Advertisement
by Vassenor » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:29 am
by Proctopeo » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:30 am
by SD_Film Artists » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:30 am
Ethel mermania wrote:I dunno about rape, but Fraud certainly. The victim is entitled to damages from the harm caused by the fraud.
by United Muscovite Nations » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:30 am
The Emerald Legion wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:Yes, if it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Nonsense. People will always make up arbitrary standards. I would say that consenting to sex on the condition that contraception be used, followed by the woman not using that contraception, means the child isn't his. He disowned it before it existed. And thereby has no rights as a father, nor duties as a father.
Much like a Sperm donor is not considered the father of a child legally.
Perhaps even open up to charges of theft? Intellectual property violations? Not sure. She's using material she has no right to to create something she shouldn't be.
by The Emerald Legion » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:32 am
United Muscovite Nations wrote:The Emerald Legion wrote:
Nonsense. People will always make up arbitrary standards. I would say that consenting to sex on the condition that contraception be used, followed by the woman not using that contraception, means the child isn't his. He disowned it before it existed. And thereby has no rights as a father, nor duties as a father.
Much like a Sperm donor is not considered the father of a child legally.
Perhaps even open up to charges of theft? Intellectual property violations? Not sure. She's using material she has no right to to create something she shouldn't be.
This logic also applies even if there was no deception, because the man "disowns" his child before it's born. This is just an extension of intellectual abortion rights to men.
by United Muscovite Nations » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:35 am
The Emerald Legion wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:This logic also applies even if there was no deception, because the man "disowns" his child before it's born. This is just an extension of intellectual abortion rights to men.
I don't see an issue with that. Even if a child has a right to care, it doesn't have a right to a specific persons care. Orphanages are a thing and should be better funded. Then again I also once argued orphanages should be mandatory.
by Andsed » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:35 am
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Andsed wrote:Bullshit. Getting someone is pregnant by accident through consensual sex is in no way similar to being raped and the woman who raped you getting pregnant.
For years we've listened to people tell us that consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy to justify abortion. Some consistency would be nice.
by United Muscovite Nations » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:38 am
Andsed wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:For years we've listened to people tell us that consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy to justify abortion. Some consistency would be nice.
Uh no. When you have unprotected sex with someone you did not consent to pregnancy but if it does happen and you choose to carry out the birth you were not forced into anything and thus you chose to be a parent. If you were raped you were forced into having a child and did not get a choice. Huge difference there. Forcing someone who was raped to care for a child that they never had a choice in conceiving is completely immoral. If that person chooses to help then that is one thing but forcing them against their will to do so is unjustifiable.
by Andsed » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:40 am
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Andsed wrote:Uh no. When you have unprotected sex with someone you did not consent to pregnancy but if it does happen and you choose to carry out the birth you were not forced into anything and thus you chose to be a parent. If you were raped you were forced into having a child and did not get a choice. Huge difference there. Forcing someone who was raped to care for a child that they never had a choice in conceiving is completely immoral. If that person chooses to help then that is one thing but forcing them against their will to do so is unjustifiable.
The underlined statements are explicitly contradictory. For one, it implies that consent to one thing is a consent to all of the potential consequences of that thing.
by United Muscovite Nations » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:41 am
Andsed wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:The underlined statements are explicitly contradictory. For one, it implies that consent to one thing is a consent to all of the potential consequences of that thing.
Nope. By choosing to carry out the pregnancy that resulted from consensual sex you did choose to have the child. You did not consent to a child when you chose to had sex you just decided to with it when it came up. When your raped you never got a choice since you can not force the women to get an abortion.
by SD_Film Artists » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:45 am
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Andsed wrote:Nope. By choosing to carry out the pregnancy that resulted from consensual sex you did choose to have the child. You did not consent to a child when you chose to had sex you just decided to with it when it came up. When your raped you never got a choice since you can not force the women to get an abortion.
You explicitly said they did not consent to the pregnancy. You are now contradicting the entire premise by saying they did choose to carry out the pregnancy.
by Andsed » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:46 am
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Andsed wrote:Nope. By choosing to carry out the pregnancy that resulted from consensual sex you did choose to have the child. You did not consent to a child when you chose to had sex you just decided to with it when it came up. When your raped you never got a choice since you can not force the women to get an abortion.
You explicitly said they did not consent to the pregnancy. You are now contradicting the entire premise by saying they did choose to carry out the pregnancy.
by United Muscovite Nations » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:46 am
SD_Film Artists wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:You explicitly said they did not consent to the pregnancy. You are now contradicting the entire premise by saying they did choose to carry out the pregnancy.
I think they meant 'chose to carry out the pregnancy *after* the sex where they earlier didn't consent to pregnancy.'
by United Muscovite Nations » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:47 am
Andsed wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:You explicitly said they did not consent to the pregnancy. You are now contradicting the entire premise by saying they did choose to carry out the pregnancy.
No I did not. I said they did not consent to the pregnancy when they chose to have sex. They just decided to go with it instead of aborting. Choosing to go with it once it comes up does not mean they consented to it when they were having sex. Just that they decided they were going to carry it out. When your raped you never get that choice. it is entirely the women who raped you´s choice which is why it is unjustifiable to force someone to care for a child they had no say in conceiving.
by LiberNovusAmericae » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:49 am
Ethel mermania wrote:I dunno about rape, but Fraud certainly. The victim is entitled to damages from the harm caused by the fraud.
by The New California Republic » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:51 am
by Cekoviu » Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:00 am
Vassenor wrote:...This is coming back to "trans people must disclose their entire medical history or they're rapists".
by Vassenor » Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:01 am
by Proctopeo » Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:05 am
by The Emerald Legion » Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:07 am
United Muscovite Nations wrote:The Emerald Legion wrote:
I don't see an issue with that. Even if a child has a right to care, it doesn't have a right to a specific persons care. Orphanages are a thing and should be better funded. Then again I also once argued orphanages should be mandatory.
Orphanages are one thing, but a parent still has the duty to care for the child until custody is transferred.
by USS Monitor » Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:09 am
by United Muscovite Nations » Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:09 am
The Emerald Legion wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:Orphanages are one thing, but a parent still has the duty to care for the child until custody is transferred.
In this case the 'parent' never claimed and explicitly denied custody prior to the child's conception.
There is no custody to transfer because they never had it.
by USS Monitor » Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:16 am
by USS Monitor » Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:19 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Cabernet Sauvignon, Hwiteard, Ifreann, Kostane, Lycom, New-Minneapolis, Niolia, Ors Might, Philjia, Shrillland, Simonia, Southland, Stellar Colonies, Tarsonis, Tesseris, The Grand Duchy of Muscovy, Uiiop, Washington Resistance Army, Western Utah
Advertisement