Women's Rights Can't Be a One-Way Street

[Rukentuts]

Plently of people have provided counters to you "proof". Maybe take time to defend your own shit before asking others who have made no ocunterargument to do the same?

Really, maybe you could link me to them.

Or should I put this in the "Things Ruken Dodges" along with why you own weapons?

Maybe you could point to me where I do. Oh wait, you're just deflecting into a fantasy because you have severe argumentative failings.

[Deleted]

Then why did SCOTUS said there was?
It's like you didn't read the link, like at all. It's why you cited one of the two dissenters.

For gods sake are you trolling?
the child is born, there no longer exists any privacy.
All of this revolves around the mother making a private decision not to have a child, but once she has the child she has no right to it being private in any way shape or form, you are aware that birth records are public records anyone can look at ?

[Rukentuts]

For gods sake are you trolling?

Showing that you read the dissent, and not the actual ruling, is trolling? What?

[THE Bigzoman]

Really, maybe you could link me to them.
Maybe you could point to me where I do. Oh wait, you're just deflecting into a fantasy because you have severe argumentative failings.

I hope Tinykong and Phaliex take a break from the Gun Control Thread here and again, they would be in for a great laugh here.

Your links do not substantiate your argument at all.

But I will take this as a yes. Enjoy playing ostrich.

[Celista]

For gods sake are you trolling?
the child is born, there no longer exists any privacy.
All of this revolves around the mother making a private decision not to have a child, but once she has the child she has no right to it being private in any way shape or form, you are aware that birth records are public records anyone can look at ?

True but you don't have to put the birth father on the certificate so that info isn't necessarily public (not really sure if this relates to your argument at all, I assume not).

[Rukentuts]

Your links do not substantiate your argument at all.

You words don't exactly carry much weight. Give me links that say that.

But I will take this as a yes. Enjoy playing ostrich.

So fractal wrongness in a nutshell.

[PIsForPhuck]

This is some bullshit right here. I hate seeing this. No. It took two to make the child, the decision to keep it or not should be 50 / 50, doesn't fucking matter if "it's the womans body" or not. If he doesn't want it and she decides to keep it, he should have no legal responsibility for her choice. If he wants it then she should have to have it and then it would be his responsibility to loot after, no one elses. No one should have any choices made for them, if it's her body, it's his livlihood, he should have every right to his own life, and not looking after an unwanted child. Theres two sides so stop favoring one, I don't care the reason.

Suppose the dad is a total worthless drug abuser or some other thing. You think it would be positive for the child to have him in his/her life?

[Christonya]

The negative impact for the father is that he is being denied a potentially meaningful relationship with his own offspring. If he would have been interested in such a relationship, that is.

You're missing the point. This guy will NEVER KNOW he even had a daughter, let alone he's missing it. Later he may find a not so crazy woman who he will proceed to fall in love with, marry, and have children with, at which point he will father his children. If one day down the road this mother tells him, then he starts to miss out, but if he never knows, he's never going to care.

[THE Bigzoman]

True but you don't have to put the birth father on the certificate so that info isn't necessarily public (not really sure if this relates to your argument at all, I assume not).

YOU LAW STUDENT! COME HERE RIGHT NAO AND CONFIRM FOR ME AGAIN.

Most decisions i've seen related to medical privacy, particularly in the case of women, are cases that say specifically that the information cannot be used to impede them from making decisions.

I'm aware of basic medical rights to privacy and think that they would apply, but we're talking telling a man that a child exists rather than that she is pregnant.

So at best, this would cover her until birth, but once the child is born, it wouldn't be a violation under medical privacy.

[Deleted]

Showing that you read the dissent, and not the actual ruling, is trolling? What?

Two Justices, Hugo Black and Potter Stewart, filed dissents. Justice Black argued that the right to privacy is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

You mean this?, then you didn't read my post.
The ruling is predicated on privacy, the woman has a right to privacy from the state, regardless of whether or not privacy exists in the constitution,
There is no privacy once the child is born.
There isn't.

[Rukentuts]

You mean this?, then you didn't read my post.

Apparently you don't get that dissents have no legal meaning whatsoever.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no privacy once the child is born.
There isn't.

Yes, there is. You're not required to notify non-next of kin about anything.

You can prove my wrong by citing a case that says it. But in true hypocritical fashion, I see no proof coming.

[Deleted]

True but you don't have to put the birth father on the certificate so that info isn't necessarily public (not really sure if this relates to your argument at all, I assume not).

the argument is that the mother no longer has any right of privacy regarding the extancy of her child visavi the state.

[THE Bigzoman]

You words don't exactly carry much weight. Give me links that say that.
So fractal wrongness in a nutshell.

You throat is clogged with so much confirmation bias I wonder how you do the cardio you do.

- - - Updated - - -

Apparently you don't get that dissents have no legal meaning whatsoever.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, there is. You're not required to notify non-next of kin about anything.

You can prove my wrong by citing a case that says it. But in true hypocritical fashion, I see no proof coming.

Find me a case where telling someone of a child's existence is medical privacy. Please do. Please shut me up.

[Rukentuts]

You throat is clogged with so much confirmation bias I wonder how you do the cardio you do.

I'm not seeing much proof here. Argumentative laziness.

Meanwhile I actually have proof.

[Deleted]

I don't think she really has to tell him - if she's really going to keep him and the child secret from one another then neither of them really miss out and she is allowed to do whatever she wants with her own body.

Having said that, I also hope that in making the decision to keep the baby and be independent (as she claims she wants to be) of the father she doesn't then seek to claim money from him, to support a lifestyle she chose, further on down the line. That would be a scumbag move, especially after depriving him of the opportunity to be involved in the baby's early years.

[analmoose]

Suppose the dad is a total worthless drug abuser or some other thing. You think it would be positive for the child to have him in his/her life?

Well obviously not, he should be treated as any other unfit parent then. I'm just tlaking regular people, regular circumstances type deal.

[Celista]

the argument is that the mother no longer has any right of privacy regarding the extancy of her child visavi the state.

Yeah, listing the birth mother is required info on the birth certificate.

[Deleted]

Apparently you don't get that dissents have no legal meaning whatsoever.

this is both wrong and irrelevant.
I never made the argument that there is no constitutional privacy, i said that once the child is born then the mother has no privacy about having had a kid.
The kid is then a person as per the 14th and is a citizen that the state is mandated to care for, the mother has no right to privacy about having had a kid.

Yes, there is. You're not required to notify non-next of kin about anything.

This is true.
However, the father by virtue of being the father, is universally recognized as the (a) next of kin.

You can prove my wrong by citing a case that says it. But in true hypocritical fashion, I see no proof coming.

what does this fucking even mean? there is no privacy once the child is born.
are you nuts?
but fine, birth certificates.
if she had a right of privacy, the state would not be allowed to make those, and if they still would they wouldn't be public documents, and since they both do those things, there is no privacy? satisfied ? or are you going to go full mcintosh?

[Rukentuts]

this is both wrong and irrelevant.

You stated there's no right to privacy by citing a dissent, when the majority said there was with the force of constitutional law, and it's irrelevant? Handwave harder.

- - - Updated - - -

what does this fucking even mean? there is no privacy once the child is born.
are you nuts?

PROVE IT.


Or be a colossal hypocrite that asks for proof, dismisses it, then won't provide his own. I really don't care.

[THE Bigzoman]

I'm not seeing much proof here. Argumentative laziness.

I don't need to provide proof to identify a conclusion that does not follow from your premises.

I suppose that, if I wanted to, I could illegally provide you with a PDF file of my elementary logic textbook, but i'm no law breaker.