• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

But you said you were okay with abortion...

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Although this resembles what i am saying, it is not what i am saying.



The intention is not to consider 'breaking your word' a forbidden act, but rather to regulate the mechanisms through which it can be done while mantaining justice.

So in your world, apostasy isn't illegal per se, but if you promised to be a member of a religion for life and uphold its commandments (including, say, tithing), after you left, you would be obligated to keep paying the religion 10% for the rest of your life? Am I interpreting you correctly?
 

McBell

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Micromanaging?
Such as cleaning my bathroom, delivering lunch, and taking my dog for a walk?
Micromanaging your every promise.
You know, so they can dish out "justice" every time you go back on your word.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
It doesn't have to be as specific as that.
An example:
'My name is [name here], and i promise to pull out my penis before i ejaculate today while having sex with [insert name here]. Today is [insert date here]'.

I can see two glaring flaws with this from the get-go:

1) People are liable to changing their minds, so legally forcing them to "keep their promises" would be excessively rigid and impractical.

2) If someone could attribute a 'promise' to another person and made it look like the other person said something that they actually didn't, it could very well lead to blackmailing, injustice, and a fundamentally broken legal system.

For example, let's say I worked for someone through an unofficial arrangement and, through the hypothetical law, made them record a verbal promise that they are going to pay me 'X' amount of money when I'm done with the job they've assigned to me. Halfway through, I lose interest and decide to stop working for them.

Since the recording would still be there, are they legally bound to still pay me the money they promised even though I didn't fulfill my work responsibilities? After all, their verbal promise to pay me money was recorded, whereas they merely took my word that I'm going to work for them on the basis that I was speaking in good faith when I made said promise.
 

FanaticStudy

Theologist
Unless you signed a legally binding document, I don't think you can force anyone to an abortion, but you might be able to avoid fathership of the child, I'm no lawyer though so I don't know.

Morally though, it should in all but a few exceptions be the mothers decision to have the baby or not, but I do feel like the fathers should be able to renounce their fathership if the mother signed and agreed to it, prior to conception.

I really can't imagine what kind of relationship that would be though.
 

NIX

Daughter of Chaos
So in your world, apostasy isn't illegal per se, but if you promised to be a member of a religion for life and uphold its commandments (including, say, tithing), after you left, you would be obligated to keep paying the religion 10% for the rest of your life? Am I interpreting you correctly?

A promise is a promise.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
The problem with your argument is that it is just as valid to claim that the father bears no responsibility to the child should a woman ever choose not to abort, not just in cases of an agreement before hand.

It's been a while, but I just wanted to respond. This is not true. It's only valid in the case of an agreement. If such an agreement cannot be proven, then they share responsibility. The point in this case is that she agreed to have the abortion beforehand, and is now going back on that. So, she now has the option to keep the baby or have an abortion. If she doesn't want the abortion, it's her responsibility. In a case without an agreement, they are both responsible.

After all, the woman always has the option to abort, right? Why should the man ever have to pay child support if the woman could always prevent a child from occurring, when he never "signed up for" a child?

Because the possibility of getting pregnant is obviously there whenever a man and woman have sex. If there is no agreement concerning what they'd do, he's just as responsible as her. He can't expect her to get an abortion, unless she's already said that's what she is going to do.
 
Top