On prison, I believe the loss of rights is justified because others have rights too, and it is reasonable to imprison someone to protect others. Imprisonment is kinda a necessary thing for society to function.
On military, there is an agreement in place before hand in which the person signs away their rights. I am not sure I agree with this structure. It seems an awful lot like indentured servitude, which I am against. I am against this because I believe consent to give up bodily rights is an ongoing thing which one should be able to opt out of at any point.
On capital punishment, I am against this in general, but I am okay with imprisonment (see justification above).
Unless you are drafted. Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that pregnant women have the same rights regarding their bodies as prisoners and soldiers.
Sometimes it does. Thereās appears to be a sect of particularly obnoxious vegans who mutter ādisgustingā under their breath every time I take a bite into my cheeseburger
Kinda figured it might be alike to jaywalking (how rigorously its enforced). Itād be a difficult case to prove in court unless you had photographic/videographic evidence, call/text logs etc.
These are isolated cases wherein either the settlement was large and/or the individual had to sue in order for any penalty to be associated with the act (adultery).
The average case of adultery probably doesnāt come up in the courts. This proves nothing to me. On occasion someone will also cop a 100-200$ fine for jaywalking here, but itās incredibly rare for this to actually occur.
I really like this approach. Okay some people cheat, but at least a law like this might make some people think twice before doing it. If they still choose to cheat, at least the injured party has some compensation. It can be used by both men or women, it at least partially redresses no fault divorce.
I think the seizing of assets (provided a prenup wasnāt signed prior) through both parties serves as an adequate deterrent
As to custody of children, assets assignment etc. Adultery (to me) generally indicates a lack of moral fibre. One could argue a partner who was willing to make an impulse decision and schtoop another whilst in a supposedly commited marriage ought to incur some level of penalty. However in my opinon a lack of morale fibre isnāt adequate merit to impose criminal sanctions against an individual.
Custody of children, assets incurred through hard work shouldnāt be taken away over adultery.
From my knowledge it is the one who is issued the divorce who loses out the most. Women initiate no-fault divorce more than men; hence we hear so many men get taken to the cleaners and without adequate time with their children.
