Are women's rights a distraction from "important" issues?

[Remodeling Maidiac]

On Wednesday, Trump said during a forum on MSNBC that women who undergo abortions, if there were a ban on the procedure, should be punished. He later walked back his comment in a statement, but the remark drew backlash from leaders in both parties.

He (Bernie Sanders) then referred to it as “another stupid remark” by Trump that, Sanders suggested, is a distraction from “serious issues facing America.”

Clinton Knocks Sanders Over Response to Trump’s Abortion Comments

John Kasich prompts firestorm after telling female student not to 'go to parties where there's a lot of alcohol'

A first-year student at St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York, asked the Ohio governor during a Watertown, New York, town-hall event how he'd help her "feel safer and more secure regarding sexual violence, harassment, and rape" should he be elected president.

Kasich responded with what he called a "bit of advice."

"Don't go to parties where there's a lot of alcohol. OK? Don't do that," he said, as some in the audience applauded.

---------------------------------------

You would expect Republicans to ignore minority issues because they are 90% white. It was only a year ago that USMB Republicans were saying there was no more discrimination in their party. Now they go to kill the gays rallies and call Mexicans Rapists. So clearly, they are not "over it".

But even Bernie Sanders sees women's issues as "distracting". Do women feel their issues are just a distraction?

The abortion fight isn't over, so we have to keep it in our sights, but overall women's issues in this country aren't a primary concern. I saw the entirety of Kasich's response to the college student asking how to stay safe on campus. He was on point, and that last bit of fatherly advice is being unfairly twisted to seem unfair to women, imo.

Clearly he was blaming women for being attacked.

Clearly you're an idiot.

Now that we've put this issue to bed what's next?

 

[kaz]

On Wednesday, Trump said during a forum on MSNBC that women who undergo abortions, if there were a ban on the procedure, should be punished. He later walked back his comment in a statement, but the remark drew backlash from leaders in both parties.

He (Bernie Sanders) then referred to it as “another stupid remark” by Trump that, Sanders suggested, is a distraction from “serious issues facing America.”

Clinton Knocks Sanders Over Response to Trump’s Abortion Comments

John Kasich prompts firestorm after telling female student not to 'go to parties where there's a lot of alcohol'

A first-year student at St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York, asked the Ohio governor during a Watertown, New York, town-hall event how he'd help her "feel safer and more secure regarding sexual violence, harassment, and rape" should he be elected president.

Kasich responded with what he called a "bit of advice."

"Don't go to parties where there's a lot of alcohol. OK? Don't do that," he said, as some in the audience applauded.

---------------------------------------

You would expect Republicans to ignore minority issues because they are 90% white. It was only a year ago that USMB Republicans were saying there was no more discrimination in their party. Now they go to kill the gays rallies and call Mexicans Rapists. So clearly, they are not "over it".

But even Bernie Sanders sees women's issues as "distracting". Do women feel their issues are just a distraction?

The abortion fight isn't over, so we have to keep it in our sights, but overall women's issues in this country aren't a primary concern. I saw the entirety of Kasich's response to the college student asking how to stay safe on campus. He was on point, and that last bit of fatherly advice is being unfairly twisted to seem unfair to women, imo.

Clearly he was blaming women for being attacked.

Clearly you're an idiot.

Now that we've put this issue to bed what's next?

Yes, he's an idiot. But he does believe it. Dean leaves the keys in his car because to take them and lock the car would mean it being stolen was his fault. He lets people on the street carry his wallet because to do otherwise would make them picking his pocket his fault. He doesn't use passwords because otherwise people hacking his account is his fault.

Yes, he is an idiot ...

 

[rdean]

Another rdean "Hillary getting desperate" thread

Newsflash rdean!!! All the younger females are on Bernie's side.

I love it when Establ/Corporate Democrats flail about

I wrote you a note:

Bernie Sanders - his super pac, his Wall Street Money, his two hundred thousand dollar salary

 

[rdean]

Funny, Republicans feel they should have the right to control women's bodies. But when they refuse to vaccinate their children, making them a danger to both those children and everyone around them, they say fuck off.

 

[Chuz Life]

YOU said that NO-ONE has the right to the use another person's body.

I gave you a HYPOTHETICAL situation where YOU somehow become connected to the body of another person and you will DIE if they break that connection.

NOW FOCUS. . . . in that situation, you would either have a right to remain connected to that other person's body or you would not have that right.

You have already said that if they break that connection and you DIE as a result. . . they could face serious criminal charges. It's still a crime even if they don't disconnect me

Now the onus is on YOU to explain how or why that does not TRANSLATE logically as a RIGHT that you would have had to remain connected to their body.

You keep changing the scenario and I've answered it both ways.

1) The person connected to me did it on purpose

2) We somehow got connected

In scenario 1, yes, government can force them and it's murder if they break the connection and leave

In scenario 2, no, government cannot force them and it's not murder if they break the connection and leave

I don't know how I can be any clearer

You have not addressed the scenario that falls between the two that you provided.

What if the "connection" is made from an assumption of risk? That is, the assumption of the risk for connection was "on purpose?"

What then would their obligations be?

If you asked that, I missed it. But I wondered how you were going to go with tying the I'm connected scenario to the baby. Clearly other than in extreme lunatic cases, women don't do the connection on purpose then kill the baby without a reason like health risk or a severe defect. You didn't say that, you went with assumption of risk. Well stated.

In terms of what's right to do, I totally agree. They assumed the risk most of the time. There are quite a few exceptions, if the mother learns she has serious health risks, if the baby does have severe defects, if she was raped or it was incest. Another problem is if the guy who assumed the risk too isn't manning up and she's totally screwed. So from a right/wrong perspective, I agree.

The problem is we're discussing the law, not right and wrong. And there the question is who decides? I see only one answer, the mother. Leaving it up to the father, a judge, the doctor or someone else who doesn't have to carry the baby's not right. She's the one who has to carry the baby for the balance of nine months physically inside her. So great question, the legal result doesn't change.

Our Constitution says that all 'persons' are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

So, if the "baby" is a "person" - they are Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

Aren't they?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Funny, Republicans feel they should have the right to control women's bodies. But when they refuse to vaccinate their children, making them a danger to both those children and everyone around them, they say fuck off.

Funny, Republicans feel they should have the right to control women's bodies

And Democrats feel they have the right to take other peoples money.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

YOU said that NO-ONE has the right to the use another person's body.

I gave you a HYPOTHETICAL situation where YOU somehow become connected to the body of another person and you will DIE if they break that connection.

NOW FOCUS. . . . in that situation, you would either have a right to remain connected to that other person's body or you would not have that right.

You have already said that if they break that connection and you DIE as a result. . . they could face serious criminal charges. It's still a crime even if they don't disconnect me

Now the onus is on YOU to explain how or why that does not TRANSLATE logically as a RIGHT that you would have had to remain connected to their body.

You keep changing the scenario and I've answered it both ways.

1) The person connected to me did it on purpose

2) We somehow got connected

In scenario 1, yes, government can force them and it's murder if they break the connection and leave

In scenario 2, no, government cannot force them and it's not murder if they break the connection and leave

I don't know how I can be any clearer

You have not addressed the scenario that falls between the two that you provided.

What if the "connection" is made from an assumption of risk? That is, the assumption of the risk for connection was "on purpose?"

What then would their obligations be?

If you asked that, I missed it. But I wondered how you were going to go with tying the I'm connected scenario to the baby. Clearly other than in extreme lunatic cases, women don't do the connection on purpose then kill the baby without a reason like health risk or a severe defect. You didn't say that, you went with assumption of risk. Well stated.

In terms of what's right to do, I totally agree. They assumed the risk most of the time. There are quite a few exceptions, if the mother learns she has serious health risks, if the baby does have severe defects, if she was raped or it was incest. Another problem is if the guy who assumed the risk too isn't manning up and she's totally screwed. So from a right/wrong perspective, I agree.

The problem is we're discussing the law, not right and wrong. And there the question is who decides? I see only one answer, the mother. Leaving it up to the father, a judge, the doctor or someone else who doesn't have to carry the baby's not right. She's the one who has to carry the baby for the balance of nine months physically inside her. So great question, the legal result doesn't change.

Our Constitution says that all 'persons' are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

So, if the "baby" is a "person" - they are Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

Aren't they?

Babies and children don't have constitutional rights.

 

[Chuz Life]

YOU said that NO-ONE has the right to the use another person's body.

I gave you a HYPOTHETICAL situation where YOU somehow become connected to the body of another person and you will DIE if they break that connection.

NOW FOCUS. . . . in that situation, you would either have a right to remain connected to that other person's body or you would not have that right.

You have already said that if they break that connection and you DIE as a result. . . they could face serious criminal charges. It's still a crime even if they don't disconnect me

Now the onus is on YOU to explain how or why that does not TRANSLATE logically as a RIGHT that you would have had to remain connected to their body.

You keep changing the scenario and I've answered it both ways.

1) The person connected to me did it on purpose

2) We somehow got connected

In scenario 1, yes, government can force them and it's murder if they break the connection and leave

In scenario 2, no, government cannot force them and it's not murder if they break the connection and leave

I don't know how I can be any clearer

You have not addressed the scenario that falls between the two that you provided.

What if the "connection" is made from an assumption of risk? That is, the assumption of the risk for connection was "on purpose?"

What then would their obligations be?

If you asked that, I missed it. But I wondered how you were going to go with tying the I'm connected scenario to the baby. Clearly other than in extreme lunatic cases, women don't do the connection on purpose then kill the baby without a reason like health risk or a severe defect. You didn't say that, you went with assumption of risk. Well stated.

In terms of what's right to do, I totally agree. They assumed the risk most of the time. There are quite a few exceptions, if the mother learns she has serious health risks, if the baby does have severe defects, if she was raped or it was incest. Another problem is if the guy who assumed the risk too isn't manning up and she's totally screwed. So from a right/wrong perspective, I agree.

The problem is we're discussing the law, not right and wrong. And there the question is who decides? I see only one answer, the mother. Leaving it up to the father, a judge, the doctor or someone else who doesn't have to carry the baby's not right. She's the one who has to carry the baby for the balance of nine months physically inside her. So great question, the legal result doesn't change.

Our Constitution says that all 'persons' are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

So, if the "baby" is a "person" - they are Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

Aren't they?

Babies and children don't have constitutional rights.

Really?

If what you say is true, then what is the basis for the charge of MURDER under any of our Fetal Homicide laws?

 

[CowboyTed]

What are "woman's rights" anyway? Is it code for abortion? The dirty little secret is that abortion mostly benefits liberal men. They are absolved of responsibility for their actions at the stroke of a knife or an instrument resembling a coat hanger. Meanwhile women have to suffer the mental anguish for the rest of their lives

And you wonder why the RW loose this issue...

How about:
Equal Pay
Rape in the Military
Maturity Leave
Parental Leave
Childcare Costs

Other issues that need to be improved:
Texas's ability to outlaw clinics
Discrimination at the workplace

 

[CowboyTed]

You keep changing the scenario and I've answered it both ways.

1) The person connected to me did it on purpose

2) We somehow got connected

In scenario 1, yes, government can force them and it's murder if they break the connection and leave

In scenario 2, no, government cannot force them and it's not murder if they break the connection and leave

I don't know how I can be any clearer

You have not addressed the scenario that falls between the two that you provided.

What if the "connection" is made from an assumption of risk? That is, the assumption of the risk for connection was "on purpose?"

What then would their obligations be?

If you asked that, I missed it. But I wondered how you were going to go with tying the I'm connected scenario to the baby. Clearly other than in extreme lunatic cases, women don't do the connection on purpose then kill the baby without a reason like health risk or a severe defect. You didn't say that, you went with assumption of risk. Well stated.

In terms of what's right to do, I totally agree. They assumed the risk most of the time. There are quite a few exceptions, if the mother learns she has serious health risks, if the baby does have severe defects, if she was raped or it was incest. Another problem is if the guy who assumed the risk too isn't manning up and she's totally screwed. So from a right/wrong perspective, I agree.

The problem is we're discussing the law, not right and wrong. And there the question is who decides? I see only one answer, the mother. Leaving it up to the father, a judge, the doctor or someone else who doesn't have to carry the baby's not right. She's the one who has to carry the baby for the balance of nine months physically inside her. So great question, the legal result doesn't change.

Our Constitution says that all 'persons' are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

So, if the "baby" is a "person" - they are Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

Aren't they?

Babies and children don't have constitutional rights.

Really?

If what you say is true, then what is the basis for the charge of MURDER under any of our Fetal Homicide laws?

When do you consider life starts?

If you say conception, then why are ye not complaining about IVF...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You keep changing the scenario and I've answered it both ways.

1) The person connected to me did it on purpose

2) We somehow got connected

In scenario 1, yes, government can force them and it's murder if they break the connection and leave

In scenario 2, no, government cannot force them and it's not murder if they break the connection and leave

I don't know how I can be any clearer

You have not addressed the scenario that falls between the two that you provided.

What if the "connection" is made from an assumption of risk? That is, the assumption of the risk for connection was "on purpose?"

What then would their obligations be?

If you asked that, I missed it. But I wondered how you were going to go with tying the I'm connected scenario to the baby. Clearly other than in extreme lunatic cases, women don't do the connection on purpose then kill the baby without a reason like health risk or a severe defect. You didn't say that, you went with assumption of risk. Well stated.

In terms of what's right to do, I totally agree. They assumed the risk most of the time. There are quite a few exceptions, if the mother learns she has serious health risks, if the baby does have severe defects, if she was raped or it was incest. Another problem is if the guy who assumed the risk too isn't manning up and she's totally screwed. So from a right/wrong perspective, I agree.

The problem is we're discussing the law, not right and wrong. And there the question is who decides? I see only one answer, the mother. Leaving it up to the father, a judge, the doctor or someone else who doesn't have to carry the baby's not right. She's the one who has to carry the baby for the balance of nine months physically inside her. So great question, the legal result doesn't change.

Our Constitution says that all 'persons' are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

So, if the "baby" is a "person" - they are Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

Aren't they?

Babies and children don't have constitutional rights.

Really?

If what you say is true, then what is the basis for the charge of MURDER under any of our Fetal Homicide laws?

That's a law, not a constitutional right.

 

[Chuz Life]

You have not addressed the scenario that falls between the two that you provided.

What if the "connection" is made from an assumption of risk? That is, the assumption of the risk for connection was "on purpose?"

What then would their obligations be?

If you asked that, I missed it. But I wondered how you were going to go with tying the I'm connected scenario to the baby. Clearly other than in extreme lunatic cases, women don't do the connection on purpose then kill the baby without a reason like health risk or a severe defect. You didn't say that, you went with assumption of risk. Well stated.

In terms of what's right to do, I totally agree. They assumed the risk most of the time. There are quite a few exceptions, if the mother learns she has serious health risks, if the baby does have severe defects, if she was raped or it was incest. Another problem is if the guy who assumed the risk too isn't manning up and she's totally screwed. So from a right/wrong perspective, I agree.

The problem is we're discussing the law, not right and wrong. And there the question is who decides? I see only one answer, the mother. Leaving it up to the father, a judge, the doctor or someone else who doesn't have to carry the baby's not right. She's the one who has to carry the baby for the balance of nine months physically inside her. So great question, the legal result doesn't change.

Our Constitution says that all 'persons' are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

So, if the "baby" is a "person" - they are Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

Aren't they?

Babies and children don't have constitutional rights.

Really?

If what you say is true, then what is the basis for the charge of MURDER under any of our Fetal Homicide laws?

That's a law, not a constitutional right.

I am typing this reeeeealllly slow....

"WHaaaaat isssss the baaaassssiiiissss fooorrrrr the lawwwwww?

 

[Chuz Life]

You have not addressed the scenario that falls between the two that you provided.

What if the "connection" is made from an assumption of risk? That is, the assumption of the risk for connection was "on purpose?"

What then would their obligations be?

If you asked that, I missed it. But I wondered how you were going to go with tying the I'm connected scenario to the baby. Clearly other than in extreme lunatic cases, women don't do the connection on purpose then kill the baby without a reason like health risk or a severe defect. You didn't say that, you went with assumption of risk. Well stated.

In terms of what's right to do, I totally agree. They assumed the risk most of the time. There are quite a few exceptions, if the mother learns she has serious health risks, if the baby does have severe defects, if she was raped or it was incest. Another problem is if the guy who assumed the risk too isn't manning up and she's totally screwed. So from a right/wrong perspective, I agree.

The problem is we're discussing the law, not right and wrong. And there the question is who decides? I see only one answer, the mother. Leaving it up to the father, a judge, the doctor or someone else who doesn't have to carry the baby's not right. She's the one who has to carry the baby for the balance of nine months physically inside her. So great question, the legal result doesn't change.

Our Constitution says that all 'persons' are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

So, if the "baby" is a "person" - they are Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

Aren't they?

Babies and children don't have constitutional rights.

Really?

If what you say is true, then what is the basis for the charge of MURDER under any of our Fetal Homicide laws?

When do you consider life starts?

If you say conception, then why are ye not complaining about IVF...

1. Biologically, a new life begins at conception.

2. I do.

What part of "life begins at conception" and "abortion is murder" do you think is inconsistent with that?

 

[rdean]

Funny, Republicans feel they should have the right to control women's bodies. But when they refuse to vaccinate their children, making them a danger to both those children and everyone around them, they say fuck off.

Funny, Republicans feel they should have the right to control women's bodies

And Democrats feel they have the right to take other peoples money.

Ronald Reagan raised taxes 7 times in 8 years.

Bush put two wars on a credit card. Took away the wealthy's responsibility of taking care of the country where they were able to get rich.

Help send millions of American jobs to China while closing over 42,000 factories in this country.

Republicans destroyed our economy, and ruined the future of our children and then have the nerve and the sheer gall of saying "Democrats feel they have the right to take other peoples money". Republicans prove every day what traitorous assholes they are. Worse, they are proud of it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

On Wednesday, Trump said during a forum on MSNBC that women who undergo abortions, if there were a ban on the procedure, should be punished. He later walked back his comment in a statement, but the remark drew backlash from leaders in both parties.

He (Bernie Sanders) then referred to it as “another stupid remark” by Trump that, Sanders suggested, is a distraction from “serious issues facing America.”

Clinton Knocks Sanders Over Response to Trump’s Abortion Comments

John Kasich prompts firestorm after telling female student not to 'go to parties where there's a lot of alcohol'

A first-year student at St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York, asked the Ohio governor during a Watertown, New York, town-hall event how he'd help her "feel safer and more secure regarding sexual violence, harassment, and rape" should he be elected president.

Kasich responded with what he called a "bit of advice."

"Don't go to parties where there's a lot of alcohol. OK? Don't do that," he said, as some in the audience applauded.

---------------------------------------

You would expect Republicans to ignore minority issues because they are 90% white. It was only a year ago that USMB Republicans were saying there was no more discrimination in their party. Now they go to kill the gays rallies and call Mexicans Rapists. So clearly, they are not "over it".

But even Bernie Sanders sees women's issues as "distracting". Do women feel their issues are just a distraction?

The abortion fight isn't over, so we have to keep it in our sights, but overall women's issues in this country aren't a primary concern. I saw the entirety of Kasich's response to the college student asking how to stay safe on campus. He was on point, and that last bit of fatherly advice is being unfairly twisted to seem unfair to women, imo.

Clearly he was blaming women for being attacked.

Well, you focused on the soundbite. Not the entire exchange. Your knee jerk reaction is typical lib.
Your first reaction is "she has the right...".....Actually no, she doesn't have "the right"...That would indicate no need for an invitation into a private residence. Just walk right in.
Now, that aside. Let's just say a woman decides to attend an event to which she has been invited.
Before going, one of her friends, lets her know that this is going to be a wild affair, lots of booze and mostly guys. Now ,as a responsible person, the woman should stop to consider the potential consequences of attending such an event. That was Kasich's message. Nothing more. Nothing less.
How you can make this great leap to "blaming the victim" when there hasn't been a victim is a mystery.
Kasich nor anyone else stated women "cannot" go to these parties. The question is "should" they go to these events....
Just because someone can do something does not necessarily mean they should do something.
This is common sense. This is also what separates us from the animals. The ability to analyze and reason.

 

[kaz]

YOU said that NO-ONE has the right to the use another person's body.

I gave you a HYPOTHETICAL situation where YOU somehow become connected to the body of another person and you will DIE if they break that connection.

NOW FOCUS. . . . in that situation, you would either have a right to remain connected to that other person's body or you would not have that right.

You have already said that if they break that connection and you DIE as a result. . . they could face serious criminal charges. It's still a crime even if they don't disconnect me

Now the onus is on YOU to explain how or why that does not TRANSLATE logically as a RIGHT that you would have had to remain connected to their body.

You keep changing the scenario and I've answered it both ways.

1) The person connected to me did it on purpose

2) We somehow got connected

In scenario 1, yes, government can force them and it's murder if they break the connection and leave

In scenario 2, no, government cannot force them and it's not murder if they break the connection and leave

I don't know how I can be any clearer

You have not addressed the scenario that falls between the two that you provided.

What if the "connection" is made from an assumption of risk? That is, the assumption of the risk for connection was "on purpose?"

What then would their obligations be?

If you asked that, I missed it. But I wondered how you were going to go with tying the I'm connected scenario to the baby. Clearly other than in extreme lunatic cases, women don't do the connection on purpose then kill the baby without a reason like health risk or a severe defect. You didn't say that, you went with assumption of risk. Well stated.

In terms of what's right to do, I totally agree. They assumed the risk most of the time. There are quite a few exceptions, if the mother learns she has serious health risks, if the baby does have severe defects, if she was raped or it was incest. Another problem is if the guy who assumed the risk too isn't manning up and she's totally screwed. So from a right/wrong perspective, I agree.

The problem is we're discussing the law, not right and wrong. And there the question is who decides? I see only one answer, the mother. Leaving it up to the father, a judge, the doctor or someone else who doesn't have to carry the baby's not right. She's the one who has to carry the baby for the balance of nine months physically inside her. So great question, the legal result doesn't change.

Our Constitution says that all 'persons' are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

So, if the "baby" is a "person" - they are Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

Aren't they?

Give me other examples of laws where government can just flat out force you to do something, like carry a baby

 

[kaz]

What are "woman's rights" anyway? Is it code for abortion? The dirty little secret is that abortion mostly benefits liberal men. They are absolved of responsibility for their actions at the stroke of a knife or an instrument resembling a coat hanger. Meanwhile women have to suffer the mental anguish for the rest of their lives

And you wonder why the RW loose this issue...

How about:
Equal Pay
Rape in the Military
Maturity Leave
Parental Leave
Childcare Costs

Other issues that need to be improved:
Texas's ability to outlaw clinics
Discrimination at the workplace

Equal Pay - Women have no restrictions on their right to get the best deal they can, what does government have to do with this?

Rape in the Military - What?

Maturity Leave - Why does having a baby entitle you to someone else's money? Explain

Parental Leave - Why does having a baby entitle you to someone else's money? Explain

Childcare Costs - Why does having a baby entitle you to someone else's money? Explain

See, this is the tact of the left. When women get equal rights, you have to go to positive rights, which are an oxymoron. You can't have a positive right without infringing on someone else's rights

 

[Chuz Life]

YOU said that NO-ONE has the right to the use another person's body.

I gave you a HYPOTHETICAL situation where YOU somehow become connected to the body of another person and you will DIE if they break that connection.

NOW FOCUS. . . . in that situation, you would either have a right to remain connected to that other person's body or you would not have that right.

You have already said that if they break that connection and you DIE as a result. . . they could face serious criminal charges. It's still a crime even if they don't disconnect me

Now the onus is on YOU to explain how or why that does not TRANSLATE logically as a RIGHT that you would have had to remain connected to their body.

You keep changing the scenario and I've answered it both ways.

1) The person connected to me did it on purpose

2) We somehow got connected

In scenario 1, yes, government can force them and it's murder if they break the connection and leave

In scenario 2, no, government cannot force them and it's not murder if they break the connection and leave

I don't know how I can be any clearer

You have not addressed the scenario that falls between the two that you provided.

What if the "connection" is made from an assumption of risk? That is, the assumption of the risk for connection was "on purpose?"

What then would their obligations be?

If you asked that, I missed it. But I wondered how you were going to go with tying the I'm connected scenario to the baby. Clearly other than in extreme lunatic cases, women don't do the connection on purpose then kill the baby without a reason like health risk or a severe defect. You didn't say that, you went with assumption of risk. Well stated.

In terms of what's right to do, I totally agree. They assumed the risk most of the time. There are quite a few exceptions, if the mother learns she has serious health risks, if the baby does have severe defects, if she was raped or it was incest. Another problem is if the guy who assumed the risk too isn't manning up and she's totally screwed. So from a right/wrong perspective, I agree.

The problem is we're discussing the law, not right and wrong. And there the question is who decides? I see only one answer, the mother. Leaving it up to the father, a judge, the doctor or someone else who doesn't have to carry the baby's not right. She's the one who has to carry the baby for the balance of nine months physically inside her. So great question, the legal result doesn't change.

Our Constitution says that all 'persons' are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

So, if the "baby" is a "person" - they are Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

Aren't they?

Give me other examples of laws where government can just flat out force you to do something, like carry a baby

You are mischaracterizing the law.

The government is not "forcing" anyone to do any such thing.

The Government is only saying (or would be saying) that "if you do whatever it takes to put that child into your womb. . . you don't have the right to KILL it."

The child has a right to the protection of our laws.

 

[kaz]

You keep changing the scenario and I've answered it both ways.

1) The person connected to me did it on purpose

2) We somehow got connected

In scenario 1, yes, government can force them and it's murder if they break the connection and leave

In scenario 2, no, government cannot force them and it's not murder if they break the connection and leave

I don't know how I can be any clearer

You have not addressed the scenario that falls between the two that you provided.

What if the "connection" is made from an assumption of risk? That is, the assumption of the risk for connection was "on purpose?"

What then would their obligations be?

If you asked that, I missed it. But I wondered how you were going to go with tying the I'm connected scenario to the baby. Clearly other than in extreme lunatic cases, women don't do the connection on purpose then kill the baby without a reason like health risk or a severe defect. You didn't say that, you went with assumption of risk. Well stated.

In terms of what's right to do, I totally agree. They assumed the risk most of the time. There are quite a few exceptions, if the mother learns she has serious health risks, if the baby does have severe defects, if she was raped or it was incest. Another problem is if the guy who assumed the risk too isn't manning up and she's totally screwed. So from a right/wrong perspective, I agree.

The problem is we're discussing the law, not right and wrong. And there the question is who decides? I see only one answer, the mother. Leaving it up to the father, a judge, the doctor or someone else who doesn't have to carry the baby's not right. She's the one who has to carry the baby for the balance of nine months physically inside her. So great question, the legal result doesn't change.

Our Constitution says that all 'persons' are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

So, if the "baby" is a "person" - they are Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

Aren't they?

Babies and children don't have constitutional rights.

Really?

If what you say is true, then what is the basis for the charge of MURDER under any of our Fetal Homicide laws?

Not having constitutional rights does not mean we can't chose to give them the rights we chose to give them, it just means they aren't automatically entitled to them. If they had Constitutional rights, think about it, can a 10 year old vote? If they have Constitutional rights, it would be illegal to deny them the vote. Think about how many other things they can't do. You can't pick and choose where the Constitution applies. We can pick and chose which ones we decide to grant them.

 

[Chuz Life]

You have not addressed the scenario that falls between the two that you provided.

What if the "connection" is made from an assumption of risk? That is, the assumption of the risk for connection was "on purpose?"

What then would their obligations be?

If you asked that, I missed it. But I wondered how you were going to go with tying the I'm connected scenario to the baby. Clearly other than in extreme lunatic cases, women don't do the connection on purpose then kill the baby without a reason like health risk or a severe defect. You didn't say that, you went with assumption of risk. Well stated.

In terms of what's right to do, I totally agree. They assumed the risk most of the time. There are quite a few exceptions, if the mother learns she has serious health risks, if the baby does have severe defects, if she was raped or it was incest. Another problem is if the guy who assumed the risk too isn't manning up and she's totally screwed. So from a right/wrong perspective, I agree.

The problem is we're discussing the law, not right and wrong. And there the question is who decides? I see only one answer, the mother. Leaving it up to the father, a judge, the doctor or someone else who doesn't have to carry the baby's not right. She's the one who has to carry the baby for the balance of nine months physically inside her. So great question, the legal result doesn't change.

Our Constitution says that all 'persons' are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

So, if the "baby" is a "person" - they are Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

Aren't they?

Babies and children don't have constitutional rights.

Really?

If what you say is true, then what is the basis for the charge of MURDER under any of our Fetal Homicide laws?

Not having constitutional rights does not mean we can't chose to give them the rights we chose to give them, it just means they aren't automatically entitled to them.

If a child in the womb is a 'person' they are automatically Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

True or False?

If they had Constitutional rights, think about it, can a 10 year old vote? If they have Constitutional rights, it would be illegal to deny them the vote.

Ummmm, not all rights are the same. Are they?

The right to vote is a 'qualified' vote. It's still a Constitutional right but you have to first meet the age and other 'qualifications.'

The ONLY legal qualification for 'personhood' is that you be a living Human Being and a "human being" even in the womb MEETS that legal definition.

Think about how many other things they can't do. You can't pick and choose where the Constitution applies. We can pick and chose which ones we decide to grant them.

You clearly don't understand the difference between a qualified right (like the right to vote) and an unqualified right (like the right to the protections of our laws.)