Collins: Won’t Support SCOTUS Pick Hostile To Abortion Rights

[Hoodat]

@thackney

In his scenario that he paints every time in his defense and justification of abortion...the man is just a pump and dump chump who disappears into the ether after the deed is done.

His scenario encourages men to be pump and dump chumps who disappear into the ether after the deed is done.  All the woman has to do is get an abortion, right?

[musiclady]

Well said, @musiclady   It infuriates me when people keep using that 'her body, her choice' thing.  And you explained it perfectly.  I named my children before they were born and they were always separate and loved beings to me.

Any aware, caring mother should know that the little human being inside her is not ‘her body.’

You and I both heard those little hearts beating (even before the technology of today we could hear them when their ages were counted in weeks). We loved our children and respected them long before they were born. And some of us sang to them and played Bach for them too.   ^-^

The idea that they were just cells that were part of our own bodies is simply preposterous.

[txradioguy]

His scenario encourages men to be pump and dump chumps who disappear into the ether after the deed is done.  All the woman has to do is get an abortion, right?

Yup

[roamer_1]

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight. - Isaiah 5:20-21

Bravo! That path is long and dark, and I have been down it far enough to know where it goes.

! No longer available

[roamer_1]

The circumstances that compel a woman to abort are purely selfish.  Women are not the victims here.  The unborn babies are the victims.

Almost true. The mother winds up being a victim too. They are usually young and do not know the preciousness of the life that stirs within them. What they do in ignorance, taking the 'easy' way out, listening to advocates for that way, they will inevitably find out was a deception, and it haunts them forever more.

[Smokin Joe]

Again, you make moral arguments, that are entirely unsuitable for the State to enforce by criminalization.   A woman cannot assume a LEGAL duty of care merely by having sex.

Actually, the States were doing just fine until Roe, as far as criminalizing abortion. Most had.

It was the usurpation of the States' authority to do so by seven people which complicated matters.
By their leave, over 58,000,000 babies have died.

Before Roe, we didn't have to play games with a definition of 'viability'.  Unless the life of the mother would be foreseeably lost by continuing the pregnancy, the baby could proceed to develop and enter daylight in one piece with the  full protection of the law. Mom could even take her chances if she so chose (still can now, for that matter).

[musiclady]

@musiclady

Do you find it odd that the only ones here championing abortion rights are men?

Actually, not too odd...

Abortion is anti- woman, harmful in every way possible.

It makes sense in a cockeyed sort of way that the women here oppose self harm and that the only people supporting it are those who have been inculcated with leftist thought.

Look at the language they use. They are parroting leftist propaganda.

The women on this forum think for themselves. The men on the left clearly do not.

[Hoodat]

Almost true. The mother winds up being a victim too. They are usually young and do not know the preciousness of the life that stirs within them. What they do in ignorance, taking the 'easy' way out, listening to advocates for that way, they will inevitably find out was a deception, and it haunts them forever more.

I don't think the man who just dodged 18 years of child support payments gives a damn about the long-term emotional effects on the woman.

[roamer_1]

Liberty trumps the prerogative of the states establishing their own laws to deny liberty.

This is not liberty. This is consequence.
Liberty has responsibilities.
Freedom has consequences.
 

Do you want the states to ban your right to own a gun?    Oh the horror - that's, that's UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Correct. It is unconstitutional.

Well, yes it is.  And so would be your state telling your daughter she no longer has dominion over her own body.

What a relief that would be... As I would be telling her the same thing, as would just about any mother, were she inclined to ask.

All of that would be a remarkable bulwark against her making the absolutely worst mistake of her life - One she will grow to regret as she comes to know better.

[Smokin Joe]

We have already agreed that for merely having sex, the man can be forced by government to carry a lasting burden to provide care.

The man does not even have to be the biological father--such precedents have been set.

Where is the 'equality' in compelling some man to pay for someone else's procreative results?

Fifty eight million....and counting. More than any regime ever except (maybe) Communist China.

[roamer_1]

Indeed, as a legal matter.  How can the State impose a duty of care without the person's express or implied consent?   I can accept that by allowing a pregnancy to continue to term a woman has assumed that duty of care.   But simply by reason of having sex?    That's, well, tyrannical.

Funny. Because with the same breath you would demand the father be coerced into fiduciary care for most of his productive life, simply for having sex...

[roamer_1]

So a woman assumes a legally enforceable duty of care just by having sex? 

That's preposterous.   

Yet you insist the man does.

[Smokin Joe]

I don't think the man who just dodged 18 years of child support payments gives a damn about the long-term emotional effects on the woman.

There is a pretty good chance that his opinion of her and her needs stopped where his desire for a semen receptacle began. I'd wager that many of the wealthy and powerful males who supported Roe saw it as an 'easy' way out of potentially problematic situations.


(Mary Jo, are you sure....)

[XenaLee]

So a woman assumes a legally enforceable duty of care just by having sex? 

That's preposterous.   

Sure.  If you create a life when you didn't intend to, you ARE responsible for that life. It ain't that complicated, except for idiots on the left that .... not only don't believe in God, but probably go out of their way to do anything they can against God. 

And.....with all of the forms of birth control that are available... there is really NO excuse for a woman to have sex and get pregnant as a result of that sex (her choice, of course) and then require an abortion.... taxpayer funded, or not.   For instance.... even if she was too stupid and/or lazy to take precautions before having sex.....she could have taken the morning after pill.  But if she was even too lazy and irresponsible to have not taken that simple precaution, then using abortion as her version of "birth control" is unacceptable.  And that woman will pay the consequences of her choices and her actions..... some day.

 

[musiclady]

Another bit of info for the men here advocating that abortion is good for women.....

Far more babies aborted world wide are female than are male.   As misogynistic abortionists have no problem with wiping out the female population because the culture perceives women to be inferior, there is a worldwide femicide.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2539648/Thousands-girls-aborted-gender-Study-finds-couples-cultures-sons-deemed-desirable-terminating-female-pregnancies.html

THIS is abortion.   Killing far more women than men, and doing irreparable harm to the women who have them.

[bigheadfred]

ALL abortion is murder. All of it. The circumstances do not matter.

The important part is who gets the credit for the kill. 

[Oceander]

Yes, if she chooses.  People are literally waiting in line to pay all the associated expenses with removing that burden from her.

She has to choose to keep it. 

Bullshit.  If she keeps it - the premise of your whinging - then she has the obligation to raise the child and pay for the expenses that the cheapskate “father” won’t.  On the other hand, if she gives it up for adoption, so that she doesn’t have to pay those expenses or bear those obligations, then neither does he.  Perfect symmetry. 

And, quite frankly, if she aborts it, then his financial expense goes away, so your position is frankly pro-abortion in a very tawdry sense, because it would justify abortion solely to protect the genetic father from out-of-pocket expenses for his own progeny. 

[musiclady]

Sure.  If you create a life when you didn't intend to, you ARE responsible for that life. It ain't that complicated, except for idiots on the left that .... not only don't believe in God, but probably go out of their way to do anything they can against God. 

And.....with all of the forms of birth control that are available... there is really NO excuse for a woman to have sex and get pregnant as a result of that sex (her choice, of course) and then require an abortion.... taxpayer funded, or not.   For instance.... even if she was too stupid and/or lazy to take precautions before having sex.....she could have taken the morning after pill.  But if she was even too lazy and irresponsible to have not taken that simple precaution, then using abortion as her version of "birth control" is unacceptable.  And that woman will pay the consequences of her choices and her actions..... some day.

Those facts don't matter to the men who have such low regard for women that they don't think we can be responsible for our own behavior.

That is what has been argued here.  That women are too stupid and helpless to behave responsibly.

[INVAR]

Funny. Because with the same breath you would demand the father be coerced into fiduciary care for most of his productive life, simply for having sex...

... Ouch!  That NAILED the insipidness of his testiscular argument to the floorboards right there.

[Oceander]

Another bit of info for the men here advocating that abortion is good for women.....

Far more babies aborted world wide are female than are male.   As misogynistic abortionists have no problem with wiping out the female population because the culture perceives women to be inferior, there is a worldwide femicide.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2539648/Thousands-girls-aborted-gender-Study-finds-couples-cultures-sons-deemed-desirable-terminating-female-pregnancies.html

THIS is abortion.   Killing far more women than men, and doing irreparable harm to the women who have them.

Ahhh, so what they do in China should determine what the US Constitution says about the fundamental rights of American citizens?

And here I thought conservatives were so opposed to letting foreigners and foreign law be used to decide American law.  Guess I was wrong; the ends justify the means,  no matter the hypocrisy.

[musiclady]

Bullshit.  If she keeps it - the premise of your whinging - then she has the obligation to raise the child and pay for the expenses that the cheapskate “father” won’t.  On the other hand, if she gives it up for adoption, so that she doesn’t have to pay those expenses or bear those obligations, then neither does he.  Perfect symmetry. 

And, quite frankly, if she aborts it, then his financial expense goes away, so your position is frankly pro-abortion in a very tawdry sense, because it would justify abortion solely to protect the genetic father from out-of-pocket expenses for his own progeny.

Which is the reality of what abortion is doing.   Giving both men and women less responsibility for their own behavior.  Allowing men to pressure women to have abortions to avoid the consequences of their own actions.

No matter how you cut it, abortion is evil.

And it is extremely harmful to women.

[musiclady]

Ahhh, so what they do in China should determine what the US Constitution says about the fundamental rights of American citizens?

And here I thought conservatives were so opposed to letting foreigners and foreign law be used to decide American law.  Guess I was wrong; the ends justify the means,  no matter the hypocrisy.

Whoa.............. you had to work hard to twist what I said into that nonsense, didn't you?

Desperation has clearly set in because the FACTS don't match up with your science denial.

[Oceander]

Funny. Because with the same breath you would demand the father be coerced into fiduciary care for most of his productive life, simply for having sex...

Boo, hoo, hoo.  So a couple of dollars to a man is more important than giving a woman control over her own body. 

And quite frankly, the comparison is utterly inapposite because if the woman chooses to abort, then there is no child, and no financial obligation for the traveling dick or anyone else.  On the other hand, if we let the dick off the hook because it’s not fair to make him pay for his sexual flings, then the costs of raising the child are still there - they don’t go away just because “daddy” runs off - which means that more likely than not the taxpayers will be called upon to pay for some of those.  It may not be fair in some universe to make “daddy” pay for his progeny, but it’s much fairer than putting the burden on the taxpayers who had nothing to do with the conception at all.

[Oceander]

Whoa.............. you had to work hard to twist what I said into that nonsense, didn't you?

Desperation has clearly set in because the FACTS don't match up with your science denial.

Stating the necessary, logical, implications of your statement wasn’t that hard; all it required was thinking through what you posted (something you apparently did not do).

[thackney]

Bullshit. 

Everything I stated is true.

If she keeps it - the premise of your whinging - then she has the obligation to raise the child and pay for the expenses that the cheapskate “father” won’t.

The father also has the obligation.  If he won't help raise the child he can be forced legally to pay a significant portion of the expense.

  On the other hand, if she gives it up for adoption, so that she doesn’t have to pay those expenses or bear those obligations, then neither does he.  Perfect symmetry. 

Correct.  But she alone has the choice in that matter.

And, quite frankly, if she aborts it, then his financial expense goes away, so your position is frankly pro-abortion in a very tawdry sense, because it would justify abortion solely to protect the genetic father from out-of-pocket expenses for his own progeny.

I make no suggestion the father should be protected from his obligations.  I am stating the opposite.  He absolutely has responsibility from his decision to have sex to provide for the child created.  I am also saying the mother has obligations as well, but she has more opportunity to end it at birth.