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

[Harmening]

(08-07-2016, 08:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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? 

Neither can.  They both have to live with it.  ( I understand your stance on this ), but there will never be the equality that you speak of.  If men could hold a child in them, we would have this same conversation in reverse.  this is a classic "it is what it is" conversation.

BTW, I hate that phrase...

[*bfine32*]

(08-07-2016, 08:43 PM)Harmening Wrote: Neither can.  They both have to live with it.  ( I understand your stance on this ), but there will never be the equality that you speak of.  If men could hold a child in them, we would have this same conversation in reverse.  this is a classic "it is what it is" conversation.

BTW, I hate that phrase...

I didn't ask if they would "both have to live with it". I asked why only the woman can walk away from the responsibility because she wants to. 

[Harmening]

(08-07-2016, 10:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't ask if they would "both have to live with it". I asked why only the woman can walk away from the responsibility because she wants to. 

It's been answered.

[*bfine32*]

(08-07-2016, 10:25 PM)Harmening Wrote: It's been answered.

Guess I missed it. Thanks. 

[fredtoast]

(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. 

The man can not have the right to terminate his responsibility unless you give the man control over the woman's body.

[fredtoast]

(08-07-2016, 08:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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. 

The  man can not terminate the pregnancy without having control over the woman's body.

[*bfine32*]

(08-07-2016, 10:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The man can not have the right to terminate his responsibility unless you give the man control over the woman's body.

Sure he can. He doesn't want it, he can walk away. What has that done to the woman's body by walking away?

[fredtoast]

(08-07-2016, 10:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure he can. He doesn't want it, he can walk away. What has that done to the woman's body by walking away?

Because there is a child that he is legally required to support.  

Once the child is born a woman can not walk away from her child any more than the man.

[*bfine32*]

(08-07-2016, 10:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because there is a child that he is legally required to support.  

Once the child is born a woman can not walk away from her child any more than the man.

He wants to walk away before the child is born. Why can't he? 

[fredtoast]

(08-07-2016, 10:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He wants to walk away before the child is born. Why can't he? 

Because he consented to the possibility of fathering a child and he can not force a woman to have an abortion.  He has no control over her body.

If he was carrying the child he would have the exact same rights as the mother, and the woman would be bound to support the child the same as the man.

Equal rights. 

[*bfine32*]

(08-07-2016, 10:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because he consented to the possibility of fathering a child and he can not force a woman to have an abortion.  He has no control over her body.

If he was carrying the child he would have the exact same rights as the mother, and the woman would be bound to support the child the same as the man.

Equal rights. 

So he can agree to not provide medical care for an unborn child that he does not want?

You keep going back to someone forcing someone to have an abortion. I have no idea why you do this when no one is talking about this outside of the fact that's on the abortion debate cue card. 

If you cannot answer the question posed, just say I cannot answer the question posed.  

[Belsnickel]

(08-07-2016, 10:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because he consented to the possibility of fathering a child and he can not force a woman to have an abortion.  He has no control over her body.

If he was carrying the child he would have the exact same rights as the mother, and the woman would be bound to support the child the same as the man.

Equal rights. 

It's not equal rights. I laid out why earlier. The ability to walk away exists for the woman, why doesn't it for the man? They would be different methods because one would be physically and one would be financially, but what you are saying is not equal.

I don't think you're understanding the argument, or if you are you are stuck in some very misogynist thinking. For it to actually be equal, there would have to be a way for the man, of the woman decides to keep the child and the man does not want it, to extricate himself from the situation. This isn't some pro-life talking point, it is a legitimate argument. My women's college feminist wife agrees with me on this.

[fredtoast]

(08-07-2016, 11:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't think you're understanding the argument, or if you are you are stuck in some very misogynist thinking. For it to actually be equal, there would have to be a way for the man, of the woman decides to keep the child and the man does not want it, to extricate himself from the situation. This isn't some pro-life talking point, it is a legitimate argument. My women's college feminist wife agrees with me on this.

I understand the argument just fine.  But the only way to ensure that children get cared for is to hold BOTH parents financially responsible for their care.

I don't see any other way to make it work.  What do you suggest?  Who would care for the child if BOTH parents decide they do not want to support it?  Can they both just walk away and let the child starve?

When you have sex you are responsible for the possible outcome.  There is nothing misogynist about this.

[fredtoast]

(08-07-2016, 11:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The ability to walk away exists for the woman, why doesn't it for the man? 

Because the man does not have control over the woman's body.

If the man carried the baby he would have the exact same rights as the mother.  And when technology advances to the point that a fetus can be taken from the womb and raised outside of the woman's body then the woman will be bound to provide support for the child if the man wants to take it to raise.

[*bfine32*]

(08-07-2016, 11:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I understand the argument just fine.  But the only way to ensure that children get cared for is to hold BOTH parents financially responsible for their care.

I don't see any other way to make it work.  What do you suggest?  Who would care for the child if BOTH parents decide they do not want to support it?  

This could have just been one of the most contradictory posts you've ever made in these forums.

Just so I'm making sure what you are saying (because admittedly I am shocked). The parents are solely responsible to provide for the child? 

[fredtoast]

(08-07-2016, 11:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This could have just been one of the most contradictory posts you've ever made in these forums.

Just so I'm making sure what you are saying (because admittedly I am shocked). The parents are solely responsible to provide for the child? 

When a child is born the parents are responsible for it.  If the child ends up in the custody of the state or some other person then both parents should be ordered to pay child support.

Who do you think should be responsible for a child?

[JustWinBaby]

(08-07-2016, 07:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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".

I don't believe that's true in most states.  I ran an estimator for $150k in income and it spit out $20k a year...it didn't ask me what the mother's income was.  That's nearly double the poverty level for a SINGLE ADULT, and like 3X welfare benefits for a child.  

[JustWinBaby]

(08-07-2016, 08:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

No, because she still has a choice and he does not.  If she cannot afford to care for the child solely on her own, then perhaps she should choose to have an abortion (which financial hardship is one of the main arguments from the pro choice side).  

Or she could choose to give it up for adoption.  No one is forcing her to do anything with her body.  Either way, she has multiple options with respect to whether to accept the financial consequences.  The man should have the same choice.

[Rotobeast]

(08-07-2016, 11:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When you have sex you are responsible for the possible outcome.  

I'll bet Charlie Sheen's partners would argue they didn't have much responsibility for the outcome of their act.




So, anyway.....
The moral of the thread is only women are evil enough to kill children and the majority of the American public are fine with it.
It's kind of reparations for women, from the penises being in charge for so long, right ?
Yeah, that could work into a T-shirt.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-08-2016, 12:23 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: It's kind of reparations for women, from the penises being in charge for so long, right ?

Like going to the car dealership together.  You both like the car, she takes it home.  The next day you break up but then you have to continue making payments on the car - because it would be wrong to force her to walk.