Author Topic: Tomi Lahren: Conservatives Who Go After Roe “Might as Well Spit on the Constitution”  (Read 12185 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,682
My use of 'Taliban' is limited to their penchant to want to impose their own version of Islam into the mainstream culture.

Personally, I'm pro life.  But, I'm smart enough to know that the dream of overturning RvW is a fantasy.

Define "their own version of Islam."

Having been a pro-life activist for decades, I have never, ever seen anything remotely close to the brutal, despicable behavior and attitudes of the Taliban.

It is the LEFT who want the butchery.  RoevWade made Mengele-like, Taliban-like butchery against women LEGAL.

NO one who opposes butchering babies comes even close to Islamo-Fascism.

It's a ridiculous argument.
Character still matters.  It always matters.

I wear a mask as an exercise in liberty and love for others.  To see it as an infringement of liberty is to entirely miss the point.  Be kind.

"Sometimes I think the Church would be better off if we would call a moratorium on activity for about six weeks and just wait on God to see what He is waiting to do for us. That's what they did before Pentecost."   - A. W. Tozer

Use the time God is giving us to seek His will and feel His presence.

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male

How can a man be stuck with child support if the woman could have ended the pregnancy but chose not to?

The woman's decision to continue or terminate the pregnancy doesn't impact the man's obligations in any way.   But if she decides to keep the child and raise it, then, sure, the man will be stuck with child support.   
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline Axeslinger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,538

I'm making a point. A point of law. If the sperm donor has no say in the matter then the sperm donor has also no responsibilities. As a matter of law. Right?
@endicom

Many will not concede your eminently logical point:  a man and a woman bear an equal amount of responsibility to have sex that, for the sake of this argument, results in a pregnancy.  However, despite being equally culpable in that initial act, under current law  only one of them (the woman) has any say in what happens next.  Meanwhile the other party (the man) of that same act is solely dependent on what decision the woman makes AND if she chooses to bear the child is then liable for 18 years of support.  So they both decide to have sex, but only the man has no further say in anything.

The obvious solution being that an abortion should require the consent of both parties.  If both do not consent, both should be on the hook for support.
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson

Offline endicom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,113
I have spent my adult life defending American men as people who ... with rare exception ... do not consider women property, including their reproductive systems.

The discussions here for the past few days have been a disturbing eye-opener on just how misguided my defense has been.

You may be trying to make a point, but it's not one of law.  At its essence yours is a point of who has ultimate control over the functions of a woman's body.

I feel so sad and so stupid for having defended the indefensible for so damn long.


I don't think you understand that this is an issue that will in time have to be faced.


Should the father have to pay child support if he wanted an abortion?

22% Say Yes
78% Say No

http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-the-father-have-to-pay-child-support-if-he-wanted-an-abortion

Online DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,795
  • Gender: Male
  • "...and the winning number is...not yours!
Define "their own version of Islam."

Having been a pro-life activist for decades, I have never, ever seen anything remotely close to the brutal, despicable behavior and attitudes of the Taliban.

It is the LEFT who want the butchery.  RoevWade made Mengele-like, Taliban-like butchery against women LEGAL.

NO one who opposes butchering babies comes even close to Islamo-Fascism.

It's a ridiculous argument.

The atrocities of the Taliban have nothing to do with this discussion.

I used the term to illustrate the extreme/radical/unbending views of certain Conservatives.

When a few use religion to force their ideals on everyone, they're one and the same.
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - David Burge (Iowahawk)

"It was only a sunny smile, and little it cost in the giving, but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living" F. Scott Fitzgerald

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,682
The atrocities of the Taliban have nothing to do with this discussion.

I used the term to illustrate the extreme/radical/unbending views of certain Conservatives.

When a few use religion to force their ideals on everyone, they're one and the same.

Of course the butchery of the Taliban is relevant to your accusation that pro-lifers are like the Taliban, your denial notwithstanding.

The error, however, that you are making in your contorted argument is that being pro-life is necessarily "religious."

It's not.  It's scientific....... especially now that we know for certain about the humanity of the child, and the fact that his or her DNA is complete at conception.

While religious people  are part of the army fighting butchery of children and harm to women, it is not only religious people.

Your anger at people of faith is clouding your vision of what is true.

Millions of babies have been ripped apart and their lives ended because of RoeVWade.

If it is a "fantasy" to end this holocaust, so be it.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 07:54:45 pm by musiclady »
Character still matters.  It always matters.

I wear a mask as an exercise in liberty and love for others.  To see it as an infringement of liberty is to entirely miss the point.  Be kind.

"Sometimes I think the Church would be better off if we would call a moratorium on activity for about six weeks and just wait on God to see what He is waiting to do for us. That's what they did before Pentecost."   - A. W. Tozer

Use the time God is giving us to seek His will and feel His presence.

Offline GrouchoTex

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,382
  • Gender: Male
@endicom

Many will not concede your eminently logical point:  a man and a woman bear an equal amount of responsibility to have sex that, for the sake of this argument, results in a pregnancy.  However, despite being equally culpable in that initial act, under current law  only one of them (the woman) has any say in what happens next.  Meanwhile the other party (the man) of that same act is solely dependent on what decision the woman makes AND if she chooses to bear the child is then liable for 18 years of support.  So they both decide to have sex, but only the man has no further say in anything.

The obvious solution being that an abortion should require the consent of both parties.  If both do not consent, both should be on the hook for support.

I can see this happening in the future.
I am somewhat surprised it hasn't yet.

Offline Axeslinger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,538
I can see this happening in the future.
I am somewhat surprised it hasn't yet.

And when it does, all of a sudden it’ll be men getting their hands (and minds) bloody too.   Further, when a man decides “nope, no abortion, I’ll raise the child”, it’ll be women on the hook for 18 years of child support.  True equality under the law...
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,961
  • Gender: Male
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
I used the term to illustrate the extreme/radical/unbending views of certain Conservatives.

When a few use religion to force their ideals on everyone, they're one and the same.

One and the same?

I'm going to remember that when you go all batshit crazy when I compare you to Mussolini's Blackshirts or Hitler's Brown ones when the analogy is apt.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,867
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
The woman's decision to continue or terminate the pregnancy doesn't impact the man's obligations in any way.   But if she decides to keep the child and raise it, then, sure, the man will be stuck with child support.

So Eff the man if he can't take a joke, eh?  It's good to see you verify you believe some people, namely males, have truncated rights compared to the rights of superior females.  When you boast about how you are a champion of "equal rights," you are a first rate hypocrite.  Just as many of us have suspected all along.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline GrouchoTex

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,382
  • Gender: Male
And when it does, all of a sudden it’ll be men getting their hands (and minds) bloody too.   Further, when a man decides “nope, no abortion, I’ll raise the child”, it’ll be women on the hook for 18 years of child support.  True equality under the law...

Again, I am a bit surprised this has not happened yet.
Interesting to see how the courts would handle it.
Equal protection under the law, etc ?

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
So Eff the man if he can't take a joke, eh?  It's good to see you verify you believe some people, namely males, have truncated rights compared to the rights of superior females.  When you boast about how you are a champion of "equal rights," you are a first rate hypocrite.  Just as many of us have suspected all along.

What the hell are you talking about?  What "hypocrisy" (do you even know the meaning of the term?)

What is your objection to a man being obligated to help support the child he created? 

My point was in response to the absurd suggestion that if a woman has the unilateral ability to decide to abort, then the man should have the unilateral ability to decline to provide child support.  But the decision to abort or not abort doesn't affect the man's financial responsibilities.  Only her decision to KEEP and RAISE the child does.   And that's a decision that's usually made in concert with the man.  But if she decides on her own to keep it, what is your objection to the man being compelled to pay child support?   BOTH parents have the obligation to support that child, lest it become a ward of the state.   

     
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Oceander

  • Guest
@endicom

Many will not concede your eminently logical point:  a man and a woman bear an equal amount of responsibility to have sex that, for the sake of this argument, results in a pregnancy.  However, despite being equally culpable in that initial act, under current law  only one of them (the woman) has any say in what happens next.  Meanwhile the other party (the man) of that same act is solely dependent on what decision the woman makes AND if she chooses to bear the child is then liable for 18 years of support.  So they both decide to have sex, but only the man has no further say in anything.

The obvious solution being that an abortion should require the consent of both parties.  If both do not consent, both should be on the hook for support.

Only one of them has any effective way in what happens next because only one of them has her own body intimately involved in what happens.  That is a distinction with a difference, but it is a difference of biology, not a difference in equality before the law.

If you have a problem with that - as you obviously do - then you should be taking it up with God, not trying to subordinate a woman’s body to the control of the the man, or trying to absolve the man from his fair share of the obligations, including costs, of raising the resulting child. 

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,867
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
What the hell are you talking about?  What "hypocrisy" (do you even know the meaning of the term?)

What is your objection to a man being obligated to help support the child he created? 

My point was in response to the absurd suggestion that if a woman has the unilateral ability to decide to abort, then the man should have the unilateral ability to decline to provide child support.  But the decision to abort or not abort doesn't affect the man's financial responsibilities.  Only her decision to KEEP and RAISE the child does.   And that's a decision that's usually made in concert with the man.  But if she decides on her own to keep it, what is your objection to the man being compelled to pay child support?   BOTH parents have the obligation to support that child, lest it become a ward of the state.   

   

Yeah, whatever.  I'd be pissed if somebody exposed my hypocrisy too.  I'd throw all kinds of dirt in the air as well.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Oceander

  • Guest
And when it does, all of a sudden it’ll be men getting their hands (and minds) bloody too.   Further, when a man decides “nope, no abortion, I’ll raise the child”, it’ll be women on the hook for 18 years of child support.  True equality under the law...

If the man can convince a court that he would be a better parent than the woman, then he can probably get sole custody and she will be required to pay child support.  It’s already there, so if that’s your only objection, it’s not a valid one. 

Oceander

  • Guest
Yeah, whatever.  I'd be pissed if somebody exposed my hypocrisy too.  I'd throw all kinds of dirt in the air as well.

The only hypocrisy here is coming from those who think that the government can force a woman into being an unwilling incubator for a nonviable fetus, and that the “father” should be given carte blanc waiver from any requirement to support the child he helped conceive.

Offline GrouchoTex

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,382
  • Gender: Male


What is your objection to a man being obligated to help support the child he created? 

What is your objection to a woman being obligated to support a child the man didn't agree to have?

What is your objection to a father having the child come to full term and be raised by him that she wanted to abort?

What about the mother having to pay child support  in that instance?

If you were to say that she had the child against her will, and she shouldn't have to pay child support, couldn't this cut both ways?
It does now, but only in one direction.

No one is suggesting abandoning kids, or forcing pregnancy, or abortions, but as a hypothetical exercise, it's pretty compelling.

Social mores are changing , boys and girls will now be both boys and girls, and somewhere in between.
Things could get interesting in the not too distant future.


I mean, if everyone demands equal rights and a level playing field.....

   

   
« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 09:02:36 pm by GrouchoTex »

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,682
The only hypocrisy here is coming from those who think that the government can force a woman into being an unwilling incubator for a nonviable fetus, and that the “father” should be given carte blanc waiver from any requirement to support the child he helped conceive.

You've got the leftist jargon down pat, don't you?

Human life, Oceander.  Human Life.


Stop being a science-denier.
Character still matters.  It always matters.

I wear a mask as an exercise in liberty and love for others.  To see it as an infringement of liberty is to entirely miss the point.  Be kind.

"Sometimes I think the Church would be better off if we would call a moratorium on activity for about six weeks and just wait on God to see what He is waiting to do for us. That's what they did before Pentecost."   - A. W. Tozer

Use the time God is giving us to seek His will and feel His presence.

Offline Axeslinger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,538
If the man can convince a court that he would be a better parent than the woman, then he can probably get sole custody and she will be required to pay child support.  It’s already there, so if that’s your only objection, it’s not a valid one.
@Oceander
Not is she decides to kill it first
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson

Offline Axeslinger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,538
The only hypocrisy here is coming from those who think that the government can force a woman into being an unwilling incubator for a nonviable fetus, and that the “father” should be given carte blanc waiver from any requirement to support the child he helped conceive.

She is not unwilling.   She chose to be willing when she chose to engage in the act of reproduction.  She may want to change her mind, but the horse is out of the barn at that point...and at that point there should be two parties to the decision.
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,961
  • Gender: Male
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Yeah, whatever.  I'd be pissed if somebody exposed my hypocrisy too.  I'd throw all kinds of dirt in the air as well.

All he has been doing is arguing and justifying his position that some animals are more equal than others.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Oceander

  • Guest
@Oceander
Not is she decides to kill it first


Oh well. He doesn’t get the right to turn her into an involuntary incubator.  If and when the technology advances to the point where he can take over the gestation, then the balance will probably shift to allowing the state to require removal and transfer to the father in lieu of an abortion.

Until then, your beef is with God and the way He designed the biology. 

Oceander

  • Guest
She is not unwilling.   She chose to be willing when she chose to engage in the act of reproduction.  She may want to change her mind, but the horse is out of the barn at that point...and at that point there should be two parties to the decision.

No, the horse isn’t out of the barn.  Only someone who thinks that women are subservient to men and can be turned into involuntary incubators for nonviable fetuses would take that position.  Her right to change her mind cannot be overborne until the fetus is viable in a meaningful way. 

Online DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,795
  • Gender: Male
  • "...and the winning number is...not yours!
One and the same?

I'm going to remember that when you go all batshit crazy when I compare you to Mussolini's Blackshirts or Hitler's Brown ones when the analogy is apt.

You are the poster boy for "extreme", @INVAR in the context of the ongoing conversation.

Because you have a couple of fans on the forum, you continue to strut around here as some sort of moral superiority...or some other kind of sanctimonious bullshit.

You are 'extreme' in a sense that your arrogance is compounded by your ridiculous ego. 

Any sane person would have moderated their POV, personal feelings about the President, by now.   The SOB deserves and ovation.  Instead, you and a couple of your goombahs continue to run around the threads criticizing him. 

You've become caricatures.

You don't know jack shit about my personal experience or feelings about abortion.  I carry that guilt.

That said, it doesn't mean it's up to you and yours to suddenly demand it unlawful for a woman to gain access to one.
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - David Burge (Iowahawk)

"It was only a sunny smile, and little it cost in the giving, but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living" F. Scott Fitzgerald

Offline Axeslinger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,538
What the hell are you talking about?  What "hypocrisy" (do you even know the meaning of the term?)

What is your objection to a man being obligated to help support the child he created? 

My point was in response to the absurd suggestion that if a woman has the unilateral ability to decide to abort, then the man should have the unilateral ability to decline to provide child support.  But the decision to abort or not abort doesn't affect the man's financial responsibilities.  Only her decision to KEEP and RAISE the child does. And that's a decision that's usually made in concert with the man.  But if she decides on her own to keep it, what is your objection to the man being compelled to pay child support?   BOTH parents have the obligation to support that child, lest it become a ward of the state.   
No MAN has any objection to that.  What we’re objecting to is having to abide by the unilateral decision of the person who engaged in the same act we did.  The abortion should require both parties’ consent.  If not, the child goes to term and she can pay child support for 18 years.

Side win:  I’ll bet a whole helluva lot more people will be a tiny bit more chaste.
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson