The most ridiculous Anti-abortion bill to be authored (minimum wage, Walmart, gun control)

[KUchief25]

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

I see by your "fan base" you are not worth the effort, ta-ra troll.

Then you call another poster a troll? LOL.

Again why should the fathers be part of the decision on whether to abort or not? It is after all their child too no matter what you think. It takes two to tango.

[lucknow]

The entire abortion question is one that is fraught with raw emotion. I personally am a near total liberal in most things but NOT in the abortion debate. I'm opposed to them, period. It's a sad thing that the issue has become a partisan political football. I look at it much more as a moral problem than anything else. The entire concept of personal responsibility is declining in our societies to the degree that it is nearly absent in many areas. Sure, you can talk about cases of rape, incest, etc. but I would be surprised if these cases make up 1% of abortions. In the vast majority of cases it just is not convienient for the woman to carry and give birth to a child. Many girls get an abortion because they don't know any of the facts about the issue. The fact the prochoice supporters are so totally opposed to informing these women about all the issues surrounding abortion just speaks volumes to me about their position. They fear that once the facts are known, the ladies might change their minds and decide not to have an abortion. Personally we have known a few young single ladies who have sought out counsel for an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy. These agents are anything but what they call themselves, "PROCHOICE". These girls were pressured to have abortions and when they decided against, the councillors were actually angry about that decision.

I can tell you that every single one of these girls that we have known personally, {6 of them} who decided to have their child instead of an abortion are extremely glad of their decision. Now, that is just my own personal experience and may not mean anything in a larger context but I think it does.

[claudhopper]

Originally Posted by GregW

This is not about the fate of the fetus. It is about the control of the woman by some of the males in the society. They must be in charge of the fecundity of ALL women lest one of them have the indecency of aborting one of their maybe children. They go crazy at the mere thought of being rejected so thoroughly.

I am also amused by these, mostly right wing Republican, war mongers that are so willing to kill all born and mostly grown up kids of foreign males that may someday be a threat to the RWNJ's so determined to control everything and everybody for their protection. If you are so protective of human life in the form of a fetus you must also be protective of human life even if it may be an active threat.

I am not protective of a fetus any more than I am protective of the poor bastd**rds that were trying to kill me. As far as I am concerned a woman that chooses to have an abortion is protecting herself from an unwanted and threatening intruder and has every right to do so.

Wow This is what happens when a feminazi brain fries.
Truth is, this is a war on men and babies.

[hothulamaui]

Originally Posted by lucknow

The entire abortion question is one that is fraught with raw emotion. I personally am a near total liberal in most things but NOT in the abortion debate. I'm opposed to them, period. It's a sad thing that the issue has become a partisan political football. I look at it much more as a moral problem than anything else. The entire concept of personal responsibility is declining in our societies to the degree that it is nearly absent in many areas. Sure, you can talk about cases of rape, incest, etc. but I would be surprised if these cases make up 1% of abortions. In the vast majority of cases it just is not convienient for the woman to carry and give birth to a child. Many girls get an abortion because they don't know any of the facts about the issue. The fact the prochoice supporters are so totally opposed to informing these women about all the issues surrounding abortion just speaks volumes to me about their position. They fear that once the facts are known, the ladies might change their minds and decide not to have an abortion. Personally we have known a few young single ladies who have sought out counsel for an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy. These agents are anything but what they call themselves, "PROCHOICE". These girls were pressured to have abortions and when they decided against, the councillors were actually angry about that decision.

I can tell you that every single one of these girls that we have known personally, {6 of them} who decided to have their child instead of an abortion are extremely glad of their decision. Now, that is just my own personal experience and may not mean anything in a larger context but I think it does.

women are not stupid, we know what abortion is. we do not need to be ultra sounded or have a vaginal probe put up us for no medical reason to know what abortion is.

pro choice means supporting a woman no matter what choice she makes. I doubt you would find anyone who would be mad at a woman who decided to have her baby instead of an abortion.

[KUchief25]

The "choice" should be made together by the ones who concieved that child. Now I know that is lot to ask in today's world of folks running off shirking their responsibilities all across the land of ours. I would think it would be welcomed input if the father wanted to take part. It appears many just want them to go away and not surprisingly many do. Then are condemned and chastised for it by the same folks who think they have no say in it to begin with.

[SeekerSA]

Originally Posted by KUchief25

What kind of insanity are you pushing now? I say the father should be a part of the decision and you think that is a rapist mentality? Amazing you come to that conclusion??

No insanity. Why would a casual sexual encounter entitle you to any decision? I did clarify earlier, if there was a relationship it would be likely the "father" would be consulted.

I dunno what kinda bizzaro world you live in but in mine I made sure the women I slept with were on the pill. Some were casual and some were longer term repeat encounters. Never got anyone pregnant I didn't mean to. I had no problems finding GFs so perhaps that is why I see comments like the "father" having a "say" one of insecurity or more bluntly, one of hope of entrapment. Perhaps rape was too strong a word but lacing drinks to take advantage is the image I got; I have met fellas like that.

If some men think getting a girl knocked up and then marrying her is the only way to find a wife, that is really a sure sign of insecurity and that relationship would be doomed from the onset plus now there will be an innocent kid in the mix.

If any of my casual encounters resulted in a pregnancy, I would have paid maintenance once paternity had been determined. You see most women have sex b/c it is nice not b/c they want to get knocked up. I am talking 30+ years ago when abortion was still taboo but was available, most girls that got knocked up back then put the kid up for adoption after being "sent away" to a special home/place for unwed mothers. Even in that scenario, I probably would not have been consulted. In the end that would have been her choice/decision. Then again, I was not bonking school girls.

All the women I met were not innocent wall flowers and pretty much knew their bodies and cycles - Brit education has proper sex ed.

[wawa1992]

Originally Posted by Chimuelojones

how does it change abortion other than attept to make women have an abortion earlier? Abortions will still be legally preformed?

Some women will miss the cut off trying to decide whether to have the abortion and may end up having to carry the fetus to full term. 1000 less abortions = 1000 lives saved.

[steven_h]

Originally Posted by Arus

Roe V Wad has done nothing of the sort. The ones for population control are republicans by wanting women to remain pregnant against their will.

This is why we no longer possess the ability to converse rationally. I pointed out that Ginsburg herself stated that "RvW IS a means to control the population that we don't want", and you come back saying that pro-life is population control. This pandemic disconnection from the truth is proving L'Umanita's Utili Idioti to be correct.

[Annie53]

Originally Posted by EricGold

What the hell does abortion have to do with biology?

The woman is the one who has to physically incubate the child so she gets to make the choice. Is that not biology?

Condoms are cheap and the pill runs for like 9 bucks a month in some places. I have seen the poorest of the poor women take the pill. BC isn't some obscure hard to get thing, condoms are practically given out in middle schools now. And how much comprehensive education does one need to know sex leads to babies?. That always got to me, like whenever teen pregnancies would spike somewhere liberals are the first to say "we need more education". How much education does it take to tell teens that sex can lead to babies? this isn't rocket science.

Women just can't walk into a drug store and buy the pill.....they need a prescription from an OB/GYN. Mine charges $180 just for the office call.....and then there is a separate charge for a PAP test on top of that.....a test doctors require women to have if they want the pill.....STD testing is also required.....$, $ and $. Of course, men don't think of these things....because they don't have a clue.

What happens during an abortion isn't rocket science either.....but some people want to require a "show and tell" session.....maybe that's what we need in sex ed too.....LOL

Well, for any male form of BC to be effective would his orgasms would have to be curtailed. Not sure why men would be so against that. lol

You don't know that. Maybe the side effects would be a higher risk for blood clots or weight gain....common risks women face when they are on hormonal BC. Would men be willing to take risks like that? Hmmm? I don't think so.....they wanna play but they don't wanna pay. That is pretty obvious.

Oh, I agree, my overall opinion is that BC should be encouraged more, less abortions, everyone wins. But rabid feminists seem to think that is asking too much and we shouldn't expect to hold anyone to any form of responsibility and abortion should be never questioned.

Again....you are just bent out of shape because women get one more option than men do.....that's biology....and biology isn't fair.

And I know child support is about the welfare of the child. Some people would even say having the child not being aborted is great for the baby's welfare. And yes, I am aware that women are increasing their incomes but I kindly ask for a source backing up the claim that more and more fathers are collecting child support from women.

More mothers paying child support

More women are also paying alimony too. Women's equality is paying off for men.

What?....that had nothing to do with what I said and you know it.

You complained about affirmative action....and that has helped women obtain equality in the workforce.

That doesn't change the fact that about half the women that gets abortions go back for a second one. Again, if the first time was bad, you would think they would make more of an effort not to go back.

Yes, you would. Just like you would think men who complain about paying child support for one would make sure there wasn't a number 2 or 3. Some people are just dumb.

Again, for male bc to be effective it would probably have to alter his sperm and overall orgasm. Yeah, that sounds like something many man would go for.

Again....you are only guessing. But, you did make a valid point. You touched on the main reason so many men take the chance of being a father......they don't like using condoms. I guess that little extra bit of sensation is worth taking a chance on paying child support for 18 years. So much for personal responsibility from males. They want women to make all of the sacrifices when it comes to reproduction.

So just come out and say that what women want isn't fairness but extra-rights. That they want to either hook a man into child support for decades or break his heart with an abortion and somehow claim it's their "reproductive right" to do so.

Break the man's heart? Really? What do you think it is going to do to the women who is forced to carry a pregnancy against her will? She will suffer both physically and mentally....but I guess what women go through doesn't count.....as long as the man gets his way.

I am not whining that men have to pay child support. My issue is that women want to act like a man has no say in whether or not the child is even born, that his thoughts are nothing, but turn around and stick their hands out for child support. That his input is only as important as she says so. That they are all for "my choice" when they are ready to scrape it out but when the baby is born then they are all for "his wallet". You're the only one who can get pregnant? you're the only one who gets a say, it's your body so butt out?, then you should be the only one to take care of it then. Your body, your choice, your responsibility.

You don't want to hear that you may be ending a life, you don't want to hear that you may be hurting the father, you don't want to hear that you may be hurting yourself. You want to be told you are just removing a "clump of cells" and "empowered" for doing so.

Again, I am for abortion rights, but those rights, like any rights have responsibilities to them.

And here we go again. Who should get the deciding vote on abortion.....the man or the woman?

Of course a man can express his opinion.....but he doesn't get to make the final decision.....because he isn't the one who has to carry the pregnancy and take risks with his health.

[Arus]

Originally Posted by steven_h

This is why we no longer possess the ability to converse rationally. I pointed out that Ginsburg herself stated that "RvW IS a means to control the population that we don't want", and you come back saying that pro-life is population control. This pandemic disconnection from the truth is proving L'Umanita's Utili Idioti to be correct.

You mean where she clarified herself 2 years later?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ntrol_and.html

“Emily, you know that that line, which you quoted accurately, was vastly misinterpreted,” she said. “I was surprised that the court went as far as it did in Roe v. Wade, and I did think that with the Medicaid reimbursement cases down the road that perhaps the court was thinking it did want more women to have access to reproductive choice. At the time, there was a concern about too many people inhabiting our planet. There was an organization called Zero Population Growth.” She continued, “In the press, there were articles about the danger of crowding our planet. So there was at the time of Roe v. Wade considerable concern about overpopulation.”

She never meant that Roe V Wade was decided because of the thought of overpopulation; just that there was a CONCERN of overpopulation at the time that Roe V Wade was being decided.

And of course more:

I asked if she was talking about general concern in the society, as opposed to her own concern or the concern of the feminist legal community. Ginsburg said yes, and then returning to the issue of whether Congress could restrict Medicaid from covering abortion, added, “But I turned out to be wrong. Not too long after Roe v. Wade”—in Harris v. McRae— “the Supreme Court said it was OK to deny Medicaid funding for even therapeutic abortions.”

I asked if the idea of a link between concern about population growth and the court’s rulings on abortion turned out to be wrong. Justice Ginsburg said yes, stating the obvious: After all Roe v. Wade and the decisions that came after it are rooted in the right to privacy.

so know, Her little quote you like to use: misinterpreted.

Roe v Wade wasn't about Eugenics or population control. It has always been about the right to privacy.

So what was your point?