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

[Lursa]

I agree, but I do believe enumeration makes it harder to mess with. Specific enumeration allows the masses to read the law simply and understand it and absorb it.

Most Americans have no ****ing clue on what the abortion precedents are, let's be real here.

Yes, it really would be nice...and harder to overturn.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Life is sacred to Right Wing Evangelicals right up until the baby is born. Then mother and child can eat $hit and die.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Ok buddy.

YOU ORIGINALLY WROTE:

... I see convincing arguments on both sides.

AND I DISAGREE. Strongly. Since there are no valid arguments against abortion, there can be no convincing arguments against abortion. And if you care to present one that you think is "convincing", I shall explain why it actually is invalid. (I'm confident I can do that because I've had an enormous amount of practice at it.)

 

[HowardBThiname]

Oh its not about whether woman get abused... they most certainly do. the question is whether your theory.. which is that they are less likely to be abused if they are extorted by their abusers to have the biological father "opt out" of responsibility.. has any validity.

and basically your theory doesn't have validity.

That's not my theory -- my theory is that a situation that ends up in a woman's death -- even just one woman -- is an unhealthy situation.

Like I said.. your premise is like having the state counsel women that they should not report abuse.. because it increases their risk of retaliation by their abuser.

Whole different thing.

Sorry but logical fallacy. Having to be "responsible" for a child is not a "punishment". As has been already pointed out.. the woman is going to have a consequence.. a responsibility because she got pregnant. that's not "punishment".. that's simply a consequence of her actions.

She is not "opting out" of those consequences. What we agree is that she should not have ADDITIONAL punishment for getting pregnant by the STATE. So if she chooses to have the baby.. she still has the responsibility to clothe it, to treat it right.. and so on.

If she chooses to have the abortion.. she still has the consequences of getting an infection, any mental anguish and so on.

First.. hard to say "accidental".. it takes two to tango.. we are not talking immaculate conception here.

Yes.. the father has a responsibility just as the woman does. and the reality is that he has LESS consequences than the woman based on the biology. He is not going to die from the child already. Basically he has a responsibility by the state.. only to help with expenses of the child.. THAT"S IT. and you want to let the man opt out of even that.. placing the burden solely on the female...

Your entire premise assumes the female HAS to keep the baby. She doesn't.

that's not equality.

That's right.. solely her decision.

In the case of two people having a child.. its BOTH of their decisions and their responsibilities.

A person decides to shoplift.. they get caught.. they get consequences.

Two people decide to shoplift.. one steals the item the other distracts the clerk... they get caught.

ARe both held responsible? Or would you contend that one could claim "well since my partner COULD have done it on their own.. I am not responsible?".

Yeah.. I think not.

You keep missing the fact that the woman does not HAVE to keep the child. You're acting as if by the man opting-out -- that she is forced to care for a child by herself.

Yes.. there is a good reason that murder is the number one reason of death for pregnant women.

One large reason is that only relatively healthy woman generally have children. Another is that woman who are pregnant also are less likely to engage in risky behaviors like motorcycle riding, or sky diving etc.

Basically the reason is because you have statistically removed the population of women that die from other causes. NOT because pregnant woman are being especially targeted by abusers because their abusers are being asked to provide assistance to a child that has not been born yet. .

Completely incorrect. Do a little research. Pregnancy does not preclude illness and accidents.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Men are on perfectly equal footing with women, it just may be different for different issues. Allowing a man to opt out has financial consequences for *everybody* ...so that's some ridiculous concession to enable men to shirk something they are 50% accountable for because they can no longer have sex without consequences. (Which is not remotely equal...since women CANNOT)




And you think this opt-out law would create behavior change? That's BS. The kid remains that man's kid whether or not he pays. He'll most likely end up knowing the man...there's nothing to keep them from being in contact. Hey! How much more fun would it be to opt-out and then start meeting the kid when it's older!? Will there be a restraining order forbidding men who opt-out from ever contacting their kid? I doubt it.

How much less chance will he ever have to meaningfully connect with that kid if he screws over the mother the kid loves for 2 decades? And what effect does that have on the kid? Same old story all thru history: 'your dad ran out on us.' Always good for a kid's self-esteem. :roll: Great example for boys. Great when the dad is still around anyway...just a deadbeat.

But hey...it's all about the male ego, their lives, and their inability to make a decision that will affect the rest of THEIR lives and they KNOW it before they decide to have sex with that woman. It's ALL OK as long as the man "believes" it's "equal." :roll:

That's not where I'm going with this -- there is nothing that says a woman must keep a child -- you know that.

Both parties, as you say, have to be responsible for their actions, and if an accidental pregnancy occurs, that means (for the woman) she must either carry it or abort it. The man has no choice in that and he should have no choice in that. But, then we come to the man, his responsibility should extend as far as paying for the medical costs - because the woman does not have to keep the child.

I'm not talking about planned pregnancies -- those take care of themselves -- and I don't think we should allow any father or mother to just walk away from a child and leave it destitute. I'm talking about long before that -- and when a pregnancy is accidental. Yes, a man, like a woman, has to be responsible -- but only to a point. If the woman decides to keep the baby, which was not anyone's intention, then the responsibility (if the man wants out) shifts to her.

But, no one is forcing her into that situation. She can opt out early on in the pregnancy -- or at birth.

I don't know why some of us are acting as if she can't.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Once a child is born, everything that happened prior to that moment matters not. All of the blaming, whining, bitching and moaning matters not. But there is one thing that does matter. The general welfare of a new kid on the block.

Kids don’t ask to be born to irresponsible parents. They can’t fend for themselves. They don’t have a political voice. Tens of thousands of kids who are wards of the state...probably hate being in the system worse than having an asshole parent who resents them or wished they were never born.

Mommy and daddy, put your parent panties on and get ready for the state to implement its Constitutional duty to protect the child AND THE taxpayers.

Unless the State makes it a Constitutional mandate to pay for a parent who wants to OPT OUT, these don’t wanna be parents will pay whatever their States statutes demands and be prepared to be subject to whatever the State’s statutes demand.

End of story....adult equality is down the drain.

Nobody thinks that a child’s basics needs should be denied.

So, are you saying that if a woman goes to a sperm bank and gets pregnant that the moment her child is born the sperm donor is on the hook for financial support?

 

[Removable Mind]

So, are you saying that if a woman goes to a sperm bank and gets pregnant that the moment her child is born the sperm donor is on the hook for financial support?

Firstly, I’m not advocating for or against either party in a contractual agreement.

I know for a fact that there are reproductive laws that absolutely joins the biological parents financial responsibilities of an offspring, with prejudice.

What do the statutes of a given state say regarding a contract agreement between the sperm bank and sperm donor? Is there a disclaimer made in a given contract that such a contract can be legally breached by a sperm recipient and/or the state?

Are sperm donors getting legal advice as to the risks of a recipient suing them for support because the state will not honor a contract, which “claims” to remove them from any support responsibilities should a recipient bear their biological offspring and find themselves unable to independently support the child?

 

[D_NATURED]

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

Well, Pence is an idiot and your argument is weak. You see, the truth is, motherhood takes nine months to happen but fatherhood only takes...hmmm...thirty seconds. You, as someone who ejaculated inside a woman, made your fatherhood choice right there. Unlike women, though, who have months to make the motherhood decision, the man only gets thirty seconds. That's the problem here, not that you don't get a choice, that you don't get to make it for women too. I say use your thirty seconds wisely and protect yourself from unwanted fatherhood.

Hey, as my father used to say, "Life isn't fair". Women get all of the sickness and death and, thus, they get the final say in pregnancy. The fatherhood component is a brief moment, at the beginning, but there are months or years of potential physical and financial risk to women at stake here. Your equivocation is full of moral holes.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Firstly, I’m not advocating for or against either party in a contractual agreement.

I know for a fact that there are reproductive laws that absolutely joins the biological parents financial responsibilities of an offspring, with prejudice.

What do the statutes of a given state say regarding a contract agreement between the sperm bank and sperm donor? Is there a disclaimer made in a given contract that such a contract can be legally breached by a sperm recipient and/or the state?

Are sperm donors getting legal advice as to the risks of a recipient suing them for support because the state will not honor a contract, which “claims” to remove them from any support responsibilities should a recipient bear their biological offspring and find themselves unable to independently support the child?

Good point (the emboldened) and perhaps that's an answer -- get a potential sexual partner to sign a pre-sex agreement that spells out what will happen in the case of an accidental pregnancy. They could sell the contracts where they sell condoms, or even in public bathroom vending machines.

Would you support something like that?

 

[Reformedfindlay]

YOU ORIGINALLY WROTE:

AND I DISAGREE. Strongly. Since there are no valid arguments against abortion, there can be no convincing arguments against abortion. And if you care to present one that you think is "convincing", I shall explain why it actually is invalid. (I'm confident I can do that because I've had an enormous amount of practice at it.)

The only other convincing argument I've seen relies on regarding the fetus as a person, in which a legal catch 22 ensues as I've said earlier.

Also, if you do that stupid capitalize **** one more time I'm just going to ignore you, it's obnoxious.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Also, if you do that stupid capitalize **** one more time I'm just going to ignore you, it's obnoxious.

IT IS A DELIBERATE STYLE --and this is why. I don't use this style when posting stuff on the Internet under my own name. And no matter obnoxious you think it is, everyone here gets used to it eventually.

The only other convincing argument I've seen relies on regarding the fetus as a person, in which a legal catch 22 ensues as I've said earlier.

AND YET EVEN ABORTION OPPONENTS KNOW WHAT A PERSON TRULY IS. Just answer this simple question: "If you were visiting a modern well-equipped medical laboratory, and some madman with a machete cut your head off in an attempt to murder you, bur rescuers arrived in time, would you want them to save your headless human body, or save your severed head, to save you-the-person? We do have the tech to save either, else no one would be talking about performing head transplants. Abortion opponents are fond of insisting that the human body is what defines a person, yet none would be able to cast a vote in the next election, should they answer that question based on that insistence. A person is a mind, not a body.

We even have corroborating data supporting that conclusion, because whenever it happens that some adult human is brain-dead and on full life-support, once the diagnosis of brain death is verified, no mistake possible, a death certificate gets filled out, even though all the rest of that adult human body is still alive. That is, the scientists and the doctors and even the lawyers all agree that a person is a mind, not a human body. I'm not sure what might happen if this data (and also what's in the next paragraph) is presented to the Supreme Court during some new abortion lawsuit, but to the extent the Justices are rational instead of Stupidly Prejudiced, I don't see abortion opponents ever winning.

MEANWHILE, we can measure the minds of newborn humans, and none of them can match (to say nothing of exceed) the mental abilities of many ordinary animals, like, for example, pigs. An unborn human has an even-less-developed mind, of course, so, Logically, anyone insisting that that much brainpower qualifies some entity as a person, then that insister should be even-more-willing to insist that many ordinary animals also be declared persons. Instead, as you know, the actual insistence is based on Stupid Prejudice about the word "human". Tsk, tsk! It is not our human-ness that lets us declare superiority over other animals!

 

[minnie616]

Again, nothing is ever too hard because SCOTUS was allowed to declare itself the ultimate arbiter of the constitution. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this to you until you understand that.

SCOTUS has absolute power to wave its hand and completely overturn Roe V Wade. Whether they should doesn't matter in that regard, I'm merely stating that they can.

Even if the Supreme Court did overturn/strike down Roe that would not make abortion illegal in the UNited States.

It would merely send it back to states and each state would be able to decide for itself whether to keep abortion legal or not in their state.

 

[Removable Mind]

Good point (the emboldened) and perhaps that's an answer -- get a potential sexual partner to sign a pre-sex agreement that spells out what will happen in the case of an accidental pregnancy. They could sell the contracts where they sell condoms, or even in public bathroom vending machines.

Would you support something like that?

I’m not opposed to a pre-sex agreement. However, most states won’t honor them. It works on the same principle of the “Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.

In other words State Constitutions are imposing their own supremacy over contracts created between a sperm bank and donors. States claim that these contracts are used with the idea that they impede the State’s ability to intervene in the general welfare of children. Apparently that’s a no-no.

It’s difficult for either parent to have their parental rights terminated by a court because in doing so it also terminates the state’s ability to sue or impose legal actions against a biological (or adoptive parent) for failing to contribute to the support of a child or children according to State laws. This is a provision of a state government’s requirement to protect the interests of taxpayers.

 

[soylentgreen]

They don't get to opt-out now, you're correct about that. But I'd be willing to bet that one day, they'll be able to.

Which would happen under a patriarchal misogynist style society.

This doesn't make much sense. A woman is free to choose to opt-out if she likes, and I think everyone (for the most part) supports her choice. What isn't supported is that her choice should dictate 18 years of another person's life (the biological father).
True equality supports both parties having a choice. Obviously, neither one of them has a choice forever, only for a short window of time. Once the kid is here -- it's here and they'll have to deal with that.

A man's window to have his choice at the beginning of sex where ha can choose to wear a condom and avoid the chance of getting a woman pregnancy. He does not however have the freedom to dump the mistake he has made on others.

In reality -- they are BOTH responsible. Yes, the woman will always have a greater choice, for example, the man cannot choose to keep the baby if she doesn't want to carry it, but that doesn't mean that the man should be at the whim of the woman's choice. By allowing him a short time in which he can opt out, two things would happen. First, the woman would know ahead of time (before sex) that the man could legally walk, so she could take better precautions. Second, those men who murder pregnant girlfriends/wives because they don't want the responsibility of a child would have no reason to do so, because they could walk away.

Again a purely patrarchal viewpoint. the man is not at the whim of a woman. He is facing up to the fact that he made a mistake and must face the consequences. Or he is trying to run away by doing as you are doing here in attempting to put the blame on the woman for putting him in the position.

In the long run, of course, both parties should be responsible for taking birth control precautions. To protect themselves.

And both parties should acknowledge it is a woman's choice and not a mans decisions whether to abide by that choice.

 

[nota bene]

Nope.. just giving an example..

Most anti abortionists are also adamant that the government stay out of their medical decisions when it conflicts with their religion.

When, exactly, do their medical decisions conflict with their religion? Examples?

 

[Lursa]

That's not where I'm going with this -- there is nothing that says a woman must keep a child -- you know that.

It's absolutely in society's interests for the bio mother to do so AND to do so in a manner that enables a safe and secure environment.

Foster care costs more.

There are also more than 100,000 kids available for adoption now...sitting, waiting. Adding to that pool harms those kids.

 

[Lursa]

The man has no choice
.

He does have a choice....you and many men seem happy to ignore this. Why?

The choice for BOTH of them comes before sex...perfectly equal.

After that, then BOTH are accountable if a pregnancy occurs.

I'll ask you the same question I ask men: why cant men decide before sex? To avoid consequences of pregnancy, women have to...so it would be equal.

Men, almost without exception, wont even address that question. The OP, in the other thread, was asked over and over...and completely ignored it. It seems to be inconceivable (pun not intended) to men to have to consider the repercussions on their lives BEFORE they sleep with a woman.

Are you saying they are incapable of doing that? (Again, men almost always refuse to touch these questions)

 

[Lursa]

Good point (the emboldened) and perhaps that's an answer -- get a potential sexual partner to sign a pre-sex agreement that spells out what will happen in the case of an accidental pregnancy. They could sell the contracts where they sell condoms, or even in public bathroom vending machines.

Would you support something like that?

Nope.

Because no contract could ever be upheld to force a woman to have an abortion and I doubt it also to give one up for adoption.

 

[Lursa]

The only other convincing argument I've seen relies on regarding the fetus as a person, in which a legal catch 22 ensues as I've said earlier.

Also, if you do that stupid capitalize **** one more time I'm just going to ignore you, it's obnoxious.

Join the club.

 

[minnie616]

That's not where I'm going with this -- there is nothing that says a woman must keep a child -- you know that.

It's absolutely in society's interests for the bio mother to do so AND to do so in a manner that enables a safe and secure environment.

Foster care costs more.

There are also more than 100,000 kids available for adoption now...sitting, waiting. Adding to that pool harms those kids.

Actually in 2006 Foster Care cost taxpayers about $40,000 a year per child.

Despite more than a decade of intended reform, the nation's foster care system is still overcrowded and rife with problems. But taxpayers are spending $22 billion a year -- or $40,000 a child -- on foster care programs.

Facts on Foster Care in America - ABC News

Facts on Foster Care in America - ABC News

 

[GhostlyJoe]

No, they do not get to opt out. What difference is there between that and a drunk driving a car and killing someone and then giving the drunk a chance to opt out because it really was not his fault. He did not intend to kill any more than a man intends to get a women pregnant.

You are only paying lip service to the idea that it is a womens choice if you are also saying that the man can choose to completely ignore that choice. It is her choice and if you believe that then you must accept the consequences of that choice and not demand the right to ignore it.

Regardless of what the woman chooses or does. The man is still responsible for his actions. It is not something he can put onto the woman simply by saying it is her choice therefore her responsibility. His actions were also accountable for the pregnancy occurring just as hers was. Taking responsibility for those actions does not disappear just because it is the right of the woman to choose the outcome.

Responsibilities without rights is the very definition of injustice. What I argue for is equality under the law. What we have now is a legal condition where sex -- consensual or otherwise -- is a legal contract to accept the financial responsibilities of fatherhood, while women are afforded multiple avenues to avoid that responsibility. The status quo is unjust. You're arguing that the rights of women are more important than the rights of men. It's a blatantly sexist position.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Which would happen under a patriarchal misogynist style society.


A man's window to have his choice at the beginning of sex where ha can choose to wear a condom and avoid the chance of getting a woman pregnancy. He does not however have the freedom to dump the mistake he has made on others.




Again a purely patrarchal viewpoint. the man is not at the whim of a woman. He is facing up to the fact that he made a mistake and must face the consequences. Or he is trying to run away by doing as you are doing here in attempting to put the blame on the woman for putting him in the position.

And both parties should acknowledge it is a woman's choice and not a mans decisions whether to abide by that choice.

Do you not see the undercurrent of sexual shame in your arguments? These are puritanical positions. Male sexuality is a mistake. Female sexuality is preeminent and must be respected first. You're not treating women as full agents with full responsibility for their choices. Basically, you insist that men pay for their mistakes, but make no such demands of women. In fact, allowing women to avoid that responsibility is the moral underpinning of your argument.

You throw words like "patriarchy" around, but you don't seem to fully understand them. Treating women as objects in need of society protection is a "patriarchal" norm. In a free and equal society, men and women both are capable of bearing full rights and responsibilities as independent actors.

So that brings us back to the implicit contract of sex. Right now, sex for a man is a voluntary contract risking up to hundreds of thousands of dollars of future earnings. Women have the same contract with op-out clauses: abortion or adoption. To have true sexual equality, we must either make women fully responsible for their sexual choices -- no abortion or termination of support -- or give men an opt-out clause as well. Feminists really should be supporting those options for men, as doing so will help codify the right to choose for women.

 

[soylentgreen]

Responsibilities without rights is the very definition of injustice. What I argue for is equality under the law. What we have now is a legal condition where sex -- consensual or otherwise -- is a legal contract to accept the financial responsibilities of fatherhood, while women are afforded multiple avenues to avoid that responsibility. The status quo is unjust. You're arguing that the rights of women are more important than the rights of men. It's a blatantly sexist position.

Your quote is the wrong way around. It should say rights without responsibility is injustice. What you are actually asking for is special privileges to walk away from the mistakes you make. It is not a case of status quo. You are not the one getting pregnant, woman are. I am arguing that men need to take responsibility for their own actions instead of saying that women have a right of choice only so long as men have the right to ignore that choice.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

He does have a choice....you and many men seem happy to ignore this. Why?

The choice for BOTH of them comes before sex...perfectly equal.

After that, then BOTH are accountable if a pregnancy occurs.

I'll ask you the same question I ask men: why cant men decide before sex? To avoid consequences of pregnancy, women have to...so it would be equal.

Men, almost without exception, wont even address that question. The OP, in the other thread, was asked over and over...and completely ignored it. It seems to be inconceivable (pun not intended) to men to have to consider the repercussions on their lives BEFORE they sleep with a woman.

Are you saying they are incapable of doing that? (Again, men almost always refuse to touch these questions)

You are making fundamentally pro-life arguments, and it carries the same whiff of social shaming: "If she didn't want to get pregnant, she should have kept her legs closed." "If he didn't want to be a dad, he should have kept it in his pants."

Also, by insisting on holding two incompatible positions: pro-choice and pro-forced child support, you are arbitrarily placing the rights of women above both the rights of men and the rights of unborn children. That's an insecure position. The OP is right. Abortion rights are definitely at risk and will be as long as the arguments in support of them are built on such shaky reasoning.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Your quote is the wrong way around. It should say rights without responsibility is injustice. What you are actually asking for is special privileges to walk away from the mistakes you make. It is not a case of status quo. You are not the one getting pregnant, woman are. I am arguing that men need to take responsibility for their own actions instead of saying that women have a right of choice only so long as men have the right to ignore that choice.

No, I don't have the quote backwards. "Taxation without representation." "Work without pay." "Crime without punishment." But let's just say: The uncoupling of rights and responsibilities is the basis of injustice.

You're clear that men should accept parental responsibility before engaging in sex. So, then why allow abortion? Shouldn't she have thought of that first?