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

[kaz]

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?

Constitutionally, it's the 10th amendment. The definition of murder is State, not federal law. That's why the definition of justifiable homicide (e.g., self defense) changes in every State

 

[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?

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.

Maybe a moral right, but not a Constitutional one. Again, why can't a 10 year old vote if they have Constitutional rights? How can you deny them that?

And that government isn't forcing the woman to carry the baby, just stopping her from removing it, is a silly word game. Of course they are. What legitimate right does government ever have to compel it's citizens to action without due process of law?

 

[Preacher]

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?

Abortion is murder of a human being. Try worrying about REAL women's rights. Like equal pay for equal work.

 

[Chuz Life]

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?

Constitutionally, it's the 10th amendment. The definition of murder is State, not federal law. That's why the definition of justifiable homicide (e.g., self defense) changes in every State

You really should look things up before you start posting shit you don't have straight.

The "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" (US CODE 1814) which became the basis for all the other State's Fetal Homicide Laws is a FEDERAL law.

 

[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?

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.

Maybe a moral right, but not a Constitutional one. Again, why can't a 10 year old vote if they have Constitutional rights? How can you deny them that?

And that government isn't forcing the woman to carry the baby, just stopping her from removing it, is a silly word game. Of course they are. What legitimate right does government ever have to compel it's citizens to action without due process of law?

Are laws which already limit abortions to 22 weeks also FORCING women to carry children they don't want? You are the one who is playing the silly word games in this. and you still don't understand the differences between a qualified and and unqualified right, either.

 

[kaz]

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.)

OK, that one does have age in it. So what about juvenile court? That clearly violates equal protection.

Why can you stop your 2 year old from walking out the door, but not your 22 year old?

Seriously, you can make me work harder than voting, but you can't seriously believe kids have full Constitutional rights other than amendments which specifically preclude them

 

[kaz]

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?

Constitutionally, it's the 10th amendment. The definition of murder is State, not federal law. That's why the definition of justifiable homicide (e.g., self defense) changes in every State

You really should look things up before you start posting shit you don't have straight.

The "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" (US CODE 1814) which became the basis for all the other State's Fetal Homicide Laws is a FEDERAL law.

Sorry man, where did I say the Federal government follows the Constitution? Clearly they don't. The 10th amendment doesn't exist according to either our legislatures or the courts

 

[kaz]

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.

Maybe a moral right, but not a Constitutional one. Again, why can't a 10 year old vote if they have Constitutional rights? How can you deny them that?

And that government isn't forcing the woman to carry the baby, just stopping her from removing it, is a silly word game. Of course they are. What legitimate right does government ever have to compel it's citizens to action without due process of law?

Are laws which already limit abortions to 22 weeks also FORCING women to carry children they don't want? You are the one who is playing the silly word games in this. and you still don't understand the differences between a qualified and and unqualified right, either.

You wrote this before I responded to the qualified right point.

And yes, it is forcing women to carry a baby. It is mitigated that at least at that point the woman did have a chance to make a decision and chose to continue past 22 weeks, unlike the original pregnancy which would have been for the entire spectrum of reasons for happening. The Federal government still has zero say in defining murder though based on the 10th amendment as long as they don't violate other amendments, like equal protection. So say they can't make murdering blacks illegal.

You may note logically in my response, I have no Constitutional objection to States making abortion illegal. Though I oppose them doing that. You may also deduce correctly that I think Roe. v. Wade is a Constitutional abomination. The Feds though have zero say on abortion. Period. Not for, not against

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Maybe a moral right, but not a Constitutional one. Again, why can't a 10 year old vote if they have Constitutional rights? How can you deny them that?

And that government isn't forcing the woman to carry the baby, just stopping her from removing it, is a silly word game. Of course they are. What legitimate right does government ever have to compel it's citizens to action without due process of law?

Are laws which already limit abortions to 22 weeks also FORCING women to carry children they don't want? You are the one who is playing the silly word games in this. and you still don't understand the differences between a qualified and and unqualified right, either.

You wrote this before I responded to the qualified right point.

And yes, it is forcing women to carry a baby. It is mitigated that at least at that point the woman did have a chance to make a decision and chose to continue past 22 weeks, unlike the original pregnancy which would have been for the entire spectrum of reasons for happening. The Federal government still has zero say in defining murder though based on the 10th amendment as long as they don't violate other amendments, like equal protection. So say they can't make murdering blacks illegal.

You may note logically in my response, I have no Constitutional objection to States making abortion illegal. Though I oppose them doing that. You may also deduce correctly that I think Roe. v. Wade is a Constitutional abomination. The Feds though have zero say on abortion. Period. Not for, not against

You are all over the place with this and I have other things keeping me busy.

I deleted a bunch of other observations because I really am starting to think you are simply trolling with your rhetoric and especially the way that you twist the laws from what is arguably the protection of a child
into somehow an effort to "force women" into pregnancies.

I'm done with this for now.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Kondor3]

Womens;' issues have two life-cycles: (1) amongst themselves, and (2) amongst the Opposite Sex.

They also have two priority settings; one for Women, one for Men.

For example: If an adversary is in the process of harassing our war ships, that's going to draw more immediate attention than pay-differentials.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.)

You are picking and choosing here. No, a fetus nor a child has constitutional rights. A 10 year old does not have the right to bear arms. If a school calls the police to search a kids locker because he was acting suspicious, they do not need to obtain a warrant and the child cannot sue the city for a violation of his Forth Amendment rights. He or she doesn't have any rights.

 

[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.

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.

As proud as you are being a liar?

Bush nor the Republicans had anything to do with sending jobs overseas or closing factories. Republicans don't do such things--Democrats do those things.

Democrats do those things by creating more intrusive laws against businesses like Commie Care. Democrats do such things by taxation which is why all the roll-your-own cigarette shops across America had to close. Democrats do such things by supporting their union thugs who make labor cost so much that businesses cannot afford to produce in this country. Democrats do such things by increasing the minimum wage.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

You don't need a basis to create a law in this country. The only concern between laws and the constitution is that no law can violate the constitution. Other than that, the politicians can create any laws they desire.

 

[kaz]

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.

Maybe a moral right, but not a Constitutional one. Again, why can't a 10 year old vote if they have Constitutional rights? How can you deny them that?

And that government isn't forcing the woman to carry the baby, just stopping her from removing it, is a silly word game. Of course they are. What legitimate right does government ever have to compel it's citizens to action without due process of law?

Are laws which already limit abortions to 22 weeks also FORCING women to carry children they don't want? You are the one who is playing the silly word games in this. and you still don't understand the differences between a qualified and and unqualified right, either.

You wrote this before I responded to the qualified right point.

And yes, it is forcing women to carry a baby. It is mitigated that at least at that point the woman did have a chance to make a decision and chose to continue past 22 weeks, unlike the original pregnancy which would have been for the entire spectrum of reasons for happening. The Federal government still has zero say in defining murder though based on the 10th amendment as long as they don't violate other amendments, like equal protection. So say they can't make murdering blacks illegal.

You may note logically in my response, I have no Constitutional objection to States making abortion illegal. Though I oppose them doing that. You may also deduce correctly that I think Roe. v. Wade is a Constitutional abomination. The Feds though have zero say on abortion. Period. Not for, not against

You are all over the place with this and I have other things keeping me busy.

I deleted a bunch of other observations because I really am starting to think you are simply trolling with your rhetoric and especially the way that you twist the laws from what is arguably the protection of a child
into somehow an effort to "force women" into pregnancies.

I'm done with this for now.

Agree to disagree.

My answers have been completely consistent, and unlike Trump's answers were formed well before this discussion. You just keep changing the question. Show me any statement I contradicted myself on

 

[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

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

Equal Pay - - Women have no restrictions on their right to get the best deal they can, what does government have to do with this?
Either did black people in the 60s.

Rape in the Military - What?
"A woman who signs up to protect her country is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire,"

Maturity Leave
Parental Leave
Childcare Costs
The only ones who can afford to have more than one kid is either very rich or poor... You love breeding out the middle class... Again this is an issue you don't care about because you don't care about women's issues...

These are not as much women's rights but women's issues or concerns. The RW doesn't get it... They think blowing up a guy in a mud hut in the ME is an issue which concerns women when women are far more interested in what you are doing for there family... Where is the reduction in working hours so both parents can spend time with the family...

The truth is while the GOP and RW bleats on about family values, when it comes down to it they have very little concern for actual family issues like the ones stated above...

 

[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

Equal Pay - - Women have no restrictions on their right to get the best deal they can, what does government have to do with this?
Either did black people in the 60s.

Ignoring that government still has no legitimate right to control our private assets, the Constitution limits Federal power, it isn't giving it powers to trod on our rights, women are like blacks in the 60s? You're insane. WTF? What are you talking about?

Rape in the Military - What?
"A woman who signs up to protect her country is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire,"

Let me expand on that. What means what are you talking about? It's legal to rape women in the military? What do you have in mind

Maturity Leave
Parental Leave
Childcare Costs
The only ones who can afford to have more than one kid is either very rich or poor... You love breeding out the middle class... Again this is an issue you don't care about because you don't care about women's issues...

These are not as much women's rights but women's issues or concerns. The RW doesn't get it... They think blowing up a guy in a mud hut in the ME is an issue which concerns women when women are far more interested in what you are doing for there family... Where is the reduction in working hours so both parents can spend time with the family...

The truth is while the GOP and RW bleats on about family values, when it comes down to it they have very little concern for actual family issues like the ones stated above...

So that gives the Feds the power to compel one citizen to give money to another? Bull, not a legitimate power.

And there is nothing "family values" about ubiquitous government power. This is the brain dead liberal argument that if you don't give government power to redistribute money to a woman and man who want to stay home, then you oppose them staying home. No, we oppose giving government the power to force it

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Murder isn't a Constitutional issue. It's dealt with by state law.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Women already get equal pay to men.

Why Today Shouldn't Be Equal Pay Day

Equal Pay for Equal Work: Examining the Gender Gap

Rape of any sort is not a "women's issue". It is a "decent society", as in any decent person wishing to live in a decent society should be concerned about preventing such a profoundly horrible crime.

Maternity (I assume that's what you meant) and parental leave and childcare? Last I checked, it takes TWO people to make a baby, so choices and options regarding the care and raising of that child are also bipartisan. My husband, when our first son was born, became the first man in his company to fight for and win paternity leave, on sexual discrimination grounds, because I ended up bedridden for two months due to back problems aggravated by labor.

 

[oreo]

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?

This is certainly no promotion of this socialist Bernie Sanders who would get creamed in a National election. But the Republican party has had serious issues with women since 2012.

Republicans chased off women in 2012--by making their platform about abortion, who's not going to pay for birth control pills and what is legal-legitimate rape questions. Women went running into Obama's column by double digits, younger women by 36 points which is what secured a 2nd term for Obama.
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump
Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History
Why Romney Lost And Republicans Keep Losing

Women are the largest voting block in this country today--and they're not to be messed with. Hillary Clinton is going into this race with a 6 to 10 point advantage as the 1st woman Presidential nominee in this nations history. Women will be voting heavily for her. Trump and the Trumpkins have chased off every voting block you can shake a stick at. Specifically Hispanics, or 17% of the population that are now solidly in Clinton's column. This when the GOP nominee, since Reagan needed at least 40% of this block to win the White House, Trump is polling at an historic Negative 80%,
Latino conservatives: If Donald Trump is the nominee, we will not work to elect him
New data suggest GOP 2016 nominee will need to win nearly half of Latino vote
Poll: 75% of Latinos Have Negative View of Donald Trump

Now add in 47% of Republican women that will not cast a vote for Trump and will be voting for Hillary instead, along with millions of Republican men that won't take the bait on Donald Trump.
Poll: Nearly half of Republican women wouldn't vote for Trump
I’ll Take Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump

These numbers are already indicating that Hillary Clinton is going to paint this country blue from sea to shining sea.

SO FOR YOU BERNIE SANDERS SUPPORTERS---You can now see why the nominee MUST be HILLARY CLINTON.

Republicans only hope to win the White House was a Bernie Sanders nominee. Believe me, Republican mouths were watering for him.

 

[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?

Murder isn't a Constitutional issue. It's dealt with by state law.

The US CODE is Federal law.

18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder