Who Should Pay Child Support? (Split from Roe v Wade is on deck)

[bilby]

Elementary biology, like "Life Cycle of a Primate", describes the human biological process. We start, as individuals, at conception and end at death

That's completely irrelevant to my position.

When individual A depends for survival on the use of individual B's body, their survival is dependent upon the continuous and ongoing consent of individual B.

This is not contingent upon the humanity nor individuality of either party.

If you cannot survive without me donating a kidney to you, and I decide, just as we are about to be wheeled into the operating theatre, that I don't want to donate my kidney after all, then you die. Regardless of your humanity or individuality. Because it's my fucking kidney, so it's my fucking choice.

Your humanity or individuality in no way entitles you to my body, because I TOO AM A HUMAN AND AN INDIVIDUAL.

Pregnant women are humans. Perhaps you missed that part of the "Life Cycle of a Primate".

Certainly you don't give it sufficient weight.

 

[laughing dog]

Elementary biology, like "Life Cycle of a Primate", describes the human biological process. We start, as individuals, at conception and end at death

That's completely irrelevant to my position.

When individual A depends for survival on the use of individual B's body, their survival is dependent upon the continuous and ongoing consent of individual B.

This is not contingent upon the humanity nor individuality of either party.

If you cannot survive without me donating a kidney to you, and I decide, just as we are about to be wheeled into the operating theatre, that I don't want to donate my kidney after all, then you die. Regardless of your humanity or individuality. Because it's my fucking kidney, so it's my fucking choice.

Your humanity or individuality in no way entitles you to my body, because I TOO AM A HUMAN AND AN INDIVIDUAL.

Pregnant women are humans. Perhaps you missed that part of the "Life Cycle of a Primate".

Certainly you don't give it sufficient weight.

Add in the clear insufficient weight his position places on the humanity and individuality of the living child, and his position appears to be that only that voluntary sperm's donors wishes matter.

 

[bilby]

Elementary biology, like "Life Cycle of a Primate", describes the human biological process. We start, as individuals, at conception and end at death

That's completely irrelevant to my position.

When individual A depends for survival on the use of individual B's body, their survival is dependent upon the continuous and ongoing consent of individual B.

This is not contingent upon the humanity nor individuality of either party.

If you cannot survive without me donating a kidney to you, and I decide, just as we are about to be wheeled into the operating theatre, that I don't want to donate my kidney after all, then you die. Regardless of your humanity or individuality. Because it's my fucking kidney, so it's my fucking choice.

Your humanity or individuality in no way entitles you to my body, because I TOO AM A HUMAN AND AN INDIVIDUAL.

Pregnant women are humans. Perhaps you missed that part of the "Life Cycle of a Primate".

Certainly you don't give it sufficient weight.

Add in the clear insufficient weight his position places on the humanity and individuality of the living child, and his position appears to be that only that voluntary sperm's donors wishes matter.

The entire RCC position (which Tom just happens, entirely coincidentally, to endorse in exactly the same language used by the Vatican) is founded on a simple and easily grasped principle.

No, not "Life Cycle of the Primate"; Their position on who or what is or is not human is an uncontroversial red herring.

The basic principle is "children are the property of their fathers". If you accept that one axiom, most of what they believe becomes a compelling conclusion.

 

[Trausti]

Your humanity or individuality in no way entitles you to my body, because I TOO AM A HUMAN AND AN INDIVIDUAL

Except when it comes to taxation. Amirite?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Elementary biology, like "Life Cycle of a Primate", describes the human biological process. We start, as individuals, at conception and end at death

That's completely irrelevant to my position.

When individual A depends for survival on the use of individual B's body, their survival is dependent upon the continuous and ongoing consent of individual B.

This is not contingent upon the humanity nor individuality of either party.

If you cannot survive without me donating a kidney to you, and I decide, just as we are about to be wheeled into the operating theatre, that I don't want to donate my kidney after all, then you die. Regardless of your humanity or individuality. Because it's my fucking kidney, so it's my fucking choice.

Your humanity or individuality in no way entitles you to my body, because I TOO AM A HUMAN AND AN INDIVIDUAL.

Pregnant women are humans. Perhaps you missed that part of the "Life Cycle of a Primate".

Certainly you don't give it sufficient weight.

Add in the clear insufficient weight his position places on the humanity and individuality of the living child, and his position appears to be that only that voluntary sperm's donors wishes matter.

Really, the sperm is responsible for all of this... and we should make the sperm pay!

 

[Tigers!]

Elementary biology, like "Life Cycle of a Primate", describes the human biological process. We start, as individuals, at conception and end at death

That's completely irrelevant to my position.

When individual A depends for survival on the use of individual B's body, their survival is dependent upon the continuous and ongoing consent of individual B.

This is not contingent upon the humanity nor individuality of either party.

If you cannot survive without me donating a kidney to you, and I decide, just as we are about to be wheeled into the operating theatre, that I don't want to donate my kidney after all, then you die. Regardless of your humanity or individuality. Because it's my fucking kidney, so it's my fucking choice.

Your humanity or individuality in no way entitles you to my body, because I TOO AM A HUMAN AND AN INDIVIDUAL.

Pregnant women are humans. Perhaps you missed that part of the "Life Cycle of a Primate".

Certainly you don't give it sufficient weight.

Add in the clear insufficient weight his position places on the humanity and individuality of the living child, and his position appears to be that only that voluntary sperm's donors wishes matter.

Really, the sperm is responsible for all of this... and we should make the sperm pay!

Isn't that called child support?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Did you actually read my post, or just respond angrily to this one sentence, and stop reading two sentences in?

I did read the whole post.
That was the sentence it veered into a strawman. The rest of it is just as applicable to everyone else as me personally.

Elementary biology, like "Life Cycle of a Primate", describes the human biological process. We start, as individuals, at conception and end at death.

Oh?

What happens when that "individual" splits into multiple people after conception?

What happens when two "individuals" fuse into one person after conception?

The former is far more common than the latter but both happen.

 

[TomC]

If you cannot survive without me donating a kidney to you, and I decide, just as we are about to be wheeled into the operating theatre, that I don't want to donate my kidney after all, then you die. Regardless of your humanity or individuality. Because it's my fucking kidney, so it's my fucking choice.

IF you caused the kidney failure, AND you were the sole possible donor, I'd say you were guilty of murder.
Not under any other circumstances, only those circumstances.

I doubt that combination has ever happened since organ transplants became feasible. So it's never been a legal question. But both would be necessary for the case to be morally comparable to abortion.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you cannot survive without me donating a kidney to you, and I decide, just as we are about to be wheeled into the operating theatre, that I don't want to donate my kidney after all, then you die. Regardless of your humanity or individuality. Because it's my fucking kidney, so it's my fucking choice.

IF you caused the kidney failure, AND you were the sole possible donor, I'd say you were guilty of murder.
Not under any other circumstances, only those circumstances.

I doubt that combination has ever happened since organ transplants became feasible. So it's never been a legal question. But both would be necessary for the case to be morally comparable to abortion.
Tom

As a tiny reminding, Thread Titled "Who Should Pay Child Support?" Child implies there wasn't an abortion. So talking about an abortion isn't relevant to the thread.

Unless, some people want to own up that a woman choosing to have a child negates liability for the man... and the father isn't liable to support the child. But that would require some intellectual honesty.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Add in the clear insufficient weight his position places on the humanity and individuality of the living child, and his position appears to be that only that voluntary sperm's donors wishes matter.

Really, the sperm is responsible for all of this... and we should make the sperm pay!

Isn't that called child support?

Doubtful... have you ever seen a sperm on trial?

 

[TomC]

As a tiny reminding, Thread Titled "Who Should Pay Child Support?" Child implies there wasn't an abortion. So talking about an abortion isn't relevant to the thread.

I was responding specifically to @bilby post, in case you didn't notice that part.

It would be more accurate to refer to "termination of parental burdens and duties after the fact", but that's kinda long and clunky.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As a tiny reminding, Thread Titled "Who Should Pay Child Support?" Child implies there wasn't an abortion. So talking about an abortion isn't relevant to the thread.

I was responding specifically to @bilby post, in case you didn't notice that part.

That's great.

It would be more accurate to refer to "termination of parental burdens and duties after the fact", but that's kinda long and clunky.
Tom

Not really. That would be just more muddled textual masturbation.

 

[Jarhyn]

If you cannot survive without me donating a kidney to you, and I decide, just as we are about to be wheeled into the operating theatre, that I don't want to donate my kidney after all, then you die. Regardless of your humanity or individuality. Because it's my fucking kidney, so it's my fucking choice.

IF you caused the kidney failure, AND you were the sole possible donor, I'd say you were guilty of murder.
Not under any other circumstances, only those circumstances.

I doubt that combination has ever happened since organ transplants became feasible. So it's never been a legal question. But both would be necessary for the case to be morally comparable to abortion.
Tom

IF he caused the kidney failure KNOWINGLY or as a result of RECKLESS BEHAVIOR, then he is already guilty of RECKLESS HOMICIDE.

He could have his sentence reduced perhaps as a result of the donation (or possibly avoid having charges levelled at all), but that all happens BEFORE the donation.

Denying the operation before the moment of, in a way you die as a result, is merely the already-launched and acknowledged homicide coming to consummation.

He still has no obligation to donate.

And because it is a fundamental issue with human behavior, an inbuilt recklessness we all wish to be free of consequences for anyway, then it is unreasonable to punish for it.

It is more reckless in fact to allow an unwanted child to suffer.

 

[TomC]

IF he caused the kidney failure KNOWINGLY or as a result of RECKLESS BEHAVIOR, then he is already guilty of RECKLESS HOMICIDE.

If nobody has died, where's the homicide?
If he put rat poison in your tea because he didn't look at the box, it wasn't knowingly, but he still did it. And there are near always other donor possibilities. The likelihood that the person who poisoned you is also the sole possible donor is vanishingly rare.

This is utterly irrelevant to my point.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

IF he caused the kidney failure KNOWINGLY or as a result of RECKLESS BEHAVIOR, then he is already guilty of RECKLESS HOMICIDE.

If nobody has died, where's the homicide?
If he put rat poison in your tea because he didn't look at the box, it wasn't knowingly, but he still did it. And there are near always other donor possibilities. The likelihood that the person who poisoned you is also the sole possible donor is vanishingly rare.

This is utterly irrelevant to my point.
Tom

If I stab someone with a polonium pellet or irradiate them with a cesium flash, I have killed them even while they still walk around seemingly alive.

If I don't know I did either of those things and there was no reasonable way of knowing that's what I did, then I am not guilty of criminal homicide. At any rate, sometimes the arrow of fate is loosed, yet has not yet hit the target.

If the polonium spear was right next to the inulin injectors or whatever, that's reckless, a d we don't allow that.

But we do allow exceptions for impregnation because we have machines built into our brains made to fool us into "not worrying about it" because Darwinian evolution and the selfish gene.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

IF he caused the kidney failure KNOWINGLY or as a result of RECKLESS BEHAVIOR, then he is already guilty of RECKLESS HOMICIDE.

If nobody has died, where's the homicide?
If he put rat poison in your tea because he didn't look at the box, it wasn't knowingly, but he still did it. And there are near always other donor possibilities. The likelihood that the person who poisoned you is also the sole possible donor is vanishingly rare.

This is utterly irrelevant to my point.
Tom

Point? Have you made a specific one yet?

 

[laughing dog]

As a tiny reminding, Thread Titled "Who Should Pay Child Support?" Child implies there wasn't an abortion. So talking about an abortion isn't relevant to the thread.

I was responding specifically to @bilby post, in case you didn't notice that part.

It would be more accurate to refer to "termination of parental burdens and duties after the fact", but that's kinda long and clunky.
Tom

It would be more accurate in the sense that its omission of pertinent facts makes it rhetorically more consistent with your morally depraved position that a voluntary sperm donor should have no obligation to support an unwanted child.

 

[TomC]

It would be more accurate in the sense that its omission of pertinent facts makes it rhetorically more consistent with your morally depraved position that a voluntary sperm donor should have no obligation to support an unwanted child.

I've never said that. Because I don't think that.

What I do think is that competent adults who choose potentially fertile sex, and make a baby, now both have a responsibility.
Both of them, not only the father.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It would be more accurate in the sense that its omission of pertinent facts makes it rhetorically more consistent with your morally depraved position that a voluntary sperm donor should have no obligation to support an unwanted child.

I've never said that. Because I don't think that.

What I do think is that competent adults who choose potentially fertile sex, and make a baby, now both have a responsibility.
Both of them, not only the father.
Tom

"make a baby"?

So you talking post-birth or using poor terminology again?

 

[TomC]

It would be more accurate in the sense that its omission of pertinent facts makes it rhetorically more consistent with your morally depraved position that a voluntary sperm donor should have no obligation to support an unwanted child.

I've never said that. Because I don't think that.

What I do think is that competent adults who choose potentially fertile sex, and make a baby, now both have a responsibility.
Both of them, not only the father.
Tom

"make a baby"?

So you talking post-birth or using poor terminology again?

If I rephrased that, substituting "fetal human being" for "baby", would your pedantic nonsense stop?
Tom