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

[Benton]

(08-03-2016, 11:48 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: We need to make sure it's easier for an older man to get an erection than it is for a young woman to prevent pregnancies. 

There are a lot of options on the market for young women. There's still not (that I'm aware of) a pill option for guys. They're working on it, but it's not there yet.

[THE Bigzoman]

(08-03-2016, 11:49 AM)Benton Wrote: That's correct.

Otherwise it's like saying "Eating a doughnut isn't consent to getting fat" or "Playing Pokemon go and driving isn't consent to wrapping my car around a light pole."

If you have sex with a person of the opposite sex, a likely outcome is another person.

If you're going to modify the post you're quoting, at least make the changes visible.

[THE Bigzoman]

(08-03-2016, 11:51 AM)Benton Wrote: There are a lot of options on the market for young women. There's still not (that I'm aware of) a pill option for guys. They're working on it, but it's not there yet.

I've heard "five more years" for almost 3 decades now.

Honestly, even if we do create male contraception and it's feasible/profitable to distribute, I think the big dogs running things (regardless of political leanings) would prevent it from happening.

Population growth is abysmal in most of the first world. We're not that far off from Japan's problems: (http://thediplomat.com/2013/02/japans-demographic-disaster/). Japan is pretty much screwed at this point unless they bring in immigrants from poorer nations in Asia.

And when they're forced to actually consider going this route, get ya popcorn ready (Japan has a history of being ethnocentric dicks to well.....anyone who isn't Japanese)

[GMDino]

(08-03-2016, 11:44 AM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Sex by itself isn't consent to parenthood.

You'd think a thread citing common law for their arguments wouldn't gloss over this idea being shut down in Roe V Wade.

Correct.

However it is a possible outcome.

And if your aim is to NOT be a parent/have a child then there is one way to guarantee you do not.  It's not an easy choice, but it is 100% effective.

Beyond that you are taking a chance that will affect the lives of at least three people.

What I am saying is blaming women because they have more options for birth control is inane to me.  I don't see how that's an argument at all.

My wife got pregnant with our second child while on the pill.  

[THE Bigzoman]

(08-03-2016, 11:57 AM)GMDino Wrote: Correct.

However it is a possible outcome.

And if your aim is to NOT be a parent/have a child then there is one way to guarantee you do not.  It's not an easy choice, but it is 100% effective.

Beyond that you are taking a chance that will affect the lives of at least three people.

What I am saying is blaming women because they have more options for birth control is inane to me.  I don't see how that's an argument at all.

My wife got pregnant with our second child while on the pill.  

The only way that your choice impacts three people is if the woman decides to not abort the fetus.


How about not strawamming me? Thanks.

You're ignoring an important part of that post because reasons.

Women have more and more effective forms of birth control. I never said women get 100% of the blame. I said that distributing blame evenly to both parties despite this fact is just plain dumb.

[BmorePat87]

(08-03-2016, 11:51 AM)Benton Wrote: There are a lot of options on the market for young women. There's still not (that I'm aware of) a pill option for guys. They're working on it, but it's not there yet.

I'm remarking on the fact that there's no right to deny coverage of viagra but companies fight to deny birth control to women.

[GMDino]

(08-03-2016, 12:06 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: The only way that your choice impacts three people is if the woman decides to not abort the fetus.


How about not strawamming me? Thanks.

You're ignoring an important part of that post because reasons.

Women have more and more effective forms of birth control. I never said women get 100% of the blame. I said that distributing blame evenly to both parties despite this fact is just plain dumb.

Yes...more effective.  

If I misinterpreted the "blame" part of it I apologize.

But it takes two people to have sex so they equally share blame for the results no matter what steps they take to prevent a pregnancy.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(08-03-2016, 10:59 AM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Cop-out.

While that is an area of improvement we could explore, there's nothing really suggesting that women as a group are hindered from getting them to a high enough degree for this to be a legit counter.

Men on the other are hindered when it comes to anything that isn't condoms.

I'm a 24 year old graduate who is just starting his career in accounting/finance. Do you have any idea how hard it is to find a doctor that will perform a vasectomy on me?

Never mind the fact that my insurance won't pay for it, meaning I'll have to pay for it out of pocket when I do find a doctor.

I understand you're young, but you don't want kids ever?

[THE Bigzoman]

(08-03-2016, 12:17 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes...more effective.  

If I misinterpreted the "blame" part of it I apologize.

But it takes two people to have sex so they equally share blame for the results no matter what steps they take to prevent a pregnancy.

Care to elaborate on the graph? I saw at least two forms of BC that had more favorable ratios than condoms. (which is the bare minimum needed for my argument's premise to be true)

Not sure why they didn't include vaectmonies. But like I said, if you're a young gun, you're not getting a one unless you have 3 different baby mamas & a ton of kids already.

It would depend on whether or not both parties utilized the most effective firm of birth control available to them. If both parties did and a pregnancy still resulted, your point is fine in my book. Tough cookies.

But I was in the scope of people who don't utilize the most effective forms available.

Of course I wouldn't blame parties (your wife) if a pregnancy resulted despite taking preventative actions.



Disclaimer: My style of debate comes off as antagionistic at times. Just know that I hold no ill-will against anyone here. I just disagree strongly.

[THE Bigzoman]

(08-03-2016, 12:24 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I understand you're young, but you don't want kids ever?

No.

No.

Never.

Never ever ever ever.

I want to travel and see the world; I want to be free to explore new things, places and people.


Kind of hard to do that when I have a six figure/emotional liability over my head.

[GMDino]

(08-03-2016, 12:32 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Care to elaborate on the graph? I saw at least two forms of BC that had more favorable ratios than condoms. (which is the bare minimum needed for my argument's premise to be true)

Not sure why they didn't include vaectmonies. But like I said, if you're a young gun, you're not getting a one unless you have 3 different baby mamas & a ton of kids already.

It would depend on whether or not both parties utilized the most effective firm of birth control available to them. If both parties did and a pregnancy still resulted, your point is fine in my book. Tough cookies.

But I was in the scope of people who don't utilize the most effective forms available.

Of course I wouldn't blame parties (your wife) if a pregnancy resulted despite taking preventative actions.



Disclaimer: My style of debate comes off as antagionistic at times. Just know that I hold no ill-will against anyone here. I just disagree strongly.

Actually I shared the graph because it did show you were correct that they can be more effective.

As to the rest, not a problem.  I think I understand what you meant.

I have a friend who think children are a disease.  (I always joked they were a sexually transmitted disease...he's not joking.)  Bu I know more than a few people who never wanted children and that is fine too.  To each their own.  This particular friend hates kids too.  That's not alright in my book.

I get where you are coming from though.

[Belsnickel]

(08-03-2016, 11:44 AM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Sex by itself isn't consent to parenthood.

You'd think a thread citing common law for their arguments wouldn't gloss over this idea being shut down in Roe V Wade.

I know a lot of people that would disagree with that. They may not say it explicitly, but their pro-life arguments would imply it.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(08-03-2016, 12:34 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: No.

No.

Never.

Never ever ever ever.

Thank god for that!

[THE Bigzoman]

(08-03-2016, 12:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know a lot of people that would disagree with that. They may not say it explicitly, but their pro-life arguments would imply it.

Oh, I do to.

Mostly Bible belt jesus lovers that get a hard-on from punishing people for having sex.

[*bfine32*]

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.

[GMDino]

(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.

The chicken and the pig both contributed to my breakfast.

One gave up a lot more.

Everyone is equal and some are more equal than others.

[Benton]

(08-03-2016, 01:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: The chicken and the pig both contributed to my breakfast.

One gave up a lot more.

Everyone is equal and some are more equal than others.

I don't get the analogy.

Nobody is killing the fathers. And mothers having abortions aren't doing it to unfertilized eggs.

[GMDino]

(08-03-2016, 02:10 PM)Benton Wrote: I don't get the analogy.

Nobody is killing the fathers. And mothers having abortions aren't doing it to unfertilized eggs.

The chicken laid an egg.  The pig died.


The father did nothing more than have sex.

The mother's body is responsible for the care of the fetus for 9 months.  That includes her body's changes along the way and after.

It's not a perfect analogy...but one isn't sacrificing near as much.  Maybe that's why we grant the mother's more leeway with choice and help financially.

[Benton]

(08-03-2016, 02:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: The chicken laid an egg.  The pig died.


The father did nothing more than have sex.

The mother's body is responsible for the care of the fetus for 9 months.  That includes her body's changes along the way and after.

It's not a perfect analogy...but one isn't sacrificing near as much.  Maybe that's why we grant the mother's more leeway with choice and help financially.

Man, this analogy keeps getting worse. Now women are pigs and guys are chickens.

And it still doesn't make sense as the guy doesn't drop eggs.

[GMDino]

(08-03-2016, 02:44 PM)Benton Wrote: Man, this analogy keeps getting worse. Now women are pigs and guys are chickens.

And it still doesn't make sense as the guy doesn't drop eggs.

The chicken can lay an egg and their life doesn't change after.
The man can get a woman pregnant and his life doesn't change at all.  

The pig has to die for their to be delicious bacon.
The woman has to go through nine months of bodily changes that can affect her for the rest of her life.

So women get a little edge in the "fairness" department for that one.