[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.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> 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?

I don't see how that tracks. You appear to be saying "if birth control fails", but birth control is known to be less than 100% effective the same way protective sports equipment is. Arguably you have a point if the birth control in question is defective.

> 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?

So the sperm and egg are committing a crime now? They are not conscious actors, they don't have responsibility.

> 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?

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

We already have child support to extract responsibility, in some form, from the father. I think it would be fair to say that money is not nearly as big a deal as the pregnancy, so yeah maybe there should be a different form of responsibility enforced. Taking an organ doesn't really accomplish anything though, because the purpose isn't to punish but to support the child and taking an organ does nothing for that.

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

I don't agree. While I'm certainly uncomfortable with the idea of forcing people to endure pregnancy and its consequences against their will, if one takes the position that fetuses are people and deserve the same human rights as everyone else, and quite a lot of people do (though for the record I lean toward not agreeing on this), then I don't think the issue is quite as straight-forward as saying that the mother (or father for that matter, but obviously his situation is different) bears no responsibility towards the fetus.

[scotty79]

> So the sperm and egg are committing a crime now? They are not conscious actors, they don't have responsibility.

I never claimed that. If anything, I am claiming that there's no responsibility that needs to be assigned to anyone because it's not a reprehensible act. And the only responsibility there is here, is the one that women voluntarily might or might not take upon herself.

> Taking an organ doesn't really accomplish anything though, because the purpose isn't to punish but to support the child and taking an organ does nothing for that.

You may always use that organ to help someone else in exchange for support for the child. Body of the woman is lawfully coerced to sustain harm and we don't do the same with man.

> I don't think the issue is quite as straight-forward as saying that the mother (or father for that matter, but obviously his situation is different) bears no responsibility towards the fetus.

Even if there's a responsibility. Even if we consider getting conceived the worst thing two humans can do to another it doesn't mean that is should be corporeally punished.

We shouldn't (and in almost all cases we don't) legally force people to risk their health and life to help someone else, even to save someone else's life. No matter how much responsibility the person is burdened with. We don't even take the kidneys of serial killers, even though the responsibility that they brought upon themselves is orders of magnitude larger than any other.

[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.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> 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.

I don't think this reasoning tracks. Let's say you're in a bar and get into a heated argument with another person and you decide to "take it outside", as it were. You don't have to fight this person, no one is making you, you both decided to engage in the activity. Now one of you ends up severely injured or maybe even dead, not because that was the intention but because of bad luck.

You agreed to the fight, with the known probability of significant bodily harm even though neither party desired that outcome. Do either of you have any responsibility for that outcome?

> The point is, the law should never require of you the piece of your body.

I think this is your strongest argument, because I honestly cannot think of a reason the state should be allowed to do that and the only counter argument I can muster is that there's currently no other way to bring a fetus to term, which I feel is a weak justification.

[scotty79]

> Do either of you have any responsibility for that outcome?

Sure. But does that mean that as a punishment we should break your legs or take a kidney out of each of you?

If conceiving an unwanted child is harm, then just make mother and father pay a fine and give mother an abortion. Don't punish her with damage to her health.

And if conceiving an unwanted child is not a harm, them do the same just without any punishment.

> I think this is your strongest argument, because I honestly cannot think of a reason the state should be allowed to do that and the only counter argument I can muster is that there's currently no other way to bring a fetus to term, which I feel is a weak justification.

That's my main point, that I think is the strongest argument in existence for any right to choice of abortion, even limited. Since I got this point across I'm perfectly happy to end this thread at that. Thank you.

[Chris2048]

The contract example was just to demonstrate the law absolutely allows punishment for betraying responsibility, not that you sign a literal contract. If you have sex, that should be considered voluntarily agreement to the consequences. AFAIK, you can sue people over matters where no contract exists - societal laws aren't all literal contracts.

> then probably we can assume that

then penalise non-medical late-term abortions?

> 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)

but acting in good faith, there's no formal responsibility to pass on good genes. An interesting concept, but moot in modern society. Also, it doesn't follow that "donating a kidney" fixes the issue in the same way "not aborting" would.

> or just beating the kid

In which case you would obviously be punished.

> you still wouldn't be obliged to provide your kidney as a replacement

My original comments agree this is true, but also state it doesn't mean you can't be punished/penalised.

> the law should never require of you the piece of your body

Then can I state your doctors can never retrieve/tamper with a piece of someone else's body, even if it exists inside your womb?

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

And I where a jailer who put you in there legally, but illegally left you there to rot? The legality of the first act would not change my initial responsibility to let you out.