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

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-13-2016, 04:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: Your opinion.

The phrase"slippery slope" gets thrown around here a lot.  The proposal to make things "equal" by allowing any man to say he simply doesn't have to having to do with a child he helped create would be a nightmare.  Especially and specifically in a country where half the population and half the elected officials think any government help for individuals is a waste of funds.

How many men already try to not pay let alone participate in their child's life even if they were happy to have them in the first place?

Women get to decide if they want to be responsible for the gestation of a fetus in their body and all the health risks that go with during and after.  

Men don't get to make that choice for a woman and while we can say it isn't "fair" it is the reality.

Life isn't fair.  Don't want to risk getting pregnant or paying for a child for 18 years?  Don't have sex.

Every time you do you take a risk with known consequences if their is a pregnancy.

^^^This post totally ignores the many ways a woman can "wrangle" a man into making a child/being financially responsible for something he actively tried to avoid.

[GMDino]

(08-13-2016, 04:20 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: ^^^This post totally ignores the many ways a woman can "wrangle" a man into making a child/being financially responsible for something he actively tried to avoid.

I know, I know...poor stupid men tricked into having sex and getting those tricky, underhanded women pregnant. 

If you are actively trying to avoid having a baby it is really easy.

I did it until I was married.  No problem at all.  

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-13-2016, 04:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: I know, I know...poor stupid men tricked into having sex and getting those tricky, underhanded women pregnant. 

If you are actively trying to avoid having a baby it is really easy.

I did it until I was married.  No problem at all.  

Hyperbolic opinion. Simplistic opinion. Head in the sand.

Other than that...great post!!!! 

[GMDino]

(08-13-2016, 04:20 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: ^^^This post totally ignores the many ways a woman can "wrangle" a man into making a child/being financially responsible for something he actively tried to avoid.

(08-13-2016, 04:30 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Hyperbolic opinion

Exactly.

(08-13-2016, 04:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: I know, I know...poor stupid men tricked into having sex and getting those tricky, underhanded women pregnant. 

If you are actively trying to avoid having a baby it is really easy.

I did it until I was married.  No problem at all.  

(08-13-2016, 04:30 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Simplistic opinion.

Sometime the easiest answers are the simplest. It doesn't work for everyone.

(08-13-2016, 04:30 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Head in the sand.

Here's the thing: How often do you think a woman "wrangles a man into making a child/being financially responsible for something he actively tried to avoid" vs how often a man tries to get out of the financial responsibility he took on originally of his own free will?

*I* do not believe women are out there swinging their legs open just to catch a man and trick them into getting them pregnant just for all those great financial benefits as compared to the number men who have kids and decide they don't like the woman anymore so they don't want to pay for the kids.

[*wildcats forever*]

(08-13-2016, 04:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: Your opinion.

The phrase"slippery slope" gets thrown around here a lot.  The proposal to make things "equal" by allowing any man to say he simply doesn't have to having to do with a child he helped create would be a nightmare.  Especially and specifically in a country where half the population and half the elected officials think any government help for individuals is a waste of funds.

How many men already try to not pay let alone participate in their child's life even if they were happy to have them in the first place?

Women get to decide if they want to be responsible for the gestation of a fetus in their body and all the health risks that go with during and after.  

Men don't get to make that choice for a woman and while we can say it isn't "fair" it is the reality.

Life isn't fair.  Don't want to risk getting pregnant or paying for a child for 18 years?  Don't have sex.

Every time you do you take a risk with known consequences if their is a pregnancy.

It is this simple. It is reality. Might as well nail one foot to the floor, and chase yourself around the room instead of arguing against this, 'cause this isn't going to change anytime soon .....

[*bfine32*]

(08-13-2016, 04:51 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: It is this simple. It is reality. Might as well nail one foot to the floor, and chase yourself around the room instead of arguing against this, 'cause this isn't going to change anytime soon .....

Does that knife cut both ways?

[jfkbengals]

(07-29-2016, 09:24 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I still have no clue how this woman has gotten to the point that she's at and actually has a chance to be elected POTUS.

She's now saying that a baby that's just hours from delivery has no constitutional rights.

This woman is an idiot.


So the baby could be born just hours before it actually was supposed to and could survive on its own, but we don't consider that murder?  It's ok for a mother to decide to murder something just because she helped create it?  

How in the hell does anyone with a functioning brain believe anything this woman says, much-less support her?

Since it has been born, it would no longer be unborn.

Three hours before someone has sex for the very first time in their lives, they are still a virgin.

The same thing applies for a fetus.

[BFritz21]

(08-13-2016, 06:55 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: Since it has been born, it would no longer be unborn.

Three hours before someone has sex for the very first time in their lives, they are still a virgin.

The same thing applies for a fetus.

False.

Just because the baby is still inside the mother, doesn't mean that it's not a functioning person.

The baby is functioning and growing.  

[*wildcats forever*]

(08-13-2016, 06:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Does that knife cut both ways?

Maybe....maybe not. Anything specific in mind?

[BmorePat87]

(08-13-2016, 03:47 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: So it's ok that it's not equal?



It's not a strawman. It's a legitimate question seeking an answer to a question about ineqality. Strawman would have been me arguing that said question is part of his belief system.

Until we can make guys pregnant, it will be unequal.

It's not a legitimate question. It's not even close to what he even said and contradicts his own argument. Come on, man. This is how threads become unproductive. 

[BmorePat87]

(08-13-2016, 07:12 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: False.

Just because the baby is still inside the mother, doesn't mean that it's not a functioning person.

The baby is functioning and growing.  

He didn't say it couldn't function if it was born, he said it wasn't born. Something isn't born until it is... born. Mind you, the law still prevents abortions this late if the life of the mother isn't endangered, so the law recognizes the viability of the fetus, however, constitutional rights are protected once it is... born.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-13-2016, 04:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: The proposal to make things "equal" by allowing any man to say he simply doesn't have to having to do with a child he helped create would be a nightmare.  

How did a man "help create a child" if, by your own logic, that child does not exist until a mother decides to give birth to it?

It's literally like leaving a shirt at a girlfriends place that she then takes ownership of, and charges you every time she gets it dry cleaned.

[*bfine32*]

(08-13-2016, 07:19 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: Maybe....maybe not. Anything specific in mind?

You quoted this and said it is reality:

Life isn't fair.  Don't want to risk getting pregnant or paying for a child for 18 years?  Don't have sex.


Every time you do you take a risk with known consequences if their is a pregnancy.


Does that mean both face consequences and can do nothing about them?

[BFritz21]

(08-13-2016, 07:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He didn't say it couldn't function if it was born, he said it wasn't born. Something isn't born until it is... born. Mind you, the law still prevents abortions this late if the life of the mother isn't endangered, so the law recognizes the viability of the fetus, however, constitutional rights are protected once it is... born.

If the law is preventing abortion that late, it is a person, and has a right to life, which is a constitutional right.

You're calling it a fetus to avoid acknowledging that it's a person because it makes it easier for you to say it's ok to kill it and it has no right to life.

[jfkbengals]

(08-13-2016, 08:26 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: If the law is preventing abortion that late, it is a person, and has a right to life, which is a constitutional right.

You're calling it a fetus to avoid acknowledging that it's a person because it makes it easier for you to say it's ok to kill it and it has no right to life.

No, it is not a constitutional right.

And you are calling it a person to avoid calling it what it is, a fetus.

It is a fetus until it is born and gains rights.

[*wildcats forever*]

(08-13-2016, 08:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You quoted this and said it is reality:

Life isn't fair.  Don't want to risk getting pregnant or paying for a child for 18 years?  Don't have sex.


Every time you do you take a risk with known consequences if their is a pregnancy.


Does that mean both face consequences and can do nothing about them?

Yes, it does when pregnancy becomes a reality. However, they can do something in advance per what I quoted. They can choose to not risk possibly creating a pregnancy, therefore avoiding the resultant responsibilities. The concept works for me. How about you?

[BFritz21]

(08-13-2016, 09:02 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: No, it is not a constitutional right.

And you are calling it a person to avoid calling it what it is, a fetus.

It is a fetus until it is born and gains rights.

Yes, it is a constitutional right because calling it a fetus is just avoiding admitting that there is no difference between a baby born hours before birth and a baby at the time of birth.

A baby is a person that just hasn't been born yet.  Pat said that it's illegal to abort a baby that late, but I posted a link (earlier in this thread) of a baby being born and surviving before the abortion cut-off date.

A baby can feel pain at 8 weeks, but how can it feel pain or respond to a stimulus if it's not a person?

[BmorePat87]

(08-13-2016, 08:26 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: If the law is preventing abortion that late, it is a person, and has a right to life, which is a constitutional right.

You're calling it a fetus to avoid acknowledging that it's a person because it makes it easier for you to say it's ok to kill it and it has no right to life.

The fact that the laws prevent abortions late into a pregnancy doesn't mean the law sees it as a person. Under the law, a "person" is someone who is born alive. People do have a right to life. The courts established that a fetus should be protected once it reaches something known as fetal viability, which means it has a 50% chance of surviving outside of the womb, even if with artificial means. I believe this is 24 weeks. 

I'm calling it a fetus because we're referring to a fetus. Once it is born, it is not a fetus. I'm using precise language because I am explaining to you the law. You're stating your opinion, which is fine, but do not confuse your opinion with the law. 

[jfkbengals]

(08-13-2016, 09:10 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Yes, it is a constitutional right because calling it a fetus is just avoiding admitting that there is no difference between a baby born hours before birth and a baby at the time of birth.

A baby is a person that just hasn't been born yet.  Pat said that it's illegal to abort a baby that late, but I posted a link (earlier in this thread) of a baby being born and surviving before the abortion cut-off date.

A baby can feel pain at 8 weeks, but how can it feel pain or respond to a stimulus if it's not a person?

You stated the difference in your sentence.

One has been born, one has not.



Responding to a stimulus or feeling pain is not required to be a person.  There are people who cannot respond to a stimulus or feel pain, but they are still a person regardless.  There are members of the plant and animal kingdom which can feel pain and respond to stimulus, but they are not people...

[Rotobeast]

(08-13-2016, 06:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Does that knife cut both ways?