Trump Signs First Anti Abortion Legislation Today

[txradioguy]

I'd say you're way too close.  Did you have an unpleasant experience with a woman leaving you and taking you to the cleaners? 

Me?   I've stuck by my spouse and kids.   Have you?

Total deflection and non answer on your part.  Kinda confirms what I suspect.

However since you asked...

I've been through two divorces.  Joint custody in the first...sole custody of my two daughters AND got paid child support in the second one.

Adopted my youngest son and middle daughter when my wife and I got married 16 years ago...State of Texas gave them new birth certificates with MY last name on them.

I've stuck by my family and all of my children in ways that would fill this forum for hours.

[Hoodat]

What about it? Does the woman opening her legs absolve the man of any personal responsibility for his actions?

That depends.  Different states have different laws concerning child support.  Amazingly, under the Constitution of the United States of America, the States are allowed to formulate their own laws when it comes to things such as child support.  That way, the members of that state can shape society in a way they deem best for them without having to worry about how they do it in Vermont, or Idaho, or Florida.

What a novel concept!  Unfortunately when it comes to regulating abortion, the Constitution no longer applies.  At least according to @Jazzhead.

[Norm Lenhart]

@Norm Lenhart

You obviously have me confused with someone else. I have never in my life stated that women can't choose to remain celibate. Or men,as far as that goes.

Huh? That was Jazzhead

--------
Quote from: Jazzhead on Today at 02:32:07 PM

    Nope.   Only the woman can decide.  If she decides to abort, then hooray, the man is relieved from financial obligation.  If the woman decides to bear the child and raise it, then the man should be obliged to help support the child until it's an adult.   Or he can keep his pants zipped.

[sneakypete]

That scenario is very rare.  More typically, the man pressures the woman to abort.   

@Jazzhead

No,it's not. I personally know of at least 3 cases,and have talked to plenty of people who know of others.

[txradioguy]

What about it? Does the woman opening her legs absolve the man of any personal responsibility for his actions?

@sneakypete no it does not.  It takes two to tango.

But JH has consistently absolved the woman of any responsibility for her getting pregnant in every case...he keeps putting that burden 100% on the man....almost like he's saying the woman has no role or can't help herself.

[geronl]

Quote from: Jazzhead on Today at 02:32:07 PM

    Nope.   Only the woman can decide.  If she decides to abort, then hooray, the man is relieved from financial obligation....

hooray?

[TomSea]

I respect that Roe V. Wade may not be overturned in one swoop; part of this "persuasiveness" I see is rolling back abortion wherever possible, the 5 or 6 states with one abortion clinic and so on. 

So rolling it back by defunding PP, etc. is a good way to go.

[sneakypete]

Wrong.

You are advocating for infanticide, for murder, for an industry to terminate a baby because it is not 'convenient' and because people want to have sex without consequences or responsibility.  You are articulating justifications both legal and moral about WHY killing an infant is a moral and legal choice that no one but a pregnant woman is permitted to make.  You are insisting that a baby in the womb is not 'viable', and that all women have a legal "Constitutional Right" to kill/terminate/abort the infant in the womb at their choosing, because in your estimation this is of paramount importance for liberty in society to exist.

@INVAR

No,he's not. You are allowing your personal prejudices and your passion overpower your sense of reason. Jazzman has clearly stated multiple times that HIS opinion is that INSTEAD OF outlawing abortions,the proper course of action is to persuade women to not have one by offering them emotional and financial support.

Why can you not understand that this is an OPTION to abortion? Granted,it might not work in most cases,but IF your goal is to eliminate as many unnecessary (assuming of course you aren't opposed to genuine cases of abortion because of the mothers life being at risk) abortions as possible,HOW can you be opposed to having that as an option?

[Idaho_Cowboy]

I respect that Roe V. Wade may not be overturned in one swoop; part of this "persuasiveness" I see is rolling back abortion wherever possible, the 5 or 6 states with one abortion clinic and so on. 

So rolling it back by defunding PP, etc. is a good way to go.

And the good news is we have been making headway on the persuasiveness front. Abortions number have dropped.

[sneakypete]

That depends.  Different states have different laws concerning child support.  Amazingly, under the Constitution of the United States of America, the States are allowed to formulate their own laws when it comes to things such as child support.  That way, the members of that state can shape society in a way they deem best for them without having to worry about how they do it in Vermont, or Idaho, or Florida.

What does that have to do with the stated implication that if a woman opens her legs to a man that absolves him of any personal responsibility for any pregnancy that occurs as a result? IF he IS the father,he bought the ticket.


 

[r9etb]

I respect that Roe V. Wade may not be overturned in one swoop; part of this "persuasiveness" I see is rolling back abortion wherever possible, the 5 or 6 states with one abortion clinic and so on. 

So rolling it back by defunding PP, etc. is a good way to go.

That raises an interesting possibility.

The PP supporters justify federal funding for PP, for the things it allegedly does other than abortions. 

The question is: why must Planned Parenthood be the organization that gets the $500 million?  If the money is to be allocated at all, why could not that money be allocated to organizations that provide similar services, but do not also perform abortions?

When the political argument centers on Planned Parenthood, then of course it comes down to a battle about abortion.

Why not change the dynamics of the debate?

[sneakypete]

Huh? That was Jazzhead

--------
Quote from: Jazzhead on Today at 02:32:07 PM

    Nope.   Only the woman can decide.  If she decides to abort, then hooray, the man is relieved from financial obligation.  If the woman decides to bear the child and raise it, then the man should be obliged to help support the child until it's an adult.   Or he can keep his pants zipped.

 

@Norm Lenhart
My apologies if I misunderstood you.

[r9etb]

And the good news is we have been making headway on the persuasiveness front. Abortions number have dropped.

I think in large part the "persuasiveness" battle is being won on the ultrasound screen.  The "lump of tissue" argument has essentially failed as ultrasound resolution has gotten better. 

That's a big reason why Planned Parenthood won't show the ultrasound pictures to women who are considering abortion.  Seeing that tiny little human body is pretty convincing proof of what's being killed.

And so the argument wanders over into abstractions, as it has on this thread.  Abstractions are easy to kill.  A whole lot easier to kill than that little human being in the womb.

[Norm Lenhart]

 


@Norm Lenhart
My apologies if I misunderstood you.

No problem. The sheer idiocy on this thread is enough to confuse anyone. I know I'm just shaking my own head in disgusted wonder.

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete no it does not.  It takes two to tango.


@txradioguy

Or more,depending on the party.


But JH has consistently absolved the woman of any responsibility for her getting pregnant in every case...he keeps putting that burden 100% on the man....almost like he's saying the woman has no role or can't help herself.

I guess it is a matter of perception,and maybe me being more experienced with his posts,but the way *I* read them what he is doing is pointing out that the man is ALSO responsible,and in many,many cases,just running for the hills and screaming "Not me,NOT ME,IT'S NOT MINE AND I'M NOT PAYING FOR IT!" at the top of his lungs. Which is a big factor in a lot of abortions,and nobody sane can deny it.

Luckily enough,unlike in the past when it was a case of "he said/she said",and the courts almost always finding in favor of the man for denying it because she had no proof,today we have DNA testing,and it's easy to tell if the man named is the guilty party or not.

MY personal feelings and thinking on this issue is "If you aren't prepared to pay if the unexpected happens,you shouldn't be playing."

BTW,remember the case of the cop that recently shot a black guy in the back that was running away from him? There were videos of it happening on all the tv shows and political boards.

Come to find out,the reason he was running from the cop was because he was behind on his child support payments. I  am NOT saying the cop had a right to shoot him for being behind on child support payments,but I AM saying I instantly lost all sympathy for him because  here the SOB was driving a Mercedes around during working hours,and he can't afford to pay child support? I'm betting if he had been driving something like a Nissan Altima instead of the Mercedes it would have freed up enough money to pay his back child support. Especially if he had added getting a legal job with a taxable salary to the mix.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

I think in large part the "persuasiveness" battle is being won on the ultrasound screen.  The "lump of tissue" argument has essentially failed as ultrasound resolution has gotten better. 

That's a big reason why Planned Parenthood won't show the ultrasound pictures to women who are considering abortion.  Seeing that tiny little human body is pretty convincing proof of what's being killed.

And so the argument wanders over into abstractions, as it has on this thread.  Abstractions are easy to kill.  A whole lot easier to kill than that little human being in the womb.

Very true. I was talking to the missus the other day and we decided baby humans just aren't cute enough. If these were puppies or kitties there would be outrage.

[Cyber Liberty]

hooray?

Says a whole lot about the guy, in one little word.

[Jazzhead]

hooray?

Sarcasm. 

It is far too common for men to pressure their partners into abortion to avoid financial responsibility.   

[Bigun]

And Planned Parenthood is a racket, they can come up with their cooked books, have an autonomous abortion service raking in millions, then, get $500 million a year in Federal Grants, so I do see one who brings this argument to some generalities and obviously is not aware of quite a few things, as putting the conversation on a bit of a detour; but maybe it's fair in the end anyway because no one agrees with that position.

@TomSea

Planned Parenthood is but one of many devices the democrats have used over the years to siphon public money off into their (the democrats) campaign coffers (when it doesn't end up in their own personal pockets that is.)

[Cyber Liberty]

@TomSea

Planned Parenthood is but one of many devices the democrats have used over the years to siphon public money off into their (the democrats) campaign coffers (when it doesn't end up in their own personal pockets that is.)

Howcome I can't fall into a racket like that?  Why was I just born good-looking?

[r9etb]

Howcome I can't fall into a racket like that?  Why was I just born good-looking?

Thin-lipped and angry's the way to go for that sort of thing. Kiss a belt sander and wear woolen underwear, and you're 90% of the way there!

[Bigun]

Howcome I can't fall into a racket like that?  Why was I just born good-looking?

You need to start making electric cars that nobody wants or can afford or something similar. Oh and I almost forgot!  Be willing to do and say anything to get what you want.

[INVAR]

@INVAR

No,he's not. You are allowing your personal prejudices and your passion overpower your sense of reason. Jazzman has clearly stated multiple times that HIS opinion is that INSTEAD OF outlawing abortions,the proper course of action is to persuade women to not have one by offering them emotional and financial support.

Why can you not understand that this is an OPTION to abortion? Granted,it might not work in most cases,but IF your goal is to eliminate as many unnecessary (assuming of course you aren't opposed to genuine cases of abortion because of the mothers life being at risk) abortions as possible,HOW can you be opposed to having that as an option?

I'm not arguing about the methods of persuasion to be used to reverse the intentions to abort an infant.

I think those work to great effect.  I know of personal ministries that exist for that purpose - and often they face legal hurdles because the advocates for abortion rights do not permit them to 'interfere' with the choice a mother makes in regards of keeping or killing her baby. 

I'm reacting and responding specifically to Jazzhead's justifications and his words that abortion is a Constitutional Right; that only a woman can decide whether or not to keep or kill her baby; and the arguments detailing what is and is not "viable" in terms of a life.  I'm drawing the parallels of the arguments that accompanies most cultures of death, whether euthanasia or ethnic cleansing.  Either we believe in the sanctity of life as a society - or we decide of our own terms who gets to live and who gets to be killed based on what definition we craft to determine viability and convenience sans responsibility. 

I've heard similar arguments from high caste Hindus in India that argue their 'right' to 'abort' girls up to age 5 years, because dowry and cultural caste persecutions related to their belief that females are only half a human being.  They argue that a father with more than one daughter often forces a husband into poverty - because marriages are arranged business contracts in the villages and rural areas of India.  They too argue the cultural and legal need to keep that practice.  They too would agree as Jazzhead does that an unwanted human is not 'viable'. The only difference is when the cutoff is determined between 'abortion' and murder.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are the rights stated in the Declaration.  I think it is disgusting that a person who fashions themselves a Conservative, equates killing a baby in the womb with life and the pursuit of happiness when death is the intent.

A little leaven leavens the whole lump, and if we can agree and live with the idea that we can kill infants because they are not viable, have no rights and are a burden to a woman - the same argument will be made by those who want to create a Euthanasia industry, and then the argument will devolve into society deciding which people deserve to live… and who deserves to be 'Euthanized" - and we will be warned against calling that murder too.

[Cyber Liberty]

You need to start making electric cars that nobody wants or can afford or something similar. Oh and I almost forgot!  Be willing to do and say anything to get what you want.

Ah!  I see where I missed the boat.

[INVAR]

Very true. I was talking to the missus the other day and we decided baby humans just aren't cute enough. If these were puppies or kitties there would be outrage.