[scotty79]

Becomming pregnant is not being forced to give birth but being forced to carrying pregnancy to term and giving birth is being forced to give birth.

But you are right. This distinction is meaningless by itself.

What actually has meaning is if what we are forcing/forbidding you to do with your body puts your health and life at risk for some other benefit, for example for benefit of a single new other human.

Forcing someone to carry pregnancy to term to save the life of this new human is like forcing someone to giva a kidney to save some other person's life.

It's commendable but it shouldn't be obligatory.

[Chris2048]

But it's a little different - I'm not responsible for someone needing a kidney, but a person who becomes pregnant is (in most cases) responsible for that. That doesn't mean anyone should be "forced to carrying pregnancy to term", but it also doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished for not doing so.

[scotty79]

Being punished for not doing something is the same as being forced to do this.

And being responsible for getting pregnant shouldn't be automatically punished with being forced to risk your health and life for benefit of human that is not you. Unless pregnancy is a crime there should be no punishment at all. Let alone the corporal punisment.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> And being responsible for getting pregnant shouldn't be automatically punished with being forced to risk your health and life for benefit of human that is not you.

Why not? Those are the stakes of sex and we all know it going in. I'm a man, but I know that if I accidentally get a woman pregnant one of the consequences will be being forced to monetarily support the resulting child. She knows going in that pregnancy is a potential consequence. Neither of us is "innocent" here, we both took a gamble and lost. The question is, if one believes that a fetus is a person with a right to life, do we not also believe that those who knowingly engaged in its creation have a responsibility towards it?

> Unless pregnancy is a crime there should be no punishment at all. Let alone the corporal punisment.

Having children is not a crime, yet we routinely force people to be responsible for their children. One could say that the crime is being irresponsible, but then one could just as easily say the same about terminating a pregnancy.

[scotty79]

> Why not?

Because getting pregnant is not a crime so it shouldn't be punished.

> Those are the stakes of sex and we all know it going in.

You can say that about crimes as well. Knowing the stakes doesn't mean that something that follows is not a punishment. And we should be punishing only crimes. And we shouldn't be using corporal punishments at all.

> I'm a man, but I know that if I accidentally get a woman pregnant one of the consequences will be being forced to monetarily support the resulting child.

That's a horrible idea too unless you are voluntarily choosing to do it.

> Neither of us is "innocent" here, we both took a gamble and lost.

That doesn't mean either of you should suffer any punishment.

> The question is, if one believes that a fetus is a person with a right to life, do we not also believe that those who knowingly engaged in its creation have a responsibility towards it?

Even if you believe a fetus is as much of a person as adult human you still can't compel other human to risk her health and life for that person even if not risking it means this person dies. Even if she's responsible for giving this human life.

Human that needs a kidney also has the right to live but you can't ensure that right is fulfilled by taking involuntarily kidneys of other people.

What's more, even if your child needs a kidney to survive you are not obliged to provide it and punished for not doing so.

An yet if somebody needs a uterus (and the rest of your body with all it's fragile systems) you are forced to provide it if it's your kid.

> Having children is not a crime, yet we routinely force people to be responsible for their children. One could say that the crime is being irresponsible, but then one could just as easily say the same about terminating a pregnancy.

When the child is born, you don't have to take it with you from the hospital. If you did, you voluntarily assumed the rights of a parent with all the responsibilities. When you neglect a child you are punished for violation of this voluntary agreement.

You don't voluntarily agree to getting pregnant and giving birth unless you are planning it and wanting it. Having sex is not acceptance of being forced to deliver a child. Acceptance could be assumed if having children was the only reason people have sex. But people use sex as communication and bonding tool.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> Having sex is not acceptance of being forced to deliver a child. [...] You don't voluntarily agree to getting pregnant and giving birth unless you are planning it and wanting it.

When people engage in sports they don't voluntarily agree to being injured or injuring others, they don't plan for or want it, yet these things are known risks of playing sports.

I'm saying that having sex, something that no one needs to do to survive, is acceptance of the risk of becoming pregnant[0], the same way that playing a sport is acceptance of the risk of becoming injured. If people choose to engage in activity with a known risk of a certain outcome, is that outcome not their responsibility should it occur?

> When the child is born, you don't have to take it with you from the hospital. If you did, you voluntarily assumed the rights of a parent with all the responsibilities. When you neglect a child you are punished for violation of this voluntary agreement.

Given that sex is a voluntary act with known risks, one that no one forced you to engage in, I do not think that it is unreasonable to apply the same standard: you have assumed the responsibilities of pregnancy and can, conceptually[1], be punished for violation of that responsibility.

[0] For the sake of brevity it should be assumed that by "becoming pregnant" I am referring to the state of both sexes as regards their potential future state of parenthood.

[1] I don't necessarily agree with doing so, I just don't think the issue is nearly as neat and tidy as people make it out to be.

[scotty79]

> If people choose to engage in activity with a known risk of a certain outcome, is that outcome not their responsibility should it occur?

Is a person legally responsible for the injury if he engages in skydiving but then gets injured because the pilot of his plane made a mistake or manufacturer technician of his plane didn't prepare it correctly?

Is a person walking at night legally responsible for getting mugged, because there's a known risk of getting mugged?

Is the responsibility for any action with known risk solely on the person undertaking the action?

And if this person is legally defined to be responsible should this person and only this person be corporeally punished for engaging with this risky action when it results in undesirable outcome for herself?

Since father is also equally responsible why not take out one of his organs he can live without as a punishment for the undesirable outcome? Or why not give him 100 lashes or something?

Why corporal punishment for a women but just a fine for a man?

Refusing women abortion is similarly barbaric. We just don't notice it.

[Chris2048]

to add points to this:

> getting pregnant is not a crime

neither is signing a contract, but you can be penalised for breaking one. Neither is joining the army, but you can be punished for deserting. You are suggesting that if it's not a crime to take on a responsibility, you can't be punished for betraying it - that doesn't follow to me.

> you don't have to take it with you from the hospital. If you did, you voluntarily assumed the rights of a parent

why don't you assume the potential consequence of bringing a pregnancy to full term by voluntarily having sex, and not aborting in early terms?

> you still can't compel other human to risk her health and life

No, but you can penalise them. Can you not penalise members of the army for deserting? Yes, because they took on that responsibility. Who takes on the responsibility for a strangers kidney problems?

> if your child needs a kidney to survive you are not obliged to provide it

you aren't responsible for such a condition.

> yet if somebody needs a uterus

because you put them there? Can I lock you in a cage and claim no responsibility in getting you out?

[scotty79]

> You are suggesting that if it's not a crime to take on a responsibility, you can't be punished for betraying it - that doesn't follow to me.

I'm suggesting the exactly opposite. That by having sex and getting pregnant you don't enter any contract and you don't automatically agree to take any responsibility. You can be punished for violating terms of something you voluntarily agreed to.

> why don't you assume the potential consequence of bringing a pregnancy to full term by voluntarily having sex, and not aborting in early terms?

If you made a voluntary decision to not abort in early terms then probably we can assume that.

>> if your child needs a kidney to survive you are not obliged to provide it > you aren't responsible for such a condition.

You might be. This might be a genetic birth defect (which is your responsibility for having sex by your count because it's one of the possible outcomes you are assumed to accept). Or you might have damaged you kid kidney with bad diet or herbal remedies or just beating the kid. And you still wouldn't be obliged to provide your kidney as a replacement. The point is, the law should never require of you the piece of your body.

> because you put them there? Can I lock you in a cage and claim no responsibility in getting you out?

Absolutely. However you'll be fully responsible for putting me there, if it was illegal.

[anthonypasq]

if you decide to for example continually give blood to another person to keep them alive, you are allowed at any point to revoke your consent for this procedure even if it makes the other person die.

it doesnt matter that the women entered the pregnancy knowing the consequences, she is allowed to revoke the babies privilege to use her body whenever she wants.

[Chris2048]

Jesus Christ "revoke the babies privilege"

When did that baby consent to being conceived?

[anthonypasq]

another human doesnt have a right to leech off your body.