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

[Benton]

(08-03-2016, 02:52 PM)GMDino Wrote:

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.

What about the turkeys? Why does no one bring up the turkeys?

Both eggs and bacon come from turkeys. They're getting shafted both ways.

[GMDino]

(08-03-2016, 03:44 PM)Benton Wrote: What about the turkeys? Why does no one bring up the turkeys?

Both eggs and bacon come from turkeys. They're getting shafted both ways.

Exactly! 

[Belsnickel]

(08-03-2016, 03:44 PM)Benton Wrote: What about the turkeys? Why does no one bring up the turkeys?

Both eggs and bacon come from turkeys. They're getting shafted both ways.

It is heresy to call those strips of meat they get from turkeys bacon.

[BmorePat87]

(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.

There are a lot of reasons why a women may want an abortion, but that doesn't change the underlying philosophical reasoning for why she can have the abortion: it's her body and only she has a say over her body.

Until a man can get pregnant and it is his body, it will always be this way.

[*bfine32*]

(08-03-2016, 04:39 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: There are a lot of reasons why a women may want an abortion, but that doesn't change the underlying philosophical reasoning for why she can have the abortion: it's her body and only she has a say over her body.

Until a man can get pregnant and it is his body, it will always be this way.

Then why can't the man opt out of financial responsibility?

[BmorePat87]

(08-03-2016, 04:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Then why can't the man opt out of financial responsibility?

This question doesn't pertain to my point about ownership over one's own body, so I can't help you. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-03-2016, 04:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Then why can't the man opt out of financial responsibility?

Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.

 Your daily "t shirt moment" brought to you by Isaiah 1:17.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-03-2016, 03:01 AM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Someone did a few decades ago,  but it got shut down pretty quick.



The problem with financial abortion is that taxpayers don't want to pick up the slack for absent farthers. But there's a hypocritical spin on people who use the "cost argument", considering  single mother homes are pretty common despite not allowing men the right to financially abort.  We're already paying out the arse for them through taxes and societal costs. Stastically speaking, single mothers are raising tomorrow's carjackers, drug addicts, gangmembers, you name it. It's kind of ***** that we subsidize the hell out of these criminal factories.

I would be interested in reading those stats. Thanks. 

[*bfine32*]

(08-03-2016, 05:26 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This question doesn't pertain to my point about ownership over one's own body, so I can't help you. 

No doubt, the her body. her choice does not cover this inequality.

I of the mind that anything that comes from the union of man and woman should be equally shared and each party should have equal rights and responsibilities.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(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.

Every one of those other methods available to women requires a prescription or procedure. Ever heard of Hobby Lobby?  They effectively argued in court their employer sponsored health insurance for employees doesn't have to cover contraceptives for women based upon religious grounds. They aren't the only organization which denies these services to women. Which means they are paying out of pocket, too, despite having insurance. A 24 y/o women without kids would have the same difficulty obtaining a tubal ligation as you would a vasectomy. 

What is the difference in efficacy between condoms for men and other form of contraception for women?  Less than one percent?  Regardless, efficacy has zero affect upon your responsibility to ensure contraception is used IOT prevent pregnancy if you don't want a kid.

Claiming women are more responsible than men for pregnancy because OCPs are 0.7% more effective than condoms with spermicide is like claiming it is my fault you rear ended my truck at a stop light because I have access to more vehicles and safer vehicles than you. 

You're 24 years old and you have been hearing male OCPs are about five years away for almost three decades?

[BmorePat87]

(08-03-2016, 05:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt, the her body. her choice does not cover this inequality.

I of the mind that anything that comes from the union of man and woman should be equally shared and each party should have equal rights and responsibilities.

As I said, when the burden of carrying it can be shared equally by the man, then they will have an equal say in aborting it. 

[*bfine32*]

(08-03-2016, 06:02 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: As I said, when the burden of carrying it can be shared equally by the man, then they will have an equal say in aborting it. 

..and when a woman can get pregnant by herself she should have sole say. Outside of that it takes 2 to tango responsibility and rights to the offspring should be equally shared. 

But I'm for equal rights; regardless of biological sex. 

[THE Bigzoman]

(08-03-2016, 05:59 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Every one of those other methods available to women requires a prescription or procedure. Ever heard of Hobby Lobby?  They effectively argued in court their employer sponsored health insurance for employees doesn't have to cover contraceptives for women based upon religious grounds. They aren't the only organization which denies these services to women. Which means they are paying out of pocket, too, despite having insurance. A 24 y/o women without kids would have the same difficulty obtaining a tubal ligation as you would a vasectomy. 

What is the difference in efficacy between condoms for men and other form of contraception for women?  Less than one percent?  Regardless, efficacy has zero affect upon your responsibility to ensure contraception is used IOT prevent pregnancy if you don't want a kid.

Claiming women are more responsible than men for pregnancy because OCPs are 0.7% more effective than condoms with spermicide is like claiming it is my fault you rear ended my truck at a stop light because I have access to more vehicles and safer vehicles than you. 

You're 24 years old and you have been hearing male OCPs are about five years away for almost three decades?

Just about.

Was about 9 give or take, possibly older. It didn't mention OCP's specifically, but just male contraception. Less than one percent? It's quite higher than that.

I've already stated accessibility is an issue, but I don't think it's so much of one that it tips the scales back.

[THE Bigzoman]

(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.

Are pregnant women being chased by mountain lions or something?

Because that's the only way that women endure so much higher of a burden that it fits your analogy, at least in the first world.

What was the fatality rate from pregnancies in the first world last I checked, like a 19th of a percent?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-03-2016, 06:38 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Just about.

Was about 9 give or take, possibly older.

Can you subtract 9 from 24 and then convert that to decades for me?

[THE Bigzoman]

(08-03-2016, 06:45 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Can you subtract 9 from 24 and then convert that to decades for me?

Why did I think decades was in 5s.


Lol. Shit.

[THE Bigzoman]

(08-03-2016, 05:38 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I would be interested in reading those stats. Thanks. 

Sure. There's quite a bit out there, actually.

I can only start with economists  and their inquiries, and only then, one comes to mind (there's more, I just need to get home from work). This was something I researched years ago, so I'd have to dig the rest of my research at home.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/harvard-study-single-parents-a-hindrance-to-social-mobility/article/2542841
http://templatelab.com/mobility-geo/

TLDR: Harvard economists found that the biggest hindrance to social mobility for lower classes was being raised by a single parent. Yeah, "single parent". Mothers are the overwhelming majority of single parents though.

Does this lead you to my initial claim? No, not directly. But it's not that much of a stretch. Socioeconomic status has been heavily linked with violent crime in past studies. So if something is found to be hindering lower classes from reaching a higher socioeconomic status, it's at the very least a contributor when violent crime is the result.

The Economist did a piece on child rearing differences in social classes. Here:http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21646708-social-mobility-depends-what-happens-first-years-life-minding-nurture-gap



Again, the entirety of my claim aren't based on these two articles. Just let me get home first.

[THE Bigzoman]

Edit:

SHit, sorry. Forgot the Harvard study was that damn long. Page 44:

The fraction of children living in single-parent households is the strongest correlate of upward
income mobility among all the variables we explored, with a raw unweighted correlation of -0.76
(see Online Appendix Figure VIIa for the corresponding non-parametric binned scatter plot). One
natural explanation for this spatial correlation is an individual-level eect: children raised by a
single parent may have worse outcomes than those raised by two parents (e.g., Thomas and Sawhill
2002, Lamb 2004). To test whether this individual-level eect drives the spatial correlation, we
calculate upward mobility in each CZ based only on the subsample of children whose own parents
are married. The correlation between upward mobility and the fraction of single parents in their
CZ remains at -0.66 even in this subgroup (Online Appendix Figure VIIb). Hence, family structure
correlates with upward mobility not just at the individual level but also at the community level,
perhaps because the stability of the social environment aects children's outcomes more broadly.
The association between mobility and family structure at the community level echoes our ndings
in Section V.A on the community-level eects of racial shares.

[GMDino]

(08-03-2016, 06:41 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Are pregnant women being chased by mountain lions or something?

Because that's the only way that women endure so much higher of a burden that it fits your analogy, at least in the first world.

What was the fatality rate from pregnancies in the first world last I checked, like a 19th of a percent?

Has nothing to do with fatality...it has to do what the female and the male have to endure during the pregnancy.

The man - nothing.

The woman - her whole body changing for nine months and possibly the rest of her life.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-03-2016, 06:48 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Why did I think decades was in 5s.


Lol. Shit.

It's all about how you account for the numbers, right?