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

[Belsnickel]

(08-05-2016, 08:22 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: 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?

Individual liberty. Everyone I know that is pro-choice wants to reduce the number of abortions, but doesn't feel it is right for the government to take away that liberty. We would instead like to focus on making contraceptives more easily accessible, making reproductive health care more affordable, providing better sex education for our youth, and making it so someone may not have to make that choice because of financial hardships.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-05-2016, 07:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.  

The courts rule the balance weighs in favor of the person physically affected by the pregnancy. They aren't being treated differently because one is male and the other female, they are being treated differently because one is physically affected and the other isn't. Their sex is secondary to that; if the man were physically pregnant the balance would weigh in his favor. Although, I'm not fooling myself into believing you will understand something so esoteric. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-05-2016, 08:22 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: 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?

When my wife was pregnant we declined the triple screen. If the triple screen was abnormal she would need amniocentesis. We thought the risks to the fetus was greater than the benefit of the triple screen. We also decided if the amniocentesis confirmed a chromosomal abnormality we wouldn't terminate the pregnancy making the need for the triple screen a moot point. 

In a different situation we may have decided differently. I don't know. We made that decision based upon our morals, values, and beliefs in conjunction with her doctors. No one else should be involved in that decision. 

I think others should be able to make these decisions on their own without outside influences from the bfines and bfritzes and breeches of the world. 

Does that make me a liberal?

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 08:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Individual liberty. Everyone I know that is pro-choice wants to reduce the number of abortions, but doesn't feel it is right for the government to take away that liberty. We would instead like to focus on making contraceptives more easily accessible, making reproductive health care more affordable, providing better sex education for our youth, and making it so someone may not have to make that choice because of financial hardships.

You really think that will have an impact on the number of abortions? You think folks are having abortions because they can't get a rubber? 

[Benton]

(08-05-2016, 08:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Individual liberty. Everyone I know that is pro-choice wants to reduce the number of abortions, but doesn't feel it is right for the government to take away that liberty. We would instead like to focus on making contraceptives more easily accessible, making reproductive health care more affordable, providing better sex education for our youth, and making it so someone may not have to make that choice because of financial hardships.

That's always been my hangup, but the older I get, the less I can go along with it, especially given the availability and affordability of birth control. 

Plus it's not like this country cares too much about individual rights any more. You can put someone in jail for life for doing drugs, you can indefinitely detain a person if you say he might be a terrorist, you can get away with shooting someone if you say you felt threatened. You can force people to get vaccinations (although I think that's a good one) and to go to school (also a good thing).  

[Belsnickel]

(08-05-2016, 09:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You really think that will have an impact on the number of abortions? You think folks are having abortions because they can't get a rubber? 

Excellent over-simplification with that strawman.

(08-05-2016, 09:44 PM)Benton Wrote: That's always been my hangup, but the older I get, the less I can go along with it, especially given the availability and affordability of birth control. 

Plus it's not like this country cares too much about individual rights any more. You can put someone in jail for life for doing drugs, you can indefinitely detain a person if you say he might be a terrorist, you can get away with shooting someone if you say you felt threatened. You can force people to get vaccinations (although I think that's a good one) and to go to school (also a good thing).  

The affordability of contraceptives is better than it once was, but accessibility can still be improved. This has to be coupled with other things, though, as well. Oral contraceptives have a great efficacy rate when used as prescribed. Most failures happen because someone didn't follow the instructions. Education on this sort of thing can, hopefully, improve that. These things reduce unwanted pregnancies, which would reduce abortions.

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 10:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Excellent over-simplification with that strawman.

Doesn't strawman mean I suggested something you didn't say?

I thought you mentioned those things as a means to reduce abortions and my question was quite simple. 

[Belsnickel]

(08-05-2016, 10:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Doesn't strawman mean I suggested something you didn't say?

I thought you mentioned those things as a means to reduce abortions and my question was quite simple. 

Building a strawman is creating an argument that was not made but is easier for you to argue against. Oversimplification of an argument is one method of building a strawman.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-05-2016, 10:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The affordability of contraceptives is better than it once was, but accessibility can still be improved. 

And so why I am responsible if the contraception fails?  Why is the financial "hardship" only relevant to the woman?

[Belsnickel]

(08-06-2016, 05:31 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: And so why I am responsible if the contraception fails?  Why is the financial "hardship" only relevant to the woman?

I don't think a man should be. You're barking up the wrong tree for that one. When I say sex isn't consent to have a child I mean it for both parties.

[grampahol]

The unborn are considered non-entities under US law and the law in many countries. It's not saying that the unborn don't exist, but if you decide they do have the same rights it becomes a very slippery slope. As it stands now and has for quite some time up until the moment of birth a human fetus doesn't exist as a functioning citizen of the world and it's like this to protect the parents and society at large.
Consider cases where fetuses die before birth because..oh, let's throw in some variables for example Say the mother is allergic to peanuts, but eats something with peanuts in it which causes miscarriage. If the fetus has full constitutional rights as many would think they should the mother could be charged with murder
There have been several cases of mothers being charged with murder after a miscarriage even when the mother did nothing wrong under the law. I'm using the peanut scenario as one ridiculous example, but these types of things do pop up in the courts from time to time.
Abortion is another example. Abortion, like it or not it legal in the United States, but if you assign rights to the unborn it's murder under any circumstances including instances where the mother's life is in grave risk of death. What you're then saying is the mother has no rights to life when giving birth will very likely kill her.
Now you can take the emotional side of everything and make all laws based on silly emotions, but it becomes a tangled mess.

[*bfine32*]

(08-06-2016, 07:12 PM)grampahol Wrote: The unborn are considered non-entities under US law and the law in many countries. It's not saying that the unborn don't exist, but if you decide they do have the same rights it becomes a very slippery slope.  As it stands now and has for quite some time up until the moment of birth a human fetus doesn't exist as a functioning citizen of the world and it's like this to protect the parents and society at large.
Consider cases where fetuses die before birth because..oh, let's throw in some variables for example  Say the mother is allergic to peanuts, but eats something with peanuts in it which causes miscarriage. If the fetus has full constitutional rights as many would think they should the mother could be charged with murder
There have been several cases of mothers being charged with murder after a miscarriage even when the mother did nothing wrong under the law.  I'm using the peanut scenario as one ridiculous example, but these types of things do pop up in the courts from time to time.
Abortion is another example. Abortion, like it or not it legal in the United States, but if you assign rights to the unborn it's murder under any circumstances including instances where the mother's life is in grave risk of death. What you're then saying is the mother has no rights to life when giving birth will very likely kill her.
Now you can take the emotional side of everything and make all laws based on silly emotions, but it becomes a tangled mess.

What about the rights of the father?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-06-2016, 09:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What about the rights of the father?

Everyone's rights end where another's begin. The mother's rights trump the rights of the father because she is the only one of the two physically affected by the pregnancy. This has been explained to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over

[GMDino]

(08-06-2016, 10:36 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Everyone's rights end where another's begin. The mother's rights trump the rights of the father because she is the only one of the two physically affected by the pregnancy. This has been explained to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over

Yes, but it's a man.  How it cannot be in his favor?  Don't you understand that life isn't fair and equality isn't equal if a man isn't treated equally?!?! 

[JustWinBaby]

(08-06-2016, 08:25 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't think a man should be. You're barking up the wrong tree for that one. When I say sex isn't consent to have a child I mean it for both parties.

I have mixed feelings on it.  The law exists to provide for the child.  However, if you don't have a say in the woman's choice - and I'm not saying you should - at least if you can discharge parental rights and financial obligations, then that at least gives you some influence on the outcome that you're not a meal ticket.

Otherwise, this debate is just so silly and useless.  To ban abortion would have serious socioeconomic consequences.  And for those who wouldn't seek illegal abortions, those with the means just go to Canada or Europe for the procedure.  So a ban is mainly moral grandstanding that only invites negative health/economic outcomes.

[fredtoast]

(08-06-2016, 11:22 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote:  at least if you can discharge parental rights and financial obligations, then that at least gives you some influence on the outcome that you're not a meal ticket.

The womans responsibility to supporrt the child is the same as the man's.  They are both charged with the same responsilbility when they take the chance that their sex will result in a child being born.  The man is not a "meal ticket."

[Belsnickel]

(08-07-2016, 10:07 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The womans responsibility to supporrt the child is the same as the man's.  They are both charged with the same responsilbility when they take the chance that their sex will result in a child being born.  The man is not a "meal ticket."

Here's the rub. Man and woman have sex without contraceptives. Woman gets pregnant.

Option 1: Both want a child. There is much rejoicing.

Option 2: Neither want a child. Abortion. There is much rejoicing.

Option 3: Woman does not want child, man does. Woman gets abortion with or without man ever knowing. Woman rejoices, man may be sad if he knows, which there is no guarantee of as he has no say in it (rightly so IMO).

Option 4: Man does not want child, woman does. Man wants woman to get an abortion, woman refuses. Child is born and woman files for child support from man who did not want child in the first place.

If a woman does not want the child then she has an out, which is understandable, her body, man has no control over it. The woman also cannot be forced to have an abortion, again, her body. But if we are really going to use the argument that sex does not hive consent for a child then we have to apply that equally. If a man does not want that child, and we are all in agreement that he cannot force an abortion (which I hope we are all in agreement on that) then there should, in a truly equal society, be an out for the man so that he is not going to be held financially responsible for something he did not consent to either.

It's bull shit to say that the man consented to having to pay for a child he doesn't want while saying that a woman did not consent to having a child she doesn't want so she should have access to abortion services. For the record, this is the feminist perspective. The type of feminism fighting for equality. The higher amount of responsibility that is placed on men is unfair to men, but it also works on the assumption that men have more power and authority, and so ending that sort of assumption is a big part of the feminist ideology.

[*bfine32*]

(08-07-2016, 10:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's bull shit to say that the man consented to having to pay for a child he doesn't want while saying that a woman did not consent to having a child she doesn't want so she should have access to abortion services. For the record, this is the feminist perspective. The type of feminism fighting for equality. The higher amount of responsibility that is placed on men is unfair to men, but it also works on the assumption that men have more power and authority, and so ending that sort of assumption is a big part of the feminist ideology.

This has been my point. If sex is not consent to get pregnant (I thought you guys had already ironed this out BTW), then it makes 0 sense to suggest only the woman can freely separate herself from the issue if she wishes, yet the man has to abide by whatever the woman wishes. Isn't that giving her control over him?

If it is consent to get pregnant than the woman should be held accountable for the result to include bearing the child, if one party wants the results of the union. I'm pretty sure going in they understand with one can become pregnant.

IMO, you cannot have it both ways; yet some see this as sexist, when, in fact, if they stepped back and looked they are being sexist.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-07-2016, 12:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This has been my point. If sex is not consent to get pregnant (I thought you guys had already ironed this out BTW), then it makes 0 sense to suggest only the woman can freely separate herself from the issue if she wishes, yet the man has to abide by whatever the woman wishes. Isn't that giving her control over him?

If it is consent to get pregnant than the woman should be held accountable for the result to include bearing the child, if one party wants the results of the union. I'm pretty sure going in they understand with one can become pregnant.

IMO, you cannot have it both ways; yet some see this as sexist, when, in fact, if they stepped back and looked they are being sexist.

Paying child support is no different than paying taxes. Does the government have control over you because you pay taxes?  Does the government have control of your body?  (Since you're pretending to be incapable of answering my questions, the answer to both is "no.") It's a choice, but if you don't pay there are consequences. I've paid child support and no one had control over me. Certainly, no one had control over my body against my wishes. Paying child support is in no way comparable to carrying a pregnancy against one's wishes. You know this. Pretending otherwise is "petty."

[JustWinBaby]

(08-07-2016, 10:07 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The womans responsibility to supporrt the child is the same as the man's.  They are both charged with the same responsilbility when they take the chance that their sex will result in a child being born.  The man is not a "meal ticket."

In most states, is your child support contribution not based off a percentage of your income?  So if you make enough money, how are you not a "meal ticket" providing well in excess of basic needs?  Are you saying courts monitor how child support payments are spent?  

Bigger house, nicer car, a nanny, more expensive vacations - none of that well in excess of basic needs based on my ability to pay for it?