3RU7AL

- There is a clear legal distinction between murder, manslaughter and infanticide - contrary to your assertions otherwise

and substantial jail time for infanticide back this up

not mixing it with the pro-life point and making an entirely separate argument.

Again, assumptive of moral harm. Financial and physical burdens I agree with, but that sets the burden on her higher than on the father, so yes, the option to opt out is more important to them. The lack of such an option affects them far more than it does the father. If you want to argue that the lower burden on the father somehow should yield a similar conclusion, I’d like to know why. 

That’s part of the problem here: you get an asymmetry regardless. Granting the father the choice gives him equal choice to the mother, but both deprives the child should they have it (of both a father and financial support) and places the entire burden of support on the mother. That’s not symmetrical.

only because you've given ZERO reason to support the claim that a father should be coerced by the state to basically pay "restitution" for a "non crime"

Not so. I argued that the reason is the survival of the child and, for that matter, a balancing of obligations. It strikes me as odd that both you and Bones have argued this perspective of the need for symmetry, but then argue against symmetry when it comes to obligations.

we agree the father does NOT have a choice

we agree that the mother DOES have a choice

Again, not responsive to my point, but it’s pretty clear you don’t want to address it.

symmetry would only demand that the father EITHER accept OR reject the (financial) responsibility within the same timeframe as the mother

Except that the father doesn’t currently have any obligation during that time frame. That’s my point.

I won’t necessarily disagree that the law could use clarification: but that doesn’t make any of your characterization of the application of the law valid - because it clearly isn’t.

no "faith" is required to "lack belief" in bigfoot

which bigfoot are you even talking about ?

the one you"lack belief" in

Who said I don't believe in bigfoot, fact is, I'm pretty sure my neighbor three doors down is bigfoot.

If God whose existence is denied by Atheists cannot set the record right. How can God be credited with what Theists believe about him? The labels like omnipresent! Omnipotence, omniscience all become meaningless and hyperbolic.

no "faith" is required to "lack belief" in bigfoot

which bigfoot are you even talking about ?

ending and or refusing to pay child support is LESS morally repugnant than killing a fetus

I disagree,

and I'll note that now you're getting into issues of morality and the basis for determining whether abortion itself is morally reprehensible,

which falls outside of this discussion.

You agree that this is a valid distinction,

yet you do not agree that that makes the comparison between these burdens problematic. Why not?

except that the mother has the ability to "opt out" and the father apparently does not

Not responsive to my point, though I'll note that if the mother "opts out" then the father automatically does, whereas the father's decision actively harms the mother's position should she choose not to opt out.

If you wanted to make this somewhat comparable, you would have to argue that the father could refuse to pay child support in utero, which isn't a thing in the first place so it's not something that a father can refuse to do.

please explain why you think this is comparable

Because it would then take place within the same timeframe and represent a commitment on the part of the father to the unborn during pregnancy.

Sometimes it’s murder - sometimes it’s infanticide.

That's an odd comparison.

No one is arguing that a mother can abandon her child after it is born into the world alive.

If you wanted to make this somewhat comparable, you would have to argue that the father could refuse to pay child support in utero, which isn't a thing in the first place so it's not something that a father can refuse to do.

I also agree with Ehyeh that it's not symmetrical in terms of the specifics of the burdens the child places on the mother versus the father.

Child support is not equivalent to the physical burdens of pregnancy, nor is ending that child support functionally equivalent to an abortion.

So according to you atheists do believe gods exist so let's have the atheist here list the gods they believe exist which will be zero, because you're a lying piece of s***

I’m working. Feel free to read back through the thread.

That's an odd comparison. No one is arguing that a mother can abandon her child after it is born into the world alive. If you wanted to make this somewhat comparable, you would have to argue that the father could refuse to pay child support in utero, which isn't a thing in the first place so it's not something that a father can refuse to do. I also agree with Ehyeh that it's not symmetrical in terms of the specifics of the burdens the child places on the mother versus the father. Child support is not equivalent to the physical burdens of pregnancy, nor is ending that child support functionally equivalent to an abortion.

 is the seeming belief that all child murders legally qualify as infanticide. 

Not sure why you quoted yourself but responded to me. Also not sure what this has to do with my argument.

That doesn’t look like what I wrote in my first few responses in this thread, where I detailed those differences. So, yes, I guess you haven’t found them yet.

NOT giving money to some chick you had mutually consensual intercourse with

Repeating the same nonsense does not make it any more correct.

Already explained that. Feel free to respond to any of my previous posts in this thread.

Atheists believe no gods exist.

The basis of faith is not inferential reason, it is personal encounter with the values, meaning, and purpose that can be apprehended in and through ordinary experience.

Yep, we all “choose” our beliefs.

Again, because the nature of opting out for one is very different from the nature of opting out of the other

apparently, at least in canada, she has about 12 months to decide if she wants to kill it

Infanticide is a crime that requires diminished responsibility. It is a specific crime that recognizes the major mental health impacts of childbirth can have. The scenarios in which it applies are very specific - very limited - and so not apply in every case of a mother killing a child.

Implying that one can simply decide to kill a baby up to twelve months, is absolutely flagrantly untrue false, and frankly obscene. Mothers are still prosecuted for murder, one cannot simply decide to kill your child - that would also be murder - and are prosecuted - and sent to prison for - murder.

You should understand the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle, right?

Most Atheists are explicit in their contention that God does not exist

it leaves no basis for distinguishing between Atheist and Agnostic

both are a matter of faith

Belief in God is a matter of faith and it is about faith in a transcendent reality, it makes no sense to require a transcendent reality to be “clearly defined”.   

That's not what I'm comparing. I acknowledge that what they initially consented to is the same. That does not make any subsequent consent even similar, let alone identical, yet this post largely assumes that to be the case.

that makes these two decisions distinct

Saying that our common reality is presented as some absolutely truth is a straw man. 

because if you want the conversation to be about the god you believe in then you need to propose it first.

Its a response to the fact that we base what is empirical based on shared experience (to confirm) yet this is based on shaky foundations if people cant be proven to even be self-conscious.

Einstein did, carl Sagan did. Many of the greatest philosophers did. Why does theism (especially pantheism) become very common among the greatest intellects (the top 1% of the 1%) of the planet?

You can interact with them but you cant prove they're actually experimentally conscious in the same manner you are.

If it were the case that a man is compelled to pay child support because they have, at a prior date, chosen to impregnate a women, not only is this against the pro choice narrative that "a decision can be suspended at any time", it is the case that this standard ought to be applied to the mother. 

Your point was that they could kill their infant child. There’s a difference between saying that that’s free and clear and saying that it isn’t considered equivalent to murder.

There’s a distinction between infanticide and murder in their criminal code. That doesn’t mean that infanticide is legal in Canada.

All of them demonstrate the frailty of empircism.

We don't know if we can reproduce an effect until we do it, and based on humes problem of induction if we do it again we wont know for certain if it will work that time until its done.

Doubt that's accurate.

There is nothing we can know absolutely.