Legislation Could Allow Moms to Be Awarded Child Support While Pregnant: ‘Fathers Have Obligations’

[libertybele]

@libertybele

Ok,thanks for clearing that up.

@sneakypete

Marco Antonio Rubio was born in Miami, Florida, the second son and third child of Mario Rubio Reina and Oriales (née Garcia) Rubio. His parents were Cubans who immigrated to the United States in 1956 during the regime of Fulgencio Batista, two and a half years before Fidel Castro ascended to power after the Cuban Revolution. His mother made at least four return trips to Cuba after Castro's takeover, including a month-long trip in 1961. Neither of Rubio's parents was a U.S. citizen at the time of Rubio's birth, but his parents applied for U.S. citizenship and were naturalized in 1975. Some relatives of Rubio's were admitted to the U.S. as refugees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio

[Killer Clouds]

On Government documentation, is age measured from conception or the moment when a child is no longer in-utero?

Can I legally drink 21 years after the monent I was conceived, versus, the moment I was no longer in-utero?

Can I also vote 18 years after the monent I was conceived, versus, the moment I was no longer in-utero?

No no and no. Birth date.

[GtHawk]

@GtHawk

Let's reserve the hypocrisy on this issue for the left.

After all,from the conservative and the religious POV,life begins at conception. It either does,or it doesn't. We can't have it both ways.

If you are saying I'm a hypocrite I'm offended by the accusation, show me where I have ever posited that life doesn't begin at conception or supported abortion. I didn't even disagree with the proposed legislation in my comment, I simply pointed out that once again fathers are to be made responsible to support a child(even before it is born) while not having a say in a woman's decision to abort his child.

[christian]

WOKE AGENDAS, Women get all the advantages of marriage, men get a total screwing for marrying women.  Now only 6.5 men out of a hundred are getting married, and many women are bawling their eyes out, not so arrogant and proud any more.  Odd, eh?

Like fair democrats giving the Treasury away to foreigners, and favoring them when they commit crimes, the whites get screwed again.

The lawful need to be disarmed, and radical muslims, Communists anddrug dealers get armed to the teeth.

Murderers often get set free,innocent babies get butchered like on a factory assembly line.  The democrat voters proud their candidates get their way to do such unadulterated wickedness and evils, insist Voting democart has nothing to do with the evils they perpetrate in these wicked days.  As Satans stooges the perps and the enablers all insist they are innocent, despite the butchery they support and/or engage in.  You can some times watch it going on here.
 

[sneakypete]

If you are saying I'm a hypocrite I'm offended by the accusation, show me where I have ever posited that life doesn't begin at conception or supported abortion. I didn't even disagree with the proposed legislation in my comment, I simply pointed out that once again fathers are to be made responsible to support a child(even before it is born) while not having a say in a woman's decision to abort his child.

@GtHawk

I was NOT calling you a hypocrite,or even subtly suggesting such a thing. My apologies if I didn't state my case clearly enough.

What I was trying to say is that neither the men OR the women can have it both ways. Sometime is permissible,or it is not permissible,baring any ACTUAL danger to the mother if she carries to term.

I am in TOTAL agreement with you that if the mother doesn't want to keep the baby and the father does and is willing to sign legal documents stating he will provide for the child,the woman must be REQUIRED to carry to term and then hand the baby over to the father.

If the woman isn't willing to do this,she should have done something about it before the first 90 days of pregnancy. After that,she has bought the ticket,and needs to take the ride.

[libertybele]

@GtHawk

I was NOT calling you a hypocrite,or even subtly suggesting such a thing. My apologies if I didn't state my case clearly enough.

What I was trying to say is that neither the men OR the women can have it both ways. Sometime is permissible,or it is not permissible,baring any ACTUAL danger to the mother if she carries to term.

I am in TOTAL agreement with you that if the mother doesn't want to keep the baby and the father does and is willing to sign legal documents stating he will provide for the child,the woman must be REQUIRED to carry to term and then hand the baby over to the father.

If the woman isn't willing to do this,she should have done something about it before the first 90 days of pregnancy. After that,she has bought the ticket,and needs to take the ride.

???? If the woman can be REQUIRED to carry to term then she could then be REQUIRED to terminate the pregnancy.

Nope.  Notta. Not going to happen.

[sneakypete]

???? If the woman can be REQUIRED to carry to term then she could then be REQUIRED to terminate the pregnancy.

Nope.  Notta. Not going to happen.

@libertybele

Do you SERIOUSLY think that is logical?

[libertybele]

@libertybele

Do you SERIOUSLY think that is logical?

YES. You might want to go back and re-read my response to your 'requirement'.

[sneakypete]

YES. You might want to go back and re-read my response to your 'requirement'.

@libertybele

You can I clearly have different opinions on when it comes to rational thought.