Anti-abortion activists indicted for undercover videos smearing Planned Parenthood

[playtime]

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
A contractchanged her mind, a judge would still award her child support, so your claim is wrong.

There is usually a clause that states that can't happen; or if it can- then it too would be stipulated & then both would agree to sign it into contract.

It wouldn't matter what was in the contract, a judge would still award the woman child support.

A contract is a legal binding document. It would have to stipulate that IN WRITING. Let's just say (for the sake of argument) you are correct.... then the male would have to read, know, understand that could happen & agree to that 'change' (by written consent). If he doesn't realize that could be the end result... then that's on HIM. Ignorance is no excuse.

 

[playtime]

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.

Where are your 'facts' regarding the silly diatribe you tried peddling about sperm banks? Your 'logical' support was just your opinion. And please do not come back with the Kansas case involving a donor & lesbian couple... that did not involve a registered facility or physician which the law states must be involved.

 

[playtime]

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.

Then the male should take care either by putting 'it' in HIS hands & stay away from the baby makers, or at the very least putting a raincoat on 'it'.

 

[Faun]

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.

You're a special kind of rightarded to claim having to support your own child is an infringement of your rights.

 

[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.

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

Your not an honest debater. You choose to rely on personal attacks and profane language rather than a logical, cogent well thought out argument. In one post you refer to a woman using a sperm bank and in the next you say you never brought up sperm banks. Then then the specific reference brought to your attention.

You cannot successfully argue you point, when you cannot even remember what you post or deny you ever brought up a subject.

Work on your segways.

 

[bravoactual]

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.

The word, "Vasectomy" comes to mind.

 

[Dragonlady]

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?

Well, if you want the State to support your child, then you certainly don't believe in personal responsibility. That you don't want to take responsibility for your offspring, once they're born, speaks very poorly of your ethics and morals.

What you fail to understand is implicit in your desire for unprotected sex, is your agreement to accept the consequences of that act. If you don't want to support a child, keep it in your pants.

 

[bravoactual]

What I want is very simple and very easy.

For Republicans who wrap themselves the cloak of " Smaller Government is good", that demanding laws forcing Women to have a child has nothing to do "Smaller Government" and all about "The Government" deciding Health Care.

Don't pretend to lecture anyone, at anytime about the so-called, "Right To Life" when you Support War, Endorse The Use of Torture and Support Capital Punishment. All which have nothing to do with the so-called "Right to Life" and everything to do with the wanton destruction of the life you claim to support in the first damn place.

 

[bravoactual]

For Republicans who wrap themselves the cloak of " Smaller Government is good", that demanding laws forcing Women to have a child has nothing to do "Smaller " and all about "The Government" deciding Health Care to admit that what they want is control Women's Bodies.

Don't pretend to lecture anyone, at anytime about the so-called, "Right To Life" when you Support War, Endorse The Use of Torture and Support Capital Punishment. All which have nothing to do with the so-called "Right to Life" and everything to do with the wanton destruction of the life you claim to support in the first damn place.

I want Republicans who claim they do not want "The Government In The Doctor's Office", to stop trying to push medically unnecessary procedures down the throats of Women for no other reason than to control Women's Health Care.

I want Republicans who claim to hate taxes to stop taxing Women's Hygiene Products.

But being Republicans they won't.

 

[bravoactual]

duplicate post

 

[bravoactual]

How about this proposal from Kentucky Democrat Mary Lou Marzian (Louisville)?

Kentucky lawmaker’s bill would require men to get a note from their wives to purchase Viagra.

It requires men to get a note from their spouse before getting a script for Viagra.

The measure is designed to "Protect these men from themselves".

Under Ms. Marizan's bill, only married men would be allowed to obtain Viagra would require "A man to make a sworn statement with his hand on a Bible that he will only use a prescription for a drug for erectile dysfunction when having sexual relations with his current spouse.

I would amend the bill to say Men seeking prescriptions for E.D. be required to under a medically invasive and medically unnecessary anal ultrasound probe. Republicans who demand a Woman undergo the medically unnecessary and invasive vaginal probe should be more than willing to accept this equally unnecessary and government mandated test.