Anti-abortion activists indicted for undercover videos smearing Planned Parenthood

[bravoactual]

Wrong again, as usual.

“If this case concerned a State's ability to require the mother to notify the father before taking some action with respect to a living child raised by both, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude as a general matter that the father's interest in the welfare of the child and the mother's interest are equal.

Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Not wrong, as usual.

I couldn't give a crap what the SC says on the matter. It lost all credibility when it ruled that fining a man for not buying insurance was a tax.

If a man has no say in the matter, he has no responsibility. A woman has three separate means for avoiding the delivery of a child. If she fails to avail herself of all three, how is the man financially for raising the child? It was 99% her decision.

and men have no responsibility for getting a woman pregnant?

again, it is not an issue of what you agree or disagree with. it is whether government has the right to legislate what a woman can do with HER body and WHEN the governmental interest kicks in.

an extremist, ranting gubmint hater like you should really get out of women's business and stop wanting that gubmint that you hate to legislate a matter that is only the business of a woman and her doctor...and whoever else SHE wishes to include in her decision-making process.

dismissed.

If a woman wants to have an abortion, fine. I have no objections, but even though the decision is entirely hers, if she decides not to, then men are compelled to pay the expenses of that child until it as an adult. Talk about controlling people. Why doesn't the man have the right equal to the woman's? This logic is positively Medieval.

Because the child, once born- has the RIGHT to be housed, fed, clothed, educated, to be taken care of financially by all who created him/her. Shouldn't that 'care' come from the ones who bumped uglies or should it be the responsibility of the mother along with help from the government? LOL- then you'll be the first one screaming about the nanny sate entitlements going to all those welfare queens.

pathetic.

You're obviously wrong about that. If a woman goes to a sperm bank and has herself inseminated with my sperm, does that make me financially responsible for the child? Nope, and why not? Because I had no part in the decision. The same goes for children conceived the normal way. The woman has all the control when it comes to deciding whether to have a child. The man has virtually none. If a woman decides to have a child, and the man doesn't want to be financially responsible, then why should he be?

Just in case no one has ever taken to say this before, your are huge case of raging irrelevancy. But then again, your hero does have a bad comb over and an over active ego.

 

[Faun]

and men have no responsibility for getting a woman pregnant?

again, it is not an issue of what you agree or disagree with. it is whether government has the right to legislate what a woman can do with HER body and WHEN the governmental interest kicks in.

an extremist, ranting gubmint hater like you should really get out of women's business and stop wanting that gubmint that you hate to legislate a matter that is only the business of a woman and her doctor...and whoever else SHE wishes to include in her decision-making process.

dismissed.

If a woman wants to have an abortion, fine. I have no objections, but even though the decision is entirely hers, if she decides not to, then men are compelled to pay the expenses of that child until it as an adult. Talk about controlling people. Why doesn't the man have the right equal to the woman's? This logic is positively Medieval.

Because the child, once born- has the RIGHT to be housed, fed, clothed, educated, to be taken care of financially by all who created him/her. Shouldn't that 'care' come from the ones who bumped uglies or should it be the responsibility of the mother along with help from the government? LOL- then you'll be the first one screaming about the nanny sate entitlements going to all those welfare queens.

pathetic.

You're obviously wrong about that. If a woman goes to a sperm bank and has herself inseminated with my sperm, does that make me financially responsible for the child? Nope, and why not? Because I had no part in the decision. The same goes for children conceived the normal way. The woman has all the control when it comes to deciding whether to have a child. The man has virtually none. If a woman decides to have a child, and the man doesn't want to be financially responsible, then why should he be?

that's comparing apples & oranges in a situation like that, because both parties agree to the financial aspect. not so when a child is conceived the 'normal' way.

If both parties agreed in the second example, but then the woman changed her mind, a judge would still award her child support, so your claim is wrong.

Putz -- that's why they sign contracts when donating sperm. So no one can change their mind unilaterally down the road.

 

[bripat9643]

and men have no responsibility for getting a woman pregnant?

again, it is not an issue of what you agree or disagree with. it is whether government has the right to legislate what a woman can do with HER body and WHEN the governmental interest kicks in.

an extremist, ranting gubmint hater like you should really get out of women's business and stop wanting that gubmint that you hate to legislate a matter that is only the business of a woman and her doctor...and whoever else SHE wishes to include in her decision-making process.

dismissed.

If a woman wants to have an abortion, fine. I have no objections, but even though the decision is entirely hers, if she decides not to, then men are compelled to pay the expenses of that child until it as an adult. Talk about controlling people. Why doesn't the man have the right equal to the woman's? This logic is positively Medieval.

Because the child, once born- has the RIGHT to be housed, fed, clothed, educated, to be taken care of financially by all who created him/her. Shouldn't that 'care' come from the ones who bumped uglies or should it be the responsibility of the mother along with help from the government? LOL- then you'll be the first one screaming about the nanny sate entitlements going to all those welfare queens.

pathetic.

You're obviously wrong about that. If a woman goes to a sperm bank and has herself inseminated with my sperm, does that make me financially responsible for the child? Nope, and why not? Because I had no part in the decision. The same goes for children conceived the normal way. The woman has all the control when it comes to deciding whether to have a child. The man has virtually none. If a woman decides to have a child, and the man doesn't want to be financially responsible, then why should he be?

You talk about the child as if it's just some thing you don't want, and shouldn't have to pay for it. The child is a living, breathing person. He or she has needs, both physical and emotional. If you want nothing to do with your child, so be it, but you had many options to prevent pregnancy, and if you didn't avail yourself of them, you should have. That lapse could be very expensive.

If you don't want a child, make sure you don't create one.

That's conservatism for ya -- save the fetus, let the baby starve after it's born. Men shouldn't have to be responsible for their own children.

Pretty ironic coming from those who champion family values, pro-life, and personal responsibility, huh?

I'm not an opponent of legal abortion, numskull. How does that square with all your preconceived notions?

 

[bripat9643]

Not wrong, as usual.

I couldn't give a crap what the SC says on the matter. It lost all credibility when it ruled that fining a man for not buying insurance was a tax.

If a man has no say in the matter, he has no responsibility. A woman has three separate means for avoiding the delivery of a child. If she fails to avail herself of all three, how is the man financially for raising the child? It was 99% her decision.

and men have no responsibility for getting a woman pregnant?

again, it is not an issue of what you agree or disagree with. it is whether government has the right to legislate what a woman can do with HER body and WHEN the governmental interest kicks in.

an extremist, ranting gubmint hater like you should really get out of women's business and stop wanting that gubmint that you hate to legislate a matter that is only the business of a woman and her doctor...and whoever else SHE wishes to include in her decision-making process.

dismissed.

If a woman wants to have an abortion, fine. I have no objections, but even though the decision is entirely hers, if she decides not to, then men are compelled to pay the expenses of that child until it as an adult. Talk about controlling people. Why doesn't the man have the right equal to the woman's? This logic is positively Medieval.

Because the child, once born- has the RIGHT to be housed, fed, clothed, educated, to be taken care of financially by all who created him/her. Shouldn't that 'care' come from the ones who bumped uglies or should it be the responsibility of the mother along with help from the government? LOL- then you'll be the first one screaming about the nanny sate entitlements going to all those welfare queens.

pathetic.

You're obviously wrong about that. If a woman goes to a sperm bank and has herself inseminated with my sperm, does that make me financially responsible for the child? Nope, and why not? Because I had no part in the decision. The same goes for children conceived the normal way. The woman has all the control when it comes to deciding whether to have a child. The man has virtually none. If a woman decides to have a child, and the man doesn't want to be financially responsible, then why should he be?

Just in case no one has ever taken to say this before, your are huge case of raging irrelevancy. But then again, your hero does have a bad comb over and an over active ego.

In the liberal universe, truth is always irrelevant.

Although most won't admit it, many men agree with what I have said, especially if they are paying child support.

 

[bripat9643]

If a woman wants to have an abortion, fine. I have no objections, but even though the decision is entirely hers, if she decides not to, then men are compelled to pay the expenses of that child until it as an adult. Talk about controlling people. Why doesn't the man have the right equal to the woman's? This logic is positively Medieval.

Because the child, once born- has the RIGHT to be housed, fed, clothed, educated, to be taken care of financially by all who created him/her. Shouldn't that 'care' come from the ones who bumped uglies or should it be the responsibility of the mother along with help from the government? LOL- then you'll be the first one screaming about the nanny sate entitlements going to all those welfare queens.

pathetic.

You're obviously wrong about that. If a woman goes to a sperm bank and has herself inseminated with my sperm, does that make me financially responsible for the child? Nope, and why not? Because I had no part in the decision. The same goes for children conceived the normal way. The woman has all the control when it comes to deciding whether to have a child. The man has virtually none. If a woman decides to have a child, and the man doesn't want to be financially responsible, then why should he be?

that's comparing apples & oranges in a situation like that, because both parties agree to the financial aspect. not so when a child is conceived the 'normal' way.

If both parties agreed in the second example, but then the woman changed her mind, a judge would still award her child support, so your claim is wrong.

Putz -- that's why they sign contracts when donating sperm. So no one can change their mind unilaterally down the road.

I'm not talking about the case of donating sperm. I'm talking about women who get pregnant by the normal process.

 

[bravoactual]

In case it has not escaped the attention of other posters.

The discussion has veered from the lying edited tape to what passes for RW'ers trying to justify push the government into the operating room.

They are not Right To Life, they are pro-pregnant. Once the baby is born, fuck them.

 

[bripat9643]

In case it has not escaped the attention of other posters.

The discussion has veered from the lying edited tape to what passes for RW'ers trying to justify push the government into the operating room.

They are not Right To Life, they are pro-pregnant. Once the baby is born, fuck them.

Another liberal asshole who doesn't have his facts straight. I haven't been arguing against abortion, you fucking moron.

 

[Faun]

If a woman wants to have an abortion, fine. I have no objections, but even though the decision is entirely hers, if she decides not to, then men are compelled to pay the expenses of that child until it as an adult. Talk about controlling people. Why doesn't the man have the right equal to the woman's? This logic is positively Medieval.

Because the child, once born- has the RIGHT to be housed, fed, clothed, educated, to be taken care of financially by all who created him/her. Shouldn't that 'care' come from the ones who bumped uglies or should it be the responsibility of the mother along with help from the government? LOL- then you'll be the first one screaming about the nanny sate entitlements going to all those welfare queens.

pathetic.

You're obviously wrong about that. If a woman goes to a sperm bank and has herself inseminated with my sperm, does that make me financially responsible for the child? Nope, and why not? Because I had no part in the decision. The same goes for children conceived the normal way. The woman has all the control when it comes to deciding whether to have a child. The man has virtually none. If a woman decides to have a child, and the man doesn't want to be financially responsible, then why should he be?

You talk about the child as if it's just some thing you don't want, and shouldn't have to pay for it. The child is a living, breathing person. He or she has needs, both physical and emotional. If you want nothing to do with your child, so be it, but you had many options to prevent pregnancy, and if you didn't avail yourself of them, you should have. That lapse could be very expensive.

If you don't want a child, make sure you don't create one.

That's conservatism for ya -- save the fetus, let the baby starve after it's born. Men shouldn't have to be responsible for their own children.

Pretty ironic coming from those who champion family values, pro-life, and personal responsibility, huh?

I'm not an opponent of legal abortion, numskull. How does that square with all your preconceived notions?

You're only one small useless cog in the machinery of conservatism.

 

[Faun]

Spot the disconnect...

You're obviously wrong about that. If a woman goes to a sperm bank and has herself inseminated with my sperm, does that make me financially responsible for the child? Nope, and why not? Because I had no part in the decision.

I'm not talking about the case of donating sperm.

​

 

[bripat9643]

Because the child, once born- has the RIGHT to be housed, fed, clothed, educated, to be taken care of financially by all who created him/her. Shouldn't that 'care' come from the ones who bumped uglies or should it be the responsibility of the mother along with help from the government? LOL- then you'll be the first one screaming about the nanny sate entitlements going to all those welfare queens.

pathetic.

You're obviously wrong about that. If a woman goes to a sperm bank and has herself inseminated with my sperm, does that make me financially responsible for the child? Nope, and why not? Because I had no part in the decision. The same goes for children conceived the normal way. The woman has all the control when it comes to deciding whether to have a child. The man has virtually none. If a woman decides to have a child, and the man doesn't want to be financially responsible, then why should he be?

You talk about the child as if it's just some thing you don't want, and shouldn't have to pay for it. The child is a living, breathing person. He or she has needs, both physical and emotional. If you want nothing to do with your child, so be it, but you had many options to prevent pregnancy, and if you didn't avail yourself of them, you should have. That lapse could be very expensive.

If you don't want a child, make sure you don't create one.

That's conservatism for ya -- save the fetus, let the baby starve after it's born. Men shouldn't have to be responsible for their own children.

Pretty ironic coming from those who champion family values, pro-life, and personal responsibility, huh?

I'm not an opponent of legal abortion, numskull. How does that square with all your preconceived notions?

You're only one small useless cog in the machinery of conservatism.

And you're a brainwashed drone who supports a gang of criminal politicians who are out to screw you.

 

[bripat9643]

Spot the disconnect...

You're obviously wrong about that. If a woman goes to a sperm bank and has herself inseminated with my sperm, does that make me financially responsible for the child? Nope, and why not? Because I had no part in the decision.

I'm not talking about the case of donating sperm.

​

You're an idiot. There was another post in between that you deliberately ignored, you sleazy lying piece of crap.

 

[bravoactual]

In case it has not escaped the attention of other posters.

The discussion has veered from the lying edited tape to what passes for RW'ers trying to justify push the government into the operating room.

They are not Right To Life, they are pro-pregnant. Once the baby is born, fuck them.

Another liberal asshole who doesn't have his facts straight. I haven't been arguing against abortion, you fucking moron.

Profanity and Name Calling.

That is all you've got?

Stop embarrassing yourself

As much as I have tried to engage you an adult dialog it is you who continues to reduce to discourse to grade school insults.

You have lost argument in case you failed (and you did) to notice.

When all you have left to use is gutter language and personal insults, you have lost and you have lost. Not have you lost, you wandering around trying in a desperate attempt to prove a point that you cannot make because you no longer argue your point with profanity.

I'm sure you might have impressed VFO (Very Few Others), but when you have to resort to personal attacks you prove nothing, except YOU AIN'T GOT NOTHING.

 

[bravoactual]

Spot the disconnect...

You're obviously wrong about that. If a woman goes to a sperm bank and has herself inseminated with my sperm, does that make me financially responsible for the child? Nope, and why not? Because I had no part in the decision.

I'm not talking about the case of donating sperm.

​

Your going to give him a headache.

 

[bripat9643]

If a woman wants to have an abortion, fine. I have no objections, but even though the decision is entirely hers, if she decides not to, then men are compelled to pay the expenses of that child until it as an adult. Talk about controlling people. Why doesn't the man have the right equal to the woman's? This logic is positively Medieval.

Men are not equal to women when it comes to being pregnant. You're actually the dumbfuck who failed biology 101. <smh>

So you don't think the law should treat people equally?

Of course the law should treat people equally. Like I said before, when men can get pregnant then they too can get abortions.

Then why should men pay to raise a child a woman decides to have? How is that treating people equally?

That's putting the interest of the child ahead of you deadbeat dads.

Furthermore, both the mom and dad are responsible to support that child. That's equality.

What you mean is that is exactly the opposite of treating people equally. It tramples on any notion of rights, for which you totalitarian scumbags don't give a damn. As I have already pointed out, since the choice is entirely in the woman's hands the man has no moral culpability.

 

[bripat9643]

In case it has not escaped the attention of other posters.

The discussion has veered from the lying edited tape to what passes for RW'ers trying to justify push the government into the operating room.

They are not Right To Life, they are pro-pregnant. Once the baby is born, fuck them.

Another liberal asshole who doesn't have his facts straight. I haven't been arguing against abortion, you fucking moron.

Profanity and Name Calling.

That is all you've got?

Stop embarrassing yourself

As much as I have tried to engage you an adult dialog it is you who continues to reduce to discourse to grade school insults.

You have lost argument in case you failed (and you did) to notice.

When all you have left to use is gutter language and personal insults, you have lost and you have lost. Not have you lost, you wandering around trying in a desperate attempt to prove a point that you cannot make because you no longer argue your point with profanity.

I'm sure you might have impressed VFO (Very Few Others), but when you have to resort to personal attacks you prove nothing, except YOU AIN'T GOT NOTHING.

Oh, right, you don't engage in personal attacks. You're a jackass. I simply tell the truth about you and you don't like it.

 

[bripat9643]

Spot the disconnect...

You're obviously wrong about that. If a woman goes to a sperm bank and has herself inseminated with my sperm, does that make me financially responsible for the child? Nope, and why not? Because I had no part in the decision.

I'm not talking about the case of donating sperm.

​

Your going to give him a headache.

A sleaze bag defends slander. That's exactly what we expect from leftwing reprobates.

 

[Faun]

Men are not equal to women when it comes to being pregnant. You're actually the dumbfuck who failed biology 101. <smh>

So you don't think the law should treat people equally?

Of course the law should treat people equally. Like I said before, when men can get pregnant then they too can get abortions.

Then why should men pay to raise a child a woman decides to have? How is that treating people equally?

That's putting the interest of the child ahead of you deadbeat dads.

Furthermore, both the mom and dad are responsible to support that child. That's equality.

What you mean is that is exactly the opposite of treating people equally. It tramples on any notion of rights, for which you totalitarian scumbags don't give a damn. As I have already pointed out, since the choice is entirely in the woman's hands the man has no moral culpability.

Once born, the child's right to be supported outweighs your deadbeat desires to get out of raising your own child. If you think that's an infringement on your rights, you're even more rightarded than I've given you credit for.

 

[jillian]

and men have no responsibility for getting a woman pregnant?

again, it is not an issue of what you agree or disagree with. it is whether government has the right to legislate what a woman can do with HER body and WHEN the governmental interest kicks in.

an extremist, ranting gubmint hater like you should really get out of women's business and stop wanting that gubmint that you hate to legislate a matter that is only the business of a woman and her doctor...and whoever else SHE wishes to include in her decision-making process.

dismissed.

If a woman wants to have an abortion, fine. I have no objections, but even though the decision is entirely hers, if she decides not to, then men are compelled to pay the expenses of that child until it as an adult. Talk about controlling people. Why doesn't the man have the right equal to the woman's? This logic is positively Medieval.

Because the child, once born- has the RIGHT to be housed, fed, clothed, educated, to be taken care of financially by all who created him/her. Shouldn't that 'care' come from the ones who bumped uglies or should it be the responsibility of the mother along with help from the government? LOL- then you'll be the first one screaming about the nanny sate entitlements going to all those welfare queens.

pathetic.

You're obviously wrong about that. If a woman goes to a sperm bank and has herself inseminated with my sperm, does that make me financially responsible for the child? Nope, and why not? Because I had no part in the decision. The same goes for children conceived the normal way. The woman has all the control when it comes to deciding whether to have a child. The man has virtually none. If a woman decides to have a child, and the man doesn't want to be financially responsible, then why should he be?

Just in case no one has ever taken to say this before, your are huge case of raging irrelevancy. But then again, your hero does have a bad comb over and an over active ego.

In the liberal universe, truth is always irrelevant.

Although most won't admit it, many men agree with what I have said, especially if they are paying child support.

you have that butt backwards... like everything else you post.

 

[bripat9643]

So you don't think the law should treat people equally?

Of course the law should treat people equally. Like I said before, when men can get pregnant then they too can get abortions.

Then why should men pay to raise a child a woman decides to have? How is that treating people equally?

That's putting the interest of the child ahead of you deadbeat dads.

Furthermore, both the mom and dad are responsible to support that child. That's equality.

What you mean is that is exactly the opposite of treating people equally. It tramples on any notion of rights, for which you totalitarian scumbags don't give a damn. As I have already pointed out, since the choice is entirely in the woman's hands the man has no moral culpability.

Once born, the child's right to be supported outweighs your deadbeat desires to get out of raising your own child. If you think that's an infringement on your rights, you're even more rightarded than I've given you credit for.

If it's not an infringement on your rights, you certainly haven't proved it. Libs never prove any of their claims. They just start foaming at the mouth when you point out their total lack of factual or logical support.

 

[bripat9643]

If a woman wants to have an abortion, fine. I have no objections, but even though the decision is entirely hers, if she decides not to, then men are compelled to pay the expenses of that child until it as an adult. Talk about controlling people. Why doesn't the man have the right equal to the woman's? This logic is positively Medieval.

Because the child, once born- has the RIGHT to be housed, fed, clothed, educated, to be taken care of financially by all who created him/her. Shouldn't that 'care' come from the ones who bumped uglies or should it be the responsibility of the mother along with help from the government? LOL- then you'll be the first one screaming about the nanny sate entitlements going to all those welfare queens.

pathetic.

You're obviously wrong about that. If a woman goes to a sperm bank and has herself inseminated with my sperm, does that make me financially responsible for the child? Nope, and why not? Because I had no part in the decision. The same goes for children conceived the normal way. The woman has all the control when it comes to deciding whether to have a child. The man has virtually none. If a woman decides to have a child, and the man doesn't want to be financially responsible, then why should he be?

Just in case no one has ever taken to say this before, your are huge case of raging irrelevancy. But then again, your hero does have a bad comb over and an over active ego.

In the liberal universe, truth is always irrelevant.

Although most won't admit it, many men agree with what I have said, especially if they are paying child support.

you have that butt backwards... like everything else you post.

No I don't. I know what men say when women aren't around. Your ears would be burning if you knew.