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

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

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

Gotta love when men tell women they gotta stay pregnant.

[Belsnickel]

(08-05-2016, 12:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course she gave permission; she even opened the door.

Sex is not consent to have a kid. There was a discussion about that earlier.

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 12:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Sex is not consent to have a kid. There was a discussion about that earlier.

Well I can only guess that discussion was one sided and void of logic.

[JustWinBaby]

(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.

More a case of property rights.  I just want my sperm back - if she intends to keep it, then I should be released of any and all obligations.

[Belsnickel]

(08-05-2016, 12:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well I can only guess that discussion was one sided and void of logic.

One sided, yes. Void of logic, no. But you can feel free to disagree.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(08-05-2016, 12:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well I can only guess that discussion was one sided and void of logic.

And you missed it!  

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 12:22 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: And you missed it!  

Of course I did; most likely why logic was at a minimum.

Consent means give permission for something to happen.

If I smoke cigarettes I don't want cancer, but I have consented to smoking and accepted the responsibility of the any outcome.

And no one has answered why can't the man refuse to have anything to do with the baby.

[fredtoast]

(08-05-2016, 12:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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?

Both parents are held equally responsible for the support of the child once it is born.  

That has zero to do with giving one person control over another person's body.  You are comparing apples to oranges.

[Belsnickel]

(08-05-2016, 12:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Consent means give permission for something to happen.

If I smoke cigarettes I don't want cancer, but I have consented to smoking and accepted the responsibility of the any outcome.

And then when you get cancer, you utilize available medical technology and methods to attempt to cure it, put it into remission, or fight off the effects.

Seems to be an accurate analogy. Unwanted pregnancy is like cancer.

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 12:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Both parents are held equally responsible for the support of the child once it is born.  

That has zero to do with giving one person control over another person's body.  You are comparing apples to oranges.

Can the man be required to provide medical care.

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 12:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And then when you get cancer, you utilize available medical technology and methods to attempt to cure it, put it into remission, or fight off the effects.

Seems to be an accurate analogy. Unwanted pregnancy is like cancer.

Good we both agree that consentual sex is giving consent to become pregnant.

Sorry I missed the first discussion, I could have saved you guys a lot of time; however, unlike cancer someone else may be will to take it from you and it would no longer be an issue for you.

[fredtoast]

(08-05-2016, 12:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And no one has answered why can't the man refuse to have anything to do with the baby.

The same reason the mother can not refuse to have anything to do with the baby.  Both parents are legally required to be responsible for the child.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-05-2016, 12:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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?

Oh, that's simple. We will apply your logic. The man consented to financial support when he consented to have sex. If he consented to premarital sex without putting a ring on it first he additionally consented the person with the uterus gets the tie breaker in the event the parties disagree about abortion. 

[fredtoast]

(08-05-2016, 12:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Can the man be required to provide medical care.

Yes.  Both the man and the woman.

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 12:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The same reason the mother can not refuse to have anything to do with the baby.  

Sure she can. She can just kill it.

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 12:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.  Both the man and the woman.

But what if the man doesn't want to. Is another person taking control of his life?

[Belsnickel]

(08-05-2016, 12:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Good we both agree that consentual sex is giving consent to become pregnant.

Sorry I missed the first discussion, I could have saved you guys a lot of time; however, unlike cancer someone else may be will to take it from you and it would no longer be an issue for you.

I wouldn't say it is consent. Just as when you smoke you don't give permission for cancer to happen, you don't give permission for pregnancy to happen by having sex. It is a potential outcome that can then be medically handled after the fact.

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 12:36 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Oh, that's simple. We will apply your logic. The man consented to financial support when he consented to have sex. If he consented to premarital sex without putting a ring on it first he additionally consented the person with the uterus gets the tie breaker in the event the parties disagree about abortion. 

Hey, I'm glad you applied my logic and hopefully you are enlightened.

As I have said both are equally responsible and have rights to the result.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(08-05-2016, 12:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course I did; most likely why logic was at a minimum.

Consent means give permission for something to happen.

If I smoke cigarettes I don't want cancer, but I have consented to smoking and accepted the responsibility of the any outcome.

And no one has answered why can't the man refuse to have anything to do with the baby.

I was kidding of course.  However.
As Matt mentioned earlier, consenting to sex does not  = consenting to have children. Many do it because it just plain feels good.

comparing smoking to getting pregnant? really?

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 12:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I wouldn't say it is consent. Just as when you smoke you don't give permission for cancer to happen, you don't give permission for pregnancy to happen by having sex. It is a potential outcome that can then be medically handled after the fact.

If only getting rid of cancer was as simple as getting rid of a baby and yes you gave your permission for something to happen.

It's probably best i missed the original conversation. You guys probably left that one thinking you all made sense.