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

[*bfine32*]

(08-04-2016, 12:47 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You don't know?

IDK, seemed like you were agreeing with me and caught me by surprise.

The current debate was does the male have any rights to his unborn child and you chimed in with both the male and female most contribute to the life. You also mentioned something about religious folks.

So thanks for the support.

[*bfine32*]

(08-04-2016, 12:53 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is the first time you wrote off me saying that the fact that her body is burdened by pregnancy as simply "because she's a woman". 



Here you do it twice, despite me now having said 3 times that it's because she is the one who is pregnant.



Now, after 4 times saying that a woman decides when to abort because she is physically burdened by pregnancy, your response still is "sorry, you're a dude".

Planned Parenthood v Casey found that the fact that the pregnancy directly affects the woman's body means she has the ultimate say over the pregnancy. If you have some way of explaining how this can become a situation in which it burdens the man's body equally, then you'll have your answer as to when the man has a say over it. I've said this before. I won't say it again. You're not worth wasting time on when you act like this.

Just because you continue to say something doesn't make it any more logical; especially coming from someone who feels we should break down the boundries of biological sex and go more with identification.

Don't concern further waste of time; each has his view. I feel a father should have a say in the welfare of his offspring, you do not. I don't foresee anything changing.

[Rotobeast]

(08-04-2016, 01:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Just because you continue to say something doesn't make it any more logical; especially coming from someone who feels we should break down the boundries of biological sex and go more with identification.

Don't concern further waste of time; each has his view. I feel a father should have a say in the welfare of his offspring, you do not. I don't foresee anything changing.

I'm surprised that a man hasn't sued for mental anguish, when a woman has aborted his child.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[GMDino]

First off I suppose I should not have been surprised there is a website called "Men's Rights"

Let us continue:

http://mensrights.com/what-are-a-fathers-rights-to-prevent-an-abortion/

Quote:What Are A Father’s Rights To Prevent An Abortion?

The case of a New Mexico man who paid for a billboard ad to protest his ex-girlfriend’s decision to have an abortion against his wishes has once again brought up the father’s rights and paternity rights issue of whether a man should have the right to stop a woman from aborting their child.

According to the Associated Press, a billboard in New Mexico shows 35-year-old Greg Fultz holding the outline of an infant. The text reads, “This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!”

U.S. Supreme Court rulings prove that fathers have no legal rights when it comes to abortion (Planned Parenthood v. Danforth and Planned Parenthood v. Casey).

Courts have consistently decided that a woman’s right to an abortion can’t be vetoed by a husband, partner or ex-boyfriend, and also that a woman doesn’t have to notify the father that she intends to have an abortion, according to a BBC article.

Women are required to get education before an abortion in at least 17 states, according to Cordell & Cordell divorce lawyer Jill Duffy. In order for the abortion to be performed in some of those states, the woman must give written, informed consent at least 24 hours beforehand. However, that waiting period doesn’t require informing the possible father.

“A woman can legally deprive a man of his right to become a parent or force him to become one against his will,” according to “Mr. Dad” Armin Brott, who is an author, speaker and fathers rights advocate.

While there may not be a legal defense, your best defense to prevent your partner from having an abortion is to educate her about the consequences of abortion, Duffy said.

Abortion is a serious matter that one should make only after becoming fully informed of all of the options and effects.

Duffy said you could try convincing her to continue with her pregnancy through birth and then have her voluntarily terminate her parental rights and giving all rights to the child’s father, which can be legally done in most states.

If she rules against abortion and decides to give birth to the child, you must establish your paternity as soon as possible.

According to the article “How To Establish Paternity” on DadsDivorce.com, you can establish paternity by:

1. Getting on the birth certificate. Once your child is born, the easiest way to establish paternity is by getting your name on the birth certificate.

Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity (VAP) forms are also available for fathers to sign at the hospital at the time of the child’s birth.

2. Getting an order through an administrative agency. Administrative agencies (such as Child Support Enforcement) can be helpful during the initial stages of your paternity action by assisting you with filling out forms and helping you obtain a DNA test to establish that you are the father of the child.

3. Getting a court order. You must file a Petition for Paternity and Child Custody with your local Circuit Court or Family Court. The court will then order a paternity test or look to see if the father is listed on the birth certificate to determine whether paternity has been established.

You should consult with an attorney who is licensed in your state to discuss your state’s paternity laws. Cordell & Cordell Law Firm has divorce lawyers for men located nationwide who are experienced in handling paternity cases.

I guess my next question is:  How many men try to talk their wife/gf/SO out of the abortion in the first place?

[Benton]

(08-04-2016, 02:00 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I'm surprised that a man hasn't sued for mental anguish, when a woman has aborted his child.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/22/nyregion/man-sues-wife-on-abortion-done-without-his-knowing.html

Old and not exactly the same, but there probably have been. The SCOTUS has ruled on dozens of abortion related cases, and been petitioned to hear I couldn't guess how many more.

[*bfine32*]

(08-04-2016, 02:00 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I'm surprised that a man hasn't sued for mental anguish, when a woman has aborted his child.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

I think if they open the Pandora's box of gender identification they will receive more and have to justify their reasoning given precedent.

WTS, to my knowledge SCOTUS have only ruled once on a gender identification case and their ruling was a lower court could not stop a school from allowing a student to select a facility opposite her sex. 

I think all anyone would want is consistency.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-04-2016, 12:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If a woman if becomes pregnant from the result of an action for which she did not consent; she should have total control. If she entered it jointly, the joint control should be considered. 

What is the tie breaker if the woman wants an abortion, but the man objects?

[Benton]

(08-04-2016, 02:51 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What is the tie breaker if the woman wants an abortion, but the man objects?

Arm wrestling.



I try to stay out of the abortion issue as I don't think it really ever changes here. But, what you're postulating, I've always felt if the man was willing to raise the child — and we're talking about a normal man and woman copulation here — he should be given the chance. If the man objects just because he doesn't believe in abortion, but isn't going to take full responsibility for the child, then that's up to the mother.

[*bfine32*]

(08-04-2016, 02:51 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What is the tie breaker if the woman wants an abortion, but the man objects?

Pretty much what Benton said: The welfare of the child. 

I would have no objections to a father having to prove that he has the means and support group required to provide the child with a safe, stable home. If this cannot be proven, then the woman's will takes precedence, because of the reasons previously stated. 

I would suggest that a Grandparent would have the same right, but that's currently a bridge too far as they were not directly involved in the creation of the child. 

[Rotobeast]

(08-04-2016, 03:06 PM)Benton Wrote: Arm wrestling.



I try to stay out of the abortion issue as I don't think it really ever changes here. But, what you're postulating, I've always felt if the man was willing to raise the child — and we're talking about a normal man and woman copulation here — he should be given the chance. If the man objects just because he doesn't believe in abortion, but isn't going to take full responsibility for the child, then that's up to the mother.

I agree, but if it goes down that way, then the man needs to step up and pay hospital bills and ect...

I'm assuming the man would have to sign papers stating the mother is purely viewed as a gestation vessel, waiving all expectations of support.
But if you have that, it's going to open more cans of worms.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[BmorePat87]

(08-04-2016, 06:37 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I agree, but if it goes down that way, then the man needs to step up and pay hospital bills and ect...

I'm assuming the man would have to sign papers stating the mother is purely viewed as a gestation vessel, waiving  all expectations of support.
But if you have that, it's going to open more cans of worms.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Even then the government is forcing someone to go through pregnancy and child birth against their wishes because another person decided so. You give control of that person's body over to another person without consent. 

[*bfine32*]

(08-04-2016, 06:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Even then the government is forcing someone to go through pregnancy and child birth against their wishes because another person decided so. You give control of that person's body over to another person without consent. 

And IMO she gave consent when she agreed to engage in an activity that could lead to the two of the creating a child. It is not like she engaged in the activity not knowing which one would get pregnant if a life was created. Perhaps if: "I may have to carry a child to term for this guy" came into list of options before "If something happens I can just abort it." then both may make more thought out choices.

Playing Russian Roulette doesn't mean you consent to being shot in the head, but you have put you fate in the hands of something outside of your control. 

[Rotobeast]

(08-04-2016, 06:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Even then the government is forcing someone to go through pregnancy and child birth against their wishes because another person decided so. You give control of that person's body over to another person without consent. 

Oh, I understand.
I've had two of my offspring aborted, in which I had zero say.
I've struggled personally with this issue for over 20 years.
It never gets any easier.
You lay awake at night, wondering what might have been.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[BmorePat87]

(08-04-2016, 08:00 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Oh, I understand.
I've had two of my offspring aborted, in which I had zero say.
I've struggled personally with this issue for over 20 years.
It never gets any easier.
You lay awake at night, wondering what might have been.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

I'm sorry to hear that. While I defend the right to have an abortion, I'm not a fan of the practice in most situations. Not that I have a say, but if I was ever in a position where my opinion was asked, I'd  keep it. It's one of those things that can be painful and suck, but there's no way to give some control to the man without taking ownership of one's body away from the person who is actually pregnant. You can offer to pay for all pregnancy related costs and get a contract agreeing to it, but that still requires the woman to be willing to go through pregnancy. 

Some think there's no logic in saying the person who is actually pregnant has an unequal burden in the situation, but that's what 5 Supreme Court justices stated. The emotional burden the man can carry doesn't outweigh the physical burden as only the woman can carry that. 

[THE Bigzoman]

(08-04-2016, 11:41 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: https://www.optionsforsexualhealth.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control-options/effectiveness

Again, efficacy of the various methods available doesn't mitigate a man's responsibility that contraception is used IOT prevent an unwanted pregnancy.  

If efficacy did affect your responsibility contraception is used IOT prevent an unwanted pregnancy, by your logic you don't even need to worry about contraception because OCPs are more effective than condoms therefore the woman is more to blame than you are if an unwanted pregnancy does occur.  Does that seem logical to you?

And we haven't even touched on the STD prevention aspect yet

Wait, what?
Yes, if you have more and a more efficient means to prevent an outcome, you're more responsible if an outcome occurs and it's found that you were able but didn't utilize them.

This doesn't mitigate responsibility on the man, because it isn't a zero-sum game.
It's a good thing we're not talking about contracting STDs then, we're talking about unwanted pregnancies.

[THE Bigzoman]

(08-04-2016, 07:42 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Our GL entries are an automated load that another one of the employees handles, though I do have to do manual entries on paperwork that are then entered into GL by another department. Then I come in behind and reconcile all of our accounts. It's government accounting, so good times.

I'm just surprised that the government actually does accounting/finance.

Ever hear of Cost-benfit analysis in public projects? Government can't even do that right.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-04-2016, 07:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And IMO she gave consent when she agreed to engage in an activity that could lead to the two of the creating a child. It is not like she engaged in the activity not knowing which one would get pregnant if a life was created. Perhaps if: "I may have to carry a child to term for this guy" came into list of options before "If something happens I can just abort it." then both may make more thought out choices.

Playing Russian Roulette doesn't mean you consent to being shot in the head, but you have put you fate in the hands of something outside of your control. 

Is this a new game?  Are we supposed to make up bullshit? Ok, ok, ok . . . I got one.  And IMO when he consented to premaritial sex he agreed the one in pocession of the uterus gets to make the decisions.  Like Beyonce say, shoulda put a ring on it.

If I shove a dollar in you piggy bank, does that mean i get to tell you what to do with your piggy bank?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-04-2016, 05:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Pretty much what Benton said: The welfare of the child. 

I would have no objections to a father having to prove that he has the means and support group required to provide the child with a safe, stable home. If this cannot be proven, then the woman's will takes precedence, because of the reasons previously stated. 

I would suggest that a Grandparent would have the same right, but that's currently a bridge too far as they were not directly involved in the creation of the child. 

Didn't you see Bigzoman's Harvard study?  Single parent homes are raising the next generation of tax payer subsidized criminals.  Is that what you mean by welfare of the child?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-04-2016, 10:39 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Wait, what?
Yes, if you have more and a more efficient means to prevent an outcome, you're more responsible if an outcome occurs and it's found that you were able but didn't utilize them.

This doesn't mitigate responsibility on the man, because it isn't a zero-sum game.
It's a good thing we're not talking about contracting STDs then, we're talking about unwanted pregnancies.

In this scenario, what for of birth control did the man use?

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 12:03 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Didn't you see Bigzoman's Harvard study?  Single parent homes are raising the next generation of tax payer subsidized criminals.  Is that what you mean by welfare of the child?

I should have said that the father would have to show he had the means and support system to raise the child.

Did you really not see that or just wanted to take a shot at someone?