Anti-abortion activists indicted for undercover videos smearing Planned Parenthood

[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.

In other words, screw the father, he has no rights whatsoever. Only women have rights when it comes to parenting. Then you feminazis will march off to some meeting about equality for women. What a joke.

 

[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.

In other words, screw the father, he has no rights whatsoever. Only women have rights when it comes to parenting. Then you feminazis will march off to some meeting about equality for women. What a joke.

Nope. I'm saying the child, once born, doesn't get screwed by either parent.

Equality.

 

[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.

In other words, screw the father, he has no rights whatsoever. Only women have rights when it comes to parenting. Then you feminazis will march off to some meeting about equality for women. What a joke.

Nope. I'm saying the child, once born, doesn't get screwed by either parent.

Equality.

How is the man "screwing the child" when he had no choice in its birth?

 

[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.

In other words, screw the father, he has no rights whatsoever. Only women have rights when it comes to parenting. Then you feminazis will march off to some meeting about equality for women. What a joke.

Nope. I'm saying the child, once born, doesn't get screwed by either parent.

Equality.

How is the man "screwing the child" when he had no choice in its birth?

He had a choice when he had sex with the child's mother. If he didn't want the child, he should have taken better precautions.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

We're not talking about what she wants to do with her body. We're talking about whether men are financially responsible for the decisions that women make. Simply to utter it makes it obvious how idiotic such a notion is.

that isn't the only issue.

men are charged with child support if a woman has a child because it is for the BENEFIT OF THE CHILD, not the woman.

men don't get to decide because it isn't your body. and if they did, they'd always say they told the woman to abort so they wouldn't have to pay.

that's life.

But laws are supposed to protect your rights. You're just admitting that you don't give a flying **** about the rights of men,

What right(s) do you delude yourself into believing are being violated??

No taxation without representation.

People have the right to consent to contracts, especially concerning govt
and especially concerning paying part of our salaries to pay for public defense or interests.

With social programs, this gets into gray areas where this isn't necessarily REQUIRED to go through
govt as national defense is govt duty.

So with social programs, people are going to have personal opinions and beliefs as to what to pay for
UNDER WHAT TERMS
in keeping with First Amendments rights not to establish a religious or faith based bias in policy on the public.

This is why it is generally recommended to keep social and personal issues OUT OF FEDERAL GOVT
and decide these locally per state or district where people can have a more direct say in what to pay
for and under what terms. The federal govt is not designed to make sensitive decisions like this through Congress.

The conservative Constitutionalists believe in limits on federal govt, and this is why.
I happen to agree that personal decisions about finance and health care, especially reproductive and sexual relations, belong to private individuals and should not become political footballs for federal officials or govt.

If mass resources need to be organized to help individuals, it should be done privately and not through govt unless all parties can agree on the policies.

Given the massive resources of the major political parties, the health care programs could be organized nationally by party, and not impose either right to life or right to health care views on the other camps.
Let each collective group organize its own policies and programs for their respective memberships.

That way, people have DIRECT say in their taxation and representation on sensitive issues
that are not the responsibility of govt to dictate, mandate, regulate or penalize. Just set it up by party,
the same way people set up their own social programs through churches. The advantage being that
people of the same political mindset and belief can collectively be under the same policy of their choice.

 

[emilynghiem]

So.

Republicans will rant about how they, "Do not want 'The Government' involved in Health Care."

Republicans will bay at the moon about how they, "Do not want 'The Government' in the Doctor's Office."

Republicans will run with great and diligent speed to nearest TV Camera and say how, "They do not want the 'The Government' to make medical decisions."

Republicans will tell anybody who will listen to them about how, "They do want 'The Government' in the Operating Room."

Except of course when it comes a Woman's Body and a Woman's Right To Choose.

Republicans would force a Woman or Young Girl is the victim of Rape and/or Incest to carry that child to term.

Never mind the horror that Woman or Young Girl lived through, force them to carry that child to term.

Abortion is a Medical Decision that the Republicans want the same "Government" they do not want in the Doctor's Office, in the Operating Room, to force on Women regardless of their own choice.

Abortion is a Medical Decision to be left the Woman and her Doctor.

"The Government" has no right to dictate what medical procedure can be done and who may or may not receive said medical procedure. Which is what Republicans are suppose to be opposed to in the first damn place.

IF you believe in the so-called "Right To Life", you must also be opposed Capital Punishment, you must be opposed the use of Torture and and opposed War in any form.

IF you believe in the so-called "Right To Life", you must accept that an unborn Muslim Baby, an unborn Jewish Baby, an unborn African-American Baby, an unborn Asian or an unborn Hispanic has that self-same "Right To Life" that you claim to support.

You must be willing to insure that baby you force the mother to deliver has access to Quality Health, Good Education, Nutritious Food, Clothes on Theiir Back and a Safe, Warm and Healthy Home To Live In.

Which is something VFR (Very Few Republicans) in fact believe in.

Dear bravoactual
With most of my prolife Republican friends, when I bring up the issue of Constitutional religious freedom,
that tends to explain this issue of prolife and how it cannot be legislated through govt without violating
the First Amendment because the arguments are faith based.

However, I don't seem to have the same luck explaining prochoice/free market when it comes to the ACA mandates, and trying to explain this to Democrats and liberals who claim to be prochoice.

I find the hypocrisy worse there.

The Republicans at least will accept a Constitutional argument that all the prolife activism is by FREE CHOICE and not required by law. People are CHOOSING to follow and enforce that.

But with the Democrats they keep pushing health care through govt "as the only way" as if there is no other way to ensure help for people.

They don't see that they are equally pushing a belief similar to "right to life."
They really think the govt is the default institution for providing health care,
and yet they criticize the right for assuming right to life is the default and should not be treated as a "choice."

Very strange that both viewpoints cannot see how they impose on each other!

 

[jillian]

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.

We're not talking about what she wants to do with her body. We're talking about whether men are financially responsible for the decisions that women make. Simply to utter it makes it obvious how idiotic such a notion is.

that isn't the only issue.

men are charged with child support if a woman has a child because it is for the BENEFIT OF THE CHILD, not the woman.

men don't get to decide because it isn't your body. and if they did, they'd always say they told the woman to abort so they wouldn't have to pay.

that's life.

But laws are supposed to protect your rights. You're just admitting that you don't give a flying **** about the rights of men,

laws set obligations as well.

unless you're a child, you'd know that.

 

[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.

We're not talking about what she wants to do with her body. We're talking about whether men are financially responsible for the decisions that women make. Simply to utter it makes it obvious how idiotic such a notion is.

that isn't the only issue.

men are charged with child support if a woman has a child because it is for the BENEFIT OF THE CHILD, not the woman.

men don't get to decide because it isn't your body. and if they did, they'd always say they told the woman to abort so they wouldn't have to pay.

that's life.

But laws are supposed to protect your rights. You're just admitting that you don't give a flying **** about the rights of men,

What right(s) do you delude yourself into believing are being violated??

No taxation without representation.

People have the right to consent to contracts, especially concerning govt
and especially concerning paying part of our salaries to pay for public defense or interests.

With social programs, this gets into gray areas where this isn't necessarily REQUIRED to go through
govt as national defense is govt duty.

So with social programs, people are going to have personal opinions and beliefs as to what to pay for
UNDER WHAT TERMS
in keeping with First Amendments rights not to establish a religious or faith based bias in policy on the public.

This is why it is generally recommended to keep social and personal issues OUT OF FEDERAL GOVT
and decide these locally per state or district where people can have a more direct say in what to pay
for and under what terms. The federal govt is not designed to make sensitive decisions like this through Congress.

The conservative Constitutionalists believe in limits on federal govt, and this is why.
I happen to agree that personal decisions about finance and health care, especially reproductive and sexual relations, belong to private individuals and should not become political footballs for federal officials or govt.

If mass resources need to be organized to help individuals, it should be done privately and not through govt unless all parties can agree on the policies.

Given the massive resources of the major political parties, the health care programs could be organized nationally by party, and not impose either right to life or right to health care views on the other camps.
Let each collective group organize its own policies and programs for their respective memberships.

That way, people have DIRECT say in their taxation and representation on sensitive issues
that are not the responsibility of govt to dictate, mandate, regulate or penalize. Just set it up by party,
the same way people set up their own social programs through churches. The advantage being that
people of the same political mindset and belief can collectively be under the same policy of their choice.

1. paying child support is not taxation without representation.
2. there are obligations and benefits established by law. that's what we have a representative government for.
3. again, paying child support isn't a tax. the funds aren't being paid to the government. they're being paid for the benefit of a child.

i find this particular discussion bizarre.

 

[Dragonlady]

Texas antiabortion activists used fraud, judge in S.F. rules.

A federal judge in San Francisco dealt another body blow to antiabortion activists who had infiltrated meetings abortion providers, saying individuals like David Daleiden used fraud gain access to those meeting and the engaged in illegal activity and are now prohibited from making public recording or information he and others obtained.

Daleiden is currently facing criminal charges in the state of Texas on similar charges.

But, when someone did the same thing to infiltrate a oil rig location, or a hog farm, that's ok.

When someone serepticiously recorded Mitt Romney's 47% speech, that was ok, too.

What fraud was committed when Romney spoke to the public?

An illegal recording was made and distributed, along with the person making the recording was there under false pretenses.

It was a public speech. When you make a public speech, there is no such thing as an "illegal recording". Also, the guy wasn't there under false pretenses, he was working as a bartender at the event.

The anti-abortion activists, lied and misrepresented who they were and why they were wanting to meet with PP staffers. That's the fraud part. And their recording is definitely illegal since it was a private meeting which was recorded without consent.

 

[bravoactual]

So.

Republicans will rant about how they, "Do not want 'The Government' involved in Health Care."

Republicans will bay at the moon about how they, "Do not want 'The Government' in the Doctor's Office."

Republicans will run with great and diligent speed to nearest TV Camera and say how, "They do not want the 'The Government' to make medical decisions."

Republicans will tell anybody who will listen to them about how, "They do want 'The Government' in the Operating Room."

Except of course when it comes a Woman's Body and a Woman's Right To Choose.

Republicans would force a Woman or Young Girl is the victim of Rape and/or Incest to carry that child to term.

Never mind the horror that Woman or Young Girl lived through, force them to carry that child to term.

Abortion is a Medical Decision that the Republicans want the same "Government" they do not want in the Doctor's Office, in the Operating Room, to force on Women regardless of their own choice.

Abortion is a Medical Decision to be left the Woman and her Doctor.

"The Government" has no right to dictate what medical procedure can be done and who may or may not receive said medical procedure. Which is what Republicans are suppose to be opposed to in the first damn place.

IF you believe in the so-called "Right To Life", you must also be opposed Capital Punishment, you must be opposed the use of Torture and and opposed War in any form.

IF you believe in the so-called "Right To Life", you must accept that an unborn Muslim Baby, an unborn Jewish Baby, an unborn African-American Baby, an unborn Asian or an unborn Hispanic has that self-same "Right To Life" that you claim to support.

You must be willing to insure that baby you force the mother to deliver has access to Quality Health, Good Education, Nutritious Food, Clothes on Theiir Back and a Safe, Warm and Healthy Home To Live In.

Which is something VFR (Very Few Republicans) in fact believe in.

Dear bravoactual
With most of my prolife Republican friends, when I bring up the issue of Constitutional religious freedom,
that tends to explain this issue of prolife and how it cannot be legislated through govt without violating
the First Amendment because the arguments are faith based.

However, I don't seem to have the same luck explaining prochoice/free market when it comes to the ACA mandates, and trying to explain this to Democrats and liberals who claim to be prochoice.

I find the hypocrisy worse there.

The Republicans at least will accept a Constitutional argument that all the prolife activism is by FREE CHOICE and not required by law. People are CHOOSING to follow and enforce that.

But with the Democrats they keep pushing health care through govt "as the only way" as if there is no other way to ensure help for people.

They don't see that they are equally pushing a belief similar to "right to life."
They really think the govt is the default institution for providing health care,
and yet they criticize the right for assuming right to life is the default and should not be treated as a "choice."

Very strange that both viewpoints cannot see how they impose on each other!

I was and will continue to point out the hypocrisy of the Republicans regarding their anti-abortion stance.

They want to impose their version of their morals on Women. They claim to oppose "Big Government", while seeking to impose the very "Big Government" they claim to oppose under the banner of "Right To Life" that in reality does not exist.

 

[Dragonlady]

So.

Republicans will rant about how they, "Do not want 'The Government' involved in Health Care."

Republicans will bay at the moon about how they, "Do not want 'The Government' in the Doctor's Office."

Republicans will run with great and diligent speed to nearest TV Camera and say how, "They do not want the 'The Government' to make medical decisions."

Republicans will tell anybody who will listen to them about how, "They do want 'The Government' in the Operating Room."

Except of course when it comes a Woman's Body and a Woman's Right To Choose.

Republicans would force a Woman or Young Girl is the victim of Rape and/or Incest to carry that child to term.

Never mind the horror that Woman or Young Girl lived through, force them to carry that child to term.

Abortion is a Medical Decision that the Republicans want the same "Government" they do not want in the Doctor's Office, in the Operating Room, to force on Women regardless of their own choice.

Abortion is a Medical Decision to be left the Woman and her Doctor.

"The Government" has no right to dictate what medical procedure can be done and who may or may not receive said medical procedure. Which is what Republicans are suppose to be opposed to in the first damn place.

IF you believe in the so-called "Right To Life", you must also be opposed Capital Punishment, you must be opposed the use of Torture and and opposed War in any form.

IF you believe in the so-called "Right To Life", you must accept that an unborn Muslim Baby, an unborn Jewish Baby, an unborn African-American Baby, an unborn Asian or an unborn Hispanic has that self-same "Right To Life" that you claim to support.

You must be willing to insure that baby you force the mother to deliver has access to Quality Health, Good Education, Nutritious Food, Clothes on Theiir Back and a Safe, Warm and Healthy Home To Live In.

Which is something VFR (Very Few Republicans) in fact believe in.

Dear bravoactual
With most of my prolife Republican friends, when I bring up the issue of Constitutional religious freedom,
that tends to explain this issue of prolife and how it cannot be legislated through govt without violating
the First Amendment because the arguments are faith based.

However, I don't seem to have the same luck explaining prochoice/free market when it comes to the ACA mandates, and trying to explain this to Democrats and liberals who claim to be prochoice.

I find the hypocrisy worse there.

The Republicans at least will accept a Constitutional argument that all the prolife activism is by FREE CHOICE and not required by law. People are CHOOSING to follow and enforce that.

But with the Democrats they keep pushing health care through govt "as the only way" as if there is no other way to ensure help for people.

They don't see that they are equally pushing a belief similar to "right to life."
They really think the govt is the default institution for providing health care,
and yet they criticize the right for assuming right to life is the default and should not be treated as a "choice."

Very strange that both viewpoints cannot see how they impose on each other!

Here's where all of your "free choice" arguments fall apart. If someone chooses not to purchase health care, and they get cancer, they will receive treatment which costs thousands of dollars. And it will be paid for by taxpayers or by insurance companies in the form of higher billing for insured customers to make up the shortfall for the uninsured.

Given that no one (supposedly) can be turned away by emergency rooms (it happens regardless of the law), the insured and the those with cash, are paying higher rates for medical care because of the medically indigent. How you determined that it is less intrusive to let insured and the wealthy pay for the medical care of uninsured patients through higher health care premiums or higher medical fees, than it is to have every carry their own insurance is beyond me.

 

[bravoactual]

Oh Dear.....Oh My Stars.....Oh Go Get A Freaking Life.that

Oh Yes, Le't Please Return To The Good Old Days When A Person Could Be Denied Health Care For A "Pre-Existing Condition".....or How About When The Number One Reason For Bankruptcy In This Country Was The Cost of Medical Care....Yey for Corporate Control of Health Care.

The out and out hypocrisy of the Republicans is beyond ridiculous.

IF your so fraking opposed to "Government Controlled Health Care", then give YOUR MediCare, give up YOUR Military Retirement Health Care, put your ******* money where your ******* mouth is.

Give UP YOUR Social Security.......Give UP YOUR Military Retirement Pay......Give UP YOUR Government Retirement Benefits.

There are many members of this forum who are retired military, who receive Government Sponsored, U.S. Taxpayer Funded Health and ***** about "Government Supported Health Care." How you give yours up first.

Give up your retirement pay.....your health care.

Shut the hell up until you do that.

 

[playtime]

Dear bripat9643
What's your view of MEN who get women pregnant
and then expect you to pay for welfare for the children?

Doesn't it take both the MAN and the woman to do this?

When a man has just as much say whether to terminate a pregnancy, then he should have just as much responsibility. Under the current arrangement, women have all the power and men have all the responsibility.

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.

 

[bripat9643]

When a man has just as much say whether to terminate a pregnancy, then he should have just as much responsibility. Under the current arrangement, women have all the power and men have all the responsibility.

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?

 

[playtime]

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?

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.

 

[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?

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.

 

[playtime]

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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Dragonlady]

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?

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.

 

[Faun]

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?

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?