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

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-05-2016, 12:12 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 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?

Did you see the study?  Were the single parent families raising children?  Wouldn't those children have been taken away if they didn't have the means and support to raise those children?  Who was I taking a shot at?

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 12:17 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Did you see the study?  Were the single parent families raising children?  Wouldn't those children have been taken away if they didn't have the means and support to raise those children?  Who was I taking a shot at?

I read your post and that was pretty much all I needed to determine the motivation for it.

But hey you didn't answer my question, just asked 4 more. So unlike you. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-05-2016, 12:22 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I read your post and that was pretty much all I needed to determine the motivation for it.

But hey you didn't answer my question, just asked 4 more. So unlike you. 

The best teachers challenge students to think for themselves rather than spoonfeeding them the aswer.  How do you think a teacher might do this?  I'll spoon feed you the answer: by asking questions which force you to think for yourself to arrive at an answer.

Bfine32:  I should have said that the father would have to show he had the means and support system to raise the child.


Breech:  Did you see the study? 


Bfine32:  No


Breech:  Were the single parent families raising children?


Bfine32:  Yes


Breech:  Wouldn't those children have been taken away if they didn't have the means and support to raise those children?


Bfine32:  Yes


Morgan Freeman voice over:  Therefore the single parent families in the study did show the means and support system to raise a family.  


Breech:  What did the study say about single parent families?


Bfine32: 

[THE Bigzoman]

(08-05-2016, 12:17 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Did you see the study?  Were the single parent families raising children?  Wouldn't those children have been taken away if they didn't have the means and support to raise those children?  Who was I taking a shot at?

Were you referring to the studies I cited earlier?

Were you taking a shot at it or legit using it as a counter? I'm sorry, i'm just jumping.

Totally forgot about the rest of that. But If you're mocking/refufting it, I can show you plenty more, or you can discuss any beef you have with what I cited already.

[THE Bigzoman]

(08-05-2016, 12:12 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 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?

Single parents generally lack the means to raise a stable child, both fiscally and emotionally.

There's not a lot of studies on single farhters, because they're aren't a lot of them. But I doubt it's that much different because the single parent has a penis.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-05-2016, 12:41 AM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Were you referring to the studies I cited earlier?

Were you taking a shot at it or legit using it as a counter? I'm sorry, i'm just jumping.

Totally forgot about the rest of that. But If you're mocking/refufting it, I can show you plenty more, or you can discuss any beef you have with what I cited already.

I'm using it as a legitimate counter, for now.  I haven't finished reading all of it, yet.  I would need to read similar studies IOT form a better opinion on how legitimate it is.

These are the true anchor babies.

[THE Bigzoman]

(08-05-2016, 12:17 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Did you see the study?  Were the single parent families raising children?  Wouldn't those children have been taken away if they didn't have the means and support to raise those children?  Who was I taking a shot at?

A home can be bad for children without attracting the state's attention, because you don't have to get to that point to raise an unstable home for children.

So what, since the State doesn't remove children from single parent homes en masse that suddenly invalidates my claim? 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-05-2016, 12:59 AM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: A home can be bad for children without attracting the state's attention, because you don't have to get to that point to raise an unstable home for children.

So what, since the State doesn't remove children from single parent homes en masse that suddenly invalidates my claim? 

No.  Believe me, I know a home can get bad without attracting the state's attention.

[Benton]

(08-05-2016, 12:44 AM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Single e parents generally lack the means to raise a stable child, both fiscally and emotionally.

There's not a lot of studies on single farhters, because they're aren't a lot of them. But I doubt it's that much different because the single parent has a penis.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/familystability.htm

there's other studies out there. Generally though a more stable home, whether with one parent or 10, makes the bigger difference.

[fredtoast]

(08-04-2016, 10:19 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So the woman gets an unequal say in the offspring because here biological make up?

Not giving the man control over anything more than having equal say in the welfare of his offspring.

You are giving the man control over the woman's body.  You are not giving the woman control over the mans body.

And, yes, since only a woman can carry the baby in her body then only she has control over her own body.

You just can not give another person control over a woman's body.  That is the ultimate violation of individual rights.  When technology advances to the point that a fertilized egg can be removed from a woman's body and developed in a lab then the man can argue about control of the fetus.  But as long as it is the woman's body she has control over it.

[BFritz21]

(08-05-2016, 02:09 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You are giving the man control over the woman's body.  You are not giving the woman control over the mans body.

And, yes, since only a woman can carry the baby in her body then only she has control over her own body.

You just can not give another person control over a woman's body.  That is the ultimate violation of individual rights.  When technology advances to the point that a fertilized egg can be removed from a woman's body and developed in a lab then the man can argue about control of the fetus.  But as long as it is the woman's body she has control over it.

[JustWinBaby]

If my life isn't ready for a child....why can't I demand an abortion, or at least negate any financial responsibilities from an independent choice?

If carrying a child to term is somehow unsafe, "inconvenient", or abusive...then if abortion is safe then why can't I discharge my responsibility?

[Rotobeast]

(08-04-2016, 11:54 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If I shove a dollar in you piggy bank, does that mean i get to tell you what to do with your piggy bank?

No !
Because my piggy never gave consent !




Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[fredtoast]

(08-05-2016, 04:02 AM)BFritz21 Wrote:

There is a very simple answer for people who actually think like this.

Take the baby out and give it to the person who wants it.

Everyone is happy then.   No one has anything to complain about. 

[fredtoast]

(08-05-2016, 04:17 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: If my life isn't ready for a child....why can't I demand an abortion, or at least negate any financial responsibilities from an independent choice?

If carrying a child to term is somehow unsafe, "inconvenient", or abusive...then if abortion is safe then why can't I discharge my responsibility?

Because it is not your body.

You can not give one person control over another persons body.  That is the ultimate violation of individual rights.

[BFritz21]

(08-05-2016, 09:41 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Because it is not your body.

You can not give one person control over another persons body.  That is the ultimate violation of individual rights.

I agree.  

[Belsnickel]

(08-05-2016, 11:10 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I agree.  

The woman doesn't want control over that body, she just wants control over hers, which requires expelling something unwanted that she did not give permission to be there.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-05-2016, 07:14 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: No !
Because my piggy never gave consent !




Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Bullshit. 

You're piggy went, "wee, wee, weeeeeeeeeeee!"

All. The. Way. Home. 

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 09:41 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Because it is not your body.

You can not give one person control over another persons body.  That is the ultimate violation of individual rights.

Then why can't the man decide he wants nothing to do with the baby including providing for it financially. Aren't you giving her control over another person's life?

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 11:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The woman doesn't want control over that body, she just wants control over hers, which requires expelling something unwanted that she did not give permission to be there.

Of course she gave permission; she even opened the door.