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

[*bfine32*]

(08-08-2016, 10:22 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not denying anyone the right to anything with my position. Not sure what you're going on about here.

He cannot logically support his posistion so he has to create a scenario that no one is talking about. Sometimes is best to let him go Full Fred and just leave it there for others to read and shake their heads.

Regardless how he or anyone else tries to spin it; only one party has the right to walk away from all responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy. Their is no way that is "equal". Is it justified? That can be debated, but you can only do so if you accept the fact that both parties do not have equal rights simply because of biological sex.

[GMDino]

Well let's reverse this scenario then:

Would it be "equal" if a man could get a woman pregnant and then just say "I chose to abort my responsibilities"?

Do we want a law that says the father of the child can simply walk away with no responsibility because the woman has a legal right to control what happens to her own body?

Is that the end game?

Or is this just mental masturbation to get all upset about men not being treated fairly in exactly one aspect of their life?

[Belsnickel]

(08-08-2016, 12:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well let's reverse this scenario then:

Would it be "equal" if a man could get a woman pregnant and then just say "I chose to abort my responsibilities"?

Do we want a law that says the father of the child can simply walk away with no responsibility because the woman has a legal right to control what happens to her own body?

Is that the end game?

Or is this just mental masturbation to get all upset about men not being treated fairly in exactly one aspect of their life?

I've already laid out this scenario. Woman gets pregnant, wants to keep it, man does not. If we are speaking of true equality the man should have the option to extricate himself from the financial responsibilities. I would say it has to be done before the birth (or even some other sooner time limit) unless he was not notified of the pregnancy until after the birth. If he was not notified prior to the birth, then he can be offered the opportunity to be a part of it, but he would be under no legal obligation to do so.

And you can call it whatever you want, but the unfairness in situations like this where men are treated unfairly, because that is what happens here, is a feminist issue. The idea that they will be that caretaker financially is a patriarchal assumption.

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 12:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I've already laid out this scenario. Woman gets pregnant, wants to keep it, man does not. If we are speaking of true equality the man should have the option to extricate himself from the financial responsibilities.

There is nothing equal about this.

Basically it gives the man unlimited freedom and puts all of the responsibility for the child on the woman.

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 12:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The idea that they will be that caretaker financially is a patriarchal assumption.

Now you are the one who does not understand the law.

The man is not forced to be the financial caretaker any more than the woman.  The law requires BOTH parents to be financially responsible for the child.  There is nothing patriarchal about it because both parties are treated equally.

[fredtoast]

The only women who would be in favor of not holding the father responsible for the child are the ones that want to give the mother the power to cut off the fathers parental rights.  No woman would ever be in favor of giving the fathjer equal parental rights but not requiring him to be financially responsible.

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 12:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And you can call it whatever you want, but the unfairness in situations like this where men are treated unfairly, because that is what happens here, is a feminist issue. 

No it isn't.  It is a biological issue.


Both parties consent to the possibility of a child being born.

Neither party has control over the others body.

Once technology advances to the point where a fetus can be removed and raised outside of the mothers body the father will be allowed to take the fetus and force the woman to provide financial support.  The only reason it seems unfair right now is because of the biological differences between men and women.

[Belsnickel]

(08-08-2016, 08:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is nothing equal about this.

Basically it gives the man unlimited freedom and puts all of the responsibility for the child on the woman.

No it doesn't. The woman has the option to terminate the pregnancy.

(08-08-2016, 08:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Now you are the one who does not understand the law.

The man is not forced to be the financial caretaker any more than the woman.  The law requires BOTH parents to be financially responsible for the child.  There is nothing patriarchal about it because both parties are treated equally.

I never said they wouldn't have equal responsibility. I will rephrase for you, though. The idea that the father needs to be involved financially is a patriarchal assumption. Better?

(08-08-2016, 08:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The only women who would be in favor of not holding the father responsible for the child are the ones that want to give the mother the power to cut off the fathers parental rights.  No woman would ever be in favor of giving the fathjer equal parental rights but not requiring him to be financially responsible.

Well, yes, I thought that was implied in the extrication that the father would give up any paternal rights since it was about the man not wanting a child.

(08-08-2016, 08:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it isn't.  It is a biological issue.


Both parties consent to the possibility of a child being born.

Neither party has control over the others body.

Once technology advances to the point where a fetus can be removed and raised outside of the mothers body the father will be allowed to take the fetus and force the woman to provide financial support.  The only reason it seems unfair right now is because of the biological differences between men and women.

I don't think you understand my statement. Again.

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 10:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No it doesn't. The woman has the option to terminate the pregnancy.

But what if she does not want that option?  Why should she be forced to get an abortion she does not want just because she knows she can not raise the child without the assistance of the father?

There are always going to be unwanted pregnancies.  The burden of those should not be placed 100% on the mother.  Or even worse a woman should not bear 100% of the burden just because a guy "changes his mind" 

The system you propose would allow every single man who gets a woman pregnant, even if they both planned on and wanted the pregnancy, to just back out and not be held responsible in any way.  There is nothing fair about that at all.  Men will stop using both control and poor struggling mother (and taxpayers) will be paying for all of their children.  We can't allow men to refuse to use birth control, promise to help raise the child, and then never hold them responsible for their actions.  Women will suffer terribly under those rules.

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 10:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I never said they wouldn't have equal responsibility. I will rephrase for you, though. The idea that the father needs to be involved financially is a patriarchal assumption. Better?

The idea that the father has to be responsible in any way is patriarchal?  Even just his half?

What societies have been based on the idea that a father has zero responsibility for his own children?   Seems to me that the only ones who allow the father to abandon responsibility for his children are the ones who repress women.

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 10:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, yes, I thought that was implied in the extrication that the father would give up any paternal rights since it was about the man not wanting a child.

I am talking about when the father does want parental rights and the mother wants to cut him off.  Should the mother have the right to do that?

[*bfine32*]

(08-09-2016, 09:17 AM)fredtoast Wrote: But what if she does not want that option?  Why should she be forced to get an abortion she does not want just because she knows she can not raise the child without the assistance of the father?

There are always going to be unwanted pregnancies.  The burden of those should not be placed 100% on the mother.  Or even worse a woman should not bear 100% of the burden just because a guy "changes his mind" 

The system you propose would allow every single man who gets a woman pregnant, even if they both planned on and wanted the pregnancy, to just back out and not be held responsible in any way.  There is nothing fair about that at all.  Men will stop using both control and poor struggling mother (and taxpayers) will be paying for all of their children.  We can't allow men to refuse to use birth control, promise to help raise the child, and then never hold them responsible for their actions.  Women will suffer terribly under those rules.

The woman always has the option of "controlling her body" and not freely participating in an activity that could result in a child. No one is putting all the onus on the woman. Sometimes when we do things there are consequences.

The only way to be "fair" is a system that allows them to both walk away or allows neither to walk away. No amount of spin changes that.

[*bfine32*]

(08-09-2016, 09:22 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I am talking about when the father does want parental rights and the mother wants to cut him off.  Should the mother have the right to do that?

Why are you talking about something that no one else is?

[Belsnickel]

(08-09-2016, 09:17 AM)fredtoast Wrote: But what if she does not want that option?  Why should she be forced to get an abortion she does not want just because she knows she can not raise the child without the assistance of the father?

No one is forcing her to have an abortion. There is the possibility of adoption if she is against that. I also support more financial assistance for mothers in that situation, so that would be where I differ from others that may be making this argument, so there is that.

(08-09-2016, 09:17 AM)fredtoast Wrote: There are always going to be unwanted pregnancies.  The burden of those should not be placed 100% on the mother.  Or even worse a woman should not bear 100% of the burden just because a guy "changes his mind" 

The system you propose would allow every single man who gets a woman pregnant, even if they both planned on and wanted the pregnancy, to just back out and not be held responsible in any way.  There is nothing fair about that at all.  Men will stop using both control and poor struggling mother (and taxpayers) will be paying for all of their children.  We can't allow men to refuse to use birth control, promise to help raise the child, and then never hold them responsible for their actions.  Women will suffer terribly under those rules.

Changing of the mind would not work for what I would be for. It would be a contractual thing.

(08-09-2016, 09:20 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The idea that the father has to be responsible in any way is patriarchal?  Even just his half?

What societies have been based on the idea that a father has zero responsibility for his own children?   Seems to me that the only ones who allow the father to abandon responsibility for his children are the ones who repress women.

Yes, it is patriarchal. To assume the father has to be responsible is making the assumption that the mother cannot manage it on her own. It is a patriarchal assumption.

(08-09-2016, 09:22 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I am talking about when the father does want parental rights and the mother wants to cut him off.  Should the mother have the right to do that?

See below.

(08-09-2016, 10:06 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Why are you talking about something that no one else is?

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2016, 10:04 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The only way to be "fair" is a system that allows them to both walk away or allows neither to walk away. No amount of spin changes that.

The only way that can be fair is if technology progresses to the point that a fetus can be removed and raised outside of the woman's body. 

Right now there is no problem if both want to "walk away" and there is no problem if both want to raise the child.  The system works just fine on those cases.

If you allow the man to "walk away" then we will have a lot of children without the support of both parents.  If you allow the woman to "walk away" you have zero children without the support of both parents.  The only realistic option is to hold BOTH the man and the woman equally responsible for supporting the child.  Anything else is unfair.

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2016, 12:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yes, it is patriarchal. To assume the father has to be responsible is making the assumption that the mother cannot manage it on her own. It is a patriarchal assumption.

Patriarchal refers to giving men superior power.  Allowing a man to abandon his children and placing all of the burden on women is the most patriarchal thing that a society could possibly do. 

Holding BOTH parents equally responsible does not elevate either above the other.  There is nothing patriarchal about that.  In fact it forces the mother to be financially responsible if the father is the custodial parent.  

How could anything that treats men and women equally be called patriarchal?

[GMDino]

If we introduce the "right" for the man to walk away with no responsibility does that not lead to one of them there "slippery slopes" the right is always on about?

Any man could say: "Nah, didn't want kids.  She knew that. I'm out."  Which, in some cases, could force a woman to choose abortion or adoption where she normally would not.

The current system may not be "fair" to men, but it is better than allowing someone who will suffer zero physical consequences of either choice (abortion or carrying to term) to also have zero responsibility at all just because the woman does have a choice over what happens to her body.

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2016, 12:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Changing of the mind would not work for what I would be for. It would be a contractual thing.

Details please.

Are you suggesting that no sex take place without a contract in place first?

We have problems making kids use birth control and you think they are going to sign contracts before they have sex?

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2016, 10:04 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The woman always has the option of "controlling her body" and not freely participating in an activity that could result in a child. No one is putting all the onus on the woman. Sometimes when we do things there are consequences.

And sometimes there are unintended consequences that people have to be held accountable for.  If both people "freely participate" in an activity that results in unintended consequences why should just one party be held responsible?

[Belsnickel]

(08-09-2016, 12:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Patriarchal refers to giving men superior power.  Allowing a man to abandon his children and placing all of the burden on women is the most patriarchal thing that a society could possibly do. 

Holding BOTH parents equally responsible does not elevate either above the other.  There is nothing patriarchal about that.  In fact it forces the mother to be financially responsible if the father is the custodial parent.  

How could anything that treats men and women equally be called patriarchal?

It seems you don't understand feminist philosophy. The idea that the father needs to be a part of the child's life, financially or otherwise, is an assumption that the mother cannot do it on her own. I've laid this out before.

(08-09-2016, 12:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Details please.

Are you suggesting that no sex take place without a contract in place first?

We have problems making kids use birth control and you think they are going to sign contracts before they have sex?

No, not before sex. Upon revelation of the pregnancy.