arguments were both unsuccessful and showed a lack of understanding for my argument.
Do you seriously think that when it comes to reproduction men are discriminated against.

You behaved as predicted in 100% of simulations.

Yes, men are required to pay child support to their rapists but that's not really relevant. Assuming no discrimination exists against men in any arena whatsoever it doesn't actually change the equation. If women have the power, which we have agreed is appropriate, and women face the risks which we have agreed is the case, women have a larger share of the responsibility.

First of all how many men do you know who have been raped by women.
Second of all the reason that women have more power is because we carry the pregnancy in our body.
Third of all women suffer much more then men after having children
Fourth of all all birth controls and abortion methods, other then condemns, happen to a woman's body so the only conversation that comes out of your reasoning is whether a man gets to decide whether he where a condemn which he already can.

[New haven america]

I understood it completely, understood it so well I called my shot twice. Women have vastly more control over whether or not they become pregnant and have more reason to be concerned they may become pregnant than any men they're associated with. Despite having more control and a greater stake you're able to get to 50/50 responsibility because there's no advantage in not getting there.

First of all, both you attempts to break my arguments were both unsuccessful and showed a lack of understanding for my argument.
Do you seriously think that when it comes to reproduction men are discriminated against.

Yes.

Both sides face reproductive discrimination.

[Islamic Essarn]

First of all, both you attempts to break my arguments were both unsuccessful and showed a lack of understanding for my argument.
Do you seriously think that when it comes to reproduction men are discriminated against.

Yes.

Both sides face reproductive discrimination.

Name one reason

[Stellar Colonies]

Yes.

Both sides face reproductive discrimination.

Name one reason

Hermesmann v. Seyer

Hermesmann v. Seyer (State of Kansas ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer, 847 P.2d 1273 (Kan. 1993)), was a precedent-setting Kansas, United States case in which Colleen Hermesmann successfully argued that a woman is entitled to sue the father of her child for child support even if conception occurred as a result of a criminal act committed by the woman. The case was brought in her name by the then Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services.

Hermesmann was a babysitter for Shane Seyer during 1987 and 1988. When Hermesmann was 16, she began a sexual relationship with Seyer who was 12 years old. When she was 17 and Seyer was 13, she became pregnant and their daughter was born in 1989. Criminal charges had been brought against Hermesmann by Shawnee County, Kansas, accusing her of "engaging in the act of sexual intercourse with a child under sixteen" whilst she herself was a juvenile.: 448  In the event she stipulated as a juvenile offender to "contributing to a child's misconduct" which is not a sexual offense.: 448 

In 1991, the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, in Hermesmann's name, took Seyer to court seeking child support. Hermesmann's criminal culpability was not addressed in this trial, as this was purely a civil court case. The Department also sought and was awarded $7,000, equivalent to $13,900 in 2021, for its own costs. However, in the later Supreme Court hearing, the Department stated it never had any intention of collecting its award.

In 1993, the Kansas Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Seyer that he was not liable to pay for child support. The court held that the admitted facts established that, because being under 16 he had been legally unable to consent to sex, a crime against him had been committed under statutory rape law, but that Seyer had actually given consent to the acts under civil law. The court ruled that "at no time did Shane register any complaint to his parents about the sexual liaison with Colleen". The court also ruled that a mother's potential culpability under criminal statutes was of no relevance in determining the father's child support liability in a civil action. The court stated "The State's interest in requiring minor parents to support their children overrides the State's competing interest in protecting juveniles from improvident acts, even when such acts may include criminal activity on the part of the other parent".

The case established a precedent which has subsequently been used in the Kansas courts. It is one of the earlier cases now cited in U.S. child-support guidelines which say that in every case that has addressed the issue the court has decided that an underage boy is liable for the support of his child even when the conception was the result of criminal conduct by the mother.

In a 1997 case before the Florida District Court of Appeal, the court's decision cited Hermesmann, saying that the Kansas decision was taken even though the Kansas statute states "a person under 15 years of age is incapable of consent as a matter of law". The court also remarked that "the Kansas court did not address the question of whether lack of actual consent (apart from the statutory definition) could form the basis of a defense to an action to establish paternity". In this case also the question of whether actual non-consent might be a defense was not before the court.

[Islamic Essarn]

Name one reason

Hermesmann v. Seyer

Hermesmann v. Seyer (State of Kansas ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer, 847 P.2d 1273 (Kan. 1993)), was a precedent-setting Kansas, United States case in which Colleen Hermesmann successfully argued that a woman is entitled to sue the father of her child for child support even if conception occurred as a result of a criminal act committed by the woman. The case was brought in her name by the then Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services.

Hermesmann was a babysitter for Shane Seyer during 1987 and 1988. When Hermesmann was 16, she began a sexual relationship with Seyer who was 12 years old. When she was 17 and Seyer was 13, she became pregnant and their daughter was born in 1989. Criminal charges had been brought against Hermesmann by Shawnee County, Kansas, accusing her of "engaging in the act of sexual intercourse with a child under sixteen" whilst she herself was a juvenile.: 448  In the event she stipulated as a juvenile offender to "contributing to a child's misconduct" which is not a sexual offense.: 448 

In 1991, the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, in Hermesmann's name, took Seyer to court seeking child support. Hermesmann's criminal culpability was not addressed in this trial, as this was purely a civil court case. The Department also sought and was awarded $7,000, equivalent to $13,900 in 2021, for its own costs. However, in the later Supreme Court hearing, the Department stated it never had any intention of collecting its award.

In 1993, the Kansas Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Seyer that he was not liable to pay for child support. The court held that the admitted facts established that, because being under 16 he had been legally unable to consent to sex, a crime against him had been committed under statutory rape law, but that Seyer had actually given consent to the acts under civil law. The court ruled that "at no time did Shane register any complaint to his parents about the sexual liaison with Colleen". The court also ruled that a mother's potential culpability under criminal statutes was of no relevance in determining the father's child support liability in a civil action. The court stated "The State's interest in requiring minor parents to support their children overrides the State's competing interest in protecting juveniles from improvident acts, even when such acts may include criminal activity on the part of the other parent".

The case established a precedent which has subsequently been used in the Kansas courts. It is one of the earlier cases now cited in U.S. child-support guidelines which say that in every case that has addressed the issue the court has decided that an underage boy is liable for the support of his child even when the conception was the result of criminal conduct by the mother.

In a 1997 case before the Florida District Court of Appeal, the court's decision cited Hermesmann, saying that the Kansas decision was taken even though the Kansas statute states "a person under 15 years of age is incapable of consent as a matter of law". The court also remarked that "the Kansas court did not address the question of whether lack of actual consent (apart from the statutory definition) could form the basis of a defense to an action to establish paternity". In this case also the question of whether actual non-consent might be a defense was not before the court.

Well, if a women is raped then she still has to provide for her child.

[Stellar Colonies]

Well, if a women is raped then she still has to provide for her child.

I fail to see the relevancy of that regarding the court case.

[Des-Bal]

First of all how many men do you know who have been raped by women.
Second of all the reason that women have more power is because we carry the pregnancy in our body.
Third of all women suffer much more then men after having children
Fourth of all all birth controls and abortion methods, other then condemns, happen to a woman's body so the only conversation that comes out of your reasoning is whether a man gets to decide whether he where a condemn which he already can.

1. I'm not counting them, it's weird you would ask me to do that. But to the implied suggestion that men are rarely if ever raped by women men are about as likely to report being made to nonconsensually penetrate a woman as women are to report being nonconsensually penetrated by a man.
2. Nifty, changes nothing.
3. That was literally one of my points.
4a. Nifty changes nothing.
4b. A man can't wear a condom without 1) his partner's permisson 2) committing rape.

I pointed out an imbalance exists, you're going into detail on why it exists. You're not actually rebutting me.