• 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!

House to vote on abortion ban after 20 weeks of pregnancy

trouble13 said:
Where did i say its ok to lie to get sex?

It revealing that you dont think a man has a right to know he is a father but you sure do think he has obligation to provide suoport

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Legally there is no 'right.' But I said, in many posts, that he should be told.

And you claimed a difference between a woman lying to a man about the kid and man lying about marrying a woman to have sex.

There's no difference. Both are wrong.
 
Lursa said:
My kind?

Please spell out, from what I've written, that is wrong? Why is it not acceptable for men to protect themselves from being unwilling fathers by either a) being less willing to have sex OR b) accepting the consequences that comes with that risk?

Women do it...and every one of the consequences can kill us (childbirth, pregnancy complications, infection from abortion....) But they are all certainly life-changing. But apparently men are not capable of accepting this accountability...according to you...(I'm not saying it...but your lack of denial is telling)
Click to expand...
Its misandry plain and simple and you repeatedly fall back to it like its a legitimate excuse

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Its misandry plain and simple and you repeatedly fall back to it like its a legitimate excuse

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Why isnt it acceptable? It's the exact same expectation for women.

You cant refute it, so you name call.

Come on, actually articulate why it's unjust, unequal...if you are going to say it's misandry:

Lursa said:
Please spell out, from what I've written, that is wrong? Why is it not acceptable for men to protect themselves from being unwilling fathers by either a) being less willing to have sex OR b) accepting the consequences that comes with that risk?

Women do it...and every one of the consequences can kill us (childbirth, pregnancy complications, infection from abortion....) But they are all certainly life-changing. But apparently men are not capable of accepting this accountability...according to you...(I'm not saying it...but your lack of denial is telling)
Click to expand...
 
Lursa said:
Why isnt it acceptable? It's the exact same expectation for women.

You cant refute it, so you name call.

Come on, actually articulate why it's unjust, unequal...if you are going to say it's misandry:
Click to expand...
Why do you need abortion rights when women can keep their legs closed? If they did that they would not of gotten pregnant so why should we give a woman the right to kill children. They new the risks before they spread there legs. Nothing mysoginstic about that, right. Why should men live by a standard that women find unacceptable for themselves. Don't ask men to live by rules that you are not willing to live by yourself.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Nothing mysoginstic about that, right.
Click to expand...

You don't expect anyone to take you seriously, right? You probably shouldn't use words that you have no idea how to spell.
 
trouble13 said:
Why do you need abortion rights when women can keep their legs closed? If they did that they would not of gotten pregnant so why should we give a woman the right to kill children. They new the risks before they spread there legs. Nothing mysoginstic about that, right. Why should men live by a standard that women find unacceptable for themselves. Don't ask men to live by rules that you are not willing to live by yourself.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Um...it's an actual right supported by the Constitution in terms of how the govt may not infringe on women and their bodies. No one 'gave' us the right.

And you continue to manage to dismiss this:

Why isnt it acceptable? It's the exact same expectation for women.
Click to expand...

You continue to claim inequality? How so?

Both can avoid the consequences if they dont have sex, if not, both are subject to the consequences. You seem to still ignore that biology is what determines the differences in those consequences.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Adding in exceptions where the life of the mother is at risk or cases involving rape or incest works for me. Think about it. From the time a woman is impregnated, she has a full 5 months to consider getting an abortion.

I believe in choice, but I am OK with this. However, I can be convinced otherwise with a solid argument to the contrary. At this time, I don't see one. Anybody got one?

House to vote on abortion ban after 20 weeks of pregnancy - CNNPolitics
Click to expand...

This one is dead on arrival in the Senate. Most states already have their own abortion 20 week restrictions anyway. Most late term abortions are done if the fetus dies, or is severely deformed, either mentally or physically, and of course for the life of the mother. If any state bill does not consider the life of the mother and or the consequences of deformities with the fetus, the higher Federal Court will immediately overrule the bill.

In its landmark 1973 abortion cases, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a woman’s right to an abortion is not absolute and that states may restrict or ban abortions after fetal viability, provided that their policies meet certain requirements. In these and subsequent decisions, the Court has held that even after fetal viability, states may not prohibit abortions “necessary to preserve the life or health” of the woman; “health” in this context includes physical and mental health; only the physician, in the course of evaluating the specific circumstances of an individual case, can define what constitutes “health” and when a fetus is viable; and states may not require additional physicians to confirm the attending physician’s judgment that the woman’s life or health is at risk in cases of medical emergency. Although the vast majority of states restrict later-term abortions, many of these restrictions have been struck down. Most often, courts have voided the limitations because they do not contain a health exception; contain an unacceptably narrow health exception; or do not permit a physician to determine viability in each individual case, but rather rely on a rigid construct based on specific weeks of gestation or trimester.
Click to expand...
https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-later-abortions

Any woman having an abortion at 20 weeks or over, you can be assured there is a health reason for it. Women really do not use abortions as a contraceptive method, not when they're having to pay out of pocket $1200.00 to $1800.00 for one.

In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year.[19]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy
 
Last edited:
Jetboogieman said:
Yeah I’ll let the person who advocates conducting a war without regard for civilian casualties smash women’s rights to pieces because of “babies lives”.
Click to expand...

You done making irrelevent bloviatuons?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom