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

[*bfine32*]

(08-07-2016, 11:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When a child is born the parents are responsible for it. 

Welcome to the GOP

But that doesn't come close to answering why the man can not choose to provide medical care to the mother and the unborn child.

I get that you're running out of T-Shirts

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 12:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: But that doesn't come close to answering why the man can not choose to provide medical care to the mother and the unborn child.

Because he consented to the possibility that a child would be born when he had sex.  He is responsible for his half of the costs.

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 12:21 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: 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.

The man consented to the possibility that a child would be born when he had sex.  He is responsible for his share of the costs.  He can not complain because he consented to the possibility.

Once the child is born the mother can refuse child support, but she can not terminate the fathers parental rights to the child.

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 12:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Welcome to the GOP

DNC believes the exact same thing.

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 12:14 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: 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.

What state law did you use?

What was the split for physical custody?

And the same support laws apply when the father has custody of the child and the mother has to pay.

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 12:14 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote:  That's nearly double the poverty level for a SINGLE ADULT, and like 3X welfare benefits for a child.  

The child of a parent who makes $150K per year should not live in poverty.  That is ridiculous.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-08-2016, 01:23 AM)fredtoast Wrote: What state law did you use?

What was the split for physical custody?

And the same support laws apply when the father has custody of the child and the mother has to pay.

I think it was IL, which I guess is an outlier and older/outdated law.  CA spit out $15k (weekend custody, mother earning $40k, father $150k with no child care expenses)....lol, $18,500 with no custody sharing.  So it still provides well in excess of basic needs if you have the means, which is again a windfall to the mother.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-08-2016, 01:28 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The child of a parent who makes $150K per year should not live in poverty.  That is ridiculous.

A child you didn't want and have no custody of?  I'm guessing they base that on averages of estimates of what families with that amount of income spend, except you have no discretion or control over those expenditures.

It's not a poverty level - $10k for a child should be more than sufficient to cover basic needs of that child without even considering the mother's contribution.

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 01:37 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I think it was IL, which I guess is an outlier and older/outdated law.  CA spit out $15k (weekend custody, mother earning $40k, father $150k with no child care expenses)....lol, $18,500 with no custody sharing.  So it still provides well in excess of basic needs if you have the means, which is again a windfall to the mother.

It is a windfall for the father if he is the custodial parent.

Daycare alone will cost over $10K a year for an infant.  Then there is food, clothing, medical, lodging, toys, and entertainment.

Plus, in a two parent household each parent would be responsible for half of the time devoted to caring for the child when not at work.  So a single parent deserves pay for providing 100% of the child care when not at work.

Would you work full time and then devote 100% of your time when not at work caring for a child for $300 a week?

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 01:42 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It's not a poverty level - $10k for a child should be more than sufficient to cover basic needs of that child without even considering the mother's contribution.

$10K a year would not even cover the daycare cost for an infant.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-08-2016, 01:56 AM)fredtoast Wrote: $10K a year would not even cover the daycare cost for an infant.

Daycare is a luxury.  That's maybe something the mother should consider when deciding to keep a baby.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-08-2016, 01:55 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It is a windfall for the father if he is the custodial parent.

Except the father has to go through the courts to get custody, and generally only wins if the mother is unfit.

The financial consequences of a child are solely within control of the mother - if she can't afford it, then get an abortion or give it up for adoption.  Anything in excess of basic needs for a child is a windfall to the mother, with no recourse to the father for how that money is spent.

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 02:06 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Daycare is a luxury.  That's maybe something the mother should consider when deciding to keep a baby.

Daycare is not s luxury.  You can not leave an infant at home alone when you go to work.

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 02:10 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: The financial consequences of a child are solely within control of the mother - if she can't afford it, then get an abortion or give it up for adoption. 

The financial responsibility for a child is on both the father and the mother.

If the father can not afford a baby then he should not have sex.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-08-2016, 02:36 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Daycare is not s luxury.  You can not leave an infant at home alone when you go to work.

Well, then she should have thought of that before having a baby.  Seems like that would be a pretty financially irresponsible choice on her part, no different than buying too expensive of a car or house.

And she has the choice to avoid those costs.  Why should someone who is not my wife, be able to make a decision in which I have absolutely no say, that has severe financial impact on me?  You're being entirely dishonest if you can't admit this is inequitable - economic hardship is one of the justifications frequently cited by pro-choice advocates.

[Belsnickel]

(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?  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.

There is . The assumption that the only way for the child to be cared for is for both parties to be financially responsible is rooted in misogyny. It is a hallmark of a patriarchal society to believe in this way.

For the second section, please avoid the strawman. We are discussing events before a child is born.

[Belsnickel]

(08-07-2016, 11:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

And the man should have control over his finances. I agree, it's not his body. No one in here is saying that he should be able to make that decision, yet for some reason this line keeps on being brought up. This is further evidence that I think you don't understand the argument.

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 03:52 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Well, then she should have thought of that before having a baby.  Seems like that would be a pretty financially irresponsible choice on her part, no different than buying too expensive of a car or house.

And she has the choice to avoid those costs.  Why should someone who is not my wife, be able to make a decision in which I have absolutely no say, that has severe financial impact on me?  You're being entirely dishonest if you can't admit this is inequitable - economic hardship is one of the justifications frequently cited by pro-choice advocates.

The man is just as responsible for thinking about the consequences as the woman.

And the man should be just as responsible for birth control as the woman. 

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 07:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: And the man should have control over his finances. I agree, it's not his body. No one in here is saying that he should be able to make that decision, yet for some reason this line keeps on being brought up. This is further evidence that I think you don't understand the argument.

The man has control over his finances by not getting a woman pregnant.  No birth control is 100% effective.  To put all of the burden of an unwanted pregnancy on the woman is the misogynistic way of thinking.

And certainly a man should not be allowed to agree to get a woman pregnant and then just decide he does not want to support the child.  Are you saying he should be allowed to do that AFTER the child is born?  If this were the law men would have children all over the place and not be responsible for any of them.

Someday technology will advance to the point that a fetus will be able to be removed from the mother and raised outside of the womb.  Would you still deny the father the right to that child then?  Why should the woman be given 100% control over the fetus when she does not have to let it grow in her body?

[Belsnickel]

(08-08-2016, 09:01 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The man has control over his finances by not getting a woman pregnant.  No birth control is 100% effective.  To put all of the burden of an unwanted pregnancy on the woman is the misogynistic way of thinking.

It doesn't put all of the burden on the woman. The woman has the choice to abort or not.

(08-08-2016, 09:01 AM)fredtoast Wrote: And certainly a man should not be allowed to agree to get a woman pregnant and then just decide he does not want to support the child.  Are you saying he should be allowed to do that AFTER the child is born?  If this were the law men would have children all over the place and not be responsible for any of them.

No, no one is saying that. That would be why I said this:

(08-08-2016, 07:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: For the second section, please avoid the strawman. We are discussing events before a child is born.

(08-08-2016, 09:01 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Someday technology will advance to the point that a fetus will be able to be removed from the mother and raised outside of the womb.  Would you still deny the father the right to that child then?  Why should the woman be given 100% control over the fetus when she does not have to let it grow in her body?

I'm not denying anyone the right to anything with my position. Not sure what you're going on about here.