A question never answered(correctly) by the left!

[Allan]

If a man, and a woman agree to consensual sex, and she gets pregnant, why, when the child is equally the mans, does he not get equal protection under the law, lets keep it scientific shall we, leave your emotion next to the tissues. WHY DOES HE NOT RECEIVE EQUAL RIGHTS

Correct answer: the Constitution does not protect his rights in this regard.

You're welcome.

 

[jgarden47]

If a man, and a woman agree to consensual sex, and she gets pregnant, why, when the child is equally the mans, does he not get equal protection under the law, lets keep it scientific shall we, leave your emotion next to the tissues. WHY DOES HE NOT RECEIVE EQUAL RIGHTS

"In sexual reproduction, an organism combines the genetic information from each of its parents and is genetically unique. In asexual reproduction, one parent copies itself to form a genetically identical offspring."

asexual vs sexual reproduction - Google Search

www.google.com

************************************************************************

1) "Patriotguy" can't have it both ways - in the same sentence that he cites "does he not get equal protection under the law" (legal argument followed by "let's keep it scientific" (sexual reproduction) - as we all know, the law is open to interpretation and constantly evolving over time!

2) While "sexual reproduction" requires 2 parents - biologically, however, the product of that union prior to birth remains totally dependent on one, and only one, parent!

3) If 1 of the 2 "parents" presumes that their version of "equal protection" entitles them to exert legal control over their partner's body for the next 9 months - may I suggest that they limit themselves to "asexual reproduction" which would place them in a legal position that allows them to make all the decisions!

4) The other alternative would require both partners to sign a legal contract - a couple's all inclusive "nuptial agreement" prior to any "consensual sex!"

5) In the 21stC, "making love" would be replaced by couples spending endless hours working their way through the "fine print," resolving points of contention, followed by consultations with their respective lawyers concerning "equal protection!"

 

[Doppelgangirl]

No, it's a zygote first, then becomes a blastocyst for about 2 weeks before it becomes an embryo.

Science!

 

[Doppelgangirl]

You noticed that too, eh?

It really burns my biscuit, reading about the fallout from these anti choice nimrods. I recently read a piece about how these idiot politicians *don’t comprehend* basic female biology, and somehow it’s perfectly fine they make the law dictating what is allowed or not?
I’ll call a spade a spade- it’s ****ing dehumanizing. It’s wrong.
It shows imo how far out things have become- demonizing education and intellect - guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

 

[Gordy327]

It really burns my biscuit, reading about the fallout from these anti choice nimrods. I recently read a piece about how these idiot politicians *don’t comprehend* basic female biology, and somehow it’s perfectly fine they make the law dictating what is allowed or not?
I’ll call a spade a spade- it’s ****ing dehumanizing. It’s wrong.
It shows imo how far out things have become- demonizing education and intellect - guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

I'm not surprised. I've noticed a progressive dumbing down of this country for years. This was never more apparent than during the initial covid outbreak, with people ignoring science and going along with water bs some politician or conspiracy theorist spews. When did people see education and intellect as something to avoid?

 

[Doppelgangirl]

I'm not surprised. I've noticed a progressive dumbing down of this country for years. This was never more apparent than during the initial covid outbreak, with people ignoring science and going along with water bs some politician or conspiracy theorist spews. When did people see education and intellect as something to avoid?

The second they decided it was a method of owning the libs? I mean, they shoot themselves in the foot. Lee Atwater did a fabulous job with the Southern Strategy.
It seems like it’s gotten even more extreme the last decade.

 

[Gordy327]

The second they decided it was a method of owning the libs? I mean, they shoot themselves in the foot. Lee Atwater did a fabulous job with the Southern Strategy.
It seems like it’s gotten even more extreme the last decade.

Stupidity in this country doesn't show signs of slowing down either.

 

[choiceone]

Wrong, that child is equally his, as both parents are represented in the DNA scientifically you are the caveman and giving special rights to a woman tyo kill her child . This is the answer I expected though!

The man only has a right to his DNA, not hers, and he certainly doesn't have a right to the product of her labor or her nutrients and oxygen and her uterus and other organs. The life doesn't belong to him, because he didn't give any to the implanted embryo. Human embryos implant after 8-10 days because otherwise they will die for lack of oxygen, nutrients, etc. It doesn't have a right to the woman's unless she made a formal contract consenting to pregnancy as a form of 24/7 labor.

 

[choiceone]

Biologically speaking that is how babies are made,(science) the child is equally the man's child.
Men are made to step up if the woman keeps it correct? No one has answered the question because they can't, it's a special right that was given to women that is unconstitutional, and fathers get no say and it is B.S

I have always thought that, if the man would prefer not to be a parent, he should have the right to formal paper abortion early in the pregnancy if he formally consents to pay half of the cheapest option available to the woman for dealing with the pregnancy.

That would be half of the costs of an early medical abortion (or surgical abortion if she cannot take the medication), the travel and appointment costs, etc. He probably should also pay some kind of small fine because the pregnancy, however short, increases her risk of life/health/bodily integrity.

If she wants to keep the pregnancy and give birth and the society encourages women to do that, the society should pay, and taxpayers should all have to pony up for half of the pre-natal, postnatal for her, and child support. But to prevent the society's pushing her around, the woman can take care of the prenatal/postnatal herself if she can and the society should pay half the child support. Of course, childbirth should be free.

If the woman is raped, she should never have to have contact with the man again. If society wants him to pay half the cheapest option, it should be paid to the government and the government should provide it to the woman, if she even wants to take it. If she keeps the pregnancy, the man should never have the right to be considered even its genetic father and should have no rights whatsoever.

The woman should have a right to choose because only she increases her risk of life/health/bodily integrity. This should be included in her constitutional rights as a person, because the first section of the 14th A should apply to women as well as men, and it does in the minds of all but people like Alito, who belongs in 18th century Europe, not the 21st century US.

 

[choiceone]

SCIENCE! That child cannot be made without the sperm, from one of the legally consenting adults. But thank you for providing evidence that it is unequal protection!

Actually, thanks to the science of cloning, we know that a child can be made without sperm, though the experiments haven't been done on humans yet.

But in addition, we know that many men with healthy bodies, high IQs, and good genes have donated their sperm to sperm banks. If a woman wants to get pregnant, she doesn't have to have sex with a guy. She can get sperm at a sperm bank. Or if she has a friend who would happily donate but not be a father, they can draw up a formal sperm donation agreement with no financial obligation of the guy.

You are making much too big a deal of pregnancy that relies on sexual intercourse. Furthermore, traditional Christian marriage was never about a man's relation to his biological kids. The point was that the man actually promised to love the woman and, forsaking all others, keep himself unto her. That doesn't just mean no sex with other women.

In the US, if you see your kid or your parent commit a crime, the government can force you to testify as a witness against him/her, as it can in all other cases except if the person is your spouse. That's because your spouse is your chosen best friend, and you got to choose her/him, whereas with parents and kids, everyone is taking pot luck. The point is that, in order to love your spouse above all others, you have to side with what it best for him/her, his/her life, health, bodily integrity, human dignity, etc.

If you're not capable of that, because you care more about the embryo you mistakenly contributed to in the woman when you had meaningless sex with her, why would she want you as a spouse?

 

[choiceone]

Wrong biologically speaking that child is equally his!

No, he is merely the genetic parent of an embryo. If she is pregnant and continues to term, she is both a genetic and physiological parent, and if she nurses the child, she is even more of that fully biological as well as social parent. The man has no part in that, and it's not trivial or nothing or remotely equal.

You want credit for being that kind of real parent, you have to pony up as a legal 24/7 kind of social dad.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

If a man, and a woman agree to consensual sex, and she gets pregnant, why, when the child is equally the mans, does he not get equal protection under the law, lets keep it scientific shall we, leave your emotion next to the tissues. WHY DOES HE NOT RECEIVE EQUAL RIGHTS

"never answered correctly"
TRANSLATION: "zOMG teh LEFTISTS don't agree with me!"

leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists leftists



Here's your equal protection, smartass:

The guy who impregnates her is legally required to provide child support, married or unmarried, till the child reaches age eighteen.
No trial, no nothing, if the DNA is his, it's his responsibility and he loses any and all professional licenses, driver's license, 2A rights, visitation rights and ability to board commercial aircraft until his payments resume if he is in arrears and cannot show cause for such delinquencies in payment.

 

[choiceone]

Wrong that is simply the Biology, at DNA transfer(conception) he is as much part of that child as she is, no matter who carries it! This special right based on her carrying it is simply an argument that you have been conditioned to accept, along with terms like fetus, clump of cells, and zygote, it is how the dehumanize the child in the womb, congratulations hive thinker!

You overvalue sperm, ova, and unimplanted embryos. They are certainly not children.

You are a hive thinker, i.e., you're not a thinker. To you, genes are your human identity. That means you have no human consciousness. For most of us, if you'd never had human conscious mind, we would not consider you a person. If you'd had it but were in a coma, we'd hope you'd come out of it. But an embryo is something else, because it's never demonstrated what makes a person. Don't demean the rest of us, including newborns.

 

[weaver2]

...... What about the mental health aspect for the father, what if that was his one chance to procreate, what if he has a medical condition that keeps him from being a father in the future?

So some guy has one shot at being a father and he is so stupid that he uses that shot on a woman that doesn't want to be pregnant. Celebrate the abortion it's improving the gene pool.

 

[Patriotguy]

There are lots of dirty underwear, sheets and towels in the world that should be granted rights then.

If "DNA transfer" is all that makes a human.

What a silly argument, sheets and towels can't become pregnant take your nonsense elsewhere!

 

[Patriotguy]

You realize you shared your DNA with your toothbrush also. Does that make you a part of the toothbrush?



So is a toothbrush a human? They have human DNA all over them.

Can a tooth brush procreate, you are showing your ridiculous side!

 

[Patriotguy]

The mother also has mental health concerns as well, making that a 1 for 1 trade, at best, but I'd favor the mother as she's the one that is carrying the baby. So far as your numbers, I agree with them. Most abortions are what I would consider elective and I'd have them be illegal, but that's not the discussion posed in your OP.

Correct but as usual the left muddies the waters of the discussion!
I am still baffled by all the people who believe murdering innocent in the life is a one person decision and it's fine that the father gets o=no say it is utterly ridiculous and show just how far we have sunk as a society. The conditioning by the pro death left has been very effective.

 

[Patriotguy]

Nor should he be. Pregnancy/Childbirth and Parenting are not the same thing.

Walk me down this road.
How do you suggest men share in the Pregnancy/Childbirth process biologically with the woman?
@BirdinHand is right- invest in biotech studying artificial wombs.
That would be the best way for you to - do you?
At least you’d have some kind of basis for an argument as bass-ackward as the one you’re making.

My argument is simple, women received a special right to murder their unborn children! Dress it up anyway you want, by dehumanizing that child, it is still a human. every term used is simply a stage of human development! But it eases the souls of the evil bastards who support baby killing it lets them disconnect form the truth!

 

[Variant]

If a man, and a woman agree to consensual sex, and she gets pregnant, why, when the child is equally the mans, does he not get equal protection under the law, lets keep it scientific shall we, leave your emotion next to the tissues. WHY DOES HE NOT RECEIVE EQUAL RIGHTS

Because it's not happening inside his body. Anyone who could miss this has a very interesting view on "equality".

Also, consent to sex doesn't equal consent to carry a child.

 

[ElChupacabra]

I do not Care, that is biology. What about the mental health aspect for the father, what if that was his one chance to procreate, what if he has a medical condition that keeps him from being a father in the future? People love to play what if it was rape, or incest, or medical emergency, 3% is the number for all of those combined, meaning for the other 97% it convenience. Admittedly I am on the fence for rape and incest, however medical emergency? what is it about cutting a child out of the womb that isn't medically risky?

It's less risky than child birth, since a 17.3 per 100,000 ratio of pregnancy related deaths compared to 0.7 per 100,000 ratio of abortion related deaths. That's if you're assessing risk from a statistics based calculus.

 

[vegas giants]

My argument is simple, women received a special right to murder their unborn children! Dress it up anyway you want, by dehumanizing that child, it is still a human. every term used is simply a stage of human development! But it eases the souls of the evil bastards who support baby killing it lets them disconnect form the truth!

My argument is simple. Women recieved the right to protect their lives

 

[BirdinHand]

What a silly argument, sheets and towels can't become pregnant take your nonsense elsewhere!

Men physically contribute no more to a pregnancy than what is found on dirty sheets.

And you want men to have equal say in pregnancy.

That’s not how it works - biologically, socially or legally.

Too bad.

 

[BirdinHand]

My argument is simple, women received a special right to murder their unborn children! Dress it up anyway you want, by dehumanizing that child, it is still a human. every term used is simply a stage of human development! But it eases the souls of the evil bastards who support baby killing it lets them disconnect form the truth!

Kids think that parents are mean because they make them eat vegetables and brush their teeth.

This entire thread is at about that level of maturity - nothing but a hissy fit.

 

[Doppelgangirl]

View attachment 67415270



"In sexual reproduction, an organism combines the genetic information from each of its parents and is unique. In asexual reproduction, one parent copies itself to form a genetically identical offspring."

asexual vs sexual reproduction - Google Search

www.google.com

************************************************************************

1) "Patriotguy" can't have it both ways - in the same sentence that he cites "does he not get equal protection under the law" (legal argument followed by "let's keep it scientific" (sexual reproduction) - as we all know, the law is open to interpretation and constantly evolving over time!

2) While "sexual reproduction" requires 2 parents - biologically, however, the product of that union prior to birth remains totally dependent on one, and only one, parent!

3) If 1 of the 2 "parents" presumes that their version of "equal protection" entitles them to exert legal control over their partner's body for the next 9 months - may I suggest that they limit themselves to "asexual reproduction" which would place them in a legal position that allows them to make all the decisions!

4) The other alternative would require both partners to sign a legal contract - a couple's all inclusive "nuptial agreement" prior to any "consensual sex!"

5) In the 21stC, "making love" would be replaced by couples spending endless hours working their way through the "fine print," resolving points of contention, followed by consultations with their respective lawyers concerning "equal protection!"

The true “elites” call thnon disclosure agreements

I'm not surprised. I've noticed a progressive dumbing down of this country for years. This was never more apparent than during the initial covid outbreak, with people ignoring science and going along with water bs some politician or conspiracy theorist spews. When did people see education and intellect as something to avoid?

The second they decided it was a method of owning the libs? I mean, they shoot themselves in the foot.Lee Atwater did a fabulous job with the Southern Strategy.
It seems like it’s gotten even more extreme the last decade.

My argument is simple, women received a special right to murder their unborn children! Dress it up anyway you want, by dehumanizing that child, it is still a human. every term used is simply a stage of human development! But it eases the souls of the evil bastards who support baby killing it lets them disconnect form the truth!

Artificial. Womb.
Your only hope.
Even then, there’s much debate to be had, but that’s another thread.
What exactly do you think pregnancy is?
Women just continue their lives normally when pregnant?
It’s like an extra purse we’re stuck carrying for 9 months and we’re just too lazy?

 

[Paradoxical]

It really burns my biscuit, reading about the fallout from these anti choice nimrods. I recently read a piece about how these idiot politicians *don’t comprehend* basic female biology, and somehow it’s perfectly fine they make the law dictating what is allowed or not?
I’ll call a spade a spade- it’s ****ing dehumanizing. It’s wrong.
It shows imo how far out things have become- demonizing education and intellect - guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

Simple answer. Cross your legs, close your eyes and count to a hundred.