What an insane line of thinking.
You don't think there'd be any difference between a pre-employment colonoscopy and a pre-employment drug test?
A pre-employment drug test detects evidence of a crime and a colonoscopy does not?
Also, for a pre-employment drug test the company is essentially giving you compensation(future employment) for invading your privacy.
The woman in question is not giving you compensation for invading your privacy and forcing you to undergo medical procedures. She is doing it so she can extort money from you.
Exactly, one has an actual purpose (drug test, cheek swab) and the other does not in the current situation (colonoscopy, wanding)
What is your definition of extortion, and how does a civil suit following the law as intended fit that definition?
They are also both optional. You are free to find employment at any number of companies that do not required a drug test.
The Paternity is not optional.
And you do realize that the logic you are presenting her works equally well for forcing a woman to bear the child to term right? Because that has an actual purpose
Give me money to support my life choices or you get thrown in jail. How is that not extortion?
What 'logic' do you think you're pointing out here?
I've only said that two things are not equivalent, not that they could (or should) be legal. Using the logic, forcing a woman to bear the child to term is not equivalent to going around forcing colonoscopies.
It's also not rape. Not a single person in this thread has argued otherwise. You are the one that created the straw man that 'if one forced medical procedure is rape then they all are'.
Once again, you fail at biology. Unless a woman fertilizers herself, it is not exclusively her life choice.
Sorry bro, but that's her own fault. Rape is not a choice, but birth control is. Choosing not to be on birth control implicitly means choosing pregnancy.
Lots of other things are like that. Welding without a mask even when they are readily available implies that you don't care if you go blind. Driving without a seatbelt means you don't care if you live or die. Not being on birth control tells the world you're willing to accept the consequences of being raped. It's not like rape is a rare thing. Women know how incredibly common it is. It's very likely that you know several people who have been raped. I'm not even 30 and I know at least 3 women who have admitted it. It's as common as crashing a car, and we wear seatbelts because we know how common that is.
Oh please. You have pretty clearly been saying it is okay for women to compel men to undergo medical procedures. Clearly giving women control over the bodies of men they have had sex with.
Only ones that involve inserting phallic shaped devices into people's orifices without their consent.
For example a drug test involving peeing in a cup would not be considered rape.
The Supreme Court, and other courts, would disagree with you. The choice to bear a child is entirely up to the woman.
TRIVIA: What do you call a woman who demands a man give her money in exchange for sex?
I have said no such thing. This whole line of debate started because I said there would be a difference between a drug test and a colonoscopy.
Can they not also do a blood test if the person wanted?
Link? I am aware the supreme court has said it's a woman's choice if she wants to choose to bring a child to term or not. The existence of that child is not exclusively her choice, and I have seen no ruling that says otherwise.
The fact that laws on paternal support exist (and how they are structured) disagree with your interpretation of the court's opinion as well.
When a man has sex with a woman and a child results he typically is required to pay child support. Even if he has no interest in having a child.
That is the case we are talking about.
Women are currently allowed not have to take care of children they don't want because its a fetus is not a life and it is there body and so can abort it.
However, if artificial wombs were available. A fetus would be viable outside of the mother from conception and would therefore be a life from conception(even under current law) and it would therefore be murder to kill it. And as the fetus would be incubated in an artificial womb it would no longer be necessary to use the woman's body.
The woman would in effect be just like a man. She would be responsible for a child she created by having sex, but that was incubated outside of her.
His wife?
You said there was a difference to defend violating a man's bodily integrity so a woman can get money from him
A blood test would not be rape. But would still be a violation of the person's bodily integrity.
And if the woman chooses not to bring the fetus to term the child will not exist. Simple biology. Sex creates a fetus. Choosing to carry a fetus for 9 months creates a child.
It shows that the courts are a bunch of hypocrites who have no problem violating men's bodily integrity to give women money.
I will point out that the courts also upheld fugitive slave laws. So I guess it is not a surprise they have no issue with forcing one group of people to be slaves to privileged groups.
consider this posting I made that demonstrates how absurdly men are treated in order to advantage women:
So since the supreme court can choose to invalidate any law, they are exclusively responsible for every law on the books? The house, senate and president take no responsibility in any law that exists?
I don't see the treatment of men as absurd at all. If it was possible to raise a fetus outside the womb, and the man wanted it and the woman didn't, I would support it being incubated and the woman paying child support.
So 15 minutes of having sex results in the same responsibility as carrying the fetus for 9 months? ^_^
Also, the law exists after Congress/President pass it. The child does not exist until the woman carries the fetus around for 9 months.
Lets put it this way. Is the steel manufacturer responsible for shootings?
What if neither wanted it? Should they both pay child support then? Or should the child just be destroyed?
The law does not exist until the President signs it, so Congress is not responsible? The sponsors of the bill aren't responsible, since the bill doesn't exist until Congress passes it?
A steel manufacturer is never held responsible for what the steel is used for, but biological parents are often held responsible for a child.
You have said that a baby is completely a woman's choice, simply because she has veto power. The applies to the supreme court example. It does not apply to the steel manufacturer example.
Ideally, they would be obligated to pay society for the cost of raising their children. This would have to be weighed against the potential consequences of that decision.
If someone donates $50 to a congressional campaign are they equally responsible for laws being passed?
If the steel manufacturer did not sell the steel to the gun company the gun would not exist. So by your logic it is equally responsible.
Well I applaud your consistency. It would certainly create a rather interesting world. But I doubt it would work they way you want.
I have popcorn and a lawnchair.
I just had a baby, unexpectedly, and i'll be honest if my girl gets pregnant again, that baby will be aborted asap. I do not need another baby.
I'm very pro-abortion, but someone pointed out that almost every problem related to unwanted babies can be solved by putting babies up for adoption.
I can't afford to raise a baby --> adoption
I don't want my baby to be born in the year of the dragon - -> adoption
I was raped --> adoption
I don't want a baby --> adoption
Centipedes in my vagina --> adoption
The only stuff left is convenience. Being pregnant sucks. Is that what this is about? It interferes with school, it interferes with work, it makes it harder to find random men to sleep with, it means buying a whole new set of clothes, etc. Is that what it comes down to?
First because its a choice and the law should never force anyone to conceive if they do not wish to.
Sometimes condoms fail or people forget their birth control pill.
Second, carrying a pregnancy to term can be risky for some women (eclampsia etc.) and they shouldn't be forced to subject themselves to that for 9 months just to put up a baby for adoption when an over the counter pill will solve the issue.
All of this debate is based on Christian twisted ideas about conception and when life occurs. Take the b.s. morality out of the debate and there is no reason not to be pro-choice.
I agree. Don't let those little spawn of evil survive. If it is rape abortion should be mandatory even if the mother wants to have it.I was raped --> adoption
D:
Sperm of the rapist is just sperm of the rapist, it's not magical disney sperm. I don't think anything that comes out of a rapists dick should be allowed to remain inside a woman for several months, that just seems wrong.