Dems look to limit state restrictions on abortions

[fskimospy]

On the flip side, some liberals are dead set against strict liability (felony murder) except insofar as it can be used to compel men to pay for one night stands.

Funny how everyone has an agenda.

Can you point these liberals out to me? I don't think I've ever seen a single person who has come to me "dead set against strict liability". I know people who are opposed to specific types of strict liability but I've never met one that believes as you describe.

 

[Texashiker]

His point? That he had a bad marriage and intends to whine about it to the world for the rest of his life.

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.

 

[Victorian Gray]

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.

 

[Fern]

My view on the subject is a woman cannot be forced to carry a child she doesn't want to, but is if it can survive outside the womb, it should be born, not aborted.

That's basically the position of the SCOTUS in Roe v Wade.

IIRC, they ruled that after a fetus was viable abortion could be prohibited. They ruled that after 28-24 weeks a fetus was viable. That time frame was based on testimony of doctors. However, that was +40 years ago and I've wondered if that time frame should/could be adjusted for medical advances.

Fern

 

[DrPizza]

From another thread:

I am pro-life, but I am also pro-responsibility.

The parents have a responsibility to provide for their children.

It is not my responsibility to take care of your children.

How about this, the US government finds the parents and sues the parents for child support. The parents then have to pay back every penny the government spends supporting their kids?

Sure, we will take care of your kids, but you have to pay child support. If you do not pay support we will send law enforcement to arrest you and throw you in prison.

Then in this thread:

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.

So, when the children are born in foreign countries, it's both parents that are responsible for the kid. But in Texas, it's only the mother after you get a divorce, right? Hypocrite.

 

[Texashiker]

But in Texas, it's only the mother after you get a divorce, right? Hypocrite.

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?

 

[Fern]

How would this legalize what you claim it will legalize? The text of the bill does not support your shitty troll title.

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

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):

(c) Other Prohibitions.--The following restrictions on the performance of abortion are unlawful and shall not be imposed or applied by any government:

(1) A prohibition or ban on abortion prior to fetal
viability.

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

 

[smackababy]

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.

So, are you saying your ex-wife didn't have equal parts in this? Do you really think your paltry fiscal contributions equated half of everything required in raising a child?

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

The father's option is not impregnate a women to begin with. The unborn child is a part of the women's body until the point of viability (the ability to survive outside, with artificial aid, of the mother). Until that point, it is a part of the women, and she can make the choice of what she wants to do with it.

 

[Texashiker]

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.

I was asked to edit the thread title.

I complied.

The father's option is not impregnate a women to begin with.

The mothers option is not be get impregnated.

The unborn child is a part of the women's body until the point of viability (the ability to survive outside, with artificial aid, of the mother). Until that point, it is a part of the women, and she can make the choice of what she wants to do with it.

So when a black or gay person goes into a restaurant, the owner of that property can deny them service?

Woman - hell no, get out of my body.

Restaurant owner - Hello no, get off my property.

 

[Victorian Gray]

That's basically the position of the SCOTUS in Roe v Wade.

IIRC, they ruled that after a fetus was viable abortion could be prohibited. They ruled that after 28-24 weeks a fetus was viable. That time frame was based on testimony of doctors. However, that was +40 years ago and I've wondered if that time frame should/could be adjusted for medical advances.

Fern

Fetal viability really hasn't changed over those 40 years or so. 26 to 28 weeks is still pretty much the lower range for consistent viability above the 70% to 80% range of survival.

btw, still waiting for an answer re your 'bigot' accusation or will you now disappear again.

 

[alzan]

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?

Wrap it, solves any future issues 98% of the time.

Vasectomy, solves any future issues permanently.

So when a black or gay person goes into a restaurant, the owner of that property can deny them service?

Woman - hell no, get out of my body.

Restaurant owner - Hello no, get off my property.

Now I understand, you're nehalem256's father

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Poor, poor Texashiker. Forced to take responsibility for his child.

I paid child support for 14 years as well paid for my daughters college education prior to her making the decision to join the Army. I never complained about having to do so as she is my child and responsibility until I put her through college or she chose a different path..............PERIOD.

You sir are a whiny sack of shit.

 

[Texashiker]

Wrap it, solves any future issues 98% of the time.

Vasectomy, solves any future issues permanently.

Seems you are holding men and women to different standards. You keep suggesting things men do to stop from getting a woman pregnant.

Why dont you suggest things women can do?

We do not want to be sexist do we? What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[ivwshane]

Wrap it, solves any future issues 98% of the time.

Vasectomy, solves any future issues permanently.



Now I understand, you're nehalem256's father

Lol! Now everything makes sense!

 

[Texashiker]

Poor, poor Texashiker. Forced to take responsibility for his child.

Considering the mothers are not held to the same standard, yea, it is a shame.

I paid child support for 14 years as well paid for my daughters college education prior to her making the decision to join the Army. I never complained about having to do so as she is my child and responsibility until I put her through college or she chose a different path..............PERIOD.

I can not help it is you do not speak up for yourself.

You sir are a whiny sack of shit.

Being vocal about social injustices towards men makes me whiny?

Ok, so be it.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

What's there to speak up for? Were you not part of the child making process? If not, you should have found out who did. If so, that child is your responsibility period until she reaches 18/graduates high school (per the law in many states no less).

 

[shira]

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?

Being pregnant is an inherently unequal condition. A man doesn't carry the physical burden of pregnancy, so why would you expect that the "expectant father" would be "treated equally" during gestation? And once the baby's born, why should the father have less responsibility than the woman for the costs of raising the child?

To paraphrase many of the right-wingers who post on these forums: You were totally aware of the status of men and woman vis a vis pregnancy and child rearing when you decided to have unprotected sex with your wife (and if you didn't, you have only yourself to blame for your ignorance). So if you didn't want "unequal" treatment, you should have ensured that your wife never got pregnant. Yet having made the decision to have children under the prevailing American rules, you continue to voice the same complaint over and over and over again that you've somehow been treated unfairly. No, you've been treated EXACTLY according to the rules that you knew (or should have known) exist - your decision. So how is THAT unfair?

Frankly, I sincerely wish you had never fathered any children, as any child of yours is undoubtedly a horrible person.

 

[alzan]

Seems you are holding men and women to different standards. You keep suggesting things men do to stop from getting a woman pregnant.

Why dont you suggest things women can do?

We do not want to be sexist do we? What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

You really do need to get a new shtick, this one got old ~15,000 posts ago.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
btw, still waiting for an answer re your 'bigot' accusation or will you now disappear again.

You got called that because of your remarks.

Fern

 

[TerryMathews]

Can you point these liberals out to me? I don't think I've ever seen a single person who has come to me "dead set against strict liability". I know people who are opposed to specific types of strict liability but I've never met one that believes as you describe.

Oh, the irony. http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36073449&postcount=3954

This particular poster didn't believe in the felony murder rule. I think its an apt case study for the kind of liberal were discussing, considering context.

 

[shira]

Seems you are holding men and women to different standards. You keep suggesting things men do to stop from getting a woman pregnant.

Why dont you suggest things women can do?

We do not want to be sexist do we? What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

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.

 

[TerryMathews]

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

Why do you hate men? All men want is the same rights women have, the right to have sex and abort their responsibility.

I don't see how you all can defend this equal protection violation.

 

[ElFenix]

how do you manage to texashiker your own darn thread?

 

[IronWing]

Why do you hate men? All men want is the same rights women have, the right to have sex and abort their responsibility.

I don't see how you all can defend this equal protection violation.

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

 

[ch33zw1z]

Why do you hate men? All men want is the same rights women have, the right to have sex and abort their responsibility.

I don't see how you all can defend this equal protection violation.

It's called a condom, it aborts many millions of your little responsibilities with every orgasm. That .99 cents per load is well worth it.