• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pence: Abortion will end in U.S. 'in our time'

Celebrity said:
Women of the USA: why do you insist on entertaining the fantasy that forced motherhood is bad but forced fatherhood is good?

The Vice President of the United States is calling to take away rights which allow you to choose what to do with your body. This autonomy on a physical level is part of what makes us human. But it is also a choice of how to behave in society, and whether or not we should be parents.

It seems quite clear to me that men and women should both be allowed to have sex with one another without risking a prison sentence, if the other chooses to enforce non-custodial support.

Why do you suppose that women still want to financially abuse men in this way? Are women really so vindictive that they are willing to risk it all just to snub men? Or are they too meek and mild mannered to stand up for themselves?

I know how that feels. I once tried to present evidence in court of the unconstitutionality of forced fatherhood. The judge refused to admit it. It really hurts to go to a place where one expects to find honor, civility, respect, wisdom and justice, and find ignorance and obstinate discrimination in its place. But I feel my situation is slightly different. Whereas I presently am incapable of rightly exercising autonomy, woman can and do disavow motherhood. Therefore, advocacy I do is not in defense of an existing legal protection of men. Unfortunately, I believe women have grown smug and self righteous. They do not understand that their rights are at risk because of their egotistical complacency. If women stood up for what was right for all people, and not just all women, they could speak to a much wider audience.

Pence: Abortion will end in U.S. 'in our time' | TheHill
Click to expand...

If they succeed in outlawing abortion, only outlaws will have abortions. And there will be millions of outlaws. (I copped an NRA slogan, lol)
 
Luftwaffe said:
The best argument I've seen for pro choice is the idea that a fetus isnt protected under the constitution as a "person." That actually has some value as an srgument if you ask me.
Click to expand...

And it's not. But even if it was...they cannot be treated equally under the law (or ethically either IMO). One or the other's rights would have to supersede the others...due process, privacy, all the way up to a right to life because the govt cannot guarantee the woman will survive. (Nor is that reasonable and they seem to recognize that) That is a risk only she should be able to choose, as she is the only one that will pay those consequences.

So it would be a crushing disrespect to reduce women to 2nd class citizens again...which SCOTUS has already determined we are not.

How do you see that playing out, you seem to have thought this through?
 
<alt>doxygen said:
If they succeed in outlawing abortion, only outlaws will have abortions. And there will be millions of outlaws. (I copped an NRA slogan, lol)
Click to expand...

And they'll have quite the Underground Railroad too!
 
Lursa said:
And it's not. But even if it was...they cannot be treated equally under the law (or ethically either IMO). One or the other's rights would have to supersede the others...due process, privacy, all the way up to a right to life because the govt cannot guarantee the woman will survive. (Nor is that reasonable and they seem to recognize that) That is a risk only she should be able to choose, as she is the only one that will pay those consequences.

So it would be a crushing disrespect to reduce women to 2nd class citizens again...which SCOTUS has already determined we are not.

How do you see that playing out, you seem to have thought this through?
Click to expand...

There's no guarantee that the woman can survive but there's a guarantee that the baby would die in an abortion. So would the opposite not be a crushing disrespect to infants as second class citizens (assuming they are constitutionally people)?

The situation is a catch 22 no doubt, it's why I've remained on the fence rather than believing purely in either side. It seems more of a moral and personal issue than anything else, something that, under our form of government would originally deal with the states and their powers.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
If they succeed in outlawing abortion, only outlaws will have abortions. And there will be millions of outlaws. (I copped an NRA slogan, lol)
Click to expand...


A future TV show. Law and Order:FVU (Fetal Victims Unit).
 
Lursa said:
Please let us know when the taxpayers can 'opt out' of our (zero) responsibilities for their kids then.
Click to expand...

Are we going to opt-out of our responsibility to educate the kids at the same time? Since income taxes are across the board, the man who opts-out of a childcare responsibility is still going to be paying taxes that go to support not only his biological offspring, but that of others as well. And, he'll contribute to all of their education and, for poor kids, their healthcare.

While allowing a man to opt-out isn't so much like a female's choice to abort -- it's similar to her choice to put her child up for adoption. She can do that even after the child is born, and it's wise to allow her to do that. Parents who don't want children are not always the best influence on those children. It just makes sense not to saddle a man who doesn't want a kid -- with a kid. It's in the child's best interest.
 
Lursa said:
Please let us know when the taxpayers can 'opt out' of our (zero) responsibilities for their kids then.
Click to expand...

Oh sure, when I can opt out of responsibility for killing brown people across the globe, or how about all the tax breaks and subsidies giving to companies making billions in profit. God, that's one of the dumbest, most unoriginal, right wing deflections you get when anything regarding taxes is brought up. Your tiny pittance that you pay into the tax pool doesn't pay for ****
 
Luftwaffe said:
There's no guarantee that the woman can survive but there's a guarantee that the baby would die. So would the opposite not be a crushing disrespect to infants as second class citizens (assuming they are constitutionally people)?

The situation is a catch 22 no doubt, it's why I've remained on the fence rather than believing purely in either side.
Click to expand...

Correct. There is no way to treat them/us equally under the law. So there would have to be subjective valuation based on objective criteria. This is a current example of that:

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
Click to expand...
 
Celebrity said:
Women of the USA: why do you insist on entertaining the fantasy that forced motherhood is bad but forced fatherhood is good?

The Vice President of the United States is calling to take away rights which allow you to choose what to do with your body. This autonomy on a physical level is part of what makes us human. But it is also a choice of how to behave in society, and whether or not we should be parents.

It seems quite clear to me that men and women should both be allowed to have sex with one another without risking a prison sentence, if the other chooses to enforce non-custodial support.

Why do you suppose that women still want to financially abuse men in this way? Are women really so vindictive that they are willing to risk it all just to snub men? Or are they too meek and mild mannered to stand up for themselves?

I know how that feels. I once tried to present evidence in court of the unconstitutionality of forced fatherhood. The judge refused to admit it. It really hurts to go to a place where one expects to find honor, civility, respect, wisdom and justice, and find ignorance and obstinate discrimination in its place. But I feel my situation is slightly different. Whereas I presently am incapable of rightly exercising autonomy, woman can and do disavow motherhood. Therefore, advocacy I do is not in defense of an existing legal protection of men. Unfortunately, I believe women have grown smug and self righteous. They do not understand that their rights are at risk because of their egotistical complacency. If women stood up for what was right for all people, and not just all women, they could speak to a much wider audience.

Pence: Abortion will end in U.S. 'in our time' | TheHill
Click to expand...

He's quite stupid and, keep in mind, Pence is a Juggalo.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Oh sure, when I can opt out of responsibility for killing brown people across the globe, or how about all the tax breaks and subsidies giving to companies making billions in profit. God, that's one of the dumbest, most unoriginal, right wing deflections you get when anything regarding taxes is brought up. Your tiny pittance that you pay into the tax pool doesn't pay for ****
Click to expand...

Really? There are hundreds of thousands of kids in foster care in this country. For every extra kid that has to receive public funds, those kids get less. It's not an endless well of $.

That's one of the most limited views of an issue I've seen. As if $$ doesnt add up and there's a endless supply. :roll:

(And it does affect my paycheck...maybe you are more fortunate)
 
Lursa said:
Correct. There is no way to treat them/us equally under the law. So there would have to be subjective valuation based on objective criteria. This is a current example of that:
Click to expand...

Right, the US code essentially doesn't include fetuses as protected persons under the constitution. Under that reasoning, I think it's absolutely fine for abortion to be universally available.

I'm merely posing the what-if question with regards to if the SCOTUS redefined person to include the fetus which is a growing possibility now. What the hell do we do as a society?
 
Lursa said:
Correct. There is no way to treat them/us equally under the law. So there would have to be subjective valuation based on objective criteria. This is a current example of that:
Click to expand...

Right after we moved to VA this popped up.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Text_of_the_Virginia_Personhood_Bill

They tried at least twice. Both times it got railroaded out because the authors simply couldn't square their desired effects for the bill with the fact that many cases of conception end in miscarriage - and they were criminalizing miscarriage.
 
Luftwaffe said:
Right, the US code essentially doesn't include fetuses as protected persons under the constitution. Under that reasoning, I think it's absolutely fine for abortion to be universally available.

I'm merely posing the what-if question with regards to if the SCOTUS redefined person to include the fetus which is a growing possibility now. What the hell do we do as a society?
Click to expand...

All cases of miscarriage need to be reported and the woman would have the burden of demonstrating proof to the state that she did not intentionally murder a person.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Are we going to opt-out of our responsibility to educate the kids at the same time? Since income taxes are across the board, the man who opts-out of a childcare responsibility is still going to be paying taxes that go to support not only his biological offspring, but that of others as well. And, he'll contribute to all of their education and, for poor kids, their healthcare.

While allowing a man to opt-out isn't so much like a female's choice to abort -- it's similar to her choice to put her child up for adoption. She can do that even after the child is born, and it's wise to allow her to do that. Parents who don't want children are not always the best influence on those children. It just makes sense not to saddle a man who doesn't want a kid -- with a kid. It's in the child's best interest.
Click to expand...

Her choices dont cost the taxpayer anything. Adoption certainly doesnt.

And everyone pays for schools...everyone. Because we all benefit from a more educated society.

Please tell me why the **responsible** parties, if available, shouldnt be held accountable for their kids BEFORE the state? If this is about fairness that is very naive.

There's nothing fair about reproduction. It's not fair women get pregnant but we're not whining about it. We deal with it and pay the consequences. Life isnt fair and the law cannot make it so. How do you make it 'fair' for taxpayers?

If men dont want the consequences of sex...they can decide that before they engage in it.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
All cases of miscarriage need to be reported and the woman would have the burden of demonstrating proof to the state that she did not intentionally murder a person.
Click to expand...

Most get flushed down the toilet without even knowing at the time.

But nothing would need to be reported because if such ridiculous laws were imposed on women, we just would never report a pregnancy. At least not until we decided if we wanted a kid or not.
 
Luftwaffe said:
Right, the US code essentially doesn't include fetuses as protected persons under the constitution. Under that reasoning, I think it's absolutely fine for abortion to be universally available.

I'm merely posing the what-if question with regards to if the SCOTUS redefined person to include the fetus which is a growing possibility now. What the hell do we do as a society?
Click to expand...

I appreciate the what-ifs....I like to know what's out there :)

Pro-life supporters almost universally claim they value both the unborn and born equally...and when it's pointed out that that's impossible legally and ethically, they also almost universally deny it.

OTOH, while I value the status of the unborn, I admit I value all born people more.
 
Lursa said:
Her choices dont cost the taxpayer anything. Adoption certainly doesnt.

And everyone pays for schools...everyone. Because we all benefit from a more educated society.
Click to expand...

The taxpayers DO pay for the medical care (and other expenses) of special needs kids who are adopted.

Please tell me why the **responsible** parties, if available, shouldnt be held accountable for their kids BEFORE the state? If this is about fairness that is very naive.

There's nothing fair about reproduction. It's not fair women get pregnant but we're not whining about it. We deal with it and pay the consequences. Life isnt fair and the law cannot make it so. How do you make it 'fair' for taxpayers?
Click to expand...

You're right -- life isn't fair. It isn't fair for the higher percentage of women who are murdered when they're pregnant because the biological father didn't want to take responsibility.

Those women need not die. But, they will continue to die as long as we force males into accepting the consequences of the actions. If you don't believe me about higher rates of murder for women when they're pregnant, look it up. It's a "thing."

If men dont want the consequences of sex...they can decide that before they engage in it.
Click to expand...

That argument is a good one -- but it applies to both sexes equally. It's in the best interest of the child, and of society, not to force a parent to care for it for 18 years. Dead kids and dead mothers tell us that.
 
HowardBThiname said:
The taxpayers DO pay for the medical care (and other expenses) of special needs kids who are adopted.
Click to expand...

Once adopted? Not in NJ, since my parents adopted my twin sisters, both with special needs. Please provide some sources for that. And if that is something that enables a permanent home for a kid that would sit in foster care and STILL get that care paid for on the state...how does it matter?
 
Last edited:
HowardBThiname said:
You're right -- life isn't fair. It isn't fair for the higher percentage of women who are murdered when they're pregnant because the biological father didn't want to take responsibility.

Those women need not die. But, they will continue to die as long as we force males into accepting the consequences of the actions. If you don't believe me about higher rates of murder for women when they're pregnant, look it up. It's a "thing."
Click to expand...

It is a thing, a thing that I intentionally dont add to my list of consequences for pregnant women.

It's also a consequence. Men and women need to make better choices. It's not just about men...I dont want to pay for the bad choices or mistakes of EITHER.

HowardBThiname said:
That argument is a good one -- but it applies to both sexes equally. It's in the best interest of the child, and of society, not to force a parent to care for it for 18 years. Dead kids and dead mothers tell us that.
Click to expand...

Agreed that no one wants anyone dead. but it's not in the best interests of society to let men just walk away from their responsibilities and leave them at the door 'of society.'
 
<alt>doxygen said:
All cases of miscarriage need to be reported and the woman would have the burden of demonstrating proof to the state that she did not intentionally murder a person.
Click to expand...

No the state would have the burden of proof that she intentionally murdered a person. Not sure where the **** you got the opposite notion from...
 
Lursa said:
Once adopted? Not in NJ, since my parents adopted my twin sisters, both with special needs. Please provide some sources for that. And if that is something that enables a permanent home for a kid that would sit in foster care and STILL get that care paid for on the state...how does it matter?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a perk.

Costs of adoption




Is there financial assistance to help meet children’s needs after they are adopted?

After you adopt a child, there are medical assistance programs to help finance an adopted child’s medical and mental health needs. There may also be current educational benefits, college tuition assistance, child care vouchers, subsidies, and other assistance. Read more about resources available after adoption.
Click to expand...

https://www.adoptuskids.org/adoption-and-foster-care/overview/faq
 
Lursa said:
It is a thing, a thing that I intentionally dont add to my list of consequences for pregnant women.

It's also a consequence. Men and women need to make better choices. It's not just about men...I dont want to pay for the bad choices or mistakes of EITHER.



Agreed that no one wants anyone dead. but it's not in the best interests of society to let men just walk away from their responsibilities and leave them at the door 'of society.'
Click to expand...

I understand that sentiment, and I agree that the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for every deadbeat dad, but if we offered an opting-out period, a limited one, say just three months after they find out about the pregnancy, we'd avoid a lot of child abuse and reduce the risk of murder of the mother.

I don't think a lot of men would take that option, but if they did, it'd protect both the mother and the baby from angry repercussions.

There's a good reason why women are not required to name the father when they have an abortion. Many have claimed they were afraid to name the father. We understand that -- but only if they abort. If they choose to have the baby, we suddenly throw them right back into that mess. We try to get them name the father so the courts can go after him. But, sometimes they lie -- often in domestic abuse situations.

The law that says biological fathers will be responsible at all costs -- often paints a big red X on the woman and her child.

We can do better.
 
Lursa said:
Thanks

It's not a perk if they'd be paying for it anyway if the kid was in foster care. If it gets the kid adopted...and adopted sooner...then it saves $$ in the long run.
Click to expand...

I'm not complaining about that expense. Obviously, those children need to be adopted and I think it probably helps everyone in the long run.

But, do you realize that birth mothers of children who are in foster care are not charged for their kids' welfare costs? We do let birth parents off the hook, and I think that's the right thing to do.
 
HowardBThiname said:
I understand that sentiment, and I agree that the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for every deadbeat dad, but if we offered an opting-out period, a limited one, say just three months after they find out about the pregnancy, we'd avoid a lot of child abuse and reduce the risk of murder of the mother.
Click to expand...

Sources please. ALot of women dont even know they're pregnant that early. Then they have to deal with a bureaucracy? And involve a guy they'd probably rather avoid having this conversation with? And the fact that if the guys dont decide then it doesnt mean they still wont sober up later and decide they dont/do want it?

If they wont take responsibility in the first 3 months, why would they after that? They'll still be mad.

I see only more bureaucracy and few results...not to mention that I still object completely to letting them opt out.

Men and women abuse and kill kids they did want. Sorry, I'm not buying that without some kind of foundation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom