"
Personhood" be damned, I sure do have such a right.:
TROXEL v. GRANVILLE discuses and reinforces my fundamental liberty interest, as a parent, in the care, custody, and management of my *children (
note the case does not say "
person") and as we all know "
Child"
1 and "
baby"
1 have pre-birth uses.
A fetus is a "
child"
2 and a "
baby"
2 is a "
child", thus
we can call a fetus a "baby" 3.
Legally a "
child"
4 is one's natural offspring, which is what a
pregnant woman carries.
So, a pregnant woman carries her "
child", her "
unborn child", her "
unborn baby".
This makes her a "
parent", spicificly, a “
mother”.
So, I have a "
fundamental Liberty interest" in the care, control and management of my "Children", which logically includes those children of mine which are not yet born.
Forget the "
personhood" debate, if my wife aborts my child against my will she is thus violating MY rights as a father.
Okay, we'll try this again.
You do not have the right to force your wife to bear a child. The child is not a person before it is born, it is legally an appendage of her body, and you do not have the right to force her to sacrifice her body for your child.
You can force her to behave in certain ways as long as it has an impact on your children, BUT she has an out: she can relinquish custody of those children to you. That choice allows her freedom, and if she chooses not to take that path, then she has given up her rights in regards to your interest in those children.
Similarly, when she is pregnant with your child, she has the right to relinquish custody of that child, and have it removed from her body. If you could then take custody of your child, all well and good, but if you can't, you are simply out of luck.
It is not her fault that removing the child from her body kills it. She always has the right to give up her interest in your children, and if she chooses not to do that, then you have rights concerning them. But you cannot force her to keep custody of those children -- which means you cannot force her to bear a pregnancy to term.
She gave up that right when she said her vow and signed the marriage licince. And I it up also.
If she wants that right back, well, there's paperwork for that too.
And that's the point: she can have control of her own life back by sacrificing control of her children, which means if she keeps control of her children (and thus accepts your partial control over her life as it concerns them) it is her free choice, and not you enforcing your will on her without her consent. If she was forced to carry the child to term, it would be you enforcing your will on her without her consent, and that is illegal and immoral.
You mean infringe on the rights of *me.
See above.
No, I mean keep you from infringing on her rights. We already went over this.
If you can source some case law establishing her right to the "care, control and management" of my job or extended family, then we'll talk.
Of course I can't, because she can't do it. That was the point.
And if it comes to a vote, I'll cast mine for her right to abort your child.
Her husband and father of the child.
But not the controller of her body.
Accept my view?
She wouldn't need to accept my view, just exicute my will.
But she doesn't have to do that if she doesn't want to.
To bar me from forcing my beliefs on another is to force that belief of yours onto me, which by your own logic you have no right to do.
No! You do NOT have the right to force another to dio what you want them to do; that is not a right you have, and so it is not something you can claim was taken away from you illegally. Get it straight.
However, you only legally exorcize a measure of force on this issue when you vote, so any Pro-Choicer who doesn't vote is not a practicing hypocrite.
Thanks for the insight. I vote.
To bar me from exorcizing my rights as a father is to violate those rights, which by your own logic you have no right to do.
Let me know when you understand that you don't have the right to force another to act against his or her will. You only have that privilege if the other person allows it.
(I'll entertain a debate on father's right to his child -v- mother's right to an on a whim choice)
When you can bear the child to term, you'll have a leg to stand on in such a debate. After the child is born, of course you have the right to control it; did I ever say you didn't?
All Pro-Choicers who subscribe to...
....and vote, are, categorically, practicing hypocrites, as they are "forcing" their will on others who do not directly affect them.
Of course we're not. They have the power to vote against us. If they lose the vote, they have the ability to change the laws. Or they can leave the country. By staying here, they are allowing themselves to be controlled -- which means they are not being controlled against their will.
Let's make sure we're still talking about abortion here, please. If you want to move on to society's ability and/or right to compel obedience, that would be a different argument.
