U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending 50 years of federal abortion rights

[BangkokReady]

5 hours ago, TropicalGuy said:

No effect on his body.

How does working for 18 years have no affect on someone's body?

[BangkokReady]

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Again this is not a sensible argument wrt to giving a man a say in a woman’s choice to have an abortion.

Well, I wasn't actually arguing in favour of it, obviously.  I was merely discussing it philosophically.

 

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You also seem not to understand what ‘bodily autonomy’ means.

I understand it perfectly.

 

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Giving a man any say what so ever over the choices a woman makes with her own body strips her of ‘bodily autonomy’.

Obviously, and I haven't said anything to the contrary.

 

Why then do you think it is not a case of removal of bodily autonomy when a woman can decide what is done with a man's body?

 

The woman can choose whether the father of her unborn child is compelled to use his body to earn money to support that child through her choice of whether to keep the baby or not.  The man has no say in this use of his body.  His bodily autonomy is removed by the woman's choice.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

Well, I wasn't actually arguing in favour of it, obviously.  I was merely discussing it philosophically.

 

I understand it perfectly.

 

Obviously, and I haven't said anything to the contrary.

 

Why then do you think it is not a case of removal of bodily autonomy when a woman can decide what is done with a man's body?

 

The woman can choose whether the father of her unborn child is compelled to use his body to earn money to support that child through her choice of whether to keep the baby or not.  The man has no say in this use of his body.  His bodily autonomy is removed by the woman's choice.

Explain exactly how a women can compel a man to work under any circumstances.

[coolcarer]

12 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

How does working for 18 years have no affect on someone's body?

what a pointless question.

 

Women work too, explain the effect on their body for 18 years?

 

[Chomper Higgot]

35 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Well, I wasn't actually arguing in favour of it, obviously.  I was merely discussing it philosophically.

 

I understand it perfectly.

 

Obviously, and I haven't said anything to the contrary.

 

Why then do you think it is not a case of removal of bodily autonomy when a woman can decide what is done with a man's body?

 

The woman can choose whether the father of her unborn child is compelled to use his body to earn money to support that child through her choice of whether to keep the baby or not.  The man has no say in this use of his body.  His bodily autonomy is removed by the woman's choice.

What’s this nonsense about what a woman decides to do with a man’s body?

 

Oh, it’s more of your ‘man pity’.

 

If you are going to engage in the philosophical, I suggest you get to grips with the concept of ‘false equivalence.

 

[Scott]

39 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Well, I wasn't actually arguing in favour of it, obviously.  I was merely discussing it philosophically.

 

I understand it perfectly.

 

Obviously, and I haven't said anything to the contrary.

 

Why then do you think it is not a case of removal of bodily autonomy when a woman can decide what is done with a man's body?

 

The woman can choose whether the father of her unborn child is compelled to use his body to earn money to support that child through her choice of whether to keep the baby or not.  The man has no say in this use of his body.  His bodily autonomy is removed by the woman's choice.

What law says a man must work to support a child?  The obligation of child support falls on BOTH parents.  Child support usually does not cover the entire cost of a child's needs.  But, hey, some rich folks may have to reach into their trust fund to make the payments, but they aren't forced to work.

 

Either parent has the right to sue for custody of the child.  If a man obtains custody, then the mother is required to pay support. 

 

[TropicalGuy]

46 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

How does working for 18 years have no affect on someone's body?

You do realize this concept of yours is bizarre & without any substance right ? ????????

[jak2002003]

These men who think women should not have a choice to have an abortion should also agree to be sterilised after they are 20 yeas old as they are too old to be attractive to a woman for her to want to get pregnant from him. 

[Kenneth White]

23 hours ago, placeholder said:

Clearly you don't know that many Red states outlaw the use of the morning after pill for early abortion,

And how would a woman know she is pregnant after 1 week?

I am not familiar with the morning after pill so I will read as much as I can. I hope that this Roe vs. Wade going back to the states prompts them to take a good hard look at the laws in place and change them to include needs for all cases. I would urge state law maker listen to your constituents. It may take several months to come up with real solutions, but it has to be done.

[smutcakes]

This thread is an interesting insight into the thinking of many middle-old age middle class white American men... It certainly makes it more understandable why the US cannot find better choices of President than Trump and Biden.... actually they might be the pick of the bunch.

[smutcakes]

9 hours ago, TropicalGuy said:

You do realize this concept of yours is bizarre & without any substance right ? ????????

Yes, its truly one of the weirdest jumps of logic i have ever seen on here.

[bbko]

The American Taliban (aka the far right) won't rest till they have total control over you.

[KhunLA]

21 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Good point...

 

No argument there, and Buddha forbid anyone should assist in her birthing a child.  Ignorance and stupidity seems to be hereditary, rather than a learned trait with some.

[KhunLA]

Kill it or Nurture it ... UP2U

 

I know my preference ...

[BangkokReady]

22 hours ago, coolcarer said:

Women work too, explain the effect on their body for 18 years?

That has nothing to do with a man's bodily autonomy.

[BangkokReady]

22 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What’s this nonsense about what a woman decides to do with a man’s body?

I explained it quite clearly, several times.

 

22 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oh, it’s more of your ‘man pity’.

Not even slightly.

 

22 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If you are going to engage in the philosophical, I suggest you get to grips with the concept of ‘false equivalence.

Not applicable here.

[BangkokReady]

22 hours ago, Scott said:

What law says a man must work to support a child?  The obligation of child support falls on BOTH parents.

And the man isn't one of the parents?  You've literally proved your first sentence wrong with your second.

 

22 hours ago, Scott said:

  Child support usually does not cover the entire cost of a child's needs.

Not relevant to what I am saying.

 

22 hours ago, Scott said:

Either parent has the right to sue for custody of the child.  If a man obtains custody, then the mother is required to pay support. 

Irrelevant to what I have said.

[BangkokReady]

22 hours ago, TropicalGuy said:

You do realize this concept of yours is bizarre & without any substance right ? ????????

You seriously believe that 18 years of work has no effect on a man's body?

[BangkokReady]

12 hours ago, smutcakes said:

Yes, its truly one of the weirdest jumps of logic i have ever seen on here.

So 18 years of work has no effect on a man?  Where's the jump?

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

That has nothing to do with a man's bodily autonomy.

What don't you understand about the meaning of bodily autonomy? It has nothing to do with the ordinary stresses and strains of ordinary  life whether at work or at play.

[coolcarer]

9 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

That has nothing to do with a man's bodily autonomy.

You are aware that 71.2% of women in the US with children under 18 also work right? 

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

You are aware that 71.2% of women in the US with children under 18 also work right? 

As I noted above, I think the BangkokReady is living in the year 1950.

[BangkokReady]

26 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

You are aware that 71.2% of women in the US with children under 18 also work right? 

What does that have to do with a court compelling a man to work impinging on his bodily autonomy?  Really think about it this time.

 

Let's try a bit more of an example.

 

Mr Smith has a one night stand with Ms Jones.  Ms Jones becomes pregnant.  Mr Smith is the father.  Ms Jones chooses to carry the baby to term, give birth and keep the baby.  Mr Smith does not want her to, he does not want to be a father, he does not want to have a baby with Ms. Jones. 

 

Ms Jones has the baby.  She asks Mr Smith if he will help with financial support.  Mr Smith says he will not.  Ms Jones sues Mr Smith for child support.  Ms Jones wins and now Mr Smith has to pay 33% of his income to Ms Jones every Month for 18 years. 

 

Now, 33% of the resulting money from Mr Smith's labour is being taken from him, therefore 33% of Mr Smith's physical effort is no longer his own to use however he wants and no longer provides any financial reward.  Even though Mr Smith wants this 33% of his physical labour to be for himself it is now being taken from him.  His bodily autonomy in relation to 33% of his physical effort (work) is being impinged upon for the next 18 years.  He has no control over this 33% of his physical effort, it is done for someone else, compelled by law.

 

How does "but women work too" have any effect on this?

[coolcarer]

2 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

What does that have to do with a court compelling a man to work impinging on his bodily autonomy?  Really think about it this time.

 

Let's try a bit more of an example.

 

Mr Smith has a one night stand with Ms Jones.  Ms Jones becomes pregnant.  Mr Smith is the father.  Ms Jones chooses to carry the baby to term, give birth and keep the baby.  Mr Smith does not want her to, he does not want to be a father, he does not want to have a baby with Ms. Jones. 

 

Ms Jones has the baby.  She asks Mr Smith if he will help with financial support.  Mr Smith says he will not.  Ms Jones sues Mr Smith for child support.  Ms Jones wins and now Mr Smith has to pay 33% of his income to Ms Jones every Month for 18 years. 

 

Now, 33% of the resulting money from Mr Smith's labour is being taken from him, therefore 33% of Mr Smith's physical effort is no longer his own to use however he wants.  Even though Mr Smith wants this 33% of his physical labour to be for himself it is now being taken from him.  His bodily autonomy in relation to 33% of his physical effort (work) is being impinged upon for the next 18 years.  He has no control over this 33% of his physical effort, it is done for someone else, compelled by law.

 

How does "but women work too" have any effect on this?

hypothetical nonsense that had nothing to do with your post which was

 

23 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

How does working for 18 years have no affect on someone's body?

 

[BangkokReady]

3 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

hypothetical nonsense

That's your opinion.  I disagree.

 

It's the basis of everything I have said, so I'm not sure why it's suddenly nonsense, given how many responses you have made.

 

3 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

that had nothing to do with your post which was

Working for 18 years obviously has an effect on someone's body.  There's no way you can talk your way out of that.  It really isn't even opinion.

[placeholder]

12 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

What does that have to do with a court compelling a man to work impinging on his bodily autonomy?  Really think about it this time.

 

Let's try a bit more of an example.

 

Mr Smith has a one night stand with Ms Jones.  Ms Jones becomes pregnant.  Mr Smith is the father.  Ms Jones chooses to carry the baby to term, give birth and keep the baby.  Mr Smith does not want her to, he does not want to be a father, he does not want to have a baby with Ms. Jones. 

 

Ms Jones has the baby.  She asks Mr Smith if he will help with financial support.  Mr Smith says he will not.  Ms Jones sues Mr Smith for child support.  Ms Jones wins and now Mr Smith has to pay 33% of his income to Ms Jones every Month for 18 years. 

 

Now, 33% of the resulting money from Mr Smith's labour is being taken from him, therefore 33% of Mr Smith's physical effort is no longer his own to use however he wants.  Even though Mr Smith wants this 33% of his physical labour to be for himself it is now being taken from him.  His bodily autonomy in relation to 33% of his physical effort (work) is being impinged upon for the next 18 years.  He has no control over this 33% of his physical effort, it is done for someone else, compelled by law.

 

How does "but women work too" have any effect on this?

Because the obligations are not directly targeting Mr. Smith's body. Nowhere in a child support decision is there any limitation specifically addressed as to what Mr. Smith can or can't do with his body or what can or can't be done to it.  For all we know, Mr. Smith may be a trust fund baby and won't have to alter his way of living at all. Unless a govt decision directly targets what a person can or can't do with their body or what can or can't be done to it, it's not an issue of bodily autonomy. 

[coolcarer]

7 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

That's your opinion.  I disagree.

 

Working for 18 years obviously has an effect on someone's body.  There's no way you can talk your way out of that.  It really isn't even opinion.

 Back to my first reply, ask the 71.2% of women that work and still have children under 18, 

 

Don’t men work anyway as part of society along with women. 

[Credo]

8 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

That's your opinion.  I disagree.

 

It's the basis of everything I have said, so I'm not sure why it's suddenly nonsense, given how many responses you have made.

 

Working for 18 years obviously has an effect on someone's body.  There's no way you can talk your way out of that.  It really isn't even opinion.

As near as I can tell, you are simply deflecting from the actual topic.  Nobody makes you work.  Nobody tells you what kind of work you must do.  You face almost no restrictions.  As a matter of fact, you won't even go to prison for not paying child support payments.   You can get jail time for Contempt of Court if you fail to show up, but you won't go to prison for the non-payment.   

 

Apparently, it's perfectly fine for a mother to bear the entire responsibility for a child while the father goes Scot-free?

[BangkokReady]

3 minutes ago, Credo said:

As near as I can tell, you are simply deflecting from the actual topic.

Hardly.  This is what I have been discussing.  Simple as that.

 

3 minutes ago, Credo said:

Nobody makes you work.  Nobody tells you what kind of work you must do.  You face almost no restrictions.  As a matter of fact, you won't even go to prison for not paying child support payments.   You can get jail time for Contempt of Court if you fail to show up, but you won't go to prison for the non-payment. 

Perhaps you don't know about it, but people need to work to support themselves, and a court can make you give part of your income to support the child.  That's it.

 

3 minutes ago, Credo said:

Apparently, it's perfectly fine for a mother to bear the entire responsibility for a child while the father goes Scot-free?

I haven't said anything like that.

[BangkokReady]

15 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

 Back to my first reply, ask the 71.2% of women that work and still have children under 18, 

 

Don’t men work anyway as part of society along with women. 

I'm afraid you're not making any sense.  I explained my point in the previous reply, if you want to ignore what I'm actually saying and then respond to your own weird interpretation of one isolated and out of context comment, I guess you're free to do that, but I don't have much to say to it.

 

What I wrote to you just now is the initial point I made and what I have been discussing, anything else is your misinterpretation.  If you don't want to engage with the actual points I have made, I'm not sure we're even having a discussion.