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

[soylentgreen]

THe pool of $$ is not endless and there are millions of other kids...without available parents...already dependent on that $. Why should they potentially get less?

Ít would not surprise me to see the one who said that also appear in threads where he would argue the government has no right to tax him for public education when he does not have a kid. Yet he would expect others to share his burden.

 

[AGENT J]

That you are covering up with a lie does not surprise me. What i quoted was your direct response to HowardBThiname not a continuing of the op.

Your own words give you away.you said, quite clearly,



Which is of course, nonsense. No one is being forced to be a parent.

I suggest if you are going to talk **** then at least have the courage to argue it instead of trying on this lame attempt to run away.

Thanks for quoting me and proving yourself wrong. MY words dont say what you made up and claimed. You made the part you posted up in your head. In the future try not to do that and you can avoid this mistake. If you disagree simply prove your lie. Quote me saying what you claimed i did. You can not because you made it up. :shrug:

 

[Celebrity]

The "restrictions" that are being bandied about right now will actually increase the possibility of abortion, but the numbers will likely drop do to enhanced birth control efforts.

I agree that the man should have the ability to "opt out" of the pregnancy as well as a woman, but if he chooses to do so, he should never, and that means ever, be allowed back in the child's life. Period.

Pence is the best reason for not impeaching Trump, but, even he cannot change SCOTUS rulings.

If restrictions increase the possibility of abortion, doesn't it also make sense that forced fatherhood increases the possibility of single parenthood? :doh

When will these women learn that forcing men to do what men will not naturally do will result in the inevitable decline of women's rights. They abuse men, and ask for equal treatment. So basically, they're just asking to be abused.

 

[Celebrity]

Pence is a zealot. I expect nothing less to come out of his pie hole.

As to the sidebar in your op: paternal law does appear to be stacked against. If it's your DNA you pay. If it's not your DNA but you were married, you pay. If it's not your DNA but you thought it was for long enough, you pay too.

Paternal law is stacked against men and stacked against children. The state pimps out single mothers so that they can keep taxes low and spend money on things instead of taking care of children.

The men are abused and the children are neglected. And when men are abused on a biological basis, two very unfortunate events become more likely. It becomes more likely that men will preempt the abuse by the state by removing a problematic pregnancy by force, and it becomes much more likely that dynasties will emerge. Rich families will grow and poor families will either end, because they cannot afford to have any children, or remain poor, because they cannot afford the children they've already had.

Not to mention that women who do not target wealthy sexual partners are condemned to poverty if they are not wealthy in the first place.

 

[Celebrity]

Nor should the male be let of his responsibility to pay simply because tax dollars are used. Those taxes do not just appear by magic. Nor should they be used to allow some men to simply walk away from their responsibility.

Why is it that a man has responsibility to pay? A woman doesn't have a responsibility to pay. She can put the child up for adoption. So what you have suggested implies one of two things: criminalize adoption and force men and women to pay for their biological children equally, or discriminate against men by permitting women to make a choice that men do not have.

No, the taxes do not just appear by magic. We should keep in mind that public funding is the primary source of money for government spending. So where does the government go when public funding is not enough? It finds cheap labor in the form of involuntary servitude. We are taxed on the money that we are forced to pay in child support. Some of the money that we earned, but never see, is apportioned for public funding. That is insane.

Suppose that orphans and the children of single parents receive a publicly funded subsidy for their upbringing, and the same principle applies. Then you would be getting taxed on your taxes.

 

[calamity]

Paternal law is stacked against men and stacked against children. The state pimps out single mothers so that they can keep taxes low and spend money on things instead of taking care of children.

The men are abused and the children are neglected. And when men are abused on a biological basis, two very unfortunate events become more likely. It becomes more likely that men will preempt the abuse by the state by removing a problematic pregnancy by force, and it becomes much more likely that dynasties will emerge. Rich families will grow and poor families will either end, because they cannot afford to have any children, or remain poor, because they cannot afford the children they've already had.

Not to mention that women who do not target wealthy sexual partners are condemned to poverty if they are not wealthy in the first place.

I wish I knew where this post was going. Can you take us there in a few sentences? I'd really like to comment, but I don't want to guess.

 

[Moot]

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.

Periods for Pence...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periods_for_Politicians

 

[year2late]

Periods for Pence...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periods_for_Politicians

Brilliant.

 

[soylentgreen]

Thanks for quoting me and proving yourself wrong. MY words dont say what you made up and claimed. You made the part you posted up in your head. In the future try not to do that and you can avoid this mistake. If you disagree simply prove your lie. Quote me saying what you claimed i did. You can not because you made it up. :shrug:

No, I directly quoted your words which are quite clear. And now having to face the fact that your words are false the best you can do is go into denial over what you actually wrote.

let me quote more of your nonsense.

I did just fine being a single dad but that was my choice, nobody could have forced that on me if i didnt want it

Nobody is forced into raising a child. This is nothing more than you trying for a pity vote by pleading it is force.

 

[soylentgreen]

Why is it that a man has responsibility to pay? A woman doesn't have a responsibility to pay. She can put the child up for adoption. So what you have suggested implies one of two things: criminalize adoption and force men and women to pay for their biological children equally, or discriminate against men by permitting women to make a choice that men do not have.
.

If a woman puts a child up for adoption then the man does not get to pay either. You do understand that? And if a woman does decide to raise the child then she does pay in the fact that her time is consumed by doing that. It is not as if she puts a kid in a box and forgt it for the next 18 years.
There is no equality here. It is a woman's choice and not a mans. You are not asking for equality, you are asking for special pleading by demanding you are the same as a pregnant woman, when in fact, you are not.

No, the taxes do not just appear by magic. We should keep in mind that public funding is the primary source of money for government spending. So where does the government go when public funding is not enough? It finds cheap labor in the form of involuntary servitude. We are taxed on the money that we are forced to pay in child support. Some of the money that we earned, but never see, is apportioned for public funding. That is insane.

No, it is called being responsible for your actions. The male got the woman pregnant and according to you he should be allowed to walk away from what he did and allow the public to foot the bill over his lack of responsibility.

Suppose that orphans and the children of single parents receive a publicly funded subsidy for their upbringing, and the same principle applies. Then you would be getting taxed on your taxes

Not if the male responsible for getting her pregnant had to pay for his actions by being taxed for child support.
Other than that the child and parent(s) of any family would receive the same funding to help support the raising of a child.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) No, I directly quoted your words which are quite clear.
2.) And now having to face the fact that your words are false the best you can do is go into denial over what you actually wrote.
3.)let me quote more of your nonsense.
4.) Nobody is forced into raising a child. This is nothing more than you trying for a pity vote by pleading it is force.

1.) I agree 100% my words were VERY clear and NOTHING like the BS you got caught making up lol
2.) hey look now you resort to posting more lies that will fail just like your first lie. Sorry facts prove you wrong but thats what happens when you make stuff up. This is why you have yet to quote me saying what YOU claim because i never said what you said. Keep trying though its funny
3.) what part is nonsense? point it out and prove it. what i said was factually true. Seems you have an issue figuring out what you are making up and what is true.
4.) again more nonsense that doesnt apply to what was ACTUALLY said. CONTEXT . . .look it up.

Ill ask you again since you dodge my request. Once again if you disagree simply please quote me saying what you claimed i did. You can not because you made it up. We'll be waiting.

 

[soylentgreen]

1.) I agree 100% my words were VERY clear and NOTHING like the BS you got caught making up lol
2.) hey look now you resort to posting more lies that will fail just like your first lie. Sorry facts prove you wrong but thats what happens when you make stuff up. This is why you have yet to quote me saying what YOU claim because i never said what you said. Keep trying though its funny
3.) what part is nonsense? point it out and prove it. what i said was factually true. Seems you have an issue figuring out what you are making up and what is true.
4.) again more nonsense that doesnt apply to what was ACTUALLY said. CONTEXT . . .look it up.

Ill ask you again since you dodge my request. Once again if you disagree simply please quote me saying what you claimed i did. You can not because you made it up. We'll be waiting.

I have pointed out which part is nonsense. The idea that you believe people are being forced to be parents. You're either clueless as to what a parent is or you're using the word to gain pity.

I have your context quite well.
I suggest that instead of playing a game of denying what you actually wrote you would be better off trying to explain exactly what you mean by saying people would be forced to become parents.

 

[AGENT J]

I have pointed out which part is nonsense. The idea that you believe people are being forced to be parents. You're either clueless as to what a parent is or you're using the word to gain pity.

I have your context quite well.
I suggest that instead of playing a game of denying what you actually wrote you would be better off trying to explain exactly what you mean by saying people would be forced to become parents.

sooooo no quote to support the lie you got caught posting? just personal attacks since your lie got caught and exposed? lol got it
please let us know when you can qoute me saying what you made up, thanks!!

 

[soylentgreen]

sooooo no quote to support the lie you got caught posting? just personal attacks since your lie got caught and exposed? lol got it
please let us know when you can qoute me saying what you made up, thanks!!

I need not continue quoting, what you have said is enough.

Noted your lack of explanation to make clear what you are pretending you meant. Still nothing more than a feeble attempt to deny the words you actually wrote down.

 

[AGENT J]

I need not continue quoting, what you have said is enough.

Noted your lack of explanation to make clear what you are pretending you meant. Still nothing more than a feeble attempt to deny the words you actually wrote down.

Translation: you are still dodging and running from my request, thats what i thought! Every time you dodge your lie gets exposed more and more. You can't quote me saying what you got caught lying about because i never said it, we get it. When that fact changes please let us know and prove otherwise, thanks!

 

[Removable Mind]

True, and I know that some are worried that the taxpayer will have to pay to raise the children, but I don't think that's going to be as expensive as some think. As you mentioned in your proposal, if a man opted out, the woman would still have time to reconsider her options, and she'd be more likely (in my opinion) to put the baby up for adoption or abort.

In addition, I feel as though many women would be much more careful to use reliable birth control so we'd see fewer "accidental" pregnancies all the way around.

But, even if the taxpayers footed some of the bill, I think we have to recognize that implementing equality for all citizens is probably a worthwhile expenditure. And, the biological fathers who opt-out will still be paying their taxes, just as every other citizen does, so they'd be contributing to the expenditure as well.

What a total crock, Howard.

What guy wouldn’t love the new, “Bop Till Ya Drop” law. Always sowing a young man’s oats with no consequences. Groovy!

Will the taxpayers get any KY when they bend over for every unwanted fetus about to come into the world as just one more burden on the public’s already over burden responsibilities paying for all of the whims of our elitists in the Kingdom of Washington???

 

[HowardBThiname]

What a total crock, Howard.

What guy wouldn’t love the new, “Bop Till Ya Drop” law. Always sowing a young man’s oats with no consequences. Groovy!

Will the taxpayers get any KY when they bend over for every unwanted fetus about to come into the world as just one more burden on the public’s already over burden responsibilities paying for all of the whims of our elitists in the Kingdom of Washington???

“Bop Till Ya Drop” law?

Are you suggesting rape?

Because, if you aren't, females are willing participants as well.

 

[Removable Mind]

“Bop Till Ya Drop” law?

Are you suggesting rape?

Because, if you aren't, females are willing participants as well.

The taxpayers aren’t.

 

[Removable Mind]

“Bop Till Ya Drop” law?

Are you suggesting rape?

Because, if you aren't, females are willing participants as well.

Do you know the difference between legal options vs moral choices?

Because a legal option exists doesn’t mean that women have to abandon their moral beliefs simply because she legally can.

If a man has no clue about what a woman’s moral beliefs are and how those beliefs will control her personal choice if she has an unwanted pregnancy - then the man should never ever have sex with a woman who he doesn’t know the answer to her stance.

“Most Pro-choice women” won’t have an abortion, but clearly understand the necessity for having the right. That’s not some hidden secret about women.

A man’s choice starts with know what the potential outcome will be if he has sex with any given woman. Period. And that’s especially true if the woman says, “Of course I take birth control.

If the law allowed zero consequences for a men to knock up women (aka Bop Till Ya Drop laws)...do you honestly believe that pregnancies wouldn’t go sky high - until women would finally be forced to significantly suppress or stop having sex DESPITE being on birth control? If that happened I personally would go into the “battery operated boy friend” business. I’d be wealthy within a year.

Prevention would cease to be in the mindset of men. And prevention is the key to unwanted pregnancies. That or celibacy. Nobody wants the latter to be the rule rather than the exception or individual choice.

Let’s do an experiment...

If you had 100 soundproof cubicles with a randomly chosen woman in each cubicle and then had a randomly chosen man go to each cubicle and ask each woman if they would have sex. What do yo predict the outcome come of that experiment to yield? How many women would agree to have sex with a total stranger simply because they’re asked?

Now reverse the experiment. What do you think the opposite outcome would yield? How many men would agree to have sex with a total stranger simply because they’re asked?

 

[HowardBThiname]

Do you know the difference between legal options vs moral choices?

Because a legal option exists doesn’t mean that women have to abandon their moral beliefs simply because she legally can.

If a man has no clue about what a woman’s moral beliefs are and how those beliefs will control her personal choice if she has an unwanted pregnancy - then the man should never ever have sex with a woman who he doesn’t know the answer to her stance.

Granted -- likewise, she should not have sex with him. Women have brains, you know. We're not morons that can't control our urges.

“Most Pro-choice women” won’t have an abortion, but clearly understand the necessity for having the right. That’s not some hidden secret about women.

Preaching to the choir -- but, irrelevant to our discussion.

A man’s choice starts with know what the potential outcome will be if he has sex with any given woman. Period. And that’s especially true if the woman says, “Of course I take birth control.

If the law allowed zero consequences for a men to knock up women (aka Bop Till Ya Drop laws)...do you honestly believe that pregnancies wouldn’t go sky high - until women would finally be forced to significantly suppress or stop having sex DESPITE being on birth control? If that happened I personally would go into the “battery operated boy friend” business. I’d be wealthy within a year.

Again, you're taking the position that women are morons and unable to control their own bodies. At the end of the day -- we, and only we -- control the population of this planet. We have access to many types of birth control and we have access to abortion. Those options should all be free, in my opinion, so access is even more equal for all.

Prevention would cease to be in the mindset of men. And prevention is the key to unwanted pregnancies. That or celibacy. Nobody wants the latter to be the rule rather than the exception or individual choice.

The "mindset" of the man won't have ANY impact as long as the woman takes care of herself. Isn't that what we all want? To control our ability to reproduce? Reproductive rights, remember? You're trying to remove our rights and obligations and say - we're too stupid to control our reproduction -- we have to turn that over to men.

I don't think you even understand how anti-woman that is.

Let’s do an experiment...

If you had 100 soundproof cubicles with a randomly chosen woman in each cubicle and then had a randomly chosen man go to each cubicle and ask each woman if they would have sex. What do yo predict the outcome come of that experiment to yield? How many women would agree to have sex with a total stranger simply because they’re asked?

Now reverse the experiment. What do you think the opposite outcome would yield? How many men would agree to have sex with a total stranger simply because they’re asked?

I get your point -- the men (a higher percentage) would have sex, given the opportunity. Testosterone vs. estrogen.

But, we're not like rats in cubicles -- we're women -- and we have the ultimate choice in this day of whether we choose to reproduce. Period. We are not helpless victims.

While there are valid reasons for ordering child support -- these are not among them. Lursa's financial reasons come the closest to being valid. Yours do not.

The answer is to teach our young women that birth control is power -- that instead of thinking their lives have to depend on men -- teach them to set high goals for themselves. Those goals may or may not consist of having children. But teach them that no matter what the male says, they must protect themselves.

 

[soylentgreen]

Translation: you are still dodging and running from my request, thats what i thought! Every time you dodge your lie gets exposed more and more. You can't quote me saying what you got caught lying about because i never said it, we get it. When that fact changes please let us know and prove otherwise, thanks!

No, the actual translation is that my having quoted your words and you are again trying to run away from what you have said.

I will transcribe the whole post for you and put in bold those remarks that point out your lack of understanding what a parent is as well as your outright lie that anyone is being forced to be a parent.

Agreed on all points. I think it WOULD be a factor in people being more careful and the country paying some money for unwanted kids isnt really a big concern of mine because like you said we are still all putting into the pot and forcing a person to be a parent more times then not doesnt make them one.

I did just fine being a single dad but that was my choice, nobody could have forced that on me if i didnt want it. Not to be an actual "DAD" and nobody should have that power to force that on me when they can opt out.

Try as you might to pretend that you did not say this, you did.

No one is being forced to be a parent.That is nothing more than you advertising that you are either ignorant or seeking a dishonest pity vote. Pathetic but even more pathetic is your lame attemp to run away from your own words.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Do you know the difference between legal options vs moral choices?

Because a legal option exists doesn’t mean that women have to abandon their moral beliefs simply because she legally can.

If a man has no clue about what a woman’s moral beliefs are and how those beliefs will control her personal choice if she has an unwanted pregnancy - then the man should never ever have sex with a woman who he doesn’t know the answer to her stance.

“Most Pro-choice women” won’t have an abortion, but clearly understand the necessity for having the right. That’s not some hidden secret about women.

A man’s choice starts with know what the potential outcome will be if he has sex with any given woman. Period. And that’s especially true if the woman says, “Of course I take birth control.

If the law allowed zero consequences for a men to knock up women (aka Bop Till Ya Drop laws)...do you honestly believe that pregnancies wouldn’t go sky high - until women would finally be forced to significantly suppress or stop having sex DESPITE being on birth control? If that happened I personally would go into the “battery operated boy friend” business. I’d be wealthy within a year.

Prevention would cease to be in the mindset of men. And prevention is the key to unwanted pregnancies. That or celibacy. Nobody wants the latter to be the rule rather than the exception or individual choice.

Let’s do an experiment...

If you had 100 soundproof cubicles with a randomly chosen woman in each cubicle and then had a randomly chosen man go to each cubicle and ask each woman if they would have sex. What do yo predict the outcome come of that experiment to yield? How many women would agree to have sex with a total stranger simply because they’re asked?

Now reverse the experiment. What do you think the opposite outcome would yield? How many men would agree to have sex with a total stranger simply because they’re asked?

This post betrays a ridiculous double-standard: You and others view men as little more than walking penises. Basically, your view is that women are worthy of having a choice and men are not. Absurd. I also love the idea that men should abstain so women don't have to. WTF? Shameful sexism on display here.

In reality, people already have sex despite the risks and potential consequences, and giving men a legal option to avoid indentured servitude would do little to change human nature and would neither curb nor encourage sexual activity.

 

[Lursa]

This post betrays a ridiculous double-standard: You and others view men as little more than walking penises. Basically, your view is that women are worthy of having a choice and men are not. Absurd. I also love the idea that men should abstain so women don't have to. WTF? Shameful sexism on display here.

In reality, people already have sex despite the risks and potential consequences, and giving men a legal option to avoid indentured servitude would do little to change human nature and would neither curb nor encourage sexual activity.

Men have a choice...but you have personally written that it's not a reasonable expectation for them to make it when they are perfectly capable of doing so to protect themselves.

So...they factually DO have a choice. Just not one that you like :doh

Women dont get that luxury either...'liking' their choices. If women dont want the consequences of pregnancy, they ALSO have to abstain. (And you already know this)

Still seems equal to me.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Men have a choice...but you have personally written that it's not a reasonable expectation for them to make it when they are perfectly capable of doing so to protect themselves.

So...they factually DO have a choice. Just not one that you like :doh

Women dont get that luxury either...'liking' their choices. If women dont want the consequences of pregnancy, they ALSO have to abstain. (And you already know this)

Still seems equal to me.

Men's choices: Abstinence, condom (not 100% effective), sterilization
Women's choices: Abstinence, birth control (not 100% effective), sterilization, abortion, adoption

The key difference here is that all of men's choices come pre-conception. It is not equal.

But the real problem to me lies with the punitive child support laws, which I think is an area where you and I can find some common ground.

 

[Lursa]

Men's choices: Abstinence, condom (not 100% effective), sterilization
Women's choices: Abstinence, birth control (not 100% effective), sterilization, abortion, adoption

The key difference here is that all of men's choices come pre-conception. It is not equal.

But the real problem to me lies with the punitive child support laws, which I think is an area where you and I can find some common ground.

Yes but that is determined by biology, not law, and it cant be equal.

But it's not remotely 'sexist' because IF men were able to get pregnant (and there's a gray area now where they do), then men would have the exact same choices as women.

And our point of contention is that without some other solution, you find it acceptable to dump the non-custodial parent's obligations on the taxpayers, which I do not.