Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Punished? If that's the way you want to look at it then sure.So you feel all men should be punished because there are some men that do not care of their responsibilities?The laws that allows abortion is sexist. The preborn baby is as much a part of the man as it is the woman. The woman is no more than a carrier of the preborn baby that the present law allows her to kill regardless of the man's wishes. If you place a fertilized egg in a woman and she carries it to full term and allows the baby to continue to live it will have no genetic comparison to the carrier therefore she is just a carrier.
an estimate of about 21 million children are born out of wedlock in the world
The latest US number
12.1% are informal child support agreements established between the two parents
- There are currently 13.6 million custodial single parents living in the U.S.
- About half of them (50.2%) have some type of legal or informal child support agreement in place
- 87.9% of those child support agreements are formal agreements, established in court or through a Title IV-D agency
Only 12 percent of men are stepping up to the plate without being forced too
$33.7 billion dollars in child support was owed during the year 2015
Granted some men step up to the plate but a lot of then don't
I love ya Eagle, you are one of my special dudes...but, again - what profit? The law allows them to be recompensed for costs related to preparing samples and shipping. That is legit. It's up to you and other to show PP is making money here.
Yeah there'd be no conflict of interest in an agency that refers people out to an abortion clinic that turns around and 'donates' the left over fetal parts back to PP so they can 'handle' the sale and distribution of said parts.
Maybe PP should consider expansion and get into handling Special Needs people by recommending SN agencies that run waiver homes so that SN agency can have those special needs people sign papers for organ donation so when those special needs people die the organs can go back to PP for sale and distribution.
Hey!!! Maybe they can even get into adoptions... Longmire - Season 1 - Episode 5 - Dog Soldier
I'll take a nominal $5 fee for every organ they handle and a nominal $100 fee for every adoption, and an extra $100 for every minority child, that PP handles since they're my ideas.....
That'll be all tax free since I'll be a non-profit right?
Of course there'll probably be no incentive for Planned Parenthood directors to encourage their people to highly suggest clients to have abortions, donate organs, or put someone up for adoption, at $50 to $100 a part or $5,000 to $10,000 a warm body in agency handling fees. Now would there?
*****SMILE*****
There isn't. The laws are that strict. The reality is that you don't have a leg to stand on other than you don't like it. That's fine but it's not a legit argument.
I disagree.
If you want to argue that Planned Parenthood is simply a health care provider and has nothing to do with abortions then they should distance themselves from said practices totally including the handling of fetal remains. The most they should be allowed is referring women who want/choose to get an abortion to a clinic that provides those services that has no actual connection to Planned Parenthood.
*****SMILE*****
Reproductive health. All aspects of it. They make referrals now. They don't need to "distance" themselves from it.
There is a simple solution.
Totally separate the two parts of Planned Parenthood. Two totally separate entities, no management, facilities, funds, donations or expenses shared at all. One organization continues to operate as Planned Parenthood and the now separate organization, say Abortions R Us. Neither can have any connection to the other, no donations or payments between the two. No government funding to "Abortions R Us", government funding allowed to Planned Parenthood.
Problem solved.
Here's an idea. If a man doesn't want his offspring aborted, he shouldn't place his sperm in the body of a woman who doesn't want a child.
so, If my wife argues against abortion, but also argues against abortion laws which are invasive, and an attack on individual rights, what false category would you put her into??
The controversy rages. Both sides at each others throats over an issue that neither will give ground on. One side says that it's murder while the other side says that others no right to tell them what to do with their body. In perspective both are have a point for mankind has many laws both religious and secular. Which in turn can lead to many questions on the subject. One such question that I've never seen asked is the following...
If these pro-abortion people don't want others telling them 'what to do with their body' what gives them the right to demand government funding to support an institution/agency (Planned Parenthood) to tell them what to do with their bodies?
*****SMILE*****
NOTE: This is the Clean Debate Zone and it would be greatly appreciated if mod involvement for flaming and other offences not be required for this thread.
Although vehemently against abortion on demand, these are the reasons why it is here to stay:
1. The abortion industry is a billion dollar industry in the US. As a lobby, they are hard to outspend. The love of money truly is the root of all evil.
Two problems with this argument. First as a lobby- plenty of 'industries' outspend 'the abortion industry'. Secondly, this implies that women are choosing abortions because of some kind of lobbying effort by abortion providers. You might have a point if this was an industry with actual commercial advertising promoting the product- but women choose abortion for their own reasons- at the most- lobbying allows for their to be safe and legal abortion service within a community- as opposed to unsafe and illegal.
2. Most women who have abortions do so because of financial concerns even though every time someone tries to argue that it should be legal uses examples of incest or some such nonsense.
Most women do tend to have abortions for financial concerns. Addressing those financial concerns would lower the demand for abortion.
And addressing your other point- I do tend to point out that the anti-abortion side now openly wants to prevent the victims of rape and incest from any form of birth control, even the morning after pill- because- even though this represents a very small portion of the women who chose abortions- their stories are very real- and the anti-abortion activists do want to tell them that they have to give birth to their rapist child- i.e. what you call 'nonsense'
And speaking of nonsense- the anti-abortion side currently wants to mostly talk about abortion late third trimester abortions- even though those type of abortions are extremely rare- and in most of those cases the women having the abortions really don't want to, but are facing some sort of health tragedy.
3. The powers that be are focused on population control, which is why the US government funds or supports birth control and abortion all around the globe. Such concerns as global warming and the depletion of natural resources is why they view the snuffing out of human life as a good thing.
The U.S. government does fund birth control around the world- because one of the leading causes of poverty for women around the world is having too many children. The U.S. does not fund any abortion services outside the United States. Not sure why you equate birth control with snuffing out human life. And do you think that contraception is a bad thing? I don't. One of the best ways to improve the health of women in any country is to allow them to control their own fertility so that they can limit the number of children to the number that their family can afford.
4. Genocide is human nature. Just do a little history search and you will see genocide conducted all over the globe at pretty much any time in history. We see to have a thirst for killing and usually it is over power and money issues, as is abortion.
No one now is forcing any women in the U.S. to have abortions. Women choosing abortions is not 'genocide'- it is women making the choices that governments and men have claimed for years that they should be making for women, and that women shouldn't be trusted to make those decisions themselves.
You can frame the question anyway you choose from any perspective that you choose, but at the end of the day the question really is only, is the unborn infant human?
There are a myriad of different answers to this, some say not till so many weeks, some say not till they are viable in the womb, and then others say not till they exit the womb.
What say you?
I say I don't really know.
Getting past the extremist rhetoric on both sides, I don't believe that a newly implanted embryo is an infant.
But I also believe that a viable fetus probably is.
I also think that the woman who has to go through pregnancy and childbirth is the best person to decide the issue- not me or you- for her.
What about you?
What about. . .
When YOU were a newly implanted embryo?
The controversy rages. Both sides at each others throats over an issue that neither will give ground on. One side says that it's murder while the other side says that others no right to tell them what to do with their body. In perspective both are have a point for mankind has many laws both religious and secular. Which in turn can lead to many questions on the subject. One such question that I've never seen asked is the following...
If these pro-abortion people don't want others telling them 'what to do with their body' what gives them the right to demand government funding to support an institution/agency (Planned Parenthood) to tell them what to do with their bodies?
*****SMILE*****
NOTE: This is the Clean Debate Zone and it would be greatly appreciated if mod involvement for flaming and other offences not be required for this thread.
If these pro-abortion people don't want others telling them 'what to do with their body' what gives them the right to demand government funding to support an institution/agency (Planned Parenthood) to tell them what to do with their bodies?
First of all- we all have the 'right' to demand whatever we would like to demand- that doesn't mean anyone has the right to get what they demand.
Secondly- Planned Parenthood doesn't tell anyone what they must do with their bodies- PP provides options to women, mostly birth control and health screenings, and in some cases abortion.
Finally- PP gets no government funding for abortions- but does get government support for providing health services and contraceptives to women.
I have yet to figure out why the anti-abortion people would not want women to have access to low cost contraceptives, unless of course the anti-abortionist agenda is not really about protecting 'unborn life' but about taking control away from women.
After all- Conservatives actively fought against women having access to contraceptives for decades- even making information about contraceptives was deemed 'obscene'
So you'll be fine with the government funding being taken away and the agency told to run strictly on charitable donations?
*****SMILE*****
And just paying child support money only covers half of the problem, wonder what the numbers are of men who pay but stay away.
Why all the deflection? Why not address the fact that the federal government has prohibited the States from determining their own laws regarding abortion? Why should a small group of people be able to impose their political views on majorities who do not share those views? Why should Kansas be forced to adopt the same views as New York?
You mean like why did the Federal government force Virginia to allow mixed race marriages? Yeah why should a small group of people be able to impose their political vies on majorities who do not share those views?
Really what you mean is that why shouldn't a group of people be able to impose their own personal beliefs on every woman in a state.
Why should you be allowed to impose your personal beliefs on every person in the state?
You mean like why did the Federal government force Virginia to allow mixed race marriages? Yeah why should a small group of people be able to impose their political vies on majorities who do not share those views?
Really what you mean is that why shouldn't a group of people be able to impose their own personal beliefs on every woman in a state.
Nice try, but you got your example exactly backwards. Virginia was not imposing its views on the rest of the country (but it was in direct violation of the Constitution).
If anything, your civil rights comparison supports the right to life of the unborn, not the right to terminate that life. That is why the Roe v. Wade Court had to invent a new "right to privacy" in order to justify its otherwise indefensible decision.
so, If my wife argues against abortion, but also argues against abortion laws which are invasive, and an attack on individual rights, what false category would you put her into??
Why does she see it as a right to deny another human the right to life?
No matter how you craft language to assuage your sense of guilt regarding the reality of the procedure, one person's life life is being terminated at the behest of another.
You are here and alive here on earth. It is probably safe to say that you prefer this over the alternative. Is there any time during your gestation where an abortion would have not prevented you from making the choice to continue to live?
Calling pro-choice people "pro-abortion" is exactly the same thing as calling antiwar people "pro-surrender". You don't get to do that without being called down for it.
Right after we drop all tax payer funding for faith based organizations. Simple?
Faith-based organizations are providing abortions?
They are receiving tax payer funding.
So? I said "Abortions 'R' Us" could not take government funding. Fine for Planned Parenthood.
Are faith-based organizations providing abortions?
I'm not interested in them providing abortions. I'm interested in them taking tax dollars.
Right after we drop all tax payer funding for faith based organizations. Simple?
Faith-based organizations are providing abortions?
They are receiving tax payer funding.
So? I said "Abortions 'R' Us" could not take government funding. Fine for Planned Parenthood.
Are faith-based organizations providing abortions?
I'm not interested in them providing abortions. I'm interested in them taking tax dollars.
Why? People of faith can't administer to those in need?
And no- Roe v. Wade did not 'invent' a new right to privacy.
Yeah there'd be no conflict of interest in an agency that refers people out to an abortion clinic that turns around and 'donates' the left over fetal parts back to PP so they can 'handle' the sale and distribution of said parts.
Maybe PP should consider expansion and get into handling Special Needs people by recommending SN agencies that run waiver homes so that SN agency can have those special needs people sign papers for organ donation so when those special needs people die the organs can go back to PP for sale and distribution.
Hey!!! Maybe they can even get into adoptions... Longmire - Season 1 - Episode 5 - Dog Soldier
I'll take a nominal $5 fee for every organ they handle and a nominal $100 fee for every adoption, and an extra $100 for every minority child, that PP handles since they're my ideas.....
That'll be all tax free since I'll be a non-profit right?
Of course there'll probably be no incentive for Planned Parenthood directors to encourage their people to highly suggest clients to have abortions, donate organs, or put someone up for adoption, at $50 to $100 a part or $5,000 to $10,000 a warm body in agency handling fees. Now would there?
*****SMILE*****
There isn't. The laws are that strict. The reality is that you don't have a leg to stand on other than you don't like it. That's fine but it's not a legit argument.
I disagree.
If you want to argue that Planned Parenthood is simply a health care provider and has nothing to do with abortions then they should distance themselves from said practices totally including the handling of fetal remains. The most they should be allowed is referring women who want/choose to get an abortion to a clinic that provides those services that has no actual connection to Planned Parenthood.
*****SMILE*****
Reproductive health. All aspects of it. They make referrals now. They don't need to "distance" themselves from it.
There is a simple solution.
Totally separate the two parts of Planned Parenthood. Two totally separate entities, no management, facilities, funds, donations or expenses shared at all. One organization continues to operate as Planned Parenthood and the now separate organization, say Abortions R Us. Neither can have any connection to the other, no donations or payments between the two. No government funding to "Abortions R Us", government funding allowed to Planned Parenthood.
Problem solved.
Almost but not quite.
You'll also need to eliminate Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for soft penis medications. A necessary step to prevent the federal contribution to abortion.
And no- Roe v. Wade did not 'invent' a new right to privacy.
As you know, actually it did. Our Constitution contains no right to privacy.
Calling pro-choice people "pro-abortion" is exactly the same thing as calling antiwar people "pro-surrender". You don't get to do that without being called down for it.
Well, anti-war is "pro-surrender".
so, If my wife argues against abortion, but also argues against abortion laws which are invasive, and an attack on individual rights, what false category would you put her into??
Why does she see it as a right to deny another human the right to life?
No matter how you craft language to assuage your sense of guilt regarding the reality of the procedure, one person's life life is being terminated at the behest of another.
You are here and alive here on earth. It is probably safe to say that you prefer this over the alternative. Is there any time during your gestation where an abortion would have not prevented you from making the choice to continue to live?
Calling pro-choice people "pro-abortion" is exactly the same thing as calling antiwar people "pro-surrender". You don't get to do that without being called down for it.
Well, anti-war is "pro-surrender".
have you ever considered responding to what a person actually said instead of that which you only imagine to be?so, If my wife argues against abortion, but also argues against abortion laws which are invasive, and an attack on individual rights, what false category would you put her into??
Why does she see it as a right to deny another human the right to life?
No matter how you craft language to assuage your sense of guilt regarding the reality of the procedure, one person's life life is being terminated at the behest of another.
You are here and alive here on earth. It is probably safe to say that you prefer this over the alternative. Is there any time during your gestation where an abortion would have not prevented you from making the choice to continue to live?
That fetus doesn't have a 'right to life'. Sorry it doesn't. The odds of the newly implanted fetus successfully being born are not very good. Around 25% of all implanted embryos spontaniously abort.
That embryo is a potential life. When it becomes its own living person is very, very debatable. But historically- and I mean throughout history- that has generally either been when a child is born, or when a woman 'quickens'- movement can be felt.
But I realize that will never acceptable to those who want the state to decide what a woman can do with her body. I think that all became very clear when in the last year your side has stopped pretending you will accept exceptions for rape and incest, and stopped pretending you would not want to criminalize a 12 year old raped by her father if she takes the morning after pill.
have you ever considered responding to what a person actually said instead of that which you only imagine to be?so, If my wife argues against abortion, but also argues against abortion laws which are invasive, and an attack on individual rights, what false category would you put her into??
Why does she see it as a right to deny another human the right to life?
No matter how you craft language to assuage your sense of guilt regarding the reality of the procedure, one person's life life is being terminated at the behest of another.
You are here and alive here on earth. It is probably safe to say that you prefer this over the alternative. Is there any time during your gestation where an abortion would have not prevented you from making the choice to continue to live?
That fetus doesn't have a 'right to life'. Sorry it doesn't. The odds of the newly implanted fetus successfully being born are not very good. Around 25% of all implanted embryos spontaniously abort.
That embryo is a potential life. When it becomes its own living person is very, very debatable. But historically- and I mean throughout history- that has generally either been when a child is born, or when a woman 'quickens'- movement can be felt.
But I realize that will never acceptable to those who want the state to decide what a woman can do with her body. I think that all became very clear when in the last year your side has stopped pretending you will accept exceptions for rape and incest, and stopped pretending you would not want to criminalize a 12 year old raped by her father if she takes the morning after pill.
The simple-mindedness of your position that there are just two "sides" in the debate is part of the problem, especially inasmuch as you posit one side as completely dehumanizing a human life up to the point of delivery and the other side dehumanizing human life afterwards.
I am not part of a "side" that would disregard a 12 year old rape victim even if your fertile imagination wishes to paint me as such due to your need to place my level of awareness in the same place as yours..I am simply an individual who responds as an individual rather than as a warrior for a group.
You might try it some time.
