You freely contract in the behaviour that you know what the results are. In that contract you freely accept the consequences of your actions. You freely and with all legal protection have legal options to stop yourself from producing and deseminating (inseminating) material that would lead to said contract.
Not in all cases. A 16 year old babysitter got her 12 or 13 year old charge drunk and after he passed out she "raped" him and got pregnant. The victim of this rape was then forced to pay his assailant. there was nothing freely given or entered into there at all. Oh wait he's a Male so he deserved what he got I guess?
Originally posted by joechip
To elaborate upon my previous point; the supreme court decided, upon principles of privacy, that the government could not, legally, force parenthood upon a citizen in Roe v,. Wade. In other words, sex is most assuredly NOT a contract for children. A woman also knows what her eggs "do," but that in no way means she has entered into a contract when she has sex.
Now involunary pregnancy is most assuredly a short term slavery : one has a parisite living inside one's body, draining one's bodily resources, and threatening one's continued health and even one's life. Involuntary parenthood, the arduous task of rearing a child one does not want, is long term slavery : about twenty years of laboring to provide for the support and education of that child.
Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by joechip
You have complete equality on this matter in the way you are suggesting.
You UTTERLY own your own penis and testicles, and the contents therein.
Even if in this case, you're trying to pretend that owning your penis somehow is a legal oppression of you.
It is about women having complete unabridged rights to their own internal organs, and that their internal organs are not public or communal property.
In drafting Roe, Justice Blackmun did not turn to any protection for bodily integrity, but rather staked his opinion on “a right of personal privacy.” Still, even as the Court and commentators agonized over the parameters and justification of the “right of personal privacy” in the aftermath of Roe, the federal courts, both high and low, forged extratextual protections for the bodies of American citizens at the mercy of the state in the areas of prisoners’ rights, police assault, and medical treatment.
reply to post by Adamanteus
the right to kill a man's child is B.S. let a man walk up to a woman and punch her in the stomach and forcibly kill her child and watch him be crucified.(which he should be)
Further I am fairly certain you are distinctly misuing the concept of "privacy" as it is meant within that decision. Not surprising that you would misuse it intentionally though. Anything to serve your purpose - lies or truth.
Originally posted by Vicky32
Originally posted by matrix12
dude i feel your pain!!!!!, i have to pay 300 a month for one kid, i have custody of 3 kids which i have raised since birth , plus i got with a girl that has 5 kids, and we get no child support at all for the 8 kids we have in total!!!! but i still get slammed with that 300 a month life is not fair, and the mom that i pay to uses the money on twinkies and beer.
I call b.s, as the saying goes. Almost certainly untrue, especially the last line.
Word to the wise, someone who is a mother (especially of 5 kids) is a woman, as the word "girl" means someone under 18. If you think otherwise, you must be very old, lol: as the term "girl" meaning any woman between the ages of 0-60, went out of use in the mid-1960s..