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

[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.