purplerat wrote:Papa Smurf wrote:purplerat wrote:You still haven't given a good reason as to why a person should be absolved of their responsibility just because somebody else could have fixed the problem for them but didn't?
For one thing, I'm pretty sure that if the man
could fix the problem afterwards he would do so. But he's not allowed or able to do that, only the woman is.
Well, that's utterly irrelevant.
Given your opinion on the traffic accident example it would follow that you think it's irrelevant. I'll just have to disagree with you that it's irrelevant in both cases.
purplerat wrote:Papa Smurf wrote:There are scenarios where the man should be absolved from responsibility. If the woman agreed to have an abortion in case she gets pregnant, he should be off the hook. And there are of course other extreme cases such as puncturing a condom or stealing sperm from a condom. I don't see how you could not agree to these scenarios
in principle. In practice it might be hard to prove any of this and in principle it would upon the man to show that it is extremely plausible that she did make such a promise, that she did puncture the condom or that she did steal the content.
If the woman agreed to have an abortion then he'd better have that in writing. Otherwise, you're going down the very slippery slope of holding people responsible for what promises they make in bed. Do you think a man who promises to marry the woman should pregnancy occur be forced into marriage if he really didn't want it?
I like to keep my promises, don't you? If he does have it in writing, do you agree that she should follow through? And that if she changes her mind anyway, the man should at the very least not be held responsible (which is pretty much the only available option)?
And yes, the man should marry if he made that promise,unless there are factors that would make it reasonable to back out (for instance if she cheats on him, basically anything that would be grounds for divorce). Otherwise he would be an unreliable scumback. Just as she would be an unreliable scumback if she does not follow through on her promise to have an abortion if she gets pregnant.
Obviously if the man does not want to marry the woman might want to think twice about forcing him since it's unlikely to do her much good in many cases but she would have that right. If you make such a promise and have sex as a result of the woman consenting to it because of your promise and then back out I'd say you were already de facto married so if you want a divorce you're gonna pay.
purplerat wrote:As for those more extreme cases, those are criminal acts tantamount to sexual assault. Nothing about this discussion has even the slightest to do with holding victims of a crime responsible for the outcome of their victimization. So those are absolutely irrelevant.
So I take it that you at least agree that the general, unqualified suggestion by The_MetaTron that if you father a child you're responsible does not apply in such, admittedly, fringe cases.
purplerat wrote:Papa Smurf wrote:In the actual case we're dicussing, being a driver requires that you are a woman. Men are not allowed to drive and he's not allowed to touch the steering wheel or the brakes and he is also not allowed to jump out of the car. If the man was allowed to drive he could chose to hit the brakes if he wanted to, grab the steering wheel or jump out if he was allowed to do that.
What's the reasoning for only women being able to drive?
It's a necessary part of the analogy to make it analogous to the topic we're discussing. In the case of a pregnancy (driving in the car) it is only the woman who gets to decide to hit the brakes (abort) or just keep her foot on the pedal where it is (proceed with the pregnancy).
purplerat wrote:That would be absolutely relevant as it is with abortion. If women being able to have an abortion was simply about her not want to have a child then you'd have a fair point. But it's not so you don't.
Yeah sure, woman can decide whether or not to have an abortion because of bodily autonomy. In practice it does mean that she can decide to abort the pregnancy simply because she does not want to have a child. So it's a fair point.
Still interesting how after 24-26 weeks her bodily autonomy goes out the window. There is a valid reason for that but it goes to show that bodily autonomy is not absolute. Does bodily autonomy exist for someone who is on deathrow and executed?
France is making measles vaccinations mandatory. It's not how I would have like to see their problem solved but I understand why they did it. Of course they don't force a needle in, you simply pay a very hefty fine if you don't have your child vaccinated so the consequence is a legal and financial one.
If religious parents withhold proper medical treatment from their child and instead prefer to rely on prayer, I'm all for taking the child out of their custody and have it treated and I think most people would agree. So who should have authority over the childs' body? Apparently neither the child nor the parents.
purplerat wrote:Papa Smurf wrote:The passenger has done everything he could do to ensure a safe journey. He's take care of the car, made sure the driver has a driver's license and is a competent driver and the driver has told him that she's not suicidal and is not intent on colliding with a train. She changes her mind and yet he is still not allowed to intervene or jump out because he knew there was a risk that they might arrive at a railroad crossing at the exact same time as a train.
But if the driver didn't have a decision to make, let's say that person has a seizure and can't make a choice. Would the passenger then be legally responsible? No of course not. That's why your analogy fails unless you are arguing that men should NEVER be legally responsible for their children.
If you don't distort the analogy it works fine. The driver did not have a seizure and was able to make a choice. That is an analogy to the situation where the pregnant woman is lucid and competent. Your distorted analogy is more an analogy for the case where the pregnant woman is comatose or something like that. I have no idea who gets to decide what in that case but that's not the situation I'm trying to clarify through my analogy.
purplerat wrote:As for "he has to live with the consequences either way" well the same goes for fucking and producing children.
Again, fucking does not necessarily produce children and it doesn't even necessarily result in pregnancy. Especially if you use anti-conception measures and the moreso if you use both a condom and the pill. And if there was an understanding that producing a child was not the desirable outcome (which is pretty obvious if you use protection) etc. etc.
purplerat wrote:Even if you absolve him of his legal responsibilities
he still has to live with the remaining consequences. That is unless you are arguing he should be able to force her to have an abortion.
Yes, and that is bad enough if it is forced upon him after a broken promise or other scenarios. He rightfully cannot demand an abortion. Legal impunity in somes cases is all I'm arguing for.