I Have Been Saying

[*bfine32*]

(12-15-2016, 03:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are confused by the fact that I never said the law did not benefit the woman based on her sex.  that is exactly the point I have been trying to make.

And your version of the law would benefit the man based on his sex.  A woman would never be able to force a man to carry a baby he did not want to.

As I have clearly stated, since there is a huge difference between men and women the law is going to effect them differently.  But the only way to be fair is to give each of them control over their own bodies.  

Your version of the law gives individual rights to something that is not an individual.  It only survives because it is attached to a real individual.  When technology advances to the point that it can survive when not attached to a real individual then it will be entitled to the individual rights you want to give it then.

Until that point we can not let a man make a decision about a woman's body that could cost her a job, an education, a spouse, or medical problems for life (not all problems can be discovered in advance).

You can not give "individual rights" to something that can not survive without being attached to and living off a real individual.

Fair response ( guess you threw me off when you said No is post 71); I suppose the difference is that i see the woman as not forced into getting pregnant. Seems as if the "get out of jail free" card were not an option; more thought may be given to our actions.

I do appreciate that we agree that the laws are biased to women based on nothing more than biological sex.