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

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 05:08 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Cool, so you already know the answers for 1 & 2 so no further explanation is necessary. 

Is paying child support the same as someone forcing you to do something with your body against your will?

1&2: Yes the answer is because it's the law

3. Sure, it very well could be. I may not be able to get the medical treatment I need because to co-pay I have to pay for the child's health-care has made it impossible for me to afford mine. Also the child support goes on for a minimum of 18 years while Pregnancy goes on for a maximum of 9 months.

But, as usually this has turned petty in nature. Bye.

[fredtoast]

(08-05-2016, 03:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But you kind of contridict yourself with your bolded as you stat you can force the father to provide medical care required to produce the possible outcome.

No contradiction at all.  He consented to the possibility that he would be responsible for the medical care for the birth of his child.

Both parties agree to be responsible for the possibility that a child will be produced from sex.  

Neither party can force the other to produce a child, but both parties agree to be responsible for the costs of that possibility.

[fredtoast]

(08-05-2016, 05:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 3. Sure, it very well could be. I may not be able to get the medical treatment I need because to co-pay I have to pay for the child's health-care has made it impossible for me to afford mine.  Also the child support goes on for a minimum of 18 years while Pregnancy goes on for a maximum of 9 months.

Then you should never have consented to the possibility of having a child when you agreed to have sex.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-05-2016, 05:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1&2: Yes the answer is because it's the law

No, you can read the Supreme Court's opinion for yourself and it has been explained to you ad nauseum.

Quote:3. Sure, it very well could be. I may not be able to get the medical treatment I need because to co-pay I have to pay for the child's health-care has made it impossible for me to afford mine.  Also the child support goes on for a minimum of 18 years while Pregnancy goes on for a maximum of 9 months.

Court order child support payments are not the same as forcing you to do something with your body against your wishes by any stretch of your imagination. And you know it.

Quote:But, as usually this has turned petty in nature. Bye.

It's "petty" because I asked if child support payments were the same as someone forcing you to do something with your body against your wishes?  Or it's "petty" based upon your mental gymnastic to avoid admitting the obvious?

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 05:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then you should never have consented to the possibility of having a child when you agreed to have sex.

Word!!

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 05:54 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: No, you can read the Supreme Court's opinion for yourself and it has been explained to you ad nauseum.


Court order child support payments are not the same as forcing you to do something with your body against your wishes by any stretch of your imagination. And you know it.


It's "petty" because I asked if child support payments were the same as someone forcing you to do something with your body against your wishes?  Or it's "petty" based upon your mental gymnastic to avoid admitting the obvious?

It is petty because you do nothing more than ask a string of questions in an attempt of "got cha" without answering questions posed to you (or as you like to look in the mirror and proclaim it's because you're a great teacher) Then when your question(s) are answered: "In both cases someone is forced to do something against their will because a pregnancy occurred as the result of sex". It becomes, not exactly the same thing.

You could most likely give me any two situations in the world and I could show you how they are not exactly the same. If you want to roll with that and "because it's the law", then you've made the point to yourself.

Good luck talking to the others in the forum and perhaps a couple will play along with your game; as this will be my last reply to you in this forum. You can be like the other guy and say "I'm scared of you because you call me out" or you can realize, even in a forum where a degree of pettiness can be tolerated; there  comes a limit. 

[fredtoast]

(07-31-2016, 03:36 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I'm still kind of floored no guy has challenged the fact that he has no real say....financially responsible if she keeps the baby, but no legal standing to object to an abortion.

And when you consider feticide laws....there's a real case to be made.

I am still kind of floored that Mr. "I-am-not-a-conservative-I-am-a-libertarian" wants the government to overrule a woman's right to make decisions about her own body.

[fredtoast]

(08-05-2016, 06:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  "In both cases someone is forced to do something against their will because a pregnancy occurred as the result of sex". It becomes, not exactly the same thing.

I don't understand.  Neither the man nor the woman is being forced to so anything that they did not consent to when they had sex.

Both consented to the possibility that a child would be conceived.  Neither is being forced to do anything that they did not consent to.

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 06:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't understand.  Neither the man nor the woman is being forced to so anything that they did not consent to when they had sex.

Both consented to the possibility that a child would be conceived.  Neither is being forced to do anything that they did not consent to.

But only one has the "right" to voluntarily relinquish all responsibility.

I do appreciate your acknowledgement that the woman consented to becoming pregnant, but we just disagree with the fact that she alone can terminate something she consented to bringing to life. But that's more of a moral discussion that a logical one. At least you presented your logic and I can understand it. We just disagree on options that each has a right to.   

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 06:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am still kind of floored that Mr. "I-am-not-a-conservative-I-am-a-libertarian" wants the government to overrule a woman's right to make decisions about her own body.

What are your thoughts on child vaccines?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-05-2016, 06:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is petty because you do nothing more than ask a string of questions in an attempt of "got cha" without answering questions posed to you (or as you like to look in the mirror and proclaim it's because you're a great teacher) Then when your question(s) are answered: "In both cases someone is forced to do something against their will because a pregnancy occurred as the result of sex". It becomes, not exactly the same thing.

You could most likely give me any two situations in the world and I could show you how they are not exactly the same. If you want to roll with that and "because it's the law", then you've made the point to yourself.

Good luck talking to the others in the forum and perhaps a couple will play along with your game; as this will be my last reply to you in this forum. You can be like the other guy and say "I'm scared of you because you call me out" or you can realize, even in a forum where a degree of pettiness can be tolerated; there  comes a limit. 

If you answered my questions honestly you would have my answer. And you would understand it because you thought of it yourself.  My questions have nothing to do with this "got cha" bullshit you have imagined. 

Paying child support payments isn't remotely the same as someone forcing you to do something with your body against your wishes. Paying child support payments aren't even close to giving up control of your finances as you also suggested. 

If you don't want to respond then don't respond. It's not like I'm forcing you to give up control of your body against your wishes which could be potentially life threatening. 

[Johnny Cupcakes]

Why do liberals always argue for the pro-choice side? Is it just a political allegiance? To me, it seems like one of the only issues where liberals take the inferior moral stance.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(08-04-2016, 02:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: 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/



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

Why would a man think that he has rights over a woman's body when the human being living inside of her doesn't even have that right?

[fredtoast]

(08-05-2016, 06:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But only one has the "right" to voluntarily relinquish all responsibility.

And that is because both are given equal control over their own bodies.

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 07:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And that is because both are given equal control over their own bodies.

But unequal control over their offspring because of biological sex. 

[fredtoast]

(08-05-2016, 07:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But unequal control over their offspring because of biological sex. 

Exactly.

You can't give a man control over a woman's body.  The only fair way to do it is give them both control over their own bodies.  It is unfortunate for men that they can not bear babies, but there is no other fair way to respect the individual rights of both parties.  You can't give a man control over a woman's body.

Someday technology will advance to the point that a fetus can be removed from the woman's body and given to the father, but until then the only fair thing to do is give both individuals control over their own bodies.

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 07:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Exactly.

You can't give a man control over a woman's body.  The only fair way to do it is give them both control over their own bodies.  It is unfortunate for men that they can not bear babies, but there is no other fair way to respect the individual rights of both parties.  You can't give a man control over a woman's body.

Someday technology will advance to the point that a fetus can be removed from the woman's body and given to the father, but until then the only fair thing to do is give both individuals control over their own bodies.

As long as you admit there is sometimes need for unequal treatment based on nothing more than biological sex, then we have found common ground.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-05-2016, 07:05 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Why do liberals always argue for the pro-choice side?  Is it just a political allegiance?  To me, it seems like one of the only issues where liberals take the inferior moral stance.

What is my political allegiance?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-05-2016, 07:08 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Why would a man think that he has rights over a woman's body when the human being living inside of her doesn't even have that right?

Ask bfine. 

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(08-05-2016, 08:15 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What is my political allegiance?

I don't know. Hopefully, you don't have one.

It just seems that most liberals (as I know you are) take the pro-choice stance on abortion (which I know you do), even though it is the morally inferior choice, and even though liberals usually side with the morally superior choice.  Is this just a case of siding with the (D) for a lot of otherwise rational people?