Support NeoGAF

[stufte]

I'm sorry they're not equivalent and it's pretty funny someone whining about check stubs thinks forcing a woman to be a man's broodmare just because they fucked is a-okay.

Wasn't whining, just asking a question that you apparently didn't like.

 

[Mumei]

They're fair in the same way that mothers 99% of the time get the children in a divorce, even when the father is clearly the better choice, and a man learning to accept that or give up the idea of a divorce is the most effective solution

Receipts?

 

[Devolution]

Wasn't whining, just asking a question that you apparently didn't like.

Right okay.

You're right, they're not equivalent. The burden of pregnancy is 9 months, financial/paternal responsibility, etc are for life. Or at very least 18 years.

Back to square one with you acting like pregnancy isn't a big deal and the mother apparently doing fuck all after the kid is born.

 

[Kinyou]

That would be forcing an abortion upon the mother in many ways.

I think the current laws are fair, or as fair as they can be. In the end, I agree with Mumei in that education and access to proper birth control is the most effective solution.

I guess then the current solution really is the lesser evil of the two. (when it would really result in more abortions)

 

[OldAsUrSock]

The fact that he was (I assume) banned for this post is bloody messed up. Regardless of your stance on the issue.

Off-topic gaf. What can you do?

 

[Igo]

I'm honestly not sure. Do you think it would be good for society if we saw a precipitous drop in the birth rate because of it?

I'm honestly not sure either. I know Japan is in the midst of a crisis but I think they'll be fine if they can weather the storm for a generation or two.

I think we'd be much better off as a society if people weren't so eager to have children before they can actually afford to raise them properly. This coming from a child of a single mother who struggled like crazy to give me a good life.

 

[TheExodu5]

I guess then the current solution really is the lesser evil of the two. (when it would really result in more abortions)

Yep, that's my take on it. The best solution is a pro-active solution, rather than a reactive solution.

 

[stufte]

Right okay.



Back to square one with you acting like pregnancy isn't a big deal and the mother apparently doing fuck all after the kid is born.

Never said the mother did nothing beyond birth. But I did say was that getting pregnant has its consequences, for everyone involved, not just the mother.

 

[Jarmel]

I don't think he should be charged with murder. The fetus was under 2 months apparently.

 

[Devolution]

Never said the mother did nothing beyond birth. But I did say was that getting pregnant has its consequences, for everyone involved, not just the mother.

Yeah the only consequences that matter are those that effect you. Obviously.

 

[DR2K]

So women are allowed to murder their unborn babies, but men aren't?

When men carry babies they can choose to terminate their pregnancies.

 

[Jarmel]

When men carry babies they can choose to terminate their pregnancies.

But then why should the male be forced to pay child support?

 

[sleepykyo]

It is horrible. It isn't murder though.

Has anyone pointed out that Florida has a statue covering this? Fl. Stat. 782.09. Take a look.

Most states do. It is a federal case though.

 

[afreaknamedpete]

But then why should the male be forced to pay child support?

Because if they don't the child's life gets screwed up.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

Ah I see. Well in that case, the law is clear that the woman has a right to her own body. The guy had no right to do what he did.

But then how is that murder? It's a logically inconsistent ruling. Poisoning, yes, but under current judicial precedent, not murder.

When men carry babies they can choose to terminate their pregnancies.

Once we start getting documented cases of human parthenogenesis you may have a point. something something if's and but's something something

 

[Dunk#7]

Receipts?

I can give you my personal story. My mother became a drug addict and did many terrible things that I don't feel like going into details about, but my father was instructed by his lawyer to wait it out and let the situation get worse so that he could ensure custody of me and my brother.

There is huge favoritism shown to women in regards to custody of children.

 

[TheExodu5]

Yeah the only consequences that matter are those that effect you. Obviously.

I'm not sure why you're using that as your argument when you're viewing the issue exactly as you describe. So far you've only examined the issue from one side and the coin and refuse to acknowledge the other, even if they are not equivalent.

 

[stufte]

Yeah the only consequences that matter are those that effect you. Obviously.

Ok. :\

I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you, it's going nowhere and isn't contributing to this thread in any meaningful way.

You're welcome to PM me if you want to continue arguing with me...

 

[Devolution]

I'm not sure why you're using that as your argument when you're viewing the issue exactly as you describe. So far you've only examined the issue from one side and the coin and refuse to acknowledge the other, even if they are not equivalent.

I didn't say that men have to pay, so no I'm not actually. The two can't directly be compared. That's my issue. It has nothing to do with whether I can get pregnant since I've dealt with that issue with birth control.

 

[Hari Seldon]

But then why should the male be forced to pay child support?

Cause then we would have a bunch (more) poor single moms trying to raise kids. So it is another case of

- If it happens to you, it fucking sucks and is unfair
- But it is better for society to keep things the way they are

So just exercise personal responsibility and make sure it doesn't happen to you.

 

[Jarmel]

Because if they don't the child's life gets screwed up.

The responsibility is on the mother then. The man in an ideal case would clearly state that he has no interest. If the mother thinks her family is a good substitute for a father figure then fine. However I don't think the male should be punished for the woman's decision.

 

[DryvBy]

So is killing someone's child.

Doesn't matter. It's "not a person".

/walks away

 

[Grimm Fandango]

Since it was Cytotec for an existing pregnancy and not a morning-after pill, I'm okay with this.

 

[Deified Data]

Receipts?

In all fairness, I think you're asking him to prove something not easily proven. I don't expect him to offer proof that so-and-so was the more "qualified" because obviously whoever the court chooses is more "qualified" from a legal standpoint, whether they are or not. I think we could all agree that courts could stand to be a bit more objective when deciding how to place a child and steering away from gender-normative notions of "women are nurturers, men are providers".

 

[Duane Cunningham]

I... kind of feel like calling it murder when done by somebody other than the mother yet not calling that when the mother does it is correct. Defining it based on the context is common with all other forms of killing: murder vs manslaughter vs self defense for example. Calling the killing of a fetus murder when initiated and performed by someone other than the mother shouldn't be a slippery slope. The mother has the right to choose, nobody else has the right to choose for her (in either direction).

EDIT So to answer this question:

Thus my question: is abortion basically state-sanctioned murder (by the colloquial, not the legal definition)? A la execution, self-defense, soldiers at war, etc.

I guess I'd say yes AND no; yes it belongs in the same category as those, BUT I wouldn't refer to those as state sanctioned murder either.

 

[Unbounded]

Cause then we would have a bunch (more) poor single moms trying to raise kids. So it is another case of

- If it happens to you, it fucking sucks and is unfair
- But it is better for society to keep things the way they are

So just exercise personal responsibility and make sure it doesn't happen to you.

I'm sure it's been asked before, but can we really expect just as many women to carry their baby to term without access to child support?

 

[afreaknamedpete]

The responsibility is on the mother then. The man in an ideal case would clearly state that he has no interest. If the mother thinks her family is a good substitute for a father figure then fine. However I don't think the male should be punished for the woman's decision.

I think the crux of the argument is the child itself. I agree with the idea that the man shouldn't suffer for the woman's decision, but one way or another not paying child support hurts the child. The fact that the father has to bear a financial burden, or that the mother benefits for keeping the child, are all secondary to the fact that child support benefits the child.

Of course there's all sorts of wrinkles like the mother not using the money on the kid, but I think the spirit of the law is that once the child is born, and is legally a human, its needs supersede all other considerations.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

I'm sure it's been asked before, but can we really expect just as many women to carry their baby to term without access to child support?

Pretty sure the answer is fuuuuck no

 

[Devolution]

In all fairness, I think you're asking him to prove something not easily proven. I don't expect him to offer proof that so-and-so was the more "qualified" because obviously whoever the court chooses is more "qualified" from a legal standpoint, whether they are or not. I think we could all agree that courts could stand to be a bit more objective when deciding how to place a child and steering away from gender-normative notions of "women are nurturers, men are providers".

Not just the courts even.

 

[DR2K]

But then why should the male be forced to pay child support?

Same reason women will have to when they choose to make men pregnant.

 

[Takuya]

I don't expect the murder charge to stick.

 

[TheExodu5]

I didn't say that men have to pay, so no I'm not actually. The two can't directly be compared. That's my issue. It has nothing to do with whether I can get pregnant since I've dealt with that issue with birth control.

Fair enough, I didn't realize that was your stance on child support.

 

[Tex117]

I... kind of feel like calling it murder when done by somebody other than the mother yet not calling that when the mother does it is correct. Defining it based on the context is common with all other forms of killing: murder vs manslaughter vs self defense for example. Calling the killing of a fetus murder when initiated and performed by someone other than the mother shouldn't be a slippery slope. The mother has the right to choose, nobody else has the right to choose for her (in either direction).

This doesn't make any sense. (your examples don't even come close to what we are talking about here).

I love that we have so many lawyers here on Gaf!

Legally, it is inconsistent. No question about it.

The question really is whether we want this inconsistency in the law?

Maybe your answer is yes, maybe your answer is no. Lots of reasons to come out one way or another, but don't kid yourself. It is inconsistent.

 

[Tex117]

I don't expect the murder charge to stick.

It might depending on the state.

 

[Ravensmash]

But then how is that murder? It's a logically inconsistent ruling. Poisoning, yes, but under current judicial precedent, not murder.



Once we start getting documented cases of human parthenogenesis you may have a point. something something if's and but's something something

Calling it poisoning is insulting to the severity of the crime though. This isn't just 'poisoning', it's willingly killing an unborn child against the consent of the carrying mother.

 

[Deified Data]

Nevermind.

 

[someday]

I'm sure it's been asked before, but can we really expect just as many women to carry their baby to term without access to child support?

I don't think child support is awarded before a child is born, and I doubt anyone really knows how much it would be before a court decides. And considering how often we hear about people not paying court-ordered child support I would doubt this issue is foremost in a woman's mind when deciding.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

You're being disingenuous if you're telling me you don't see the difference between a woman choosing to abort her own fetus versus someone else destroying it against her will. Don't play this game.

There is a difference, I don't think the person you quoted or anyone challenges that. The term "murder" carries meaning, however. Notably, and maybe I'm wrong, but it means the thing killed was legally a person, or had a legal right to live. Clearly, it does not as far as current case law goes. So call it whatever you wish, punish the father for committing a heinous act against the mother, but do not call it murder. It cannot be.

And as I said well earlier, I'm pro-life. But I don't see how you can call this "murder."

 

[Blasty]

Nevermind.

[Edited]

 

[Devolution]

I don't understand what you mean... How can the fetus be a considered a person in scenario one, but not scenario two?

He didn't declare the fetus a person in either case, he said there is a difference between a woman ending her own pregnancy and someone doing it against her will.

 

[Deified Data]

There is a difference, I don't think the person you quoted or anyone challenges that. The term "murder" carries meaning, however. Notably, and maybe I'm wrong, but it means the thing killed was legally a person, or had a legal right to live. Clearly, it does not as far as current case law goes. So call it whatever you wish, punish the father for committing a heinous act against the mother, but do not call it murder. It cannot be.

And as I said well earlier, I'm pro-life. But I don't see how you can call this "murder."

Edited - I think I misread tex's post.

I don't understand what you mean... How can the fetus be a considered a person in scenario one, but not scenario two?

I don't support calling it murder in either scenario - my confusion over the meaning of tex's post may have led you to believe that I did.

 

[Blasty]

He didn't declare the fetus a person in either case, he said there is a difference between a woman ending her own pregnancy and someone doing it against her will.

Edited - I think I misread tex's post.



I don't support calling it murder in either scenario - my confusion over the meaning of tex's post may have led you to believe that I did.

I see. Sorry about the confusion.

 

[Cat Party]

Yes and I also pointed out that it doesn't apply in case of a fetus this young AND that he is facing federal charges. You aren't going to get anywhere reading Florida statutes.

Got it. Trying to catch up on this story, sorry.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

There is a difference, I don't think the person you quoted or anyone challenges that. The term "murder" carries meaning, however. Notably, and maybe I'm wrong, but it means the thing killed was legally a person, or had a legal right to live. Clearly, it does not as far as current case law goes. So call it whatever you wish, punish the father for committing a heinous act against the mother, but do not call it murder. It cannot be.

And as I said well earlier, I'm pro-life. But I don't see how you can call this "murder."

I think there is case law that supports a double murder in the event a mother and unborn child is killed, though. I just don't know if it is present within the state of Florida.

 

[Devolution]

I think there is case law that supports a double murder in the event a mother and unborn child is killed, though. I just don't know if it is present within the state of Florida.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feticide

In the U.S., most crimes of violence are covered by state law, not federal law. Thirty-five (35) states currently recognize the "unborn child" (the term usually used) or fetus as a homicide victim, and 25 of those states apply this principle throughout the period of pre-natal development.[2] These laws do not apply to legal induced abortions. Federal and state courts have consistently held that these laws do not contradict the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings on abortion.

In 2004, Congress enacted and President Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which recognizes the "child in utero" as a legal victim if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of 68 existing federal crimes of violence. These crimes include some acts that are federal crimes no matter where they occur (e.g., certain acts of terrorism), crimes in federal jurisdictions, crimes within the military system, crimes involving certain federal officials, and other special cases. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

Of the 38[3] states that recognize fetal homicide, approximately two-thirds apply the principle throughout the period of pre-natal development, while one-third establish protection at some later stage, which varies from state to state. For example, California treats the killing of a fetus as homicide, but does not treat the killing of an embryo (prior to approximately eight weeks) as homicide, by construction of the California Supreme Court.[4] Some other states do not consider the killing of a fetus to be homicide until the fetus has reached quickening or viability.[5]

 

[jimi_dini]

Because if they don't the child's life gets screwed up.

Funnily women are less likely paying child support than men.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm2011/fm86/fm86g.html

A review of studies from the late 1990s and early 2000s carried out by Maria Vnuk (2010, p. 70) found that child support was less likely to be paid when the father was the "resident" (or primary care) parent. Vnuk suggests that this could be due either to lower expectations (or liability) for mothers to pay or to lower compliance levels of mothers, but that most studies cannot disentangle these causes (Vnuk, 2010, p. 71).

But don't worry - although men are more likely to pay child support, women are also less likely incarcerated for not paying child support as well.

http://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2013/03/...ghth-as-often-as-men-with-similar-violations/

A new report concludes that between 95% and 98.5% of all incarcerations in Massachusetts sentenced from the Massachusetts Probate and Family Courts from 2001 through 2011 have been men. Moreover, this percentage may be increasing, with an average of 94.5% from 2001 to 2008, and 96.2% from 2009 through 2011. It is likely that most of these incarcerations are for incomplete payment of child support.

...

Further analysis suggests that women who fail to pay all of their child support are incarcerated only one-eighth as often as men with similar violations. Several possible explanations of these results other than gender bias are unsupported by the data, strengthening the view that gender bias against fathers is a major factor in the family courts….

Additionally I would say money is just a part. Having no actual "family", only mother (which is the most probable case) or father is definitely a big(ger) problem. And this also includes dad-for-1-hour-per-month and such solutions as well. Normally both parents should actually want a child, be consciously aware of the difficulty and fully willing to take care of it.

 

[Omni]

Interesting case.

 

[metalslimer]

Horrible human being, not murder, end of story.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feticide

Hm. Depends on age in Florida. Could get rough for the victim if the suspect can't be charged with murder because the fetus wasn't old enough. Going to be a real complex issue for the court to consider.

At the very least, I imagine something gets redefined in the Florida Legislature for future possible issues....

 

[Randolph Freelander]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feticide

Reading that just (for me) begs the questions of what political games the courts are playing and also how laws can differ between states on something so critical as what life is. (Which then almost begs the question of why have states.) Bah.