Question for repubs: if abortion should be illegal, should it be illegal for a father to leave?

[2aguy]

Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

Only in the case of the life of the mother.

 

[2aguy]

If you want it to be illegal then how can you be anti-government? Seriously, to make it illegal, you need to enforce a law against the issue. How is it constitution to use the government against abortion but not provide healthcare for our people?

Murder is against the law.....free healthcare requires taking money from one to give it to another, that is stealing......the government getting out of the way for healthcare would make it more affordable...competition always creates a better, cheaper product.....the same should be allowed to happen in healthcare.

 

[Billy000]

Does that mean you think the father should be legally obligated to help raise the child?

What I think is the legal system and government need to stay out of family matters altogether.

Christ you just said you didn't even care. Again, no one cares what you think of the government's role if some kind of care is needed for the child.

 

[Billy000]

I know a man blowing his load requires no labored effort, but surely men must realize the consequences of such an action if a woman ends up pregnant and keeps the baby. If conservatives cared about personal responsibility, they would address this.

Personally i don't think a man should be legally obligated to stay, but I also support a woman's right to choose. Everybody wins with that compromise.

I think when it comes to "personal responsibility", male RWs will pontificate about it endlessly when it serves to self-righteously shame easy targets like single mothers on welfare. It just makes them feel better about their own insecurities I guess. When it comes to issues closer to home like a father's role in the child's life, they keep their mouths shut like the hypocritical cowards that they are.

A man is required to support the child....wether or not he wants to keep the child alive or not......this has already been addressed in law....

Except that the man isn't required to raise the kid, only support financially.

 

[JoeMoma]

I know a man blowing his load requires no labored effort, but surely men must realize the consequences of such an action if a woman ends up pregnant and keeps the baby. If conservatives cared about personal responsibility, they would address this.

Personally i don't think a man should be legally obligated to stay, but I also support a woman's right to choose. Everybody wins with that compromise.

I think when it comes to "personal responsibility", male RWs will pontificate about it endlessly when it serves to self-righteously shame easy targets like single mothers on welfare. It just makes them feel better about their own insecurities I guess. When it comes to issues closer to home like a father's role in the child's life, they keep their mouths shut like the hypocritical cowards that they are.

A man is required to support the child....wether or not he wants to keep the child alive or not......this has already been addressed in law....

Except that the man isn't required to raise the kid, only support financially.

And often times when there is a divorce, the man is not allowed custody of the child.

 

[SmokeALib]

Why is the OP comparing murder vs irresponsible behavior?
Next, let's compare cotton candy vs bedsheets.

 

[Billy000]

No that isn't a law of economics in the sense that it applies to any form of subsidization.

Bullshit. Ever since the welfare state was created back in the 60s the illegitimacy rate has risen among black Americans from 25% to 75%, it's now slightly over 50% with Hispanics, and now approaching 40% with white non-Hispanics. The only group that's still relatively low is Asians and that's because we still have a culture that embraces family stability, but I'm sure it's just a matter of time that you people will infect us with your cultural rot as well because that's what you do.

That's so stupid. You're just making up a fake correlation because it makes for a convenient argument.

 

[Granny]

Why don't BOTH parties use contraceptives in the first place to prevent unwanted pregnancies? It's certainly cheaper than the cost of an abortion - financially AND emotionally. Sex for the hell of it - the immediate satisfaction - is nothing more than fucking and where's the care, concern, love or romance in that? Whatever happened to self respect as well as respect for the other party?

Yeah parents should be responsible, but that doesn't change the fact that children are born to them. It's again, not about the parents. It's about the kid.

except when we are talking about abortion. Then, for you, it is about the woman and the child gets killed.

Sorry, Darkwind ... I'm not a feminist and don't support abortion as such but I'm also not going to join a bunch of pro-life protesters, either. Accidents happen, sometimes in spite of proper protection ... but multiple "accidents" by the same person over and over and the use of abortion as a method of birth control ... no. If, for example, a couple plans to have a child and there's no known reason why they should not welcome the birth, but upon proper medical procedure it's discovered the baby has Tay Sacks Disease (I probably don't have that spelled correctly but anyone who is Jewish in particular will know exactly what I'm referring to) - I would not blink an eye if abortion was the decision. I don't know much about the disease, but my understanding is that it is genetic and results in a horrific death for the child.

The feminists can scream all they want about a woman's choice to control her own body and that embryos are not living beings until they actually breathe air. But consider this: an amoeba is a one celled organism but it's a living organism; an acorn is an acorn until it germinates and becomes a living organism that just gets bigger with the passage of time - and the tree-huggers would scream "abomination!" if someone plucked that little seedling out of the ground; a seed is a seed until it germinates and becomes a living organism - a plant - and no one waits until it blossoms before they admit the thing is living; same with animals, fish, coral ... so why is a human embryo not a living thing until it's actually born? Abortion is not about a woman's control over her body ... it's about population control. Period.

 

[JoeMoma]

Why don't BOTH parties use contraceptives in the first place to prevent unwanted pregnancies? It's certainly cheaper than the cost of an abortion - financially AND emotionally. Sex for the hell of it - the immediate satisfaction - is nothing more than fucking and where's the care, concern, love or romance in that? Whatever happened to self respect as well as respect for the other party?

Yeah parents should be responsible, but that doesn't change the fact that children are born to them. It's again, not about the parents. It's about the kid.

except when we are talking about abortion. Then, for you, it is about the woman and the child gets killed.

Sorry, Darkwind ... I'm not a feminist and don't support abortion as such but I'm also not going to join a bunch of pro-life protesters, either. Accidents happen, sometimes in spite of proper protection ... but multiple "accidents" by the same person over and over and the use of abortion as a method of birth control ... no. If, for example, a couple plans to have a child and there's no known reason why they should not welcome the birth, but upon proper medical procedure it's discovered the baby has Tay Sacks Disease (I probably don't have that spelled correctly but anyone who is Jewish in particular will know exactly what I'm referring to) - I would not blink an eye if abortion was the decision. I don't know much about the disease, but my understanding is that it is genetic and results in a horrific death for the child.

The feminists can scream all they want about a woman's choice to control her own body and that embryos are not living beings until they actually breathe air. But consider this: an amoeba is a one celled organism but it's a living organism; an acorn is an acorn until it germinates and becomes a living organism that just gets bigger with the passage of time - and the tree-huggers would scream "abomination!" if someone plucked that little seedling out of the ground; a seed is a seed until it germinates and becomes a living organism - a plant - and no one waits until it blossoms before they admit the thing is living; same with animals, fish, coral ... so why is a human embryo not a living thing until it's actually born? Abortion is not about a woman's control over her body ... it's about population control. Period.

The acorn stage is part of the lifecycle of a oak tree. However, biology lessons don't usually take on a message board.

 

[Dana7360]

Why don't BOTH parties use contraceptives in the first place to prevent unwanted pregnancies? It's certainly cheaper than the cost of an abortion - financially AND emotionally. Sex for the hell of it - the immediate satisfaction - is nothing more than fucking and where's the care, concern, love or romance in that? Whatever happened to self respect as well as respect for the other party?

Yeah parents should be responsible, but that doesn't change the fact that children are born to them. It's again, not about the parents. It's about the kid.

except when we are talking about abortion. Then, for you, it is about the woman and the child gets killed.

Sorry, Darkwind ... I'm not a feminist and don't support abortion as such but I'm also not going to join a bunch of pro-life protesters, either. Accidents happen, sometimes in spite of proper protection ... but multiple "accidents" by the same person over and over and the use of abortion as a method of birth control ... no. If, for example, a couple plans to have a child and there's no known reason why they should not welcome the birth, but upon proper medical procedure it's discovered the baby has Tay Sacks Disease (I probably don't have that spelled correctly but anyone who is Jewish in particular will know exactly what I'm referring to) - I would not blink an eye if abortion was the decision. I don't know much about the disease, but my understanding is that it is genetic and results in a horrific death for the child.

The feminists can scream all they want about a woman's choice to control her own body and that embryos are not living beings until they actually breathe air. But consider this: an amoeba is a one celled organism but it's a living organism; an acorn is an acorn until it germinates and becomes a living organism that just gets bigger with the passage of time - and the tree-huggers would scream "abomination!" if someone plucked that little seedling out of the ground; a seed is a seed until it germinates and becomes a living organism - a plant - and no one waits until it blossoms before they admit the thing is living; same with animals, fish, coral ... so why is a human embryo not a living thing until it's actually born? Abortion is not about a woman's control over her body ... it's about population control. Period.

Can you please tell me what life is in an ectopic pregnancy? It's a fertilized egg.

Problem is, there's only 2 outcomes to an ectopic pregnancy.

1. The woman has the abortion and surgery. She lives and possibly can still have children.
2. The abortion isn't performed. The woman dies. She can't have more children. If she already has a child or more those children will have to grow up without their mom.

It has nothing to do with population control.

There are something like 64 thousand ectopic pregnancies every year.

Ectopic Pregnancy Statistics - Pregnancy Statistic

There are so many medical situations that put the life of a woman in jeopardy at many stages of pregnancy. Sometimes, like what happened to my cousin and his wife, the abortion had to be performed in the last trimester to save his wife's life. The fetus was dead. The only way to prevent peritonitis that would have killed my cousin's wife was to perform that abortion. It had nothing to do with population control.

There isn't only one reason for abortion. The reasons are many and different depending on who is involved and what the circumstances are.

A woman can't have many abortions in her life without her uterus being damaged by it. In most states such as mine, the law requires that a woman can't have an abortion for at least 6 months after she's had one. Some states require a longer time. Doctors can be prosecuted and lose their license to practice medicine if an abortion is performed less than 6 months after one is performed.

Yes there are people who have had more than one abortion. There are many reasons for that. The right of woman to have privacy in her medical records prevents anyone except those directly involved with the situation to know what's going on. So someone who isn't involved with the situation can't know what's going on and really shouldn't apply their own assumptions and judgements on other people.

No woman goes out and has unprotected sex to purposely get pregnant so she can purposely have an abortion.

Women don't get pregnant alone. There is a man involved. I think it's interesting men aren't held to the same standards as women nor are they required to be held to the same responsibility as the woman. I don't see any on this board calling men names for getting a woman pregnant but I sure read posters calling women shameful names.

It always takes two to create a life. Unfortunately BOTH aren't treated equally.

 

[Granny]

Why don't BOTH parties use contraceptives in the first place to prevent unwanted pregnancies? It's certainly cheaper than the cost of an abortion - financially AND emotionally. Sex for the hell of it - the immediate satisfaction - is nothing more than fucking and where's the care, concern, love or romance in that? Whatever happened to self respect as well as respect for the other party?

Yeah parents should be responsible, but that doesn't change the fact that children are born to them. It's again, not about the parents. It's about the kid.

except when we are talking about abortion. Then, for you, it is about the woman and the child gets killed.

Sorry, Darkwind ... I'm not a feminist and don't support abortion as such but I'm also not going to join a bunch of pro-life protesters, either. Accidents happen, sometimes in spite of proper protection ... but multiple "accidents" by the same person over and over and the use of abortion as a method of birth control ... no. If, for example, a couple plans to have a child and there's no known reason why they should not welcome the birth, but upon proper medical procedure it's discovered the baby has Tay Sacks Disease (I probably don't have that spelled correctly but anyone who is Jewish in particular will know exactly what I'm referring to) - I would not blink an eye if abortion was the decision. I don't know much about the disease, but my understanding is that it is genetic and results in a horrific death for the child.

The feminists can scream all they want about a woman's choice to control her own body and that embryos are not living beings until they actually breathe air. But consider this: an amoeba is a one celled organism but it's a living organism; an acorn is an acorn until it germinates and becomes a living organism that just gets bigger with the passage of time - and the tree-huggers would scream "abomination!" if someone plucked that little seedling out of the ground; a seed is a seed until it germinates and becomes a living organism - a plant - and no one waits until it blossoms before they admit the thing is living; same with animals, fish, coral ... so why is a human embryo not a living thing until it's actually born? Abortion is not about a woman's control over her body ... it's about population control. Period.

Can you please tell me what life is in an ectopic pregnancy? It's a fertilized egg.

Problem is, there's only 2 outcomes to an ectopic pregnancy.

1. The woman has the abortion and surgery. She lives and possibly can still have children.
2. The abortion isn't performed. The woman dies. She can't have more children. If she already has a child or more those children will have to grow up without their mom.

It has nothing to do with population control.

There are something like 64 thousand ectopic pregnancies every year.

Ectopic Pregnancy Statistics - Pregnancy Statistic

There are so many medical situations that put the life of a woman in jeopardy at many stages of pregnancy. Sometimes, like what happened to my cousin and his wife, the abortion had to be performed in the last trimester to save his wife's life. The fetus was dead. The only way to prevent peritonitis that would have killed my cousin's wife was to perform that abortion. It had nothing to do with population control.

There isn't only one reason for abortion. The reasons are many and different depending on who is involved and what the circumstances are.

A woman can't have many abortions in her life without her uterus being damaged by it. In most states such as mine, the law requires that a woman can't have an abortion for at least 6 months after she's had one. Some states require a longer time. Doctors can be prosecuted and lose their license to practice medicine if an abortion is performed less than 6 months after one is performed.

Yes there are people who have had more than one abortion. There are many reasons for that. The right of woman to have privacy in her medical records prevents anyone except those directly involved with the situation to know what's going on. So someone who isn't involved with the situation can't know what's going on and really shouldn't apply their own assumptions and judgements on other people.

No woman goes out and has unprotected sex to purposely get pregnant so she can purposely have an abortion.

Women don't get pregnant alone. There is a man involved. I think it's interesting men aren't held to the same standards as women nor are they required to be held to the same responsibility as the woman. I don't see any on this board calling men names for getting a woman pregnant but I sure read posters calling women shameful names.

It always takes two to create a life. Unfortunately BOTH aren't treated equally.

I wouldn't consider that an abortion - it's a genuine medical procedure for a serious situation.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

No that isn't a law of economics in the sense that it applies to any form of subsidization.

Bullshit. Ever since the welfare state was created back in the 60s the illegitimacy rate has risen among black Americans from 25% to 75%, it's now slightly over 50% with Hispanics, and now approaching 40% with white non-Hispanics. The only group that's still relatively low is Asians and that's because we still have a culture that embraces family stability, but I'm sure it's just a matter of time that you people will infect us with your cultural rot as well because that's what you do.

That's so stupid. You're just making up a fake correlation because it makes for a convenient argument.

Just because it's not what you want to hear doesn't make it not true

 

[owebo]

Why don't BOTH parties use contraceptives in the first place to prevent unwanted pregnancies? It's certainly cheaper than the cost of an abortion - financially AND emotionally. Sex for the hell of it - the immediate satisfaction - is nothing more than fucking and where's the care, concern, love or romance in that? Whatever happened to self respect as well as respect for the other party?

Yeah parents should be responsible, but that doesn't change the fact that children are born to them. It's again, not about the parents. It's about the kid.

except when we are talking about abortion. Then, for you, it is about the woman and the child gets killed.

Sorry, Darkwind ... I'm not a feminist and don't support abortion as such but I'm also not going to join a bunch of pro-life protesters, either. Accidents happen, sometimes in spite of proper protection ... but multiple "accidents" by the same person over and over and the use of abortion as a method of birth control ... no. If, for example, a couple plans to have a child and there's no known reason why they should not welcome the birth, but upon proper medical procedure it's discovered the baby has Tay Sacks Disease (I probably don't have that spelled correctly but anyone who is Jewish in particular will know exactly what I'm referring to) - I would not blink an eye if abortion was the decision. I don't know much about the disease, but my understanding is that it is genetic and results in a horrific death for the child.

The feminists can scream all they want about a woman's choice to control her own body and that embryos are not living beings until they actually breathe air. But consider this: an amoeba is a one celled organism but it's a living organism; an acorn is an acorn until it germinates and becomes a living organism that just gets bigger with the passage of time - and the tree-huggers would scream "abomination!" if someone plucked that little seedling out of the ground; a seed is a seed until it germinates and becomes a living organism - a plant - and no one waits until it blossoms before they admit the thing is living; same with animals, fish, coral ... so why is a human embryo not a living thing until it's actually born? Abortion is not about a woman's control over her body ... it's about population control. Period.

Can you please tell me what life is in an ectopic pregnancy? It's a fertilized egg.

Problem is, there's only 2 outcomes to an ectopic pregnancy.

1. The woman has the abortion and surgery. She lives and possibly can still have children.
2. The abortion isn't performed. The woman dies. She can't have more children. If she already has a child or more those children will have to grow up without their mom.

It has nothing to do with population control.

There are something like 64 thousand ectopic pregnancies every year.

Ectopic Pregnancy Statistics - Pregnancy Statistic

There are so many medical situations that put the life of a woman in jeopardy at many stages of pregnancy. Sometimes, like what happened to my cousin and his wife, the abortion had to be performed in the last trimester to save his wife's life. The fetus was dead. The only way to prevent peritonitis that would have killed my cousin's wife was to perform that abortion. It had nothing to do with population control.

There isn't only one reason for abortion. The reasons are many and different depending on who is involved and what the circumstances are.

A woman can't have many abortions in her life without her uterus being damaged by it. In most states such as mine, the law requires that a woman can't have an abortion for at least 6 months after she's had one. Some states require a longer time. Doctors can be prosecuted and lose their license to practice medicine if an abortion is performed less than 6 months after one is performed.

Yes there are people who have had more than one abortion. There are many reasons for that. The right of woman to have privacy in her medical records prevents anyone except those directly involved with the situation to know what's going on. So someone who isn't involved with the situation can't know what's going on and really shouldn't apply their own assumptions and judgements on other people.

No woman goes out and has unprotected sex to purposely get pregnant so she can purposely have an abortion.

Women don't get pregnant alone. There is a man involved. I think it's interesting men aren't held to the same standards as women nor are they required to be held to the same responsibility as the woman. I don't see any on this board calling men names for getting a woman pregnant but I sure read posters calling women shameful names.

It always takes two to create a life. Unfortunately BOTH aren't treated equally.

Can you still profit from the parts?

 

[Rustic]

I know a man blowing his load requires no labored effort, but surely men must realize the consequences of such an action if a woman ends up pregnant and keeps the baby. If conservatives cared about personal responsibility, they would address this.

Personally i don't think a man should be legally obligated to stay, but I also support a woman's right to choose. Everybody wins with that compromise.

I think when it comes to "personal responsibility", male RWs will pontificate about it endlessly when it serves to self-righteously shame easy targets like single mothers on welfare. It just makes them feel better about their own insecurities I guess. When it comes to issues closer to home like a father's role in the child's life, they keep their mouths shut like the hypocritical cowards that they are.

With this issue it's best for the government to stay the fuck out

 

[initforme]

me of you anti tax crybabies will be the first to complain about having your precious middle tax dollars supporting kids. Hypocrites.

 

[Unkotare]

I know a man blowing his load requires no labored effort, but surely men must realize the consequences of such an action if a woman ends up pregnant and keeps the baby. If conservatives cared about personal responsibility, they would address this.

Personally i don't think a man should be legally obligated to stay, but I also support a woman's right to choose. Everybody wins with that compromise.

I think when it comes to "personal responsibility", male RWs will pontificate about it endlessly when it serves to self-righteously shame easy targets like single mothers on welfare. It just makes them feel better about their own insecurities I guess. When it comes to issues closer to home like a father's role in the child's life, they keep their mouths shut like the hypocritical cowards that they are.

Troll thread . False premise.

 

[owebo]

me of you anti tax crybabies will be the first to complain about having your precious middle tax dollars supporting kids. Hypocrites.

Link to crystal ball telling you which kids democrats will Condemn to a life of poverty?

 

[Unkotare]

me of you anti tax crybabies will be the first to complain about having your precious middle tax dollars supporting kids. Hypocrites.

Shouldn't the parents support their kids if they can, to the extent that they can?

 

[Unkotare]

I know a man blowing his load requires no labored effort, but surely men must realize the consequences of such an action if a woman ends up pregnant and keeps the baby. If conservatives cared about personal responsibility, they would address this.

Personally i don't think a man should be legally obligated to stay, but I also support a woman's right to choose. Everybody wins with that compromise.

I think when it comes to "personal responsibility", male RWs will pontificate about it endlessly when it serves to self-righteously shame easy targets like single mothers on welfare. It just makes them feel better about their own insecurities I guess. When it comes to issues closer to home like a father's role in the child's life, they keep their mouths shut like the hypocritical cowards that they are.

With this issue it's best for the government to stay the fuck out

The life or death of the most innocent members of society isn't a public interest?

 

[owebo]

I know a man blowing his load requires no labored effort, but surely men must realize the consequences of such an action if a woman ends up pregnant and keeps the baby. If conservatives cared about personal responsibility, they would address this.

Personally i don't think a man should be legally obligated to stay, but I also support a woman's right to choose. Everybody wins with that compromise.

I think when it comes to "personal responsibility", male RWs will pontificate about it endlessly when it serves to self-righteously shame easy targets like single mothers on welfare. It just makes them feel better about their own insecurities I guess. When it comes to issues closer to home like a father's role in the child's life, they keep their mouths shut like the hypocritical cowards that they are.

With this issue it's best for the government to stay the fuck out

The life or death of the most innocent members of society isn't a public interest?

Not when democrats profit from their parts....