Abortion

[palerider]

It's their choice, I am in favor of women being able to control their own bodies. As soon as you carry a baby you too will have my support in making decisions about your own body. It's called being secure in one's person, it keeps others from using you against your will.

That is no answer to the argument that I make. I favor eliminating abortion on demand. What is your answer to women who make the same arguments I make? No answer at all, right? Just a series of logical fallacies, misinformation, and untruths.

 

[palerider]

Where did I say it did? Also, what "fact" did I dispute?

Those of us on the other side of the issue do not accept this despite even Pale's eloquent argument.

It isn't my argument that unborns are human beings. It is a fact that unborns are human beings and I simply provide materials to support the statement. Rejecting the fact, or the evidence that proves it does not alter it.

 

[palerider]

If women are to be required by law to bear any child they become pregnant with no matter how it happens, then it's only reasonable for all men to be responsible for all the children they father whether they want them or not.

What would be more fair?

Men have been enslaved as well. This issue isn't about whether men or women have been enslaved, or what is fair to men or women. That is no more than a red herring. This argument is about the children who are being killed without judicial review and without legal consequence.

 

[palerider]

If the above statements are to be taken seriously, and you've already established that the right to life extends to a right to be provided the necessities of life, then the state is free to absolve all our other rights, suspend everyone's liberty, confiscate all property and ration all necessities, in order to equally "protect" everyone's right to life.

Again, you seem to be under the impression that because the state provides for children that the state must also provide for adults. What, exactly, is your basis for that line of thought?

 

[dahermit]

Again, you seem to be under the impression that because the state provides for children that the state must also provide for adults. What, exactly, is your basis for that line of thought?

Perhaps because they have the right to life and if they cannot provide for themselves, withholding that support would deprive them of life without due process of law.

 

[palerider]

Perhaps because they have the right to life and if they cannot provide for themselves, withholding that support would deprive them of life without due process of law.

Flawed thinking. You would deprive adults of life if you denied them the ability to provide for themselves. That right is, however, protected. It is known as the right to persue happiness. The rights and responsibilities of adults are quite different than the rights and responsibilites of children.

 

[dahermit]

Flawed thinking. You would deprive adults of life if you denied them the ability to provide for themselves. That right is, however, protected. It is known as the right to persue happiness. The rights and responsibilities of adults are quite different than the rights and responsibilites of children.

And of course they are not "...denied... the ability to provide for themselves..." (and their children; most on the public dole are children.), when there are no jobs to be had in an economy with 10% unemployment. Or, if they are black, unattractive, unintelligent, homeless(who will hire someone off the street?), or otherwise unemployable. This begs the question: If 10% is not bad enough to say that they are being denied the ability to provide for themselves, how much unemployment is required?

There is no Constitutional "right to pursue happiness". There has never been a Supreme Court Case involving it. It is merely an ideal that is in the Declaration of Independence. But of course, being an accomplished debtor with the skills the envy of an accomplished criminal lawyer , you already know that.

 

[dahermit]

It isn't my argument that unborns are human beings. It is a fact that unborns are human beings and I simply provide materials to support the statement.

SEMANTICS. Your most obvious skill.

 

[dahermit]

The rights and responsibilities of adults are quite different than the rights and responsibilites of children.

Show me that in the Constitution.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

women are not required to carry a baby but men are required to pay for them

I think it would be fair if it were agreed on. If a woman gets pregnant and wants to keep the baby and the man agrees he wants to be the father then they agree and both will pay

if the woman wants an abortion then she wants it and the man should not have to pay for it, if the woman wants to keep the baby and the man does not then he should not have to pay for it.

its absolutly stupid that women have so much damn power over men and men are dumb enough to put up with it.

a woman can get a man drunk have sex with him knowing she is not protected and hoping she gets pregnant because the man is rich and she wants a settlement. That same man has no power over the life of the baby if she wants to flush it down a toilet but if she decides she wants it or there is big money to be had she can ruin this mans life for over 18 years. if it were a two way street and a man could do the same to a woman i would not care but its very one sided and I am just shocked that there are so many people who buy into this.

A man and woman gets married or are dating and have a baby, are together then later break up...well of course the man should pay child support but a women dating a guy on and off nothing serious but there is sex, holds his life in her hands and we all sit back and call that fair, its not. its dumb and should end.

We are talking at cross purposes here. I predicating my thoughts on the basis of Pale's Law being in force and all women being required to bear all babies with no exceptions. If you are referring to the situation as it now stands, then yes, the man should have some say in the disposal of the child. Sorry for the confusion.

As far as your scenario of a woman getting a man drunk and getting pregnant, well, I have no sympathy for drunks whether they are driving or fornicating. Caveat emptor, as the saying goes.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

That is no answer to the argument that I make. I favor eliminating abortion on demand. What is your answer to women who make the same arguments I make? No answer at all, right? Just a series of logical fallacies, misinformation, and untruths.

Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean that it's not an answer. You and I disagree on who owns women, so what? My opinion of you and your opinion of me are totally irrelevant to the discussion. I disagree with you and all your fancy semantic constructs are not going to change that. You have the right to live your life by your lights, other people have that same right, you would deny that right to them, so I disagree with you. Have a nice day.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Men have been enslaved as well. This issue isn't about whether men or women have been enslaved, or what is fair to men or women. That is no more than a red herring. This argument is about the children who are being killed without judicial review and without legal consequence.

I addressed the post that Pandora aimed at me, you pissing in our pool has done nothing but muddy the water.

You and I disagree, get used to it.

 

[palerider]

There is no Constitutional "right to pursue happiness". There has never been a Supreme Court Case involving it.

Of course it is, and of course there have. The pursuit of happiness is the right to own property and that has been constitutionally worked out already.

It is merely an ideal that is in the Declaration of Independence. But of course, being an accomplished debtor with the skills the envy of an accomplished criminal lawyer , you already know that.

Debtor? I am afraid that I don't follow you. I don't owe anyone, even for my home.

 

[palerider]

SEMANTICS. Your most obvious skill.

No semantics there. Perhaps you could take a moment to learn what semantics actually is.

I could argue that the sun is cold. I could believe it as strongly as you believe that unborns are something other than human beings. Of course as soon as someone comes along stating that the sun is hot and provides an overwhelming body of evidence to support their statements when I can provide none to support my personal beliefs, I am left either accepting the facts, or admitting that I am a flat earther. What other option might I have?

 

[palerider]

Show me that in the Constitution.

You won't find the evidence in the constititon. Do you understand the nature of our legal system? Rights may be denied or withheld under our legal system so long as law is duely legislated that explicitly enumerates which right is to be denied, from whom it is to be denied, and for what reason it is to be denied. There are a great many laws on the books, at both the federal and state level that explicitly enumerate under what conditions children may work, own firearms, etc.