Dems look to limit state restrictions on abortions

[MrPickins]

Hang on a second, I paid 14 years of child support (my ex-wife and I seperated when my daughter was 4 years old), plus medical co-pays, plus school clothes, health insurance, computers, video games, food,,,, and a lot of other stuff. I took good care of my kids.

My point is both parents should be treated equally.

If the mother can avoid responsibility by killing the unborn child, what is the fathers option?

What you seem to forget with this argument is that if the woman has an abortion both her and the man who impregnated her are "off the hook."

If she chooses to carry the child to term, she and the father should be equally responsible.

In either case the responsibility is equal.

If you want to fight against courts pushing more of the burden on the man, you're free to do that, but it's unrelated to topic of abortion.

 

[DrPizza]

The marriage was good for awhile, then turned bad. What I am complaining about is getting ass raped by the courts.

My body, my choice.

Fathers should not be forced to work and pay child support. That is equivalent to slave labor.

I'm assuming he edited his title because the one I now see (" Dems look to limit state restrictions on abortions") is 100% accurate by all appearances.

In looking at the summary of the bill the author's claim that the "bill that would override the laws banning late-term abortions" seems incorrect. This is a bit surprising because I've found the author to be a serious person usually in command of the facts. He is no rabid partisan etc.

This is the actually text of the bill concerning late term abortions (aside from the portions relating to the woman's health):


https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1696/text

What is the point of this? This is merely a restatement of the court's ruling in Roe v Wade. There is no legitimate point to that.

Aside from the rest of bill outlawing other restrictions, this part of the bill (paragraph c of section 4) looks to be a political stunt for the upcoming elections. The "War on Women" thingy. I.e., the senate will pass this knowing the House won't so the Dems can campaign on it.

Fern

The point of that is strictly to cover their butts when they campaign on it after the Republicans don't pass it. If they didn't have that in there, Republicans would point and exclaim, "see! They want 3rd trimester abortions to be legal!" By placing it in there, they've simplified the rules, and can claim they're still against those 3rd trimester abortions. Then, they merely have to show the voters, specifically female voters, that the Republicans are engaging in passing outrageous bills specifically for the purpose of denying those females their rights. Whether the females want to exercise those rights, or don't believe in exercising those rights isn't the issue - it's that the Republicans have gone out of their way to inhibit them.

 

[Victorian Gray]

You got called that because of your remarks.

Fern

A claim which you have repeatedly refused to back up. You called it so you should back it up or withdraw it.

 

[TerryMathews]

What you seem to forget with this argument is that if the woman has an abortion both her and the man who impregnated her are "off the hook."

If she chooses to carry the child to term, she and the father should be equally responsible.

In either case the responsibility is equal.

If you want to fight against courts pushing more of the burden on the man, you're free to do that, but it's unrelated to topic of abortion.

The responsibility may be equal however the decision making is not.

 

[Texashiker]

What you seem to forget with this argument is that if the woman has an abortion both her and the man who impregnated her are "off the hook."
.

What makes you think all men want to be "off the hook?"

how do you manage to texashiker your own darn thread?

It was not very easy.

Saw an article on foxnews, took it at face value, started thread, bloodhounds figured out the article was wrong, started blaming me for foxnews being wrong.

 

[glenn1]

What makes you think all men want to be "off the hook?"

You could have fought for custody, then it would have been your wife who was "forced into slave labor" to support your child.

And this bill is a pointless stunt. While some of it is reasonable, the always at the ready "health of the mother" exception does essentially make 3rd trimester abortions legal since that's such a nebulous criteria. Pregnancy by itself raises health risks for mothers, so you might as well just say outright that "all abortions are legal at any point" if you're going to make that the standard.

 

[IronWing]

Saw an article on foxnews, took it at face value, started thread, bloodhounds figured out the article was wrong, started blaming me for foxnews being wrong.

The first time you were lied to by Fox would get a pass. After that, it's all on you.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

You are posting in a pro-life thread.

There should be no choice in murdering an unborn child.

You say that the fetus is a child. What makes you believe that it possesses a self-aware personality and the ability to think at that stage? Newborns show no evidence of possession of a self-aware personality and are no higher in their level consciousness than animals.

Or do you believe that magic Sky-God "breathes" a "soul" into the embryo at the time of conception?

 

[Texashiker]

You say that the fetus is a child. What makes you believe that it possesses a self-aware personality and the ability to think at that stage? Newborns show no evidence of possession of a self-aware personality and are no higher in their level consciousness than animals.

It is a very simple concept, and that concept is that all people are created equal.

If you are going to use self-awareness as a standard, are people in a coma self-aware? Someone was in a car wreck and in a coma, are they fair game to be butchered?

Society can not set standards for the issuance rights.

We can not say if you are white, you deserve equal rights.
If you are straight, you deserve equal rights.
If you own property, you deserve equal rights.

We are all created equal. As such, our rights are granted at the time of creation.

 

[nehalem256]

What you seem to forget with this argument is that if the woman has an abortion both her and the man who impregnated her are "off the hook."

If she chooses to carry the child to term, she and the father should be equally responsible.

Wrong. The man is actually more responsible. As the woman can freely give up the child through safe haven laws. Because apparently expecting a woman to not murder her newborn was too much responsibility.

In either case the responsibility is equal.

Well in the same way that Muslims stoning both the rapist and rape victim is equal responsibility.

Equal responsibility for vastly different acts is not equality.

If you want to fight against courts pushing more of the burden on the man, you're free to do that, but it's unrelated to topic of abortion.

So you are arguing that male reproductive rights are not related at all to femal reproductive rights?

But I guess liberals are at least consistently retarded. Just like how they argue marriage "equality" for sexual minorities other than gays is totally unrelated to same-sex marriage "equality".

 

[TerryMathews]

I can see why Texas never issued you a man card.

Because I've never lived there?

 

[nehalem256]

First rule of adulthood: You cannot control the actions of another person. You can control only your own actions.

So, if you want to have sex with a woman, and she refuses to use a reliable form of birth control and you do NOT want the responsibility of fatherhood, then your three choices are:

1) wear TWO condoms,
2) get a vasectomy,
3) DON'T HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN

But you're a fvcking crybaby and want the sex without the responsibility.

Someone is channeling their inner Rush Limbaugh I see.

 

[IronWing]

Because I've never lived there?

Well crap, I quoted the wrong post.

 

[MrPickins]

The responsibility may be equal however the decision making is not.

This is very true, but unavoidable due to the very nature of pregnancy. The woman bears the burden, thus she has the decision.

What makes you think all men want to be "off the hook?".

I never said that they did. I only said that regardless of the decision the woman makes, both parties hold equal responsibility in the end.

Either there is a child, and both are responsible for its well being, or there is no child, and no responsibility.

 

[Texashiker]

This is very true, but unavoidable due to the very nature of pregnancy. The woman bears the burden, thus she has the decision.

Burden can not be used to establish the issuance of rights.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You have the right to use birth control, if you give up this right you be responsible for the consequences until the child has turned 18 and graduated from high school.

 

[MrPickins]

Burden can not be used to establish the issuance of rights.

The fact that it is her body gives her the right to make the decision.

All other rights/responsibilities are equal between the two parties.

 

[nehalem256]

This is very true, but unavoidable due to the very nature of pregnancy. The woman bears the burden, thus she has the decision.

And if its her solely her decision. She should be solely responsible for it.

I never said that they did. I only said that regardless of the decision the woman makes, both parties hold equal responsibility in the end.

Why would a man hold equal responsibility for a decision a woman makes?

Either there is a child, and both are responsible for its well being, or there is no child, and no responsibility.

Which seems exactly like the logic used by radical Islamists where they stone both the rapist and rape victim, since the both engaged in sex outside of marriage.

 

[nehalem256]

The fact that it is her body gives her the right to make the decision.

All other rights/responsibilities are equal between the two parties.

So excepting the fact that women are freely able to to opt out of being a parent at any point the rights/responsibilities are equal?

Did you really just say that?D:

And you are wrong anyway. The woman can for example refuse to name the father and therefore deny the child support from the father, which liberals claim, the child has an inherent right to.

 

[Texashiker]

The fact that it is her body gives her the right to make the decision.

Her body, really?

Since men have to sign up for the draft, are men the only ones who can vote?

Since men work the majority of dangerous jobs, do they get extra rights?

Since property owners and tax payers support those on welfare, do we get extra rights?

Nothing gives you more rights than someone else, nothing.

We are all created equal and are entitled to equal rights.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

If you don't like child supports laws do something about it, send letters to your representatives, march at the respective capitols (state or DC) showing your opposition. Pissing and moaning over laws ensuring that a father will provide support for his offspring in an internet forum does nothing.

 

[MrPickins]

Her body, really?

Since men have to sign up for the draft, are men the only ones who can vote?

Since men work the majority of dangerous jobs, do they get extra rights?

Since property owners and tax payers support those on welfare, do we get extra rights?

Nothing gives you more rights than someone else, nothing.

We are all created equal and are entitled to equal rights.

Get back to me after we develop a way for men to get pregnant, then we'll talk.

 

[nehalem256]

Get back to me after we develop a way for men to get pregnant, then we'll talk.

At which point men should be held for responsible for all the babies they pop out of their "vaginas".:sneaky:

 

[brycejones]

Were you absent the day they explained conception? Men impregnate women, men have the primary responsibility to prevent conception.

TH is a perfect example of the effectiveness of no-sex ed or abstinence only sex-ed.

 

[CitizenKain]

You could have fought for custody, then it would have been your wife who was "forced into slave labor" to support your child.

That would have required him to be responsible. He's an ignorant manchild who dumped his kid because he didn't want to bother raising a child, and then is mad at society for forcing him to help raise his child.
Shit, kid is probably lucky that he's an absentee, nothing makes a child feel loved then knowing one of your parents is such a fuck up that they regard them as a burden.