Apr 9 - Arizona bill declares women pregnant two weeks before conception

most viewed right now
 107
Image(s) inside Damn! Tina Fey Is Getting Thick
65 comments
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 70
Image(s) inside 🐰 Perfect Snowbunny.IMPOSSIBLE DECISION🐰
104 comments
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 56
NBA Ref Scot Foster is for LeBron..Tony Brothers on the other hand
55 comments
@sports
most viewed right now
 54
Video inside Some chick tossed her drink on Boxdens Favorite mayonnaise Queen.
123 comments
@wild'ish

section   (0 bx goons and 1 bystanders) Share this on Twitter   Share this on Facebook
 

Props Slaps
New replies show every 10 seconds
 6 years ago '12        #161
noverum 
space
avatar space
space
$3,191 | Props total: 2270 2270
 HHS said:
You keep talking about the woman receiving support, which is inaccurate. Child support provides for the child, the right to that support is a right held by the child. And the existence of the child is the responsibility of both parties who contributed genetic material to make it.

You obviously don't understand the nature of rights. Rights carry responsibilities. When a woman has the right to absolute authority over her body (as she should), she also takes on absolute responsibility for what comes out of her body. With the advent of legalised abortions, that includes children born from her womb.
What you're effectively arguing for is an entitlement, not a right. The only individuals who have compulsory responsibility to a child's well-being are the ones that have a direct influence over its coming to existence. Any other contribution is a subsidiary contribution.

Without legal abortion - conception must lead to birth of a child; thus both mother and father are directly responsible for its existence and its well-being.
With legal abortion - there is no child after conception, only the option to have a child; thus only the person who has authority over the decision to have the child is responsible for its existence and well-being.

The critical variable here is the chronology of the event that leads to the inevitable existence of a child.
What changes?
No abortion law = At conception,
Abortion law = Period between conception and birth.

With lawful abortion, any time a woman decides to have a child, that is her decision, and her decision only. The fact that a man provided her with a vital element of child-birth does not invariably make the man accountable for the end-product when the woman controls the fate of the genetic matter given to her.

The condition to determine whether or not a man is responsible should be fairly straight-forward:
- If the man does not explicitly indicate that he has no intention of supporting the child, he has become an accomplice in the decision to have the child - because the woman will rightly expect support - and he must be held equally responsible for its care.
- If, on the other hand, a man explicitly indicates (through legal documentation) that he does not wish to be a father after conception, the onus falls squarely on the woman who has decided to carry on with the pregnancy regardless. In this case, the woman has complete control over the blade and has decided to wield it with the power of her own liberty. She is subsequently responsible for the impact that the blade makes.

All rights must be treated equally and be universally consistent. A woman's right to have authority over her body is not greater than a man's right not to be held at ransom by that same authority. You have both a right and a responsibility to yourself, your life, your wealth and those who are directly dependent on you. All else falls into the realm of oppression and entitlement.

If you insist that a woman be entitled to support from somebody who has no authoritative influence over the birth of a child, you are an advocate of extortion and subjugation - the forcing of one individual to submit to the will of another individual; a violation of fundamental freedom.
If one can't comprehend the fact that recognised rights have a direct correlation to recognised responsibilities, one is not in a position to evaluate the nature of a right nor a responsibility.

It really is quite telling that advocates of abortion highlight the rights of women at a whim, whereas responsibilities fall well below the radar. This is not about individual liberty, it's about women's liberty. This isn't about children, it's about partisanship. This isn't about justice, it's about power - power over body, power over child and power over man.

P.S.
You're grasping onto the fact that I used the word alimony earlier when you know perfectly well that I meant child-support.


Last edited by noverum; 04-11-2012 at 10:07 PM..
 6 years ago '04        #162
HHS 1 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$5,555 | Props total: 94 94
 noverum said:
If you insist that a woman be entitled to support from somebody who has no authoritative influence over the birth of a child, you are an advocate of extortion and subjugation - the forcing of one individual to submit to the will of another individual; a violation of fundamental freedom.
These are the main problems of your argument encapsulated in one sentence. One, I'm not arguing that a woman be entitled to support, I'm arguing that a child be entitled to support from both parties in its conception equally. You say you get the difference between child support and alimony, but you keep making statements like this that suggest this is about the support of the woman. It's not. Two, a woman does not will a fetus into existence. A child is the end result of s3x between a man and a woman, an act which a man participates in of his own free will, not at the will of another. You can't claim that the man is submitting to the will of another individual in this act, or that he is ignorant of the possible outcomes, so as far as I see it, a man knowingly enters into this and can't claim to be subjugated to the will of another. Yes, a woman can stop the development of the fetus, but a man can also stop the introduction of his sperm into a woman. A man has just as much authority over the existence of the fetus in the first place. That is the act that ultimately brings about the responsibility for support.


Last edited by HHS; 04-12-2012 at 05:08 AM..
 6 years ago '12        #163
noverum 
space
avatar space
space
$3,191 | Props total: 2270 2270
 HHS said:
Yes, a woman can stop the development of the foetus, but a man can also stop the introduction of the foetus.
Fixed. He hasn't introduced life into this world - he has helped introduce the option of life which the woman can then act upon in the following 9 months. He cannot be held accountable for her decision to act against his will. Individual liberty 101.

In such a case, he is not directly responsible for the birth of the child - he is indirectly responsible. He has made a contribution to the child's existence but not a definitive one.
The child has a right to support from those who make a direct contribution, not an indirect one.


Nice work taking a paragraph out of context so that the many preceding paragraphs substantiating its validity don't have to be confronted. Like a man starving to death under an apple tree, you insist on self-induced ignorance under the shade of logic.


Last edited by noverum; 04-12-2012 at 07:27 AM..
 6 years ago '12        #164
noverum 
space
avatar space
space
$3,191 | Props total: 2270 2270
I'm done here. You cannot convince me that a woman - who has 9 months to determine whether a child would be raised in a fit and supportive environment before deciding on whether or not to bear a child - has the right to demand a man's financial support; in the same way that you cannot convince me that a man has the right to force a woman to abort a child against her will.
The inconsistency of values and ideology from feminists and abortion advocates alike is irreconcilable in my mind. You cannot demand an individual right to freedom in one instance, and then demand an individual submit to the will of another in the same sentence.
 6 years ago '05        #165
DaViLLe726 3 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$3,353 | Props total: 310 310
 noverum said:
I'm done here. You cannot convince me that a woman - who has 9 months to determine whether a child would be raised in a fit and supportive environment before deciding on whether or not to bear a child - has the right to demand a man's financial support; in the same way that you cannot convince me that a man has the right to force a woman to abort a child against her will.
The inconsistency of values and ideology from feminists and abortion advocates alike is irreconcilable in my mind. You cannot demand an individual right to freedom in one instance, and then demand an individual submit to the will of another in the same sentence.
Ether....
 6 years ago '04        #166
HHS 1 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$5,555 | Props total: 94 94
 noverum said:
I'm done here. You cannot convince me that a woman - who has 9 months to determine whether a child would be raised in a fit and supportive environment before deciding on whether or not to bear a child - has the right to demand a man's financial support; in the same way that you cannot convince me that a man has the right to force a woman to abort a child against her will.
The inconsistency of values and ideology from feminists and abortion advocates alike is irreconcilable in my mind. You cannot demand an individual right to freedom in one instance, and then demand an individual submit to the will of another in the same sentence.
I have never argued that a woman has a right to demand a man's financial support because he got her pregnant. I have argued that a child has a right to support from both of its biological parents. Why should the will of the mother be able to render a child's right to that support invalid? How is that not the forcing of one individual to submit to the will of another individual? And unlike the father, at no point has any act of the child's will been in play in its birth, while both the mother and father have participated in willful acts that make them responsible for the existence of the child. When we're talking about child support, we're not talking about the rights of two individuals, we're talking about the rights of three.

Also, failure to have an abortion is not an act. Having an abortion is an act, getting someone pregnant is an act, and birth is a direct result of the act of getting someone pregnant. And there is just no way that I'm going to consider the contribution of genetic material that directly results in conception as an indirect act. That argument makes no sense biologically.

So, yes, I believe we're at a fundamental impasse, so I guess I'm done too.


Last edited by HHS; 04-12-2012 at 08:15 PM..
 6 years ago '10        #167
Trilluminati GA 433 heat pts433
space
avatar space
space
$50,419 | Props total: 14669 14669
not reading 8 more pages of this debate, anyone who support murdering of the defenseless need to look in the mirror. If you love life like I love mine than you will understand and appreciate your mother not paying someone to off you.
 6 years ago '10        #168
Trilluminati GA 433 heat pts433
space
avatar space
space
$50,419 | Props total: 14669 14669
wait! 2 weeks before conception?!

*double checks and looks up conception*

Mane I'm against baby murder but this bill is pure bullsh*t.
 6 years ago '05        #169
Based_One 87 heat pts87
space
avatar space
space
$10,145 | Props total: 8871 8871
Why always Arizona you got to be one stupid son of a bi*ch to support this bill so good talking points in this thread tho
New replies show every 10 seconds
Home      
  
 

 






most viewed right now
 67
Video inside Jose Guapo out here down bad
46 comments
19 hours ago
@misc
most viewed right now
 59
Image(s) inside TAYLOR BANNER out here looking like something to eat! 🌱
64 comments
21 hours ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 45
NBA Richard Jefferson Spitting Game At Savannah James
35 comments
20 hours ago
@sports
most viewed right now
 37
Video inside k dot kicks w**** girl off stage for n****
596 comments
23 hours ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 37
Lil Baby got picked up off the street and already outsold every Young Thug pro..
99 comments
20 hours ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 32
NBA These nerds are really smashing ya fav NBA team by 30?
50 comments
20 hours ago
@sports
most viewed right now
 27
2008-2018: The New Wave Where are they Now?
119 comments
23 hours ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 20
Article inside New photo of Jet Li's physical deterioration is astonishing
101 comments
21 hours ago
@wild'ish
back to top
register contact Follow BX @ Twitter Follow BX @ Facebook search BX privacy