5 minutes

[Unclebaldrick]

I think human life should be cherished, but I also agree with Dr. Gruber's point that no being has a right to impose on another to sustain life.

The question then becomes if a woman has consensual sex and knows the possible consequences, did the fetus impose or was it invited?

Since some would agree that once a woman births a child she has no right to kill it, even if the maintenance of it is an imposition, this issue seems to be one of when does the being acquire rights ?

Actually, the sex has to be with a man to get pregnant.

 

[NLXSK1]

Meetings with foreign governments?

You mean like when Hillary sat in all those healthcare meetings when she was Bill's wife? She took it upon herself to try to craft healthcare policy while Bill was in office.

I dont have a problem with Donald Trump including whomever he thinks is appropriate in meetings. He isnt even the president yet...

 

[londonfog]

You mean like when Hillary sat in all those healthcare meetings when she was Bill's wife? She took it upon herself to try to craft healthcare policy while Bill was in office.

I dont have a problem with Donald Trump including whomever he thinks is appropriate in meetings. He isnt even the president yet...

First you question that she was invited, Now you make an excuse for her invite. Typical confused ignorant Trump supporter

 

[Unclebaldrick]

You mean like when Hillary sat in all those healthcare meetings when she was Bill's wife? She took it upon herself to try to craft healthcare policy while Bill was in office.

I dont have a problem with Donald Trump including whomever he thinks is appropriate in meetings. He isnt even the president yet...

I agree about Hillary. So you agree about Ivanka?

 

[Rob Roy]

At what point are a woman's rights superseded? You do realize that your whole social construct disintegrates the moment you put a value on this right?

Almost. If the woman entered into consensual sex with a man for the purpose of having a baby and there was some form of prior mutual agreement, it could be a different scenario if she then changed her mind, since the father may have some kind of claim on the potential child and if he doesn't, why would he then be responsible for paying for the kid if he has a less than equal say than the mother in whether or not the kid will even be born?

The question then becomes, who owns the unborn, does it own itself at a certain point in time, do the parents have joint ownership until the child becomes capable of fending for itself etc.

I do agree with you though, that ordinarily no person may impose on another without the consent of the other, but if consent WAS given and a being was created, does the father have any rights ?

My this marijuana is good.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

First you question that she was invited, Now you make an excuse for her invite. Typical confused ignorant Trump supporter

He's not confused. He's a flack.

 

[Rob Roy]

What right did you have eating cheese? Was it trying to eat you?

This isn't gonna turn into a Pizza the Hut meme is it ?

 

[schuylaar]

What right did you have eating cheese? Was it trying to eat you?

It was mutual consent.

 

[londonfog]

He's not confused. He's a flack.

and ignorant

 

[Rob Roy]

It was mutual consent.

Yes! You're on a hot streak today kid.

 

[schuylaar]

Invited them where? You seem confused.

Kill yourself now.

 

[schuylaar]

Bernie is on Rachel tonight at 9pmEST MSNBC.

Yes!!!! It'll be all new stuff!!!

 

[Rob Roy]

Do you keep your thoughts to yourself or does your wife know you're like this?

Hang on. I'll go down to the basement and take her duct tape off and ask her.

 

[NLXSK1]

Almost. If the woman entered into consensual sex with a man for the purpose of having a baby and there was some form of prior mutual agreement, it could be a different scenario if she then changed her mind, since the father may have some kind of claim on the potential child and if he doesn't, why would he then be responsible for paying for the kid if he has a less than equal say than the mother in whether or not the kid will even be born?

The question then becomes, who owns the unborn, does it own itself at a certain point in time, do the parents have joint ownership until the child becomes capable of fending for itself etc.

I do agree with you though, that ordinarily no person may impose on another without the consent of the other, but if consent WAS given and a being was created, does the father have any rights ?

My this marijuana is good.

Why do you assume it was for the purpose of having a baby? Most women who want babies dont kill them before birth.

At what point do you detain the mother against her will and force her again, against her will to have a child? Where in your society where nobody has the right to detain another person does this fit in? Is the lesser evil acceptable to deter the greater evil? You have again gone against everything you espouse....

 

[NLXSK1]

Kill yourself now.

I am not unemployed and clueless. No need to project onto me.

 

[Rob Roy]

Why do you assume it was for the purpose of having a baby? Most women who want babies dont kill them before birth.

At what point do you detain the mother against her will and force her again, against her will to have a child? Where in your society where nobody has the right to detain another person does this fit in? Is the lesser evil acceptable to deter the greater evil? You have again gone against everything you espouse....

Because in my hypothetical scenario I mentioned the cavorting couple had made a mutual agreement and she changed her mind after the fact.

Nobody has a right to commit fraud. I asked if the father has any right or say in the event they made an agreement to make a baby. I'm not sure how that makes me going against what I espouse.

My this is good marihuana (thought I'd try that spelling this time).

 

[NLXSK1]

Because in my hypothetical scenario I mentioned the cavorting couple had made a mutual agreement and she changed her mind after the fact.

Nobody has a right to commit fraud. I asked if the father has any right or say in the event they made an agreement to make a baby. I'm not sure how that makes me going against what I espouse.

My this is good marihuana (thought I'd try that spelling this time).

At what point are you going to detain the woman and force her to have the baby. At the point you detain her, you are violating HER rights. You do not have the right to do that so that is going against what you espouse. So, according to you because the baby has more rights than the mother (obviously) you are going to commit what you consider multiple crimes against one individual based on the rights of another individual.

Which is just another example of why your described society is insane...

 

[NLXSK1]

On the marijuana front, mine is better than yours.....

 

[Rob Roy]

At what point are you going to detain the woman and force her to have the baby. At the point you detain her, you are violating HER rights. You do not have the right to do that so that is going against what you espouse. So, according to you because the baby has more rights than the mother (obviously) you are going to commit what you consider multiple crimes against one individual based on the rights of another individual.

Which is just another example of why your described society is insane...

Well now slow down and pass the doobie over son.

I'm not going to detain anyone, since I'm not involved. At which point the father acts on this is up to him if he feels he can prove fraud was present.

My described society ISN'T insane, because it is based in consistency or at least a great deal more consistency than the present one which relies on a contradiction from the get go. That contradiction being that a central coercive authority is needed to prevent a central coercive authority from arising.

 

[NLXSK1]

Well now slow down and pass the doobie over son.

I'm not going to detain anyone, since I'm not involved. At which point the father acts on this is up to him if he feels he can prove fraud was present.

My described society ISN'T insane, because it is based in consistency or at least a great deal more consistency than the present one which relies on a contradiction from the get go. That contradiction being that a central coercive authority is needed to prevent a central coercive authority from arising.

Your tenant seems to be that 2 consenting people should be able to conduct a consensual transaction.... Well, unless one of those consenting people is a woman and the other is her doctor and there is a pregnancy involved.... Now society/government (cause as you pointed out, it aint gonna be you) is going to intervene....

A more consistent platform for you would be realizing that if a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body then unless the baby is out of it and breathing on it's own you have no right to tell her what to do...

You said a woman should have the right to do whatever she wants with her body, BUT....

Which means you do not believe a woman should have the right to do whatever she wants with her body.