Hillary: An Unborn Child Hours Before Delivery Has No Constitutional Rights

[Rotobeast]

[JustWinBaby]

(08-09-2016, 08:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: A woman can not get pregnant by herself.

Both parties made the decision to accept the risk.

This, too, is false.  A woman does not have to have sex to get pregnant.  And the sperm donor actually IS performing the act with the intention to create a pregnancy, yet STILL does not accept the financial obligation.

It's also not the argument.  The woman, and the woman alone, makes the decision to bring a child into the world.  She has sole authority and responsibility for the decision, so the financial consequences should be borne solely by her.

It's quite simple.  I buy her a gun for protection and she uses it to rob a bank doesn't make me an accessory - robbing the bank was entirely her choice.  I didn't "accept the risk she could rob a bank" when I bought the gun.

[Bengalzona]

(08-09-2016, 08:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: A woman can not get pregnant by herself.

Both parties made the decision to accept the risk.

Unless she gets a sperm donation from David Crosby. 

[Benton]

(08-10-2016, 09:34 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: This, too, is false.  A woman does not have to have sex to get pregnant.  And the sperm donor actually IS performing the act with the intention to create a pregnancy, yet STILL does not accept the financial obligation.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/justice/kansas-sperm-donation/
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/fashion/Jason-Patric-Does-Sperm-Donor-Mean-Dad-parental-rights.html?_r=0

Legally, there's a lot of gray area in terms of who has rights to what.

[fredtoast]

(08-10-2016, 09:34 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It's also not the argument.  The woman, and the woman alone, makes the decision to bring a child into the world.  She has sole authority and responsibility for the decision, so the financial consequences should be borne solely by her.

Would you agree that the father has no parental rights to his own child?  No visitation rights or anything?

[JustWinBaby]

(08-12-2016, 10:17 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Would you agree that the father has no parental rights to his own child?  No visitation rights or anything?

Is this an argument, agreement, or what?  Or are you denying that given the option, and the choice, that "fathers" can and should be able to absolve themselves of all responsibility?

If a father wants to be involved, then he should support the child.  No argument here.

Do you disagree if a woman fishes a condom out of a garbage bin that a man should be able to disavow his financial responsibility?  Or how about if a woman doesn't take her birth control as prescribed that a man should not be financially responsible for her **** up?

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-07-2016, 08:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because both men and women have equal control over their own bodies.

If a man ever carries a baby he will have the same rights as the women.

This is called equality.

There is nothing "equal" about a woman being able to terminate a pregnancy at her own discretion with no consent from the male when the male has zero ability to terminate the pregnancy under any circumstance. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-07-2016, 10:25 PM)Harmening Wrote: It's been answered.

It hasn't been answered. The 'go to' response is, "a man can't have control over a woman's body". I agree with that BUT that's not the only option. 

If a woman can walk away from the responsibility at her discretion and a man can not, that is not equal. A man should have the ability to walk away as well, not through forcing her to have an abortion, but by signing a legal document that absolves him from any financial responsibility. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-07-2016, 10:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The man can not have the right to terminate his responsibility unless you give the man control over the woman's body.

Wrong.

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-07-2016, 10:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because there is a child that he is legally required to support.  

Once the child is born a woman can not walk away from her child any more than the man.

How can you type this stuff with a serious face?

Before the child is born, she can terminate the pregnancy and walk away easily. The man has no option, at any point, of walking away.

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-07-2016, 10:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because he consented to the possibility of fathering a child and he can not force a woman to have an abortion.  He has no control over her body.

If he was carrying the child he would have the exact same rights as the mother, and the woman would be bound to support the child the same as the man.

Equal rights. 

The woman consented as well. But she has an out. He doesn't. 

Not equal rights. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-07-2016, 11:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I understand the argument just fine.  But the only way to ensure that children get cared for is to hold BOTH parents financially responsible for their care.

I don't see any other way to make it work.  What do you suggest?  Who would care for the child if BOTH parents decide they do not want to support it?  Can they both just walk away and let the child starve?

When you have sex you are responsible for the possible outcome.  There is nothing misogynist about this.

So then you are in favor of outlawing abortion and making the woman carry the child to term, so that she is required to financially care for the person she helped create, consensually. 

[BmorePat87]

(08-13-2016, 11:39 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: It hasn't been answered. The 'go to' response is, "a man can't have control over a woman's body". I agree with that BUT that's not the only option. 

If a woman can walk away from the responsibility at her discretion and a man can not, that is not equal. A man should have the ability to walk away as well, not through forcing her to have an abortion, but by signing a legal document that absolves him from any financial responsibility. 

Of course it's not equal. When pregnancy occurs, it's 100% the woman who gets pregnant, not the man. It's her body that has the burden. It's her pain during childbirth. 

[BmorePat87]

(08-13-2016, 11:46 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: So then you are in favor of outlawing abortion and making the woman carry the child to term, so that she is required to financially care for the person she helped create, consensually. 

You're better than this awful straw man. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-13-2016, 01:39 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Of course it's not equal. When pregnancy occurs, it's 100% the woman who gets pregnant, not the man. It's her body that has the burden. It's her pain during childbirth. 

So it's ok that it's not equal?

(08-13-2016, 01:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You're better than this awful straw man. 

It's not a strawman. It's a legitimate question seeking an answer to a question about ineqality. Strawman would have been me arguing that said question is part of his belief system.

[*bfine32*]

(08-13-2016, 01:39 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Of course it's not equal. When pregnancy occurs, it's 100% the woman who gets pregnant, not the man. It's her body that has the burden. It's her pain during childbirth. 

Hey, that's what I've said since giddy up. It is not equal because of biological sex

[*rfaulk34*]

Man and woman consent to sex. 

Both understand that a pregnancy could occur. 

Woman allows man to engage is sex.

Man engages in sex.

Pregnancy occurs. 

Woman has ability to end pregnancy at her discretion.

Man has no ability to end pregnancy in any fashion. 



I don't give a rats patootey if it's the woman's body. It's not her decision, solely, to carry to term and put a financial burden on a man when she has the ability to remove that burden to herself. <---hypocrisy alert!!!

A man shouldn't have the ability to tell a woman to end a pregnancy but he should have the option to opt out of any financial responsibility if he does not want to raise a child. 

Anyone on here who has championed for equality in any realm, and disagrees with this point, is standing on a hypocritical platform. 

[GMDino]

(08-13-2016, 03:54 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Man and woman consent to sex. 

Both understand that a pregnancy could occur. 

Woman allows man to engage is sex.

Man engages in sex.

Pregnancy occurs. 

Woman has ability to end pregnancy at her discretion.

Man has no ability to end pregnancy in any fashion. 



I don't give a rats patootey if it's the woman's body. It's not her decision, solely, to carry to term and put a financial burden on a man when she has the ability to remove that burden to herself. <---hypocrisy alert!!!

A man shouldn't have the ability to tell a woman to end a pregnancy but he should have the option to opt out of any financial responsibility if he does not want to raise a child. 

Anyone on here who has championed for equality in any realm, and disagrees with this point, is standing on a hypocritical platform. 

Well, then I'm a hypocrite.

Allowing a man to say "Nope, never planned to have a child. Sorry for your luck" and walk away would be more damaging to the fabric of society than any abortion.

My opinion.

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-13-2016, 04:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well, then I'm a hypocrite.

Allowing a man to say "Nope, never planned to have a child. Sorry for your luck" and walk away would be more damaging to the fabric of society than any abortion.

My opinion.

If two people are expected to understand the consequences, then two people should be allowed to decide if they're ready/want the financial/lifestyle burden of a child. 

[GMDino]

(08-13-2016, 04:09 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: If two people are expected to understand the consequences, then two people should be allowed to decide if they're ready/want the financial/lifestyle burden of a child. 

Your opinion.

The phrase"slippery slope" gets thrown around here a lot.  The proposal to make things "equal" by allowing any man to say he simply doesn't have to having to do with a child he helped create would be a nightmare.  Especially and specifically in a country where half the population and half the elected officials think any government help for individuals is a waste of funds.

How many men already try to not pay let alone participate in their child's life even if they were happy to have them in the first place?

Women get to decide if they want to be responsible for the gestation of a fetus in their body and all the health risks that go with during and after.  

Men don't get to make that choice for a woman and while we can say it isn't "fair" it is the reality.

Life isn't fair.  Don't want to risk getting pregnant or paying for a child for 18 years?  Don't have sex.

Every time you do you take a risk with known consequences if there is a pregnancy.