• 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!

An interesting idea

Fletch said:
Well you would be wrong about that since it isnt a male/female issue but a life issue. Plus, we already have a great deal of gun laws. And I have not heard of a single proposal that would have stopped any of the mass shootings we have seen lately.
Click to expand...

I bet if guns were outlawed there would be a mess less of mass shootings. And if you think it's a life issue, you're kidding yourself, it's a control women issue. At heart the republican party is still the party of father knows best and momma serves dinner with a smile wearing a dress and speaks when spoken to.
 
bongsaway said:
I bet if guns were outlawed there would be a mess less of mass shootings.
Click to expand...
Which is irrelevant because you have a Constitutional right to bear arms
And if you think it's a life issue, you're kidding yourself, it's a control women issue. At heart the republican party is still the party of father knows best and momma serves dinner with a smile wearing a dress and speaks when spoken to.
Click to expand...

Thats too ignorant to even respond to.
 
Fletch said:
Which is irrelevant because you have a Constitutional right to bear arms

Thats too ignorant to even respond to.
Click to expand...

But you did and women have a right to an abortion but that right is under attack from the right.
 
bongsaway said:
But you did and women have a right to an abortion but that right is under attack from the right.
Click to expand...

Yes, I responded by saying your comment was ignorant. Claiming that the pro life movement is simply a way for people on the right to keep women down is either ignorant or an outright lie. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. And gun rights are under attack from the left. Thats why I linked the two.
 
Fletch said:
HOw come? Why do you advocate limiting rights in one area but not another? Hypocrisy?
Click to expand...

Isn't that what you're doing?

Personally, I'm not in favor of taking anyone's rights (though I disagree with your reading of the 2nd to mean everybody cam have as many of whatever weapon they want). You apparently do like taking people's rights.

But what about the topic if the thread? Child support from conception? It's a baby right?
 
Fletch said:
Yes, I responded by saying your comment was ignorant. Claiming that the pro life movement is simply a way for people on the right to keep women down is either ignorant or an outright lie. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. And gun rights are under attack from the left. Thats why I linked the two.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, Trump has done more for gun control than Obama ever did. Sorry to rain on your parade, but the President who banned bumpstocks was Trump. Then there's this tidbit:

Trump: 'Take the guns first, go through due process second' | TheHill

So either your premise is false or you voted for an even bigger leftist than Obama.
 
SoCal said:
She should be compensated, but only if she decides to give birth...
Click to expand...

Y'all don't care about her or the child after its born, so that's not gonna happen.
 
Amelia said:
So the men have decided that the fetus is a person but that the biological father owes no support to that person.

Got it. :thumbs:


Guess what, that is one of the things which will be forced to change when the woman is forced to have the child. One of the many things which will be forced to change when the embryo is granted personhood. The person has rights, and that includes right to support from bio-dad.
Click to expand...

Nope, you said that. The child should have rights to support from the bio-dad, but only if he has an equal say if the baby lives or dies at her hands.
 
PirateMk1 said:
No. That's her stupid tax.
Click to expand...

Which wealthy girls won't have to pay.

But hey, y'all gotta keep your supply of cannon fodder and stupid voters up.

Which is the real reason there's money for all this anti-abortion activity .

Y'all don't give to ****s about people who are born already.
 
Fletch said:
Sure. BUt I am talking more on a national level than a state level. Point of fact is that the left want ZERO restrictions on abortion but many if not most are prepared to ban guns. The question was how do you square that with the Constitution? And if you want 'reasonable' regulations on guns why oppose reasonable regulations on abortion?
Click to expand...

Why isn't your second "reasonable" in quotes?
 
bongsaway said:
Here's the problem that I see. Any kind of gun control is by definition unreasonable, ask and most gun owners will say they agree because if you give in one time, what's next? Never give an inch. Secondly there are reasonable restrictions on abortion. Unlike the myth the right likes to spread abortion is not done 'at will' in all cases. I would just about bet my life if it were men giving birth, abortion would assuredly be legal.
Click to expand...

Birth control isn't always covered by insurance that covers viagra, so you're probably right.
 
Amelia said:
So the men have decided that the fetus is a person but that the biological father owes no support to that person.

Got it. :thumbs:


Guess what, that is one of the things which will be forced to change when the woman is forced to have the child. One of the many things which will be forced to change when the embryo is granted personhood. The person has rights, and that includes right to support from bio-dad.
Click to expand...
smallvoice said:
Nope, you said that. The child should have rights to support from the bio-dad, but only if he has an equal say if the baby lives or dies at her hands.
Click to expand...


The premise of this thread is that the woman is being forced to carry the child.

That makes your point moot about whether the bio-dad has any say in whether the baby lives or dies. The premise is that the state was already successful in forcing the mother not to abort. What "new ultra-punitive laws about abortion" did you think were under discussion?




In future, please don't waste my time if you can't even be bothered to digest the OP to which serious posters are replying.
 
Last edited:
Amelia said:
The premise of this thread is that the woman is being forced to carry the child.

That makes your point moot about whether the bio-dad has any say in whether the baby lives or dies. The premise is that the state was already successful in forcing the mother not to abort. What "new ultra-punitive laws about abortion" did you think were under discussion?




In future, please don't waste my time if you can't even be bothered to digest the OP to which serious posters are replying.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but it's NEVER a moot point. You girls just don't want someone who has just as much involved to have a say.

Since I haven't actually seen a "serious poster", I'll interject myself whenever I want.
 
rocket88 said:
Isn't that what you're doing?

Personally, I'm not in favor of taking anyone's rights (though I disagree with your reading of the 2nd to mean everybody cam have as many of whatever weapon they want). You apparently do like taking people's rights.
Click to expand...
I am not for taking away anyones rights. But you are familiar with the maxim: your rights end where mine begin? The problem with abortion is what we are really talking about is ending a human life. You for example, did not become a living human being the moment you left your mothers womb. You were a living human being long before that. To be clear, I am not against abortion. Truth be told, I actually drove a woman friend to an abortion clinic and waited in the car for her to come out and drove her home. To this day, to the best of my knowledge, she and I are the only people who know it happened. But this abortion took place very early on 6 weeks maybe. As soon as she discovered she was pregnant she took steps to end it. That, I believe is every womans right. The dificulty is that what she did, in fact, was end a human life and she is well aware of that.

My niece had twins a few years back and they were delivered early. I cant remember exactly but 22 weeks or somewhere in that area. They were in an incubator for over a month and you wouldnt believe how tiny they were. But the fact remains that at 22 weeks, they were living human infants. Period. Had she chosen to abort them at that stage, she would have been ending viable human life. As a defender of rights, I cant support that.

But what about the topic if the thread? Child support from conception? It's a baby right?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I dont think I would have a problem with that.
 
smallvoice said:
Sorry, but it's NEVER a moot point. You girls just don't want someone who has just as much involved to have a say.

Since I haven't actually seen a "serious poster", I'll interject myself whenever I want.
Click to expand...


Thank you for making it clear that you don't care what the thread was actually about -- that you don't care that the thread's premise was that women would not be allowed to abort. I appreciate it when people are candid about there being no point in wasting time with them. I am prone to give people the benefit of the doubt. So it's nice when they are open about how it wasn't a mistake that they missed what the OP was about -- that they just don't care.

Goodbye.
 
Last edited:
Fletch said:
Because I dont find most liberal regulations on guns to be reasonable, but many on abortion are.
Click to expand...

Well since I find it reasonable to not bring an unwanted child into an overpopulated world to be raised by someone who isn't ready and doesn't want that child we'll have to disagree.

Our cosmologies are obviously different so we're not going to find common ground.
 
smallvoice said:
Nope, you said that. The child should have rights to support from the bio-dad, but only if he has an equal say if the baby lives or dies at her hands.
Click to expand...

The state is taking away the ability for anyone to make that decision. Since the woman has no choice, and is being forced to gestate and deliver, the man has no say either.
 
Fletch said:
I am not for taking away anyones rights. But you are familiar with the maxim: your rights end where mine begin? The problem with abortion is what we are really talking about is ending a human life. You for example, did not become a living human being the moment you left your mothers womb. You were a living human being long before that. To be clear, I am not against abortion. Truth be told, I actually drove a woman friend to an abortion clinic and waited in the car for her to come out and drove her home. To this day, to the best of my knowledge, she and I are the only people who know it happened. But this abortion took place very early on 6 weeks maybe. As soon as she discovered she was pregnant she took steps to end it. That, I believe is every womans right. The dificulty is that what she did, in fact, was end a human life and she is well aware of that.

My niece had twins a few years back and they were delivered early. I cant remember exactly but 22 weeks or somewhere in that area. They were in an incubator for over a month and you wouldnt believe how tiny they were. But the fact remains that at 22 weeks, they were living human infants. Period. Had she chosen to abort them at that stage, she would have been ending viable human life. As a defender of rights, I cant support that.

Yeah, I dont think I would have a problem with that.
Click to expand...

If you are actually pro-choice, why do you vote for and vociferously defend those who are against it?

As far as my personal views for myself, I find abortion morally reprehensible. However, I don't like the government making moral decisions for everyone. We agree on "small government " but we disagree on what that is. To you it's "get rid of regulations and abolish taxes" and to me it's "stay out of my pants"
 
Amelia said:
child support + pain and suffering?

Morning sickness. Lost sleep. Hemorrhoids. Lost work days, and resulting loss of status in one's profession. Loss of income attainment contributing to lower social security in old age. Et cetera.

If she's going to be forced to carry the child, she should be compensated for all of that.
Click to expand...

Throw in a few lost teeth a woman may lose due to calcium depletion sent to the developing fetus. Oh, and varicose veins, we hate those too.
 
What if...? said:
Well since I find it reasonable to not bring an unwanted child into an overpopulated world to be raised by someone who isn't ready and doesn't want that child we'll have to disagree.

Our cosmologies are obviously different so we're not going to find common ground.
Click to expand...

How many newborn babies, whether they're healthy or suffering from some sort of birth defect, will be left up to the care of the individual states they're born in. This alone is going to put enormous strain on the public assistance and government subsidies that republicans already complain about. It's going to expand in epic proportions.
 
HumblePi said:
How many newborn babies, whether they're healthy or suffering from some sort of birth defect, will be left up to the care of the individual states they're born in. This alone is going to put enormous strain on the public assistance and government subsidies that republicans already complain about. It's going to expand in epic proportions.
Click to expand...


States like Alabama, which ranks dead last in public education, 45th worst in infant mortality, 46th worst in incarceration rate. Yeah, they're going to be willing and able to find the money to take care of the influx of newborns. Sure they are.

We do need to be serious here and acknowledge that we know they won't care about the conditions into which the children are born -- because they have already shown they don't care about the conditions into which children are born.

Force the women to give birth, but it's not their problem later, not until the children are old enough to put in jail.
 
rocket88 said:
If you are actually pro-choice, why do you vote for and vociferously defend those who are against it?

As far as my personal views for myself, I find abortion morally reprehensible. However, I don't like the government making moral decisions for everyone. We agree on "small government " but we disagree on what that is. To you it's "get rid of regulations and abolish taxes" and to me it's "stay out of my pants"
Click to expand...

When did you think he "vociferously defended those who are against it"?
 
Amelia said:
States like Alabama, which ranks dead last in public education, 45th worst in infant mortality, 46th worst in incarceration rate. Yeah, they're going to be willing and able to find the money to take care of the influx of newborns. Sure they are.

We do need to be serious here and acknowledge that we know they won't care about the conditions into which the children are born -- because they have already shown they don't care about the conditions into which children are born.

Force the women to give birth, but it's not their problem later, not until the children are old enough to put in jail.
Click to expand...

In addition, shutting down Planned Parenthood centers in these states is only going to ensure that women won't be getting any education as far as preventing pregnancy before it occurs rather than dealing with the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. The illegitimate birth rate is going to sky rocket.
 
HumblePi said:
In addition, shutting down Planned Parenthood centers in these states is only going to ensure that women won't be getting any education as far as preventing pregnancy before it occurs rather than dealing with the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. The illegitimate birth rate is going to sky rocket.
Click to expand...


I guess that's the ONE good thing about these women being forced to have children they don't want and aren't prepared to care for -- there is almost no stigma to single motherhood anymore. Not in the general populace. Fundamentalist churches can still try to make the women feel like trash, but that's a minority.

So the vile people who are forcing the women to have the children probably can't also force them to feel guilty about it.

But that doesn't solve the problem of the suffering these women and children will be facing through forced birth into poverty in a state like Alabama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom