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

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2016, 12:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

But how does this apply to a system that also forces the mother to be financially responsible if the father is the custodial parent?  Apparently feminists do not understand the law.  That is not my problem.  

The law treats both parties equally.  There is nothing patriarchal about that.  But giving the father the power to abandon the responsibility for his child would make many women suffer, and THAT is very patriarchal.

Feminists do not want equality.  They want a matriarchal system where the mother can cut off the parental rights of the father.  That is why you included the "or otherwise" in your comment.

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2016, 12:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, not before sex. Upon revelation of the pregnancy.

Too late at that point.

[*bfine32*]

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

Then would it be OK for the woman to not pay child support if she didn't want to?

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

But there is a problem if they disagree and in either case the woman's will wins out. That's not equal no matter how many times you keep saying "Is too"

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

Now you are starting to come around to my notion that it may be justified, but it damn sure is not equal. The woman gets unequal rights because of her physical make up.

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2016, 01:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Then would it be OK for the woman to not pay child support if she didn't want to?

No.  Both would be treated the same. That is what I have been saying all along.

(08-09-2016, 01:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But there is a problem if they disagree and in either case the woman's will wins out. That's not equal no matter how many times you keep saying "Is too"

It is equal under the law.  Both are treated the same.  If you change the law and give the man the advantage then the woman is held responsible for the child but the father is not.  THAT is not fair.  All it will do is create a large class of children who have no support from their fathers.

The law treats them equally.  If you have a problem with a man not being able to carry a fetus in his body then take it up with your god.

When technology advances to the point that a fetus can be taken from a womans body and rasied without her then you will understand that the law has been fair all along.

(08-09-2016, 01:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Now you are starting to come around to my notion that it may be justified, but it damn sure is not equal. The woman gets unequal rights because of her physical make up.

No.  the outcome seems unfair to you because of biology.  The law holds them boyh responsible for the possible outcome of theiur actions.

As I said before, if you have a problem with the biology then complain to your god.  The law is correct and does not need to be changed,

[*bfine32*]

(08-09-2016, 02:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  Both would be treated the same. That is what I have been saying all along.



It is equal under the law.  Both are treated the same.  If you change the law and give the man the advantage then the woman is held responsible for the child but the father is not.  THAT is not fair.  All it will do is create a large class of children who have no support from their fathers.

The law treats them equally.  If you have a problem with a man not being able to carry a fetus in his body then take it up with your god.

When technology advances to the point that a fetus can be taken from a womans body and rasied without her then you will understand that the law has been fair all along.


No.  the outcome seems unfair to you because of biology.  The law holds them boyh responsible for the possible outcome of theiur actions.

As I said before, if you have a problem with the biology then complain to your god.  The law is correct and does not need to be changed,

I don't have a problem with men and women being biologically different and I understand that sometimes laws may have to be enacted to facilitate these differences.

I am just amused by the usual suspects that say biological sex should not matter when establishing laws to suddenly saying it does matter

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2016, 02:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I am just amused by the usual suspects that say biological sex should not matter when establishing laws to suddenly saying it does matter

I have no idea what this means.

I am always in favor of equality under the law.  When have I ever been in favor of one sex having rights superior to the other?

[*bfine32*]

(08-09-2016, 02:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When have I ever been in favor of one sex having rights superior to the other?

When you say a woman has unequal say in whether to keep or disgard an offspring because she has a womb.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-09-2016, 12:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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?

Because the "unintended consequence" is 100% contingent on an INTENTIONAL choice made solely by the woman.

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2016, 02:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: When you say a woman has unequal say in whether to keep or disgard an offspring because she has a womb.

Nothing unequal about both the man and the woman having the right to control their own bodies.

I have repeately said throughout this thread that when technology advances to the point that a fetus can be removed and developed outside of the woman's body then the man should have the right to take the child for himself.

Giving all people control over their own bodies is not giving anyone special treatment.  It is treating everyone equally.  Giving a man the right to make a decision about a woman' s body is not equal at all.  If you want to claim that it is then please tell me what power a woman has over a man's body.

[BFritz21]

(08-09-2016, 05:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Nothing unequal about both the man and the woman having the right to control their own bodies.

I have repeately said throughout this thread that when technology advances to the point that a fetus can be removed and developed outside of the woman's body then the man should have the right to take the child for himself.

Giving all people control over their own bodies is not giving anyone special treatment.  It is treating everyone equally.  Giving a man the right to make a decision about a woman' s body is not equal at all.  If you want to claim that it is then please tell me what power a woman has over a man's body.

It's not in his body, but she's destroying something that he had half of the role in creating.  Part of him is in her, so she's destroying part of him.

[*bfine32*]

(08-09-2016, 05:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Nothing unequal about both the man and the woman having the right to control their own bodies.

I have repeately said throughout this thread that when technology advances to the point that a fetus can be removed and developed outside of the woman's body then the man should have the right to take the child for himself.

Giving all people control over their own bodies is not giving anyone special treatment.  It is treating everyone equally.  Giving a man the right to make a decision about a woman' s body is not equal at all.  If you want to claim that it is then please tell me what power a woman has over a man's body.

Why do you keep going back to "right to control their own body"? Quit reading the T-Shirt . No one is talking about control of anybody else's body. What is being asked is: Is it equal that the woman has the option to keep or dispose responsibility and the father does not.

If the man says he does not want the child; then how does he have control over the woman's body?

I'm pretty sure everyone but you can see this but you, but you will continue to talk about bodily control and custodial rights once the child is born.

[GMDino]

(08-09-2016, 05:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why do you keep going back to "right to control their own body"? Quit reading the T-Shirt . No one is talking about control of anybody else's body. What is being asked is: Is it equal that the woman has the option to keep or dispose responsibility and the father does not.

If the man says he does not want the child; then how does he have control over the woman's body?

I'm pretty sure everyone but you can see this but you, but you will continue to talk about bodily control and custodial rights once the child is born.

Can a woman stop her man from having a vasectomy?  

[Rotobeast]

(08-09-2016, 05:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: Can a woman stop her man from having a vasectomy?  

I know the term blow is used a lot, but does the woman have any DNA deposited in there ?

Nope....


Side note: this thread is going nowhere and I feel dirty for continuing to post in it. I should be punished.

[Belsnickel]

(08-09-2016, 01:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But how does this apply to a system that also forces the mother to be financially responsible if the father is the custodial parent?  Apparently feminists do not understand the law.  That is not my problem.  

The law treats both parties equally.  There is nothing patriarchal about that.  But giving the father the power to abandon the responsibility for his child would make many women suffer, and THAT is very patriarchal.

Feminists do not want equality.  They want a matriarchal system where the mother can cut off the parental rights of the father.  That is why you included the "or otherwise" in your comment.

Apparently you don't understand what this discussion was about. It wasn't about what the law is, it was what the law would be if we were really talking about equality. You don't understand the argument, yet again.

[Belsnickel]

(08-09-2016, 01:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Too late at that point.

Not if you actually understand the argument.

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2016, 05:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why do you keep going back to "right to control their own body"?

Because that is th crux of the argument.

Woman wants to keep baby, man doe not.  Man just gets to walk away and gets what he wants.

Man wants to keep baby, woman does not.  It is impossible for the woman to just walk away.  Only way the man gets what he wants is to force the woman to carry a baby and go through a birth process she does not want to.  That is giving him control over her body.

So please explain how the man can get what he wants without giving him control over the woman's body?

[*bfine32*]

(08-09-2016, 08:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because that is th crux of the argument.

Woman wants to keep baby, man doe not.  Man just gets to walk away and gets what he wants.

Man wants to keep baby, woman does not.  It is impossible for the woman to just walk away.  Only way the man gets what he wants is to force the woman to carry a baby and go through a birth process she does not want to.  That is giving him control over her body.

So please explain how the man can get what he wants without giving him control over the woman's body?

This is my last post on this as everyone can see you either don't understand what is being discussed or you are deliberately being obtuse in an effort to mask the inequality you support.

No one (well except for the guy trying real hard to avoid what is being discussed) is talking about the man forcing the woman to have a baby.

If a man does't want the responsibility and expense of a child what choice does he have that he can make on his own without breaking the law?

If a woman doesn't want the responsibility and expense of a child what choice does she have that she can make on her own without breaking the law?

I should have listened to my own advice a few pages back and just let you go Full Fred on your own. I will do so now. 

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2016, 03:56 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Because the "unintended consequence" is 100% contingent on an INTENTIONAL choice made solely by the woman.

A woman can not get pregnant by herself.

Both parties made the decision to accept the risk.

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2016, 06:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not if you actually understand the argument.

You are right.

I have no idea how any "contract" could be created when both parties do not agree.

Please explain it to me.

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2016, 08:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is my last post on this as everyone can see you either don't understand what is being discussed or you are deliberately being obtuse in an effort to mask the inequality you support.

No one (well except for the guy trying real hard to avoid what is being discussed) is talking about the man forcing the woman to have a baby.

If a man does't want the responsibility and expense of a child what choice does he have that he can make on his own without breaking the law?

If a woman doesn't want the responsibility and expense of a child what choice does she have that she can make on her own without breaking the law?

I should have listened to my own advice a few pages back and just let you go Full Fred on your own. I will do so now. 

You just keep repeating your side of the argument without addressing anything I say.

You don't care at all about what is "fair".  You just want the law to give the man an advantage.  You want to make it possible for the man to be able to walk away and force the woman to bear 100% of the responsibility for the baby without giving the woman any way to do that to the man without giving the man control over the woman's body.  There is nothing fair or equal about what you are suggesting.  You just like it better because it gives the advantage to the man.

Because of the biological difference between men and women it is impossible for the law to guarantee equal results.  But that will disappear when technology advances.  There is nothing to gain by changing the law just to make it favor the man over the woman.  There is nothing fair about that either.  You guys just want it because it is unfair to the woman instead of the man.