If a woman tricks you into having a kid and then wants to collect child support

[dguy6789]

It's somewhat astounding that there are people who actually think a fetus is the same thing as a full fledged human being. They think they alone get to draw the line arbitrarily at what is a human and what isn't. Guess they failed some pretty basic science classes early on.

 

[MrMatt]

Murder is well-defined on the law books, and that definition does not include abortion. Furthermore, nobody has suggested infanticide.

You're simply wrong about the facts, and it is quite revealing about the vacuity of the so-called "pro-life" position that they must distort reality in such fashions in order to maintain their stance.

Please do yourself a favor and learn use the lump of grey matter between your ears.

A woman is going to an abortion clinic and is shot and killed on her way there. The assailant is charged with 2 counts of murder. If she had made it say 100 feet further, and gotten into the clinic, a doctor would have ended that baby's life, and it would not have been murder? Get the fuck out.

 

[sixone]

Although both people play a role in the actual intercourse, it is exclusively the woman's responsibility to handle birth control. This is because the woman alone has say over whether to have an abortion or not. If the man volunteers to wear a condom because it is convenient, then fine but he should never be expected to. It is still ultimately the woman's job to make sure she doesn't become pregnant if they both decide they don't want a kid. If a kid accidentally happens due to an error on the woman's part, then she must get an abortion or pay for the kid all by herself if the man doesn't want it.

I wonder if you have the stones to tell a woman that, once you've decided you want to sleep with her. And I wonder how many women are desperate enough to have sex with you anyway.

The guy's responsibility is to pick a woman who is both smart enough and responsible enough to make the most of the protection birth control offers. If he fails to do that, the child's welfare is and should be his responsibility.

 

[JMapleton]

Murder is well-defined on the law books, and that definition does not include abortion. Furthermore, nobody has suggested infanticide.

You're simply wrong about the facts, and it is quite revealing about the vacuity of the so-called "pro-life" position that they must distort reality in such fashions in order to maintain their stance.

Please do yourself a favor and learn use the lump of grey matter between your ears.

Pro-lifers are not the one twisting the facts or distorting reality. Thus far, no one on here has given a logic argument as to why I am wrong.

Pro choice supports twist reality by simply IGNORING that a person in the womb is still a person. As seen in this thread, they claim is a "tumor" or some other nonsense.

My stance isn't even based on a religious stance, it's a SIMPLE logic. A being in a womb in a human, and each human has their own rights and should have the say over their own life. No one has the right to abort another person. A child in the womb is not in the "ownership" of that mother, therefore cut me "it my body" nonsense. I own myself. You own yourself. A child in the womb owns themself.

I've never once heard a decent argument for pro choice based on sound logic.

 

[mchammer187]

A woman is going to an abortion clinic and is shot and killed on her way there. The assailant is charged with 2 counts of murder. If she had made it say 100 feet further, and gotten into the clinic, a doctor would have ended that baby's life, and it would not have been murder? Get the fuck out.

I always thought it wouldn't count as a double murder in that situation

 

[JMapleton]

I always thought it wouldn't count as a double murder in that situation

I think it depends on the state you're in.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

A woman is going to an abortion clinic and is shot and killed on her way there. The assailant is charged with 2 counts of murder. If she had made it say 100 feet further, and gotten into the clinic, a doctor would have ended that baby's life, and it would not have been murder? Get the fuck out.

It's really pathetic how simplistic your reasoning is, and how utterly uninformed you are. The scenario you describe exists precisely because of the rights which protect a woman's right to obtain an abortion -- particularly, the right to decide for herself what happens to her body, and to be safe from unwanted assaults upon it.

That very right is what guarantees her the right to decide whether she becomes pregnant or unpregnant at her own discretion. It matters not one whit if a fetus is a person or not, though it is not. No person has the unqualified right to occupy the body of another person without that person's consent, nor to forcefully respirate from that person's bloodstream, nor to forcefully extract nutrients and return the favor with foreign hormones and waste. Any persons subject to such assaults have the right to use lethal force if necessary to defend themselves against it.

Now, seriously, go and learn a thing or two before you go shooting your pitifully ignorant mouth off some more.

 

[Mursilis]

It's somewhat astounding that there are people who actually think a fetus is the same thing as a full fledged human being. They think they alone get to draw the line arbitrarily at what is a human and what isn't. Guess they failed some pretty basic science classes early on.

How so? You've explained nothing and just thrown around some empty phrases.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Pro-lifers are not the one twisting the facts or distorting reality. Thus far, no one on here has given a logic argument as to why I am wrong.

Pro choice supports twist reality by simply IGNORING that a person in the womb is still a person. As seen in this thread, they claim is a "tumor" or some other nonsense.

My stance isn't even based on a religious stance, it's a SIMPLE logic. A being in a womb in a human, and each human has their own rights and should have the say over their own life. No one has the right to abort another person. A child in the womb is not in the "ownership" of that mother, therefore cut me "it my body" nonsense. I own myself. You own yourself. A child in the womb owns themself.

I've never once heard a decent argument for pro choice based on sound logic.

I respect your opinion, but I along with the majority of the population and the Supreme Court disagree with your opinion.

 

[EagleKeeper]

if you can prove that she tricked you into having a kid, would the court deny her from collecting child support?

I don't think it's fair that she should get child support payments if she said she used birth control but didn't or poked holes in the condom.

Unles she raped you agaisnt your will; you voluntarily participated.

You knew the risks and chose to not take precautions that you controlled.

 

[surfsatwerk]

What men need to figure out is some way to encode a self destruct mechanism in our sperms. That way if a chick tells you she's pregnant you can send a little abort fetus signal and the baby blows up inside the girl.

 

[sixone]

It's really pathetic how simplistic your reasoning is, and how utterly uninformed you are. The scenario you describe exists precisely because of the rights which protect a woman's right to obtain an abortion -- particularly, the right to decide for herself what happens to her body, and to be safe from unwanted assaults upon it.

That very right is what guarantees her the right to decide whether she becomes pregnant or unpregnant at her own discretion. It matters not one whit if a fetus is a person or not, though it is not. No person has the unqualified right to occupy the body of another person without that person's consent, nor to forcefully respirate from that person's bloodstream, nor to forcefully extract nutrients and return the favor with foreign hormones and waste. Any persons subject to such assaults have the right to use lethal force if necessary to defend themselves against it.

Now, seriously, go and learn a thing or two before you go shooting your pitifully ignorant mouth off some more.

Accepting a sperm donation of her own free will is giving consent. We've had sex ed in the schools for decades now, and there's no excuse for not understanding the consequences of that choice.

We could argue about rape and incest, but that's clearly not at issue in this thread.

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

 

[Mursilis]

It's really pathetic how simplistic your reasoning is, and how utterly uninformed you are. The scenario you describe exists precisely because of the rights which protect a woman's right to obtain an abortion -- particularly, the right to decide for herself what happens to her body, and to be safe from unwanted assaults upon it.

That very right is what guarantees her the right to decide whether she becomes pregnant or unpregnant at her own discretion. It matters not one whit if a fetus is a person or not, though it is not. No person has the unqualified right to occupy the body of another person without that person's consent, nor to forcefully respirate from that person's bloodstream, nor to forcefully extract nutrients and return the favor with foreign hormones and waste. Any persons subject to such assaults have the right to use lethal force if necessary to defend themselves against it.

Now, seriously, go and learn a thing or two before you go shooting your pitifully ignorant mouth off some more.

Hey, that's why rape is a serious crime! But of course if you're talking about making that decision post-conception (assuming the intercourse was consensual), your logic is pretty weak. An assault? How can you be "assaulted" by a being your own willful actions created?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Pro-lifers are not the one twisting the facts or distorting reality. Thus far, no one on here has given a logic argument as to why I am wrong.

Your fault is not one of logic, but one of facts. The facts you think are true are simply false.

Pro choice supports twist reality by simply IGNORING that a person in the womb is still a person. As seen in this thread, they claim is a "tumor" or some other nonsense.

I've never claimed that a fetus is a tumor. A fetus is certainly not a person, however.

My stance isn't even based on a religious stance, it's a SIMPLE logic. A being in a womb in a human, and each human has their own rights and should have the say over their own life. No one has the right to abort another person. A child in the womb is not in the "ownership" of that mother, therefore cut me "it my body" nonsense. I own myself. You own yourself. A child in the womb owns themself.

A fetus is human, but it is not a human. That last sentence is a little test of reading comprehension for you.

Also please see my post immediately previous to this regarding the rights of a woman to defend her own body against the assualts of a fetus.

I've never once heard a decent argument for pro choice based on sound logic.

Give your demonstrable disability to correctly apprehend facts, this claim falls quite flat.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Hey, that's why rape is a serious crime! But of course if you're talking about making that decision post-conception (assuming the intercourse was consensual), your logic is pretty weak. An assault? How can you be "assaulted" by a being your own willful actions created?

Your question doesn't make any sesne. Inviting a friend over for dinner does not grant him the right to steal things from your fridge, nor pee in your cheerious and dope your drink with drugs.

 

[Mursilis]

I respect your opinion, but I along with the majority of the population and the Supreme Court disagree with your opinion.

Eh, so? Majority opinions change (as do Supreme Court decisions), and are meaningless in moral debates.

 

[Mursilis]

Your question doesn't make any sesne. Inviting a friend over for dinner does not grant him the right to steal things from your fridge, nor pee in your cheerious and dope your drink with drugs.

Sixone already said it:
Accepting a sperm donation of her own free will is giving consent. We've had sex ed in the schools for decades now, and there's no excuse for not understanding the consequences of that choice.

 

[Mursilis]

A fetus is human, but it is not a human.

Because . . . you say so?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Accepting a sperm donation of her own free will is giving consent.

Consenting to sex is not tantamount to consenting to become and remain pregnant.

We've had sex ed in the schools for decades now, and there's no excuse for not understanding the consequences of that choice.

Waivers to one's own right to bodily integrity must be explicit. This is well established in precedent.

{snip}

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

Perhaps you should refrain from spouting off on subjects about which you are not informed.

 

[Mursilis]

Consenting to sex is not tantamount to consenting to become and remain pregnant.

Because . . . you say so?

Waivers to one's own right to bodily integrity must be explicit. This is well established in precedent.

What precedent? Legal? Moral? It's clear you like to use big words, but you never really explain yourself.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I always thought it wouldn't count as a double murder in that situation

This is state law in SOME select states, and is a rather unjustified law designed to protect pregnant women and has nothing to do with the percieved status of a fetus as a human being. Commonly used as a strawman argument by right to lifers.

One contradiction that I find telling is that most right to lifers support the death penalty. They will go to great lengths to claim a mass of genetic goo the size of a pencil eraser is a human life and is sacred, but let a fully functioning human commit a crime that they find henious and they have no problem killing them. Their great zeal for the sanctity of life is a thin diguise for their desire to be the morality police and dictate how others should live.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Because . . . you say so?

Lots of things are human which are not humans. A fetus is only another one of those.

Legally, "a human" = "a human being" = "a person." That's "human" in the noun form. The adjective form of "human" is simply a biological classification, and it applies equally to blood samples, HeLa cell cultures, tumors, fingernails, etc...

I really beg of you to get some education. If I had a nickel for every time I had to explain this rather simple circumstance I would be a very rich man.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What precedent? Legal? Moral? It's clear you like to use big words, but you never really explain yourself.

I'm sorry, it is obvious I have overestimated your capacity for comprehension.

The only precedent which is significant in this matter, since it is a matter of public policy, is legal precedent. To people of average or better intelligence that is generally obvious.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Eh, so? Majority opinions change (as do Supreme Court decisions), and are meaningless in moral debates.

I see, so your morality wants to see women dying in dark alleys after being forced to take the coat hanger option to deal with their unwanted pregnancy.

Stay classy pro-life.

 

[Mursilis]

One contradiction that I find telling is that most right to lifers support the death penalty. They will go to great lengths to claim a mass of genetic goo the size of a pencil eraser is a human life and is sacred, but let a fully functioning human commit a crime that they find henious and they have no problem killing them.

I'm anti-death penalty, but I don't necessarily see those positions as morally inconsistent. If the laws and punishments are clear and just, and the trials are fair, you in essence bring the death penalty on yourself by committing that crime. If committing murder will result in facing the death penalty, you can clearly protect yourself from the death penalty by not committing murder. It's almost akin to a soldier 'consenting' to being shot by the enemy by being an armed combatant.