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

[HowardBThiname]

More words...no change in what I wrote....it means kids waiting for adoption will still be waiting.

We all know the options for adoption.

But, you're wrong on this one -- putting newborns up for adoption will not affect the chances of the kids who are waiting to be adopted to find parents. I explained why.

 

[Lursa]

And I know you don't want to admit it, but you are putting women's rights first -- the preeminent right here is the right to control one's own body. if she doesn't want to share her body with a fetus, she shouldn't have to, regardless of the wishes of the biological father (he has no right to compel an abortion or prevent one).

Nobody forced him to share his sperm. Did he make a choice? Yes. Does he know the consequences of that choice? Yes he does. Is he capable of choosing not to have sex? Yes.

Are any of your answers there 'no?' If so, how weak and stupid do you think men are?

Men know that the consequence of their decision is that once they have sex, the do not have control over a woman's decisions.

Are you saying that men are not capable of understanding that and then acting in their own best interests?

 

[HowardBThiname]

Agreed. Only to a child if it is the result of his sperm.

Again -- in the scenario of a sperm donor - or if the mother doesn't know who the father is -- it's not an issue. That means it's not a consistent responsibility so a contract should be able to take advantage of that.

As much as I've enjoyed this (and I have) -- lunch is over -- and I'm afraid I have to get back to work. I'll check in later. Have a good one!

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Agreed. Only to a child if it is the result of his sperm.

I can extrapolate from your position that you oppose taxpayer support for single mothers and taxpayer support for adoption and foster services? After all, the child is the result of her egg. She should pay for its ongoing support, not foist her responsibilities onto taxpayers. What about her responsibility to her unborn child? If no such responsibility exists, then how can you pin such non-existent responsibilities to men?

Edit to reflect your later post.

 

[Lursa]

But, you're wrong on this one -- putting newborns up for adoption will not affect the chances of the kids who are waiting to be adopted to find parents. I explained why.

I thought you said adoption wasnt the issue? Anyway, the effects are as I explained: either the people will adopt an available kid: one less kid waiting or not adopt at all in the US: kids still stuck waiting.

 

[Lursa]

I can extrapolate from your position that you oppose taxpayer support for single mothers and taxpayer support for adoption and foster services? After all, the child is the result of her egg. She should pay for its ongoing support, not foist her responsibilities onto taxpayers. What about her responsibility to her unborn child? If no such responsibility exists, then how can you pin such non-existent responsibilities to men?

Edit to reflect your later post.

I hate the idea of having to support other people. But since I have to, I support equal circumstances for the custodial parent and then non-custodial parent or joint custody...and has nothing to do with their sex.

The decision to extract child support is done in the best interests of the child first, and then the taxpayers.

 

[Lursa]

Does the state go after sperm donors?

I don't think so. The men who donate sperm get paid and walk away. I can see a contract between two people being upheld -- unless it violates contract law, which would involve something like one of the parties being too young to sign a contract, or signing under duress. As long as the terms are met, though, I don't see that the state would have a leg to stand on.

What happens when a woman applies for assistance but claims she doesn't know who the father is? What does the state do?

Completely different. You are getting desperate and using irrelevant arguments.

How many women that cant afford a kid pay for sperm and want a kid? Let's stay with reality here.

If you want to go ridiculously further and say that she might need assistance in the future...that can happen to any parent, either sex, at any time in life...accidents, sickness, loss of jobs happen. That is not within the scope of this discussion.

And the state uses some pretty stiff coercion to get the father's ID from mothers, including forced DNA testing or no $$$.

It's not 100%, just like men escaping to other states, etc sometimes works. This is the more likely struggle single parents face.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Nobody forced him to share his sperm. Did he make a choice? Yes. Does he know the consequences of that choice? Yes he does. Is he capable of choosing not to have sex? Yes.

Are any of your answers there 'no?' If so, how weak and stupid do you think men are?

Men know that the consequence of their decision is that once they have sex, the do not have control over a woman's decisions.

Are you saying that men are not capable of understanding that and then acting in their own best interests?

Why does none of that apply to women? Why shouldn't a father be able to force a woman to carry a fetus to term if he wants? Why should he not be able to force an abortion if he doesn't? You've already established that sex is implicit consent to forced labor? Why not other forms of force?

Personally, I'm pro choice, and I want to extend that bodily autonomy to men, which is both a just and consistent position. But if you want to make sex an actionable social contract, then we might as well just outlaw abortion and go back to shaming and sexual social taboos.

 

[FutureIncoming]

In other words, you have very little to nothing to refute with legally should the SCOTUS establish that the fetus is a person.

NOT QUITE. You are aware, perhaps, that a great many Laws get written --or changed-- after paying attention to relevant scientific data? Even the Supreme Court takes occasional notice of such things! SO: On what basis is Stupid Prejudice superior to all the data that has been gathered on the topic of personhood? While I'm quite aware that even the currently-existing Law about "personhood begins at birth" is arbitrary, which of course means it could be arbitrarily changed in either direction (and you likely know that there are folks out there promoting the legalization of infanticide), I'm also aware that that currently-existing Law was (in its initial form) written long before anyone seriously began studying the generic topic of personhood. Why wouldn't the Supreme Court pay attention to all the currently-existing scientific data on the topic of personhood? At the very least we can expect pro-choice lawyers to introduce that data into any case where there is a chance that the Justices might reconsider the personhood status of unborn humans. (And here is a little something else.) (Also, before I forget, what of that Census argument I mentioned in Msg #114? While many abortion opponents denounce the manner in which the Roe v Wade decision concluded that unborn humans are not persons, no one to my knowledge has ever pointed out a flaw in that much-older Legal Precedent involving the Census. Keep in mind that many political conservatives respect the decisions of the Founding Fathers, and this Legal Precedent, about the non-personhood of unborn humans, directly involves the Founding Fathers!)

 

[Lursa]

Why does none of that apply to women? Why shouldn't a father be able to force a woman to carry a fetus to term if he wants? Why should he not be able to force an abortion if he doesn't? You've already established that sex is implicit consent to forced labor? Why not other forms of force?

Personally, I'm pro choice, and I want to extend that bodily autonomy to men, which is both a just and consistent position. But if you want to make sex an actionable social contract, then we might as well just outlaw abortion and go back to shaming and sexual social taboos.

It all applies to women. If a woman doesnt want to risk/accept the consequences of sex, she should decide that before having sex. Otherwise, she pays the consequences.

No women that gets pregnant can avoid paying the consequences, there is no escape. There are only 4 scenarios:

--she has a kid
--miscarriage
--abortion
--dying during pregnancy/childbirth

And she can die or suffer permanent health damage from the first 3 too.

However men escape consequences in all but one of those. If they are pissed they get stuck with that one...then since they know it before they have sex...either dont have sex or accept that your consequence is that you dont have control over the woman's choices.

And you never answered wny men cant decide before sex and protect themselves 100%. Can you?

I give men credit for having complete control over their bodily autonomy. It's you that seems to believe they are unable or unwilling.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

I hate the idea of having to support other people. But since I have to, I support equal circumstances for the custodial parent and then non-custodial parent or joint custody...and has nothing to do with their sex.

The decision to extract child support is done in the best interests of the child first, and then the taxpayers.

The system needs serious reform. It's highly abusive to non-custodial parents. It seems like we may have reached an area of agreement, though, in terms of the interest of the state in these matters.

How about this: We calculate the actual costs of child-rearing in a court's jurisdiction, and we compel both parents to divide their labor to meet that minimum. All else is voluntary.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

It all applies to women If a woman doesnt want to risk/accept the consequences of sex, she should decide that before having sex. Otherwise, she pays the consequences.

No women that gets pregnant can avoid paying the consequences, there is no escape. There are only 4 scenarios:

--she has a kid
--miscarriage
--abortion
--dying during pregnancy/childbirth

And she can die or suffer permanent health damage from the first 3 too.

However men escape consequences inall but one of those. If they are pissed they get stuck with that one...then since they know it before they have sex...either dont have sex or accept that your consequence is that you dont have control over the woman's choices.

And you never answered wny men cant decide before sex and protect themselves 100%. Can you?

Men can decide not to have sex. By law, that's the only choice they have in reproductive matters. No logical reason that shouldn't also apply to women.

 

[Lursa]

The system needs serious reform. It's highly abusive to non-custodial parents. It seems like we may have reached an area of agreement, though, in terms of the interest of the state in these matters.

How about this: We calculate the actual costs of child-rearing in a court's jurisdiction, and we compel both parents to divide their labor to meet that minimum. All else is voluntary.

Personally I am encouraged that more men are fighting for custodial rights and at least joint custody and that the family courts are becoming more and more open to allowing it. It's the courts...and lots of male judges...that have the control here, not women.

And having both parents involved is better for society in general IMO.

 

[Lursa]

Men can decide not to have sex. By law, that's the only choice they have in reproductive matters. No logical reason that shouldn't also apply to women.

I just posted that it applies exactly equally.

The law does not and cannot determine the difference in consequences...biology does that.

If men got pregnant, it would apply equally to them there as well.

It seems you are just mad that it's 'not fair.'

It sure as heck isnt. Did you LOOK at the consequences for women???? Do you just dismiss them? All painful and potentially life-altering/ending.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Personally I am encouraged that more men are fighting for custodial rights and at least joint custody and that the family courts are becoming more and more open to allowing it. It's the courts...and lots of male judges...that have the control here, not women.

And having both parents involved is better for society in general IMO.

Fully agree here.

 

[jaeger19]

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.

Sure its your theory. come on. EVERYONE understands that a situation that "ends up in a womans death" is an "unhealthy situation". :doh Holy crap Batwoman... you think that is some revelation for the rest of us.

no.. your theory is that if these abusers are less likely to abuse pregnant woman if they can "opt out" of their responsibility. In other words.. you are promoting the use of abuse to extort women.

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

No it doesn't. because having an abortion STILL MEANS. she has consequences.. financial, psychological, and physical.. that the man DOES NOT HAVE.

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.

You keep missing the fact that the woman STILL gets stuck with consequences if she chooses to have the abortion.

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

Completely correct. You need to understand research and statistics.

I'll give you an example. You have 100 woman in a group.

3 of those girls are pregnant.

Now.. in that 100 woman.. you have woman that have heart disease.

Are they the ones that are pregnant? Probably not.. because generally you are YOUNG when you get pregnant and so heart disease is not an issue.

In that 100 woman.. you probably have ones that have cancer.

Are those woman that are pregnant? Probably not.. because not only are they younger when they get pregnant.. BUT woman who have cancer.. generally choose not to get pregnant.

In that 100 woman you have ones that have respiratory issues.

Are they the ones that are pregnant.. probably not because they are again.. younger.. and woman are also encouraged to avoid things like smoking when pregnant. etc.

In that 100 women.. you have ones that do high risk activities either at work or at play.. things like motorcycle riding and sky diving,, or working around heavy machinery etc.

Are they woman who are pregnant? probably not.. because generally woman who are pregnant avoid those activities when the are pregnant.

So.. statistically.. if you look over that 100 women.. the leading cause of death is probably: Heart disease, followed by cancer.. followed by respiratory problems.

However, if you look at the subset of pregnant women.. of course heart disease, cancer and respiratory aren;t the leading cause.. because woman who get pregnant tend to be healthy, younger and avoid risky behaviors etc.

so something like abuse will be a leading cause.

However, if you looked at the actual rate of abuse of woman in general.. you would find that woman who are pregnant aren;t being targeted specifically they suffer the same amount as other women.. in fact, maybe less. ... its simply that in women that aren;t pregnant.. things like cancer, and heart disease are more prevalent than death by abuse. .

 

[GhostlyJoe]

I just posted that it applies exactly equally.

The law does not and cannot determine the difference in consequences...biology does that.

If men got pregnant, it would apply equally to them there as well.

It seems you are just mad that it's 'not fair.'

It sure as heck isnt. Did you LOOK at the consequences for women???? Do you just dismiss them? All painful and potentially life-altering/ending.

It's because of those severe consequences that I believe in body autonomy for women. It just needs to apply to men, too. I'm not sure why people are so opposed to letting men legally withdraw responsibility for decisions in which they rightfully have no legal rights.

 

[Lursa]

It's because of those severe consequences that I believe in body autonomy for women. It just needs to apply to men, too. I'm not sure why people are so opposed to letting men legally withdraw responsibility for decisions in which they rightfully have no legal rights.

Because then people completely innocent of their decisions and actions end up paying for them...the taxpayers. And every $ that goes unnecessarily to these kids is denied to those in foster care, living on the state, kids that truly need public assistance. The taxpayers are not an endless well of $.

And this applies equally to men and women, custodial/non-custodial.

Do you have a solution that let's the taxpayers off the hook? Otherwise, if your argument is about 'fair,' it's not remotely fair to the taxpayers.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Because then people completely innocent of their decisions and actions end up paying for them...the taxpayers. And every $ that goes unnecessarily to these kids is denied to those in foster care, living on the state, kids that truly need public assistance. The taxpayers are not an endless well of $.

And this applies equally to men and women, custodial/non-custodial.

Do you have a solution that let's the taxpayers off the hook? Otherwise, if your argument is about 'fair,' it's not remotely fair to the taxpayers.

Why are the taxpayers interests more important than the bodily autonomy of non-custodial parents? And if that's the case, why are they also no more important than the body autonomy of pregnant women?

Freeing the slaves cost taxpayers a lot of money, but that doesn't justify slavery. The state's interest is in not having children starve. That's not incompatible with respecting individual rights.

Also, we can quit inflating child support costs and actually tie support to demonstrated need, not an overly punitive metric based on income.

 

[Lursa]

Why are the taxpayers interests more important than the bodily autonomy of non-custodial parents? And if that's the case, why are they also no more important than the body autonomy of pregnant women?

Freeing the slaves cost taxpayers a lot of money, but that doesn't justify slavery. The state's interest is in not having children starve. That's not incompatible with respecting individual rights.

Also, we can quit inflating child support costs and actually tie support to demonstrated need, not an overly punitive metric based on income.

Why? Because we taxpayers are wholly not responsible and wholly not in control of the situation. Why shouldnt the people who are 100% control be held responsible?

And I already wrote the consequences on children who need state support...the taxpayer well is not endless...the more kids in the system, the less those truly in need (without available parent(s)) get.

You are just encouraging a 'system' that has existed for...ever. Men can impregnate women and then just leave. (And the taxpayers and kids pay for that).

You have not answered why it's unnacceptable for men to choose their risks before sex. They can protect themselves...so why dont they? Again: are you claiming men are unable to ?

 

[Lursa]

It's because of those severe consequences that I believe in body autonomy for women. It just needs to apply to men, too. I'm not sure why people are so opposed to letting men legally withdraw responsibility for decisions in which they rightfully have no legal rights.

They cana make that decision before having sex...just like women.

Why isnt that acceptable? Biology makes the consequences different, not law.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

They cana make that decision before having sex...just like women.

Why isnt that acceptable? Biology makes the consequences different, not law.

Biologically, men can walk away without consequence. So be it. But we're arguing in circles at this point.

Your positions remain contradictory. Logically, you cannot be both pro-choice and pro-forced child support without blatantly discriminating against fathers.

But I would settle for a better, more ethical system. You seem completely closed-minded to the idea of reforming an unjust system.

 

[Lursa]

Biologically, men can walk away without consequence. So be it. But we're arguing in circles at this point.

Your positions remain contradictory. Logically, you cannot be both pro-choice and pro-forced child support without blatantly discriminating against fathers.

But I would settle for a better, more ethical system. You seem completely closed-minded to the idea of reforming an unjust system.

I have shown that it's perfectly equal except at the biological level. And men can have their right to liberty removed when they break a law and not walk away.

There are no laws proposed to force women to abort or remain pregnant. Walking away was a rather ineffective argument.

And 'my' system, which it's not, it highly ethical. It is not remotely ethical to unnecessarily hold other people responsible for the actions, the consequences of others. Men or women.

You still refuse to answer why it's unacceptable for men to decide before having sex in order to protect themselves 100%. This is 100% equal with women in terms of avoiding or accepting consequences. Women have to make that choice and then accept the consequences. Why cant men?

 

[GhostlyJoe]

I have shown that it's perfectly equal except at the biological level. And men can have their right to liberty removed when they break a law and not walk away.

There are no laws proposed to force women to abort or remain pregnant. Walking away was a rather ineffective argument.

And 'my' system, which it's not, it highly ethical. It is not remotely ethical to unnecessarily hold other people responsible for the actions, the consequences of others. Men or women.

You still refuse to answer why it's unacceptable for men to decide before having sex in order to protect themselves 100%. This is 100% equal with women in terms of avoiding or accepting consequences. Women have to make that choice and then accept the consequences. Why cant men?

I've already answered this multiple times. Men can choose not to have sex and avoid any unwanted consequences. That will not stop men from having sex, as sex is a biological imperative for the continuation of the species. You're insisting on having a social contract by which engaging in consensual sex means implicitly agreeing to 18 years of child support payments.

So now answer my question: Under your premise of contractual sex, why shouldn't men be able to legally force mothers to carry children to term? After all, sex is a voluntary contract giving up autonomy, right?

 

[Lursa]

I've already answered this multiple times. Men can choose not to have sex and avoid any unwanted consequences. That will not stop men from having sex, as sex is a biological imperative for the continuation of the species. You're insisting on having a social contract by which engaging in consensual sex means implicitly agreeing to 18 years of child support payments.

So now answer my question: Under your premise of contractual sex, why shouldn't men be able to legally force mothers to carry children to term? After all, sex is a voluntary contract giving up autonomy, right?

So then why cant men be held accountable for their choices? We expect married men to control themselves.

Again: you are proposing men having sex without consequences. That is NOT equal. Women never have been able to and still cannot.

WHy should men get that then?

Esp. if 'equality' is so important?

And there is no way under the Constitution to force women to remain pregnant or abort. And asking for them to carry to term is a 180 degree turn from what you claim men must have.