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

[Belsnickel]

(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.

A couple of us had the conversation. It seems some people are in disagreement on it.

Your last comment is exactly my point, though. My wife and I were discussing this whole thread and how so many people think they are putting forth a progressive argument on the pro-choice side of things when in fact it plays into the sexist establishment in place.

[fredtoast]

(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?

No because she is not forcing him to do something that he has not already consented to,

If the man consents that a child can be the result of the sex then he can not claim he is being forced to do something he does not want to if a child is born.  

However when he consents the child is only POSSIBLE.  Sex is not a binding contract to have a baby.

Consenting to a possible outcome is not the same as having the power to force that outcome.

[*bfine32*]

(08-07-2016, 07:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No because she is not forcing him to do something that he has not already consented to,

If the man consents that a child can be the result of the sex then he can not claim he is being forced to do something he does not want to if a child is born.

So why isn't she required to carry his baby to term if the father wants it? She has already consented to being pregnant. 

Does only she get "take backs"? Seems sexist. 

[fredtoast]

(08-07-2016, 03:40 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: 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?

The amount of child support for BOTH parties is based on the income.  

If a poor dude has a child by a rich woman then she will pay a lot more toward raising his child than she will.  In that case the mother is the "meal ticket".

[*bfine32*]

(08-07-2016, 07:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No because she is not forcing him to do something that he has not already consented to,

If the man consents that a child can be the result of the sex then he can not claim he is being forced to do something he does not want to if a child is born.  

However when he consents the child is only POSSIBLE.  Sex is not a binding contract to have a baby.

Consenting to a possible outcome is not the same as having the power to force that outcome.

Oh, your edit has you arguing against yourself. I'll stand by to see which side wins. 

[fredtoast]

(08-07-2016, 07:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So why isn't she required to carry his baby to term if the father wants it? She has already consented to being pregnant. 

Because the man can not have power over the woman's body.  He only consented to a possible outcome.  Having sex is not a binding contract to produce a baby.

Are men being "sexists" when they refuse to carry a fetus in their bodies?

[fredtoast]

(08-07-2016, 07:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, your edit has you arguing against yourself.

No it doesn't.

[*bfine32*]

(08-07-2016, 07:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it doesn't.

Well as long as you don't think so. Unfortunately most folks in this forum can read.

You are saying both consent to having a baby; yet only one has the "right" to terminate it. Equality!!

[*bfine32*]

(08-07-2016, 07:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Are men being "sexists" when they refuse to carry a fetus in their bodies?

Link to a man refusing to carry a fetus. 

[fredtoast]

(08-07-2016, 08:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well as long as you don't think so. Unfortunately most folks in this forum can read.

You are saying both consent to having a baby; yet only one has the "right" to terminate it. Equality!!

No.  I am saying that both have equal rights over their own bodies.  That is the only way we can have equality.  Give all individuals control over their own bodies.  

You can not let a man have control over a woman's body, and since when he has sex he consents that a child is possible he has ZERO basis to complain.

Consenting to a possible outcome does not give anyone the power to force that outcome.

[fredtoast]

(08-07-2016, 08:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Link to a man refusing to carry a fetus. 

Link to a man who agreed to carry a fetus.

It has never happened.

[*bfine32*]

(08-07-2016, 08:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Link to a man who agreed to carry a fetus.

It has never happened.

I never said a man agreed to carry a fetus. You asked is a man sexist for refusing to carry a fetus. I think we all recognized that was a stupid question and made about as much sense as the point you are trying to make. 

[fredtoast]

(08-07-2016, 08:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I never said a man agreed to carry a fetus. You asked is a man sexist for refusing to carry a fetus. I think we all recognized that was a stupid question and made about as much sense as the point you are trying to make. 

No more stupid than your claiming it is "sexist" to give both men and women control over their own bodies because only women can carry babies.

[*bfine32*]

(08-07-2016, 08:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  I am saying that both have equal rights over their own bodies.  That is the only way we can have equality.  Give all individuals control over their own bodies.  

You can not let a man have control over a woman's body, and since when he has sex he consents that a child is possible he has ZERO basis to complain.

Consenting to a possible outcome does not give anyone the power to force that outcome.

This is about the 50th time you have said this. Without answering the question posed:

Why can to woman voluntarily end her responsibility to something they consented to; yet the man cannot? 

[fredtoast]

(08-07-2016, 08:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why can to woman voluntarily end her responsibility to something they consented to; yet the man cannot? 

Because both men and women have equal control over their own bodies.

If a man ever carries a baby he will have the same rights as the women.

This is called equality.

[*bfine32*]

(08-07-2016, 08:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No more stupid than your claiming it is "sexist" to give both men and women control over their own bodies because only women can carry babies.

Are you off your meds? I simply said it is sexist to give the woman the right to voluntarily terminate her responsibility without giving the man the same right. 

Yiu been reading your T-shirts too much. Nobody is currently talking about control over another's body. 

[GMDino]

(08-07-2016, 08:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Are you off your meds? I simply said it is sexist to give the woman the right to voluntarily terminate her responsibility without giving the man the same right. 

Yiu been reading your T-shirts too much. Nobody is currently talking about control over another's body. 

While I know you "won't respond":

If a man can make a woman have an abortion or not have an abortion would that not be someone having control over another's body?

[Harmening]

(08-07-2016, 08:21 PM)GMDino Wrote: While I know you "won't respond":

If a man can make a woman have an abortion or not have an abortion would that not be someone having control over another's body?

I asked that to myself also, as I've seen it in person.

[*bfine32*]

(08-07-2016, 08:27 PM)Harmening Wrote: I asked that to myself also, as I've seen it in person.

It is because no one is currently talking about anyone forcing anybody to have an abortion. I am simply asking where is the equality in the woman being able voluntarily walk away from her responsibility of being a future parent while the man cannot? 

Folks just have "her body, her choice" ingrained in their mind and cannot conceptualize another dynamic to the equation. 

[GMDino]

(08-07-2016, 08:27 PM)Harmening Wrote: I asked that to myself also, as I've seen it in person.

Some people just want the man to be able to walk away with no responsibility so they equate that to if he wanted the responsibility he should be able to force the woman to have the baby or he shouldn't be forced to help pay for the baby's care.

But then say "its not about control over someone else's body".