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

[*bfine32*]

(08-13-2016, 09:05 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: Yes, it does when pregnancy becomes a reality. However, they can do something in advance per what I quoted. They can choose to not risk possibly creating a pregnancy, therefore avoiding the resultant responsibilities. The concept works for me. How about you?

When a pregnancy becomes a reality only 1 can choose to wak away. You quoted consequences and those are not eq.

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-13-2016, 04:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: Exactly.



Sometime the easiest answers are the simplest.  It doesn't work for everyone.



Here's the thing:  How often do you think a woman "wrangles a man into making a child/being financially responsible for something he actively tried to avoid" vs how often a man tries to get out of the financial responsibility he took on originally of his own free will?

*I* do not believe women are out there swinging their legs open just to catch a man and trick them into getting them pregnant just for all those great financial benefits as compared to the number men who have kids and decide they don't like the woman anymore so they don't want to pay for the kids.

There is a million shades of grey in the whole dynamic. Men and women will do crooked things to each other, the man will want and the woman won't, the woman will want and the man won't and everything in between. Who does how much most only muddies the waters. 

The word equality keeps getting thrown around. The only equal way that makes it fair is to give neither an out or both an out. 

It's as "simple" as that. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-13-2016, 04:51 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: It is this simple. It is reality. Might as well nail one foot to the floor, and chase yourself around the room instead of arguing against this, 'cause this isn't going to change anytime soon .....

It's not as simple as that for the...wait for it...simple reason that too many people are not that responsible. You see it every day in every facet of society. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-13-2016, 07:12 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: False.

Just because the baby is still inside the mother, doesn't mean that it's not a functioning person.

The baby is functioning and growing.  

For the sake of argument, i see it as, a line has to be drawn somewhere. That is where she, and most, draw the line.

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-13-2016, 07:29 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Until we can make guys pregnant, it will be unequal.

It's not a legitimate question. It's not even close to what he even said and contradicts his own argument. Come on, man. This is how threads become unproductive. 

I don't mean this in a mean way...but open up your mind a bit and don't just focus on the one aspect that 'a woman has the right to her own body'. I don't disagree with that sentiment. But it's not the be all-end all. 

I disagree with the decision being made for a man, by the woman. As much as people want to disagree with it, a man is being forced to do something he may not want to do. 

If two people consent to an act and two people are ultimately responsible for the outcome, two people should be allowed to decide (in some way) whether or not they want that responsibility or not. Not just one of them. 

A woman's right to her own body doesn't trump someone else's right. You are only interested in looking at it from a woman's perspective.

[*wildcats forever*]

(08-13-2016, 09:05 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: Yes, it does when pregnancy becomes a reality. However, they can do something in advance per what I quoted. They can choose to not risk possibly creating a pregnancy, therefore avoiding the resultant responsibilities. The concept works for me. How about you?

(08-13-2016, 10:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: When a pregnancy becomes a reality only 1 can choose to wak away. You quoted consequences and those are not eq.

You didn't answer my question, a mere oversight I'm sure. And while we're here, how about where I was talking about the resultant responsibilities of pregnancy? Not consequences. Responsibilities was the subject. 

[BmorePat87]

(08-13-2016, 11:40 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I don't mean this in a mean way...but open up your mind a bit and don't just focus on the one aspect that 'a woman has the right to her own body'. I don't disagree with that sentiment. But it's not the be all-end all. 

I disagree with the decision being made for a man, by the woman. As much as people want to disagree with it, a man is being forced to do something he may not want to do. 

If two people consent to an act and two people are ultimately responsible for the outcome, two people should be allowed to decide (in some way) whether or not they want that responsibility or not. Not just one of them. 

A woman's right to her own body doesn't trump someone else's right. You are only interested in looking at it from a woman's perspective.

Yea, I addressed that like 20 pages back (lol, 24 pages). It certainly sucks. Prior to birth, the woman can make the choice since it is her body. After birth, the the courts ruled a child has the right to parental support from both parents. There are legal outlets for relinquishing responsibility, but that can be hard. 

It's unequal because pregnancy is unequal.

[*bfine32*]

(08-14-2016, 12:05 AM)wildcats forever Wrote: You didn't answer my question, a mere oversight I'm sure. And while we're here, how about where I was talking about the resultant responsibilities of pregnancy? Not consequences. Responsibilities was the subject. 

Only one can chose to remove themselves from the responsibility. Not sure what I am missing or what I have failed to answer. They both accept the responsibility, but only one gets to make the decisions on the outcome.

[*bfine32*]

(08-14-2016, 01:20 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's unequal because pregnancy is unequal.

Because of biological sex. Surprised at those that are OK with this. 

[BmorePat87]

(08-14-2016, 02:23 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Because of biological sex. Surprised at those that are OK with this. 

You're surprised that people are ok with the fact that only women can get pregnant?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-14-2016, 03:30 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You're surprised that people are ok with the fact that only women can get pregnant?

You would think someone would have put a little more thought into the R&D of intelligent design. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-14-2016, 01:20 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea, I addressed that like 20 pages back (lol, 24 pages). It certainly sucks. Prior to birth, the woman can make the choice since it is her body. After birth, the the courts ruled a child has the right to parental support from both parents. There are legal outlets for relinquishing responsibility, but that can be hard. 

It's unequal because pregnancy is unequal.

My argument would only apply to when it is determined that a pregnancy has occurred. I don't really like the idea that a guy could opt out when a child is going to be born, but to me, it's only fair if both have the ability to opt out or neither does. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-14-2016, 02:23 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Because of biological sex. Surprised at those that are OK with this. 

Eight pages ago . . . 

(08-05-2016, 08:38 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The courts rule the balance weighs in favor of the person physically affected by the pregnancy. They aren't being treated differently because one is male and the other female, they are being treated differently because one is physically affected and the other isn't. Their sex is secondary to that; if the man were physically pregnant the balance would weigh in his favor. Although, I'm not fooling myself into believing you will understand something so esoteric. 

In other words, one person has a medical condition and the other person doesn't. The courts ruled the balance weighs in favor of the person physically affected by that medical condition. 



But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.


1 Timothy 5:8


Worse than an infidel!


Why do you keep questioning your god?

[GMDino]

Y'all realize that this is no longer a discussion about abortion but about how men aren't treated fairly, right?

There must be an end game here but I think it has less to do with abortion and parental rights and "equality" than it does with some delusion about men not being in total control of everything.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-14-2016, 09:25 AM)GMDino Wrote: Y'all realize that this is no longer a discussion about abortion but about how men aren't treated fairly, right?

There must be an end game here but I think it has less to do with abortion and parental rights and "equality" than it does with some delusion about men not being in total control of everything.

". . . he shall rule over thee."

Genesis 3:16

"Resistance is futile."

The Borg

[*bfine32*]

(08-14-2016, 03:30 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You're surprised that people are ok with the fact that only women can get pregnant?

Nope, I'm surprised folks are in ok with unequal rights concerning the offspring of two consenting adults simply because of biological sex. I have no idea how you missed that. The best folks can do to defend this inequality is to say it is justified or worse yet; it is the law.

[BmorePat87]

(08-14-2016, 09:06 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Eight pages ago . . . 


In other words, one person has a medical condition and the other person doesn't. The courts ruled the balance weighs in favor of the person physically affected by that medical condition. 



But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.


1 Timothy 5:8


Worse than an infidel!


Why do you keep questioning your god?

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Hillary-An-Unborn-Child-Hours-Before-Delivery-Has-No-Constitutional-Rights?pid=243302#pid243302

Yea, not much has changed in 11 days...

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-14-2016, 10:59 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope, I'm surprised folks are in ok with unequal rights concerning the offspring of two consenting adults simply because of biological sex. I have no idea how you missed that. The best folks can do to defend this inequality is to say it is justified or worse yet; it is the law.

KISS method

Keep It Simple, Stupid. 

When someone doesn't understand any of the myriad explanations presented to them one may be forced to simplify the explanation for their benefit. 

I gave you another explanation just two hours ago. 

[BmorePat87]

(08-14-2016, 11:20 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: KISS method

Keep It Simple, Stupid. 

When someone doesn't understand any of the myriad explanations presented to them one may be forced to simplify the explanation for their benefit. 

I gave you another explanation just two hours ago. 

He understands, he just doesn't care to actually acknowledge what we're saying. It's easier for him to invent an argument he wants to attack than to address the actual argument presented to him. If he does it enough times, people will get annoyed and stop responding to him and he can take that as a "win". 

I don't want to piss off mods by derailing this thread, so the only thing else I will say is that beyond making fun of his posts when he starts acting like this (Like http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Hillary-An-Unborn-Child-Hours-Before-Delivery-Has-No-Constitutional-Rights?pid=247021#pid247021), he's not worth engaging with once he starts doing this. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-14-2016, 11:16 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Hillary-An-Unborn-Child-Hours-Before-Delivery-Has-No-Constitutional-Rights?pid=243302#pid243302

Yea, not much has changed in 11 days...

Probably missed it because he was too busy goggling the "scientific" definition of race. 

Reminds me of the Jimi Hendrix scene in White Men Can't Jump. He is listening, but he can't hear you.