Consenting Adults

[Lursa]

Ah. And what indicated to you that I was not pro-choice?

 

[Babykat]

Ah. And what indicated to you that I was not pro-choice?

The first question in your signature. It’s kind of miss leading. I agree with pro-choice. Even though I would never do it myself. Who am I to tell someone what’s right for them. Although it’s kind of unfair to the father. Given it’s not his body so it’s not his choice. But if the baby is born whether he likes it or not. He will be held responsible for the child. He doesn’t get to choice if a child would be right for his life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Integrityrespec]

your rights are your rights until they trample on the rights of someone else. Can't yell fire in the movies and create a dangerous stampede harming others under the freedom of speech. the freedon of religion is attacked more and more as time goes forward.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)your rights are your rights until they trample on the rights of someone else. Can't yell fire in the movies and create a dangerous stampede harming others under the freedom of speech.
2.) the freedon of religion is attacked more and more as time goes forward.

1.) correct hence why its illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation
2.) then try your best to get to america!

as a christian in american my religious rights are fully protected and not infringed on in any way! Its awesome!

 

[Lursa]

The first question in your signature. It’s kind of miss leading. I agree with pro-choice. Even though I would never do it myself. Who am I to tell someone what’s right for them. Although it’s kind of unfair to the father. Given it’s not his body so it’s not his choice. But if the baby is born whether he likes it or not. He will be held responsible for the child. He doesn’t get to choice if a child would be right for his life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because his comment shows how dogmatic and limited his view on abortion is.

And if they were using bc or just having casual sex...he has no right to expect any kid.

And he also knows, before he decides to sleep with her, what the risks are and what the consequences may be. So he has the opportunity to decide: risk it or not. Should he not be held accountable for the consequences of his actions? The woman is...she has no choice. If she gets pregnant, she cannot escape consequences. But because of biology, her consequences are different.

No women that gets pregnant can avoid paying the consequences, there is no escape. There are only 4 scenarios:

--she has a kid
--miscarriage
--abortion
--dying during pregnancy/childbirth

And she can die or suffer permanent health damage from the first 3 too.​

 

[Eriech]

'Separate but equal' was determined unConstitutional.

Not separate. A different noun is all. A man and a man or a woman and a woman is not the same as the traditional definition. Them, they, her her , him, him works for me as long as it is called something else.

Like you say.....what I think now is of no consequence.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

Not separate. A different noun is all. A man and a man or a woman and a woman is not the same as the traditional definition. Them, they, her her , him, him works for me as long as it is called something else.

Like you say.....what I think now is of no consequence.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Aside from gender, please explain how the marriages differ.

(Again, they tried that with Loving vs Virginia. Aside from race, how do interracial marriages differ?)

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Not separate.
2.) A different noun is all.
3.) A man and a man or a woman and a woman is not the same as the traditional definition.
4.) Them, they, her her , him, him works for me as long as it is called something else.
5.)Like you say.....what I think now is of no consequence.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

1.) thats exactly what separate but equal would be and thats unconstitutional. Are you from America?
2.) why is a different noun needed, theres no logic to support such a claim
3.) thats only your opinion and thats meaningless. There other people that feel traditional marriage is ONLY their marriage by THEIR religion should we deny yours cause it doesn't fit that definition?
4.) it already works in a country like america where people have rights your approval isnt needed
5.) not only that theres no logical or honest support for it

 

[Babykat]

Because his comment shows how dogmatic and limited his view on abortion is.

And if they were using bc or just having casual sex...he has no right to expect any kid.

And he also knows, before he decides to sleep with her, what the risks are and what the consequences may be. So he has the opportunity to decide: risk it or not. Should he not be held accountable for the consequences of his actions? The woman is...she has no choice. If she gets pregnant, she cannot escape consequences. But because of biology, her consequences are different.

No women that gets pregnant can avoid paying the consequences, there is no escape. There are only 4 scenarios:

--she has a kid
--miscarriage
--abortion
--dying during pregnancy/childbirth

And she can die or suffer permanent health damage from the first 3 too.​

There are another 2 choices she has as well. The morning after pill which has very little consequences and to have the child and give it up for adoption. But that’s not my point. I support any choice she makes. It’s her life and she should be able to make whatever decision she wants. But how is this fair and this is a real example. I have a friend when he was young he traveled around in a band. They never made it big. But while he was traveling around he got this girl pregnant. He didn’t know and she never told him. Then 17 years later. Right before the daughter he didn’t know about turned 18. The mother of his child sued him for back child support. He was forced to pay 18 years of child support all at once or go to jail. They did setup payment for him. But he lost his house and the business he had spent his life building because of it. His wife left him because he couldn’t support the lifestyle she was accustom to. Then he had to pay her child support and alimony.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheGoverness]

Not separate. A different noun is all. A man and a man or a woman and a woman is not the same as the traditional definition. Them, they, her her , him, him works for me as long as it is called something else.

Like you say.....what I think now is of no consequence.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

There is absolutely no reason to call them different terms. There is nothing inherently different about a straight couple being married, and a same-sex couple getting married. It is still the legal of spouses, regardless of gender. The same thing with interracial couples, and why there is no separate distinction between them and a couple of the same race.

 

[Deuce]

Not separate. A different noun is all. A man and a man or a woman and a woman is not the same as the traditional definition. Them, they, her her , him, him works for me as long as it is called something else.

Like you say.....what I think now is of no consequence.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Why are you unwilling to call your marriage something else?

 

[Lursa]

There are another 2 choices she has as well. The morning after pill which has very little consequences and to have the child and give it up for adoption. But that’s not my point. I support any choice she makes. It’s her life and she should be able to make whatever decision she wants. But how is this fair and this is a real example. I have a friend when he was young he traveled around in a band. They never made it big. But while he was traveling around he got this girl pregnant. He didn’t know and she never told him. Then 17 years later. Right before the daughter he didn’t know about turned 18. The mother of his child sued him for back child support. He was forced to pay 18 years of child support all at once or go to jail. They did setup payment for him. But he lost his house and the business he had spent his life building because of it. His wife left him because he couldn’t support the lifestyle she was accustom to. Then he had to pay her child support and alimony.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The pill is considered an abortion and she still has to go thru childbirth for adoption, so that's why those are not on there.

And it's sad for that young man. That's a consequence of casual (or any) sex. We all know it. But then at least the taxpayers get some relief...unfortunate for him but we should not have to pay when the woman has to seek public assistance, and we must (and the state does) keep the best interests of the child and then the taxpayers foremost.

 

[Babykat]

The pill is considered an abortion and she still has to go thru childbirth for adoption, so that's why those are not on there.

And it's sad for that young man. That's a consequence of casual (or any) sex. We all know it. But then at least the taxpayers get some relief...unfortunate for him but we should not have to pay when the woman has to seek public assistance, and we must (and the state does) keep the best interests of the child and then the taxpayers foremost.

So you don’t want equality you want supremacy. You make the decision if we don’t like it we can just deal with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

So you don’t want equality you want supremacy. You make the decision if we don’t like it we can just deal with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When did I say the man cannot decide? I specified that clearly, for both.

Both need to decide 'before having sex' if they are willing to accept the risk of consequences.

Are you saying that men are not capable of doing so, in their own best interests? (I dont believe that).

Because his comment shows how dogmatic and limited his view on abortion is.

And if they were using bc or just having casual sex...he has no right to expect any kid.

And he also knows, before he decides to sleep with her, what the risks are and what the consequences may be. So he has the opportunity to decide: risk it or not. Should he not be held accountable for the consequences of his actions? The woman is...she has no choice. If she gets pregnant, she cannot escape consequences. But because of biology, her consequences are different.

No women that gets pregnant can avoid paying the consequences, there is no escape. There are only 4 scenarios:

--she has a kid
--miscarriage
--abortion
--dying during pregnancy/childbirth

And she can die or suffer permanent health damage from the first 3 too.​

It is biology that determines that the consequences are different, not law.

 

[Babykat]

When did I say the man cannot decide? I specified that clearly, for both.

Both need to decide 'before having sex' if they are willing to accept the risk of consequences.

Are you saying that men are not capable of doing so, in their own best interests? (I dont believe that).

Because his comment shows how dogmatic and limited his view on abortion is.

And if they were using bc or just having casual sex...he has no right to expect any kid.

And he also knows, before he decides to sleep with her, what the risks are and what the consequences may be. So he has the opportunity to decide: risk it or not. Should he not be held accountable for the consequences of his actions? The woman is...she has no choice. If she gets pregnant, she cannot escape consequences. But because of biology, her consequences are different.

No women that gets pregnant can avoid paying the consequences, there is no escape. There are only 4 scenarios:

--she has a kid
--miscarriage
--abortion
--dying during pregnancy/childbirth

And she can die or suffer permanent health damage from the first 3 too.​

It is biology that determines that the consequences are different, not law.

They both get to decide whither or not to have sex and risk having a child. But once he agrees to have sex with her he consents to her supremacy if a child is conceived. Sounds vaguely familiar. Oh yes back before the suffrage moment and civil rights moment. If a woman decided to marry a man she consented to his supremacy and the consequences he suffered be marrying her was he had to support her financial. But the woman got to decide if she married him or not. But once she made that decision all other decision the man made and if she didn’t like she had to live with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

They both get to decide whither or not to have sex and risk having a child. But once he agrees to have sex with her he consents to her supremacy if a child is conceived. Sounds vaguely familiar. Oh yes back before the suffrage moment and civil rights moment. If a woman decided to marry a man she consented to his supremacy and the consequences he suffered be marrying her was he had to support her financial. But the woman got to decide if she married him or not. But once she made that decision all other decision the man made and if she didn’t like she had to live with it.

her "supremacy?" That's your word and it's very very biased, so you have really exposed your position.

Our ability to get pregnant has nothing to do with supremacy and everything to do with biology.

How can he legally decide a single thing that affects her bodily sovereignty? And please share similar instances where women may do so to men's bodily sovereignty?

Are you implying that men are entitled to sex without consequences? Women are not, never have been, not likely we ever will be.

So as written: men know this, before they decide to have sex. If they CHOOSE to take the risks...then why shouldnt they be held accountable for consequences if they occur?

Are men forced to have sex? No. Both men and women must decide before having sex if they are willing to risk the consequences of a pregnancy and I personally believe both should be held accountable.

I asked you a question before: do you believe men are not capable of making a good decision regarding having sex, in their own best interests? Yes or no? (me=yes)

And now also: Are you implying that men are entitled to sex without consequences? If so, why? That's certainly not "equal", since women cannot escape consequences from pregnancy.

And then, if you're still stuck on that innaccurate word...how does a woman's bodily sovereignty give her any supremacy over men? Are men not aware that that is protected by law? Do men *have to* have sex with women they dont have committed relationships and consensus with? Is anyone forcing them to give up the control over their sperm?

 

[Babykat]

her "supremacy?" That's your word and it's very very biased, so you have really exposed your position.

Our ability to get pregnant has nothing to do with supremacy and everything to do with biology.

How can he legally decide a single thing that affects her bodily sovereignty? And please share similar instances where women may do so to men's bodily sovereignty?

Are you implying that men are entitled to sex without consequences? Women are not, never have been, not likely we ever will be.

So as written: men know this, before they decide to have sex. If they CHOOSE to take the risks...then why shouldnt they be held accountable for consequences if they occur?

Are men forced to have sex? No. Both men and women must decide before having sex if they are willing to risk the consequences of a pregnancy and I personally believe both should be held accountable.

I asked you a question before: do you believe men are not capable of making a good decision regarding having sex, in their own best interests? Yes or no? (me=yes)

And now also: Are you implying that men are entitled to sex without consequences? If so, why? That's certainly not "equal", since women cannot escape consequences from pregnancy.

And then, if you're still stuck on that innaccurate word...how does a woman's bodily sovereignty give her any supremacy over men? Are men not aware that that is protected by law? Do men *have to* have sex with women they dont have committed relationships and consensus with? Is anyone forcing them to give up the control over their sperm?

I’m not arguing that the woman has the right to decide what happens to her body. I’m arguing that after the child is born that she keeps the right to decide what happens to the child for the next 18 years and the man has to live with it. She can decide to give it up for adoption or to keep the child. She can decide whether or not to put the fathers name on the birth certificate. But these decisions directly effect the father as well and he has no say in the matter. Now if she does put his name on the birth certificate it does yield him some control. But if they are both equally law abiding citizens no judge will rule in favor of the father over the mother. Really it doesn’t effect me at all. I had my first child at the age of 29 with my wife who I have been married to for the past 13 years. So yes a man can be smart about sex so can a woman. My point is everyone is fighting for equal rights for women or minority’s or the LGBT community. But no one is fighting for equal rights for men or Christian and if someone tries to point out that this groups are being oppressed now they a treated like a racist or bigot. The laws changed to give people who didn’t have equal rights and opportunities these rights as they should have. But the laws that where in place before these movements happened that protect women from being taken advantage of when the didn’t have equal rights are still in place. Leading to men and other groups being treated as not equal. Really none of this matters to me. I’m still fighting for equal rights for transgender. Who under law can still be discriminated against. Transgenders have no protection when it comes to employment, housing, or rights to public services. But as I fight for these right that I and my nephew need I try my best not to trample someone else’s rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

I’m not arguing that the woman has the right to decide what happens to her body. I’m arguing that after the child is born that she keeps the right to decide what happens to the child for the next 18 years and the man has to live with it. She can decide to give it up for adoption or to keep the child. She can decide whether or not to put the fathers name on the birth certificate. But these decisions directly effect the father as well and he has no say in the matter.

None of this is true, not really. Laws are in place to prevent her from giving it up for adoption without his consent. And to put his name on the birth certificate. We cannot stop people from intentionally breaking laws. OTOH, in both those cases, the father is absolved of future obligations.

Again: if they were using birth control and/or just having casual sex, he's not entitled to an expectation for having a child. Do I think it's right for a woman to keep this from a man? No. But both take many risks when they have sex. In order to get sex, he could promise to marry her and then dump her after. People can treat each other pretty ****ty in relationships and both are vulnerable to dishonesty. Again....that's a decision both need to make in their own best interests.

OTOH if she keeps it, then the father has equal right to the child. The courts are supporting men much more these days. Men have the option for joint custody or even full custody. The laws favor both equally and the courts have gotten better about recognizing the father's rights.

Edit: if you really believe that judges are shortchanging the fathers who want custody or joint custody, keep in mind that most family court judges are still men.

 

[Babykat]

None of this is true, not really. Laws are in place to prevent her from giving it up for adoption without his consent. And to put his name on the birth certificate. We cannot stop people from intentionally breaking laws. OTOH, in both those cases, the father is absolved of future obligations.

Again: if they were using birth control and/or just having casual sex, he's not entitled to an expectation for having a child. Do I think it's right for a woman to keep this from a man? No. But both take many risks when they have sex. In order to get sex, he could promise to marry her and then dump her after. People can treat each other pretty ****ty in relationships and both are vulnerable to dishonesty. Again....that's a decision both need to make in their own best interests.

OTOH if she keeps it, then the father has equal right to the child. The courts are supporting men much more these days. Men have the option for joint custody or even full custody. The laws favor both equally and the courts have gotten better about recognizing the father's rights.

Edit: if you really believe that judges are shortchanging the fathers who want custody or joint custody, keep in mind that most family court judges are still men.

Because I fall into multiple groups on opposite sides (white, male by brith, Christian, and transgender) so I’m Christian and Christians oppose transgenders creating a conflict, I’m male by brith but hopefully in 2 to 3 years I will be female creating another conflict, I’m white but my wife is Lumbee and my kids are half Lumbee creating another conflict. So when any issue comes up I see both sides. It gives me a unique prospect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

Because I fall into multiple groups on opposite sides (white, male by brith, Christian, and transgender) so I’m Christian and Christians oppose transgenders creating a conflict, I’m male by brith but hopefully in 2 to 3 years I will be female creating another conflict, I’m white but my wife is Lumbee and my kids are half Lumbee creating another conflict. So when any issue comes up I see both sides. It gives me a unique prospect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was mostly addressing legal 'conflicts' and outcomes.

 

[Babykat]

I was mostly addressing legal 'conflicts' and outcomes.

Because of my personal conflicts I try to balance in these issues. Which means I argue for both sides from time to time. On abortion it’s her body she gets to make that decision. Just like a medical decisions involving a males body he gets to make that decision. That’s my balance point on that issue. I’m actually well versed on the issue. My mother was a midwife in TN and my sister and my favorite aunt both had abortion. I know of the emotional cost for having an abortion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

I really look at these issues from the prospective of a transgender. I’m not homosexual and those I fall into a unprotected group. In many cases it’s legal to refuse me service or employment. But when you consider capitalism most of the businesses that refuse me service will go out of business because I and many like me want do business with them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That doesn't mean it should be legal to refuse you service, especially since it is not legal to refuse a person service based on being either a man or a woman. And no one has a right to know what your DNA is, what is between your legs, or even whether you are a man or a woman legally (unless it directly relates to their business model).

To assume that businesses that don't want to do business with you will go out of business is ridiculous. Piggie Park BBQ is still in business, and up until about the 90s, the owner put out pamplets/placards in his restaurants that talked about not mixing the races and was outwardly racist, with no remorse for that. He had been in business for 30-40 years, including having a lawsuit reach the SCOTUS about his discriminatory actions (which he lost). I don't have much issue with him practicing free speech in his restaurants either but I do have issue with him trying to refuse service to nonwhite people. The very nature of commerce means that businesses have more power than consumers, especially when enough people either share a sentiment about a group of people or have little other choice, cannot afford to make decisions based on what the person does/says.

 

[roguenuke]

There are another 2 choices she has as well. The morning after pill which has very little consequences and to have the child and give it up for adoption. But that’s not my point. I support any choice she makes. It’s her life and she should be able to make whatever decision she wants. But how is this fair and this is a real example. I have a friend when he was young he traveled around in a band. They never made it big. But while he was traveling around he got this girl pregnant. He didn’t know and she never told him. Then 17 years later. Right before the daughter he didn’t know about turned 18. The mother of his child sued him for back child support. He was forced to pay 18 years of child support all at once or go to jail. They did setup payment for him. But he lost his house and the business he had spent his life building because of it. His wife left him because he couldn’t support the lifestyle she was accustom to. Then he had to pay her child support and alimony.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The morning after pill works prior to her getting pregnant, so then that would not be a choice after pregnancy. And no mention of what happened to the child after the child was born was made. Those are not additional choices for how a pregnancy will end. Those are either things that happen before or after the pregnancy.

And very few states, places force back child support all at once or go to jail. My father still owes my mother tens of thousands in back child support and he has never lost anything for that. Most courts only threaten jail time if other methods of attempting to collect child support failed. It would be highly unusual for a court to rule that someone who just found out they are a father and owe child support has to pay 17 years of child support all at once, especially if it was obviously that they could not do that without severely harming their financial situation, or worse, that of other children they are caring for. Support payments are almost always based on what a parent can afford to pay, even if they end up paying well beyond when a child turns 18.

 

[roguenuke]

So you don’t want equality you want supremacy. You make the decision if we don’t like it we can just deal with it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did she say she wanted women to do that, to not tell a man that she was having a child? Pretty sure she didn't say that at all.

There are some women who struggle without the father and go to great lengths to not make him pay a thing, yet the courts and/or the father do things to make it worse for her and the child (I just saw this happen with my sister).

 

[roguenuke]

I’m not arguing that the woman has the right to decide what happens to her body. I’m arguing that after the child is born that she keeps the right to decide what happens to the child for the next 18 years and the man has to live with it. She can decide to give it up for adoption or to keep the child. She can decide whether or not to put the fathers name on the birth certificate. But these decisions directly effect the father as well and he has no say in the matter. Now if she does put his name on the birth certificate it does yield him some control. But if they are both equally law abiding citizens no judge will rule in favor of the father over the mother. Really it doesn’t effect me at all. I had my first child at the age of 29 with my wife who I have been married to for the past 13 years. So yes a man can be smart about sex so can a woman. My point is everyone is fighting for equal rights for women or minority’s or the LGBT community. But no one is fighting for equal rights for men or Christian and if someone tries to point out that this groups are being oppressed now they a treated like a racist or bigot. The laws changed to give people who didn’t have equal rights and opportunities these rights as they should have. But the laws that where in place before these movements happened that protect women from being taken advantage of when the didn’t have equal rights are still in place. Leading to men and other groups being treated as not equal. Really none of this matters to me. I’m still fighting for equal rights for transgender. Who under law can still be discriminated against. Transgenders have no protection when it comes to employment, housing, or rights to public services. But as I fight for these right that I and my nephew need I try my best not to trample someone else’s rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except there are plenty of ways that she does not keep the right to decide what happens to that child after birth. My sister just had to go through almost 6 months of legal battles to be able to take her son to Australia to live with her new husband. Her new family paid for it because it costs a lot of money to do. And the father didn't want anything to do with her son from the moment she told him she was pregnant. In some places, a woman cannot get financial assistance of any kind without identifying who the father of her child is so that the state can go after child support, even if she doesn't want to do so. In others, whoever has the child without any sort of legal documentation saying that either has custody, legally has custody until it goes to court. And fathers have a right to challenge both visitation and custody decisions.

What happens if a man lies to a woman when they sleep together and she can't find him? Heck there are courts that discriminate against people for being transgender or homosexual. Willing to bet that there are also courts that would discriminate against someone in an interracial or interfaith relationship if not for laws that prevent such things (in most places in the US at least).