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

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 12:39 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: comparing smoking to getting pregnant? really?

Assuming you've never heard of the word analogy.

[Belsnickel]

(08-05-2016, 12:39 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: 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?

I actually think his analogy works. When you smoke, you're doing something stupid and you risk getting cancer. When you have sex without contraceptives you're doing something stupid and it could result in pregnancy. Unless of course you want cancer and/or pregnancy. Both can have an unwanted outcome, both outcomes can be treated medically.

He's wrong in saying that you give consent for cancer or pregnancy by smoking or having sex. Hard to really give consent to a malignant growth that doesn't yet exist, but to each their own.

[fredtoast]

(08-05-2016, 12:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

A man having sex with a woman is his consent to have a baby.  But it does not give him the power to force the woman to have  baby.  You are missing a big point.


Consenting to a possible outcome does not mean you can force another person to produce that possible outcome.

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 12:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: A man having sex with a woman is his consent to have a baby.  But it does not give him the power to force the woman to have  baby.  You are missing a big point.


Consenting to a possible outcome does not mean you can force another person to produce that possible outcome.

So a man gives consent to have a child when he has sex?

I think you guys may need a huddle and get your ducks in a row.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-05-2016, 12:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

Since I used your logic, then naturally you agree with everything I just wrote?  If so, why are you asking why a man can't force a woman to stay pregnant against her wishes and why can't a man withold financial support?

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 12:46 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Since I used your logic, then naturally you agree with everything I just wrote?  If so, why are you asking why a man can't force a woman to stay pregnant against her wishes and why can't a man withold financial support?

Didn't say I agreed with everything you wrote. I fully understand there are limits to your enlightenment.

You might want to hit the chat room now; I think you guys are getting ready to have a meting.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(08-05-2016, 12:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Assuming you've never heard of the word analogy.

I have

(08-05-2016, 12:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I actually think his analogy works. When you smoke, you're doing something stupid and you risk getting cancer. When you have sex without contraceptives you're doing something stupid and it could result in pregnancy. Unless of course you want cancer and/or pregnancy. Both can have an unwanted outcome, both outcomes can be treated medically.

He's wrong in saying that you give consent for cancer or pregnancy by smoking or having sex. Hard to really give consent to a malignant growth that doesn't yet exist, but to each their own.

Exactly

[fredtoast]

(08-05-2016, 12:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So a man gives consent to have a child when he has sex?

I think you guys may need a huddle and get your ducks in a row.

I have my ducks in a row.  I don't care what everyone else is saying.


Consenting to a possible outcome does not mean you can force another person to produce that possible outcome.

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 12:50 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I have
Exactly

You're most likely late for the meeting

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(08-05-2016, 12:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You're most likely late for the meeting

I don't think so, what'd I miss?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-05-2016, 12:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Didn't say I agreed with everything you wrote. I fully understand there are limits to your enlightenment.

You might want to hit the chat room now; I think you guys are getting ready to have a meting.

Since you seem to believe the woman gave implied consent to every possible outcome, why don't you believe the man gave implied consent to every possible outcome?

Shouldn't you be attacking the message instead of the messenger like you tell others?

[Rotobeast]

(08-05-2016, 11:58 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Bullshit. 

You're piggy went, "wee, wee, weeeeeeeeeeee!"

All. The. Way. Home. 

Well....afterwards, yeah !


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 01:12 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Since you seem to believe the woman gave implied consent to every possible outcome, why don't you believe the man gave implied consent to every possible outcome?

Shouldn't you be attacking the message instead of the messenger like you tell others?

You saying that they should agree that one person gets to make the decision, my stance is that they have entered into a mutual agreement. I didn't say the woman gave consent to every possible outcome. For instance if he's a deadbeat, she gets final say. He only gets final say under the following circumstances:

She doesn't want sole custody
She doesn't want shared custody
If the parents of the mother don't want custody (they should not be able to force)
The pregnancy could jeopardize the health of the mother or baby or does so at any time during the pregnancy
He can provide for medical expenses
He can provide the baby with a safe stable environment
He has a support group (or a family care plan) to assist with rearing the child
Not if the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest (4pat)

Only if ALL those conditions are met; does the father get to keep his Child. Outside of that mom can dispose of it as she wishes.

[fredtoast]

(08-05-2016, 02:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Only if ALL those conditions are met; does the father get to keep his Child. Outside of that mom can dispose of it as she wishes.

He can keep his child.  He just can not force the mother to let it develop in her body.  So I have no problem with the fetus being removed from the mother and given to the father at any point during the pregnancy if both parties agree.  He may have a claim to the fetus, but he has no claim to the mothers body.


Agreeing to a possible outcome does not mean you can force another person to produce that possible outcome.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-05-2016, 02:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You saying that they should agree that one person gets to make the decision, my stance is that they have entered into a mutual agreement. I didn't say the woman gave consent to every possible outcome. For instance if he's a deadbeat, she gets final say. He only gets final say under the following circumstances:

She doesn't want sole custody
She doesn't want shared custody
If the parents of the mother don't want custody (they should not be able to force)
The pregnancy could jeopardize the health of the mother or baby or does so at any time during the pregnancy
He can provide for medical expenses
He can provide the baby with a safe stable environment
He has a support group (or a family care plan) to assist with rearing the child
Not if the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest (4pat)

Only if ALL those conditions are met; does the father get to keep his Child. Outside of that mom can dispose of it as she wishes.

The only thing they agreed to was sex. That's it. 

The U.S. Supreme Court also states when the man and woman disagree "the balance weighs in her favor" because the woman actually carries the pregnancy. 

(08-03-2016, 06:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and when a woman can get pregnant by herself she should have sole say. Outside of that it takes 2 to tango responsibility and rights to the offspring should be equally shared. 

The responsibility is inherently unequal because the woman's body is pregnant, not the man's.

Quote:But I'm for equal rights; regardless of biological sex. 

When does the woman have control of the man's body and can force him to do something against his wishes?

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 03:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: He can keep his child.  He just can not force the mother to let it develop in her body.  So I have no problem with the fetus being removed from the mother and given to the father at any point during the pregnancy if both parties agree.  He may have a claim to the fetus, but he has no claim to the mothers body.


Agreeing to a possible outcome does not mean you can force another person to produce that possible outcome.

Yours is a different approach as you have stated that engaging in sex is concent to pregnancy; you differ with others on this matter.

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.

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 03:32 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The only thing they agreed to was sex. That's it. 

The U.S. Supreme Court also states when the man and woman disagree "the balance weighs in her favor" because the woman actually carries the pregnancy. 


2. The responsibility is inherently unequal because the woman's body is pregnant, not the man's.


3. When does the woman have control of the man's body and can force him to do something against his wishes?

1. Not according to Fred and he's a lawyer. I think everyone is aware of what SCOTUS rule is; doesn't mean we have to agree with it; only adhere to it

2. The why must the man be forced to support a child he did not agree to?

3. She has control of his finances which directly reflects his quality of life.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-05-2016, 03:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. Not according to Fred and he's a lawyer. I think everyone is aware of what SCOTUS rule is; doesn't mean we have to agree with it; only adhere to it

2. The why must the man be forced to support a child he did not agree to?

3. She has control of his finances which directly reflects his quality of life.

1) If you are aware of the decision, why are you asking questions that the U.S. Supreme Court has already answered?

2) Would you believe it is because of state law?

3) You don't actually believe paying child support is the same as controlling someone's finances, do you?  Is that the same as forcing another to do something with their body against their wishes?

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2016, 04:44 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 1) If you are aware of the decision, why are you asking questions that the U.S. Supreme Court has already answered?

2) Would you believe it is because of state law?

3) You don't actually believe paying child support is the same as controlling someone's finances, do you?  Is that the same as forcing another to do something with their body against their wishes?

1) Because as I said we are not required to agree with every law; merely required to adhere to them. Are you suggesting a citizen should no question current law?

2) "Because it's the law" is an answer that riquired zero critical thinking and usually shows the sender can provide no additional logic for the reason

3) Of course paying child support is someone forcing you to do something against you will; if you do not want to pay.

I will standby for additional questions.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-05-2016, 04:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1) Because as I said we are not required to agree with every law; merely required to adhere to them. Are you suggesting a citizen should no question current law?

2) "Because it's the law" is an answer that riquired zero critical thinking and usually shows the sender can provide no additional logic for the reason

3) Of course paying child support is someone forcing you to do something against you will; if you do not want to pay.

I will standby for additional questions.

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?