Person or property?

Beowulf · #21 01/21/11, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JanS

I never said she didn't have the same choice. Just refuting Tinknal's statement that a man can be forced to be a father.

I understand that, however I think you are applying a double standard:

If a man must make the decision as to whether or not he is willing to be a father prior to intercourse, why do you not hold women to the same standard?

Beowulf · #22 01/21/11, 12:46 PM

Let me clear up possible mis-conceptions here:

I'm not making an argument for making abortion illegal. I just think that women and men should be held to the same standard.

An irresponsible woman that does not want to be a mother but finds herself pregnant by a man who wants to be a father would hardly consider bringing a pregnancy to term if it meant that she would have to pay child support for the next 18 years, yet this is exactly the situation that many (irresponsible) men find themselves in.

tinknal · #23 01/21/11, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beowulf

Let me clear up possible mis-conceptions here:

I'm not making an argument for making abortion illegal. I just think that women and men should be held to the same standard.

An irresponsible woman that does not want to be a mother but finds herself pregnant by a man who wants to be a father would hardly consider bringing a pregnancy to term if it meant that she would have to pay child support for the next 18 years, yet this is exactly the situation that many (irresponsible) men find themselves in.

Exactly!

JanS · #24 01/21/11, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinknal

In that case, then a woman (except in the case of rape) cannot be forced to be a mother.

I'm not sure what your point is. In this country it's already true that a woman cannot be forced to be a mother.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinknal

This is the double standard at work. They always come back to it. The only way this could be intellectually honest is to say that women have no self control and are not responsible for their own actions. Of course if this was true they would not be competent to make their own decisions.

It is the conundrum that totally destroys their argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beowulf

I understand that, however I think you are applying a double standard:

If a man must make the decision as to whether or not he is willing to be a father prior to intercourse, why do you not hold women to the same standard?

What argument, what double standard? The only thing I've said is that a man has a choice at the moment of conception. I never said anything either way about the woman's choice. I'd tell you both to go back and read my original post but that's probably pointless as you read your own thoughts into it the first time.

SilverFlame819 · #25 01/21/11, 01:12 PM

I personally think that if a consenting man and woman have sex and she gets pregnant, it was BOTH of their job to prevent the pregnancy in the first place. If the man doesn't want the child but the woman chooses to keep it, he shouldn't have to pay child support. If the man wants the baby and the woman doesn't, I think that should also be taken into consideration and she should seriously be made to consider the feelings of the man, and carry the child to term for him... And then hand it off and wipe her hands clean at the birth.

I completely disagree with a woman insisting on carrying the child to term and raising it when the man has stated he wants nothing to do with the child, and then insisting he pay child support. That is just ridiculous to me.

And if we outlaw abortion, women will just go back to stabbing themselves with hangers to get medical treatment (= abortion to save her life and stop the bleeding). I also find it ridiculous to argue this point when we have a sky-high number of kids in the foster system who aren't getting homes at all, and being kicked from the system to the street on their 18th birthdays. Who exactly is going to take care of all these kids?

This is like saying we should stop spaying our dogs because it's cruel to take away their reproductive freedom.

Get a grip, extremist people.

beowoulf90 · #26 01/21/11, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverFlame819

I personally think that if a consenting man and woman have sex and she gets pregnant, it was BOTH of their job to prevent the pregnancy in the first place. If the man doesn't want the child but the woman chooses to keep it, he shouldn't have to pay child support. If the man wants the baby and the woman doesn't, I think that should also be taken into consideration and she should seriously be made to consider the feelings of the man, and carry the child to term for him... And then hand it off and wipe her hands clean at the birth.

I completely disagree with a woman insisting on carrying the child to term and raising it when the man has stated he wants nothing to do with the child, and then insisting he pay child support. That is just ridiculous to me.

And if we outlaw abortion, women will just go back to stabbing themselves with hangers to get medical treatment (= abortion to save her life and stop the bleeding). I also find it ridiculous to argue this point when we have a sky-high number of kids in the foster system who aren't getting homes at all, and being kicked from the system to the street on their 18th birthdays. Who exactly is going to take care of all these kids?

This is like saying we should stop spaying our dogs because it's cruel to take away their reproductive freedom.

Get a grip, extremist people.

Wait a second!

I thought the left wanted to reduce the population, so as to reduce the carbon footprint?

If so then we should make abortion illegal if (what you are saying is true that illegal abortions kill more.) more will die that way..
That kills two birds with one stone, women have their reproductive rights (in a round about way) and the liberals have a declining population, thus a smaller carbon footprint..

Imagine that!

Problem solved!

tinknal · #27 01/21/11, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JanS

I'd tell you both to go back and read my original post but that's probably pointless as you read your own thoughts into it the first time.

This is a specious argument and you know it. You purposely chose to read my OP in a way other than it was intended, and now you accuse me of "reading my own thoughts" into your response.

lilmizlayla · #28 01/21/11, 01:33 PM

The question of abortion ISNT who is going to pay for what IF.

Its about "is a woman capable enough to decide if she is ready for parenthood". (more times than not, she will be doing it as a single parent).

The argument on not making men pay for their children if they didnt want them....is a non argument. THEY DONT PAY ANYWAY.

we dont need to make that legislation..the ineffectiveness of child support collection speaks volumes.

What I find strange is the prolifers are typically the biggest gun advocates. i guess the lives of those taken from guns dont count as much when its at the expense of your rights.

tinknal · #29 01/21/11, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lilmizlayla

The argument on not making men pay for their children if they didnt want them....is a non argument. THEY DONT PAY ANYWAY.

we dont need to make that legislation..the ineffectiveness of child support collection speaks volumes.

Maybe in years past. Not anymore. They put people in jail for being too broke to pay their child support.

AngieM2 · #30 01/21/11, 01:55 PM

wish they'd have done that about 30 years ago. Of course, they have to find the deliquent parent before it can be done.

But, if the parent that is not paying (could be a mother, too, these days) is in jail - what good does that do? That is still no income to help with the children.

Nevada · #31 01/21/11, 02:04 PM

I believe that we can infer from Roe v Wade that the Supreme Court considers an early fetus to be part of the mother's body.

tinknal · #32 01/21/11, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngieM2

wish they'd have done that about 30 years ago. Of course, they have to find the deliquent parent before it can be done.

But, if the parent that is not paying (could be a mother, too, these days) is in jail - what good does that do? That is still no income to help with the children.

Want to hear the kicker? You can't even deduct child support from your taxable income!

primroselane · #33 01/21/11, 02:08 PM

"I believe that we can infer from Roe v Wade that the Supreme Court considers an early fetus to be part of the mother's body."

Just as we could have inferred that from Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves or their descendants, whether or not they were slaves were not protected by the Constitution and could never be U.S. citizens.

Nevada · #34 01/21/11, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by primroselane

"I believe that we can infer from Roe v Wade that the Supreme Court considers an early fetus to be part of the mother's body."

Just as we could have inferred that from Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves or their descendants, whether or not they were slaves were not protected by the Constitution and could never be U.S. citizens.

But if the fetus is not an individual (i.e., not a person), then we're talking about something else. Then this would be a decision similar to the choice to amputate a limb, which the mother unquestionably has the legal right to do (the doctor may not be willing to do it, but no one would question her right to make that decision).

Beowulf · #35 01/21/11, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JanS

What argument, what double standard? The only thing I've said is that a man has a choice at the moment of conception. I never said anything either way about the woman's choice. I'd tell you both to go back and read my original post but that's probably pointless as you read your own thoughts into it the first time.

I apologize. I didn't realize you were making random posts unrelated to the topic at hand, and I mistakenly presumed that you had a point that was germane to the discussion...

Beowulf · #36 01/21/11, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngieM2

wish they'd have done that about 30 years ago. Of course, they have to find the deliquent parent before it can be done.

But, if the parent that is not paying (could be a mother, too, these days) is in jail - what good does that do? That is still no income to help with the children.

In Texas, they turn the bond over to the custodial parent to cover some of the back support, unless the custodial parent is on welfare, in which case the child support goes to reimburse the state for the cost of the welfare, which would be the case even if the custodial parent were making regular payments.

primroselane · #37 01/21/11, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevada

But if the fetus is not an individual (i.e., not a person), then we're talking about something else.

Pretty big "if".

According to the Supreme Court, a woman and a corporation are both persons, but an unborn child is not. So if a corporation buys sperm and eggs they could create babies. And they could timely kill them to extract whatever they can sell. Seems like a pretty soulless world you live in.

JanS · #38 01/21/11, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beowulf

I apologize. I didn't realize you were making random posts unrelated to the topic at hand, and I mistakenly presumed that you had a point that was germane to the discussion...

I was replying to tinknal's comment:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinknal

A woman can force a man to be a father, but a man cannot force a woman to be a mother.

A man cannot force a woman to be a mother so no reply needed. Seeing as I don't think a woman can force a man to be a father unless she forces him into the sex act, that's what I replied to.

Actually I think you both know exactly what I mean. But seeing as hardly anyone was disagreeing with you and you had no one to fight with, you found a way to pick one.

SquashNut · #39 01/21/11, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shygal

But Obama isnt black, it must be so because I read it on Homesteading Today.

After reading the abortion doctor thread, it would be good to shut down the family clinics and only have the abortins done in hospitals.

lilmizlayla · #40 01/21/11, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinknal

Want to hear the kicker? You can't even deduct child support from your taxable income!

why should you be able to? Only one parent receives the deduction. the custodial.