[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.