Abortion 2: Electric Boogaloo

[Gentoo]

21 minutes ago, jazzy said:

.... yes? You're not legally or morally obligated to take care of someone else, regardless of if it was your choice to bring that person into the world. You are legally able to give a child up to the state. Weren't you the one who said healthcare shouldn't be a human right?

So you're not obligated to because you can give it up to the state? Or if you lived in a time where that luxury didn't exist could you leave it in an alley for instance?

[jazzy]

9 minutes ago, Gentoo said:

So you're not obligated to because you can give it up to the state?

No, because you shouldn't be forced to keep another person alive/well using your own limited resources.

[Gentoo]

2 minutes ago, jazzy said:

No, because you shouldn't be forced to keep another person alive/well using your own limited resources.

Just to reiterate, you don't believe that you should be responsible for taking care of another human you bring into the world, even if nobody else will?

[jazzy]

1 minute ago, Gentoo said:

Just to reiterate, you don't believe that you should be responsible for taking care of another human, even if nobody else will?

Reworded for you. How would you answer this question?

[Gentoo]

7 minutes ago, jazzy said:

Reworded for you. How would you answer this question?

I believe that under certain circumstances, you should be responsible for taking care of another human. Children are weak and vulnerable, incapable of taking care of themselves and likely to suffer from serious physical and mental issues in the absence of being properly raised. Given that their introduction to the world is a direct result of your actions, you should be ethically and legally responsible for their care until they reach a reasonable point where they can sustain themselves - unless someone offers to graciously shoulder that burden for you. No, I do not believe your agency, freedom, or happiness is more important than the suffering you will inflict on your own offsprings behalf due to your own negligence.

[jazzy]

1 minute ago, Gentoo said:

No, I do not believe your agency, freedom, or happiness is more important than the suffering you will inflict on your own offsprings behalf due to your own negligence.

Yeah you need to think a little bit more outward. I'm sure a mother raising a kid she doesn't want would totally pan out for the kid. Do you really think this is sustainable? Forcing women to have kids and raise them even though they don't want to? I'm sure that would be in the best interest for them.

 

Also fails to account for rape

[Gentoo]

3 minutes ago, jazzy said:

Yeah you need to think a little bit more outward. I'm sure a mother raising a kid she doesn't want would totally pan out for the kid. Do you really think this is sustainable? Forcing women to have kids and raise them even though they don't want to? I'm sure that would be in the best interest for them.

 

Also fails to account for rape

Yeah that's sort of how the world has functioned most of history. I think things would pan out better than the alternative.

[Wawa]

12 minutes ago, Gentoo said:

Yeah that's sort of how the world has functioned most of history. I think things would pan out better than the alternative.

What is that alternative?

[Gentoo]

2 minutes ago, Wawa said:

What is that alternative?

Nobody having the responsibility to care for the children. I don't want to pay or care for someone else's kids, and I think most other people don't either. If it's not your responsibility, I sure as hell shouldn't be involved in paying for raising it.

[Wawa]

12 minutes ago, Gentoo said:

I don't want to pay or care for someone else's kids, and I think most other people don't either.

But do you have a problem paying for the yacht of the CEO of the company you work for, assuming you do sell your labor for a wage?