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

[BmorePat87]

(08-15-2016, 09:27 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: When his argument gets exposed as a fraud, he make jokes.

Typical Pat.

I can't argue that abortion laws discriminate against men for the fact that a man cannot decide when women should have abortions. If another woman tried to stop someone from getting an abortion, they'd be just as unsuccessful. Likewise, I cannot say the law discriminates against me as a man if I try to stop someone from getting any other medical procedure done as it is their decision (along with their doctor).

My original comments were a bit in jest because I was mocking the poster's use of an argument that was disproved over 10 days ago.

[*bfine32*]

(08-15-2016, 03:54 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: As far as I know, the law allows any adult who is pregnant can get an abortion up to the legal cut off if they willingly consent to it. 

But not every adult can keep their unborn offspring from being aborted.

I get that you're trying hard to make abortion laws equal to a man and a woman; however, it simply makes you look more close-minded. As much as I abhor the act of abortion I do realize the reality of it and in some cases support it. But their is no way I think the male and female get equal rights to their offspring. And as I said numerous pages ago: The fact that they are justified can and has been debated, the fact that someone would consider them equal is just silly.

[*bfine32*]

(08-15-2016, 09:27 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: When his argument gets exposed as a fraud, he make jokes.

Typical Pat.

They keep going back to the "her body, her choice" mentality that has been ingrained in them. If you notice they keep trying to steer the argument toward can a man tell a woman what to do with her body; yet they do not address the equality of can a man voluntarily abort his responsibility to an unborn child. 

[GMDino]

(08-15-2016, 11:02 AM)bfine32 Wrote: They keep going back to the "her body, her choice" mentality that has been ingrained in them. If you notice they keep trying to steer the argument toward can a man tell a woman what to do with her body; yet they do not address the equality of can a man voluntarily abort his responsibility to an unborn child. 

That point has been addressed, repeatedly.

[BmorePat87]

(08-15-2016, 10:55 AM)bfine32 Wrote: But not every adult can keep their unborn offspring from being aborted.

What does that have to do with pregnant people having equal access to abortions? 

[*bfine32*]

(08-15-2016, 11:35 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: What does that have to do with pregnant people having equal access to abortions? 

It was to illustrate the inequality of laws regarding the welfare of one's offspring. There is still a population out there trying to mask this inequality or in extreme cases; assert it does not exist. Those that do not recognize inequality allow it to grow. 

[BmorePat87]

(08-15-2016, 11:47 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It was to illustrate the inequality of laws regarding the welfare of one's offspring. There is still a population out there trying to mask this inequality or in extreme cases; assert it does not exist. Those that do not recognize inequality allow it to grow. 

Then why are you talking about whether or not pregnant people have equal access to abortions?

If you're concerned about the welfare of offspring, you should probably be discussing custody laws. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-15-2016, 10:55 AM)bfine32 Wrote: But not every adult can keep their unborn offspring from being aborted.

I get that you're trying hard to make abortion laws equal to a man and a woman; however, it simply makes you look more close-minded. As much as I abhor the act of abortion I do realize the reality of it and in some cases support it. But their is no way I think the male and female get equal rights to their offspring. And as I said numerous pages ago: The fact that they are justified can and has been debated, the fact that someone would consider them equal is just silly.

Quote:The Supreme Court has found laws requiring a spouse's consent for an abortion to be unconstitutional. In 
Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, the Court reasoned that a husband's refusal to consent would in effect veto a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy. While both prospective fathers and pregnant women have an interest in the decision, when the two disagree, only one partner's position can prevail. According to the Court, since the woman actually carries the pregnancy, "the balance weighs in her favor," preventing the husband from vetoing her choice.

When a man and a women disagree on whether the woman should get an abortion, only one of them can win that disagreement. When two sides go to court, usually the court will rule in favor of only one. Like you have been told repeatedly, "the balance weighs in her favor" not because the woman is a female, but because she has a medical condition and the man doesn't. If a man were able to force a woman to have a baby against her will usurping her control of her own body, the would be unfair. In the eyes of the Supreme Court and most reasonable people, this scenario would be more "unfair" than the unfairness you are complaining about. Either way, someone will complain of unfairness. Sometimes you have to choose the least shitty of two shitty options. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-15-2016, 11:02 AM)bfine32 Wrote: They keep going back to the "her body, her choice" mentality that has been ingrained in them. If you notice they keep trying to steer the argument toward can a man tell a woman what to do with her body; yet they do not address the equality of can a man voluntarily abort his responsibility to an unborn child. 

You keep trying to usurp control of other's bodies while denying you are trying to do it. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-15-2016, 11:47 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It was to illustrate the inequality of laws regarding the welfare of one's offspring. There is still a population out there trying to mask this inequality or in extreme cases; assert it does not exist. Those that do not recognize inequality allow it to grow. 

How would you address this inequality?

[*bfine32*]

(08-15-2016, 11:56 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Then why are you talking about whether or not pregnant people have equal access to abortions?

If you're concerned about the welfare of offspring, you should probably be discussing custody laws. 

Not sure I've ever argued equal access to abortions. That's most likely a tangent you took to try to mask the inequality of abortion laws. Who knows you might even try to change the name to mask their inequality.

I'm concerned about equal rights for parents of unborn children. If you want to mask the inequality by calling it something else; that speaks to motive more so that rationale. 

[GMDino]

This started on page 8:

(08-03-2016, 01:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I once explored the "Why don't men get a say in the pregnancy?" slant is an abortion thread before.

Tell me which of these seems equatible:

A woman can choose to terminate the pregnancy, but the man cannot

A woman can abort to avoid financial reponsibility and inconvenience. A man cannot.

A woman can make the decision to keep the baby, the man cannot

The woman can choose to give the baby up for adoption without the father's consent.



I could go on.

Just two pages later:

(08-05-2016, 07:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As long as you admit there is sometimes need for unequal treatment based on nothing more than biological sex, then we have found common ground.  

And here we are 16 MORE pages with people saying it may not be "fair" or "equal" in most eyes it is the way it is. Some think is it "equal" based on choices either have. Some think not so much.

What more is there to discuss without all the belittling of each other?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-15-2016, 12:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure I've ever argued equal access to abortions. That's most likely a tangent you took to try to mask the inequality of abortion laws. Who knows you might even try to change the name to mask their inequality.

I'm concerned about equal rights for parents of unborn children. If you want to mask the inequality by calling it something else; that speaks to motive more so that rationale. 

Access to abortions is the single biggest component of abortion laws. Roe vs. Wade is about access to abortions. How could you argue about abortion laws and inexplicably be unaware they deal with access to abortions?

[*wildcats forever*]

(08-15-2016, 12:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: This started on page 8:


Just two pages later:


And here we are 16 MORE pages with people saying it may not be "fair" or "equal" in most eyes it is the way it is.  Some think is it "equal" based on choices either have.  Some think not so much.

What more is there to discuss without all the belittling of each other?

Sometimes threads naturally expire after the participants have exhausted all possible ways of debating a subject. This has not been one of those threads unfortunately.