When you make up silly extremist scenarios it’s a waste of time. And on only that this scenario doesn’t even make sense.. women are always held accountable by the way, they have no choice.
Law is by definition "Punishment". Forcing one person (against their will) to shoulder the financial consequences for the unilateral actions of another is punishment. In this case we had a devious woman obtain a mans sperm through trickery - and then use that sperm to create a child - against the mans wishes. The idea that someone being forced to give up half or more of their income "is not punishment" - is preposterous nonsense on steroids.
Unless you believe that a zygote is a "Child" - and can prove this is a fact - it is fallacious to claim that a child exists at conception. The reality of Biology is that not one single cell from the hypothetical child that might exist - exists at conception. The zygote is the creator of the child - like a builder of a brick building. When the zygotes offspring number around 250 or so - and have formed a hollow sack known as the blastocyst - these worker bees will then start spitting out the specialized cells that will form the structure of the child. These "totipotent" workers will never be part of the structure of that child. In any case - it is act of carrying a pregnancy to term which is responsible for creation of a child. Terminate that process and no child will exist. This is silliness however - with respect to the OP. Just because the devious woman obtains some sperm from a man through trickery - and then - against the mans will - uses that sperm to create a child - does not make the man responsible for the financial consequences that result from the nasty, irresponsible and deceptive actions of this woman.
If the woman is not able to shoulder the financial consequences of carrying an unintended pregnancy to term - then she should not do so. What would be even more ridiculous is to force some other individual to be responsible for the consequences of this woman's unilateral action.
Of course the woman is to blame for the creation of a child. It was the woman who made the decision that resulted in the creation of a child. No one claimed this was not the woman's decision to make (Sans some religious right zealots). It is 100% the decision of the woman - thus -in the case of an unintended pregnancy - the responsibility for the consequences of a unilateral decision to carry that pregnancy to term are 100% the woman's.
I have an Idea...How about we do a census to find all Pro-Life individuals and then charge them on taxes to create a "Happy Baby" fund. That way they feel good about saving a baby, get a tax rite off, feed the hungry and get points from Jesus.
More freebies to stupid people? Maybe we should give less freebies in an effort to reduce stupid behavior.
Oh yes that is such a serious problem in this country that women obtain a man’s sperm through trickery and then create a child and make him pay. They must be millions of women that do that. Of course I am being sarcastic because your scenario is so ridiculous that it’s laughable. What is also laughable is that you actually think a man gives up half or more than half of his income.You really don’t get it do you. I think one of the things that I find most frustrating in your rhetoric is that you dismiss a man’s responsibility to the child he created whether he wanted it or not. You are one of those who believes life begins at conception and ends at birth
Wow you concluded that a woman is to blame for the creation of a child. So she made the decision that resulted in the creation of a child? What was the father of this child doing? Playing ping pong? Was he so stupid that he didn’t know that his decision also would result in the creation of a child? Pregnancy is not 100% the decision of the woman. The only decision that is 100% is whether or not she chooses to abort or to deliver . Men are not that stupid that they don’t know that
I love the way you referred to woman’s fertilized egg as a unilateral action. If you weren’t serious I would think you’re joking. If a woman is an able to shoulder the financial consequences of caring and unintended pregnancy, she usually will have an abortion because it would mean she could never afford a child
Of course it is trickery and deception- Go read the OP - it happens on a regular basis. If a couple has agreed not to have children - and that in the case of an unintentional/accidental pregnancy she will discontinue that pregnancy - and the man agrees to have sex with her on this basis then the woman is obligated to keep up her end of the verbal contract. If she does not do so - this is deception and she has obtained the mans sperm through deception and trickery.
I never said a zygote is an actual child. But a zygote has the potential to be a child because it was fertilized by a male sperm. It is the beginning of the process and it is up to the carrier to do what she wants Stop using your silly straw man argument, about a criminal woman as thigh that is the norm. it’s embarrassing. Why don’t you worry more about the irresponsible and deceptive actions of the men who create babies and then walk away from them. But you would rather take an extremist example that I don’t even believe happens rather than a reality check
You keep conflating the decision to have sex with the decision to carry an unintended pregnancy to term. This is fallacious nonsense. What is stupid is the inference that sex necessarily results in the creation of a child. This is patently false.
I did not refer to a woman's fertilized egg as a unilateral action. Do you not have anything better than accusing me of saying things I neither said nor inferred ? The rest of your post makes no sense in relation to the discussion. Obviously if a woman can't afford a child - she cant afford a child. How does this make the man responsible her lack of ability to pay for the consequences of her unilateral decision ?
Quit using terms you don't understand (Strawman) .. I did not accuse you of saying anything that you did not say. It is you that built a strawman by accusing me of saying that devious women are the norm. I said no such thing. The particular example in the OP however - does include a devious woman - and that is what is being discussed. Your claim that this situation does not happen - or that it is exceedingly rare - is preposterous nonsense. It happens all the time. It happens almost every time a woman gets pregnant from consensual sex - has the baby without the consent or prior consent of the man - and then goes after him for child support.
Do you seriously think Republicans are going to hold that the woman should have had an abortion and that the STATE should support the woman as the guy walks away from the family he created? I just don't understand how you plan to sell your nonsense.
Who knew that the Constitution and the BoR were "punishment'? Having freedom of expression and owning a firearm and voting are all "punishments"?
1) The the guy created a family is pure disingenuous BS 2) That I claimed or inferred that Republicans are going to do what you say is a falsehood 3) What in my post are you referring to as "nonsense" And last - this is one of the worst posts you have ever written to me. Get a grip.
What a disingenuous post. The law includes punishment for offences against the legal statutes. The idea that fining someone or forcing someone to pay money against their will is not punishment is preposterous nonsense on steroids.
Yes. Sexual relationships between a man and woman is exquisitely designed to produce children regardless of attitudes of the participants and regardless of preventive measures available. Anybody going into a casual sexual relationship should know they will have responsibilies if a life is created.
I know people want it so...but sex is not responsibility free. A human life created comes with responsibility. Sure, the mother can get out of it...either by adoption or abortion. But Life. Will. Never. Be. Fair. And no amount of lawyers, regulation, or system created by humans can make it so.
