The law MUST be applied EQUALLY

[P@triot]

You realize that men have never and will never need an abortion?
In fact men should have no say in the matter.

Men should have a say in the matter, but only as a partner and not the sole decider.

No argument there. But the law has made women the "sole decider" for several decades now. And the law must be applies equally. Therefore, until that is changed, men absolutely have the legal right to be the sole decider as well in an abortion.

Really - the best solution is to outlaw abortions. Nobody has the right to commit murder simply because they weren't able to prevent a pregnancy. But short of that, then the next best thing is to require a consensus between the mother and the father. If a consensus cannot be reached, the person desiring the birth wins and takes sole custody of the child.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

liberals claim that the fetus is not a human life, it is only a parasitic blob sucking the life out of the mother.
If its not a life, how can he be charged with murder?
The fact is, if this is really a case of making the unborn a victim of violence, and if the act can be considered a murder charge, then by extension, Abortion must also be considered the same.
If we go by the liberals theory of the fetus, then he did not create an act of violence on the unborn and there was no murder since the female in question did not die.

We have laws against murder because of the survivors of the victim, and not the victim. After all, when you're dead--you're dead, and we are all going to die sometime anyway.

If somebody kills a member of my family, I want justice because that murderer took something very valuable away from me; perhaps changed my life forever. Restitution is their execution as far as I'm concerned.

When a woman decides on an abortion, she didn't take anything away from anybody else but herself. Nobody's life will be ruined until they day they die. The woman may regret her actions when she gets older, and perhaps the father may have wanted that baby, but you really can't get that attacked to a human being that was never born in the first place. Life just goes on.

However if a person causes a miscarriage because of intent or by accident such as a drunk driver running into the pregnant woman, that person did take something very valuable away from that mother. I believe that's why they came up with being able to charge a person for murder in such a circumstance.

I don't agree with charging anybody with murder over a fetus, but perhaps manslaughter just to give the expecting mother some peace and closure.

 

[P@triot]

We have laws against murder because of the survivors of the victim, and not the victim. After all, when you're dead--you're dead, and we are all going to die sometime anyway.

That's not true at all. We have laws against murder to prevent murder. If someone violates that law, then we put them away to prevent them from doing it a second time. It has nothing to do with survivors. If we cared a bit about the survivors we'd turn the murderer over to the family and let them have their way. We don't do that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No argument there. But the law has made women the "sole decider" for several decades now. And the law must be applies equally. Therefore, until that is changed, men absolutely have the legal right to be the sole decider as well in an abortion.

Really - the best solution is to outlaw abortions. Nobody has the right to commit murder simply because they weren't able to prevent a pregnancy. But short of that, then the next best thing is to require a consensus between the mother and the father. If a consensus cannot be reached, the person desiring the birth wins and takes sole custody of the child.

You can't make your own hand in this card game. The woman has (and perhaps always will) the last decision on any pregnancy.

When we were kids one of my friends got into trouble with his girlfriend. They ran away to Florida only to be caught several months later and brought back here to Cleveland. She had the baby and afterwards decided that she didn't want it, but she didn't want him to have it either.

He fought tooth and nail. Went into severe debt in legal fees. Towards the end, he ended up engaged to my sister, and she even testified in court that she would take the child and raise him as her very own. To no prevail of course. He was the father and his girlfriend the mother. So the bailiff swept that baby out of his arms the last time, and he never seen it afterwards.

He and my sister got married and had two wonderful kids. But what happened to his baby always haunted him.

It bothered him so much that about three or four years ago, he got a program for parents that wanted to find their lost children, and he found that baby---now in his 30's with children of his own. Surprisingly, his son lived in the same town as he did.

Now his son, my niece and my nephew celebrate holidays and events together. He even posts their pictures on Facebook. His lifelong quest finally ended but was created by unfair laws to the father of an infant and an evil woman who (after learning of the reunion) didn't want anything to do with meeting her son. Who can blame her I guess?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's not true at all. We have laws against murder to prevent murder. If someone violates that law, then we put them away to prevent them from doing it a second time. It has nothing to do with survivors. If we cared a bit about the survivors we'd turn the murderer over to the family and let them have their way. We don't do that.

Well......I think we should. I think the survivors of the victim should have the say-so on the penalty the murderer must serve.

You are correct, we do penalize the murderer to make an example out of him for any other potential murderer that may decide to carry out an evil act. Not to be crass, but does anybody really care if some bum in the street that nobody really knew gets killed compared to an honest working man with a family?

So I disagree there: the idea of penalizing a demon from hell is to give the family some relief and closure.

 

[P@triot]

No argument there. But the law has made women the "sole decider" for several decades now. And the law must be applies equally. Therefore, until that is changed, men absolutely have the legal right to be the sole decider as well in an abortion.

Really - the best solution is to outlaw abortions. Nobody has the right to commit murder simply because they weren't able to prevent a pregnancy. But short of that, then the next best thing is to require a consensus between the mother and the father. If a consensus cannot be reached, the person desiring the birth wins and takes sole custody of the child.

You can't make your own hand in this card game. The woman has (and perhaps always will) the last decision on any pregnancy.

When we were kids one of my friends got into trouble with his girlfriend. They ran away to Florida only to be caught several months later and brought back here to Cleveland. She had the baby and afterwards decided that she didn't want it, but she didn't him to have it either.

He fought tooth and nail. Went into severe debt in legal fees. Towards the end, he ended up engaged to my sister, and she even testified in court that she would take the child and raise him as her very own. To no prevail of course. He was the father and his girlfriend the mother. So the bailiff swept that baby out of his arms the last time, and he never seen it afterwards.

He and my sister got married and had two wonderful kids. But what happened to his baby always haunted him.

It bothered him so much that about three or four years ago, he got a program for parents that wanted to find their lost children, and he found that baby---now in his 30's with children of his own. Surprisingly, his son lived in the same town as he did.

Now his son, my niece and my nephew celebrate holidays and events together. He even posts their pictures on Facebook. His lifelong quest finally ended but was created by unfair laws to the father of an infant and an evil woman who (after learning of the reunion) didn't want anything to do with meeting her son. Who can blame her I guess?

Bill Clinton sat in the Oval Office on the phone with head's of state while Monica Lewinsky was giving him a blowjob. Of course, he was married to Hitlery Clinton at this time so he was committing infidelity.

To make a very long story short - a scandal eventually erupted. Bill Clinton went before the American people and adamantly declared "I did not have sex with that woman". He then went before a Grand Jury and did the exact same thing. Only after it came out that she had a dress with his DNA on it did Bill admit he lied to everyone.

He committed a major crime - perjury. But because he was president of the United States, he wasn't held accountable.

The moral of the story: there are tons of crimes being committed every day in this country. It doesn't make it ok or legal. The fact is, this man was wrongfully convicted and it is criminal that women have traditionally been able to murder babies without the man's consent or have babies without the man's consent. At one point - we had slavery and women couldn't vote. We changed all of that.

The laws on abortion are not being applied equally right now. We can and will change that. Hopefully, this innocent man will be the catalyst needed for that change. He followed abortion laws to the "T" and he inexplicably sits in prison for it. If he were a woman, idiots like Jillian would be convulsing on the floor in outrage.

 

[P@triot]

That's not true at all. We have laws against murder to prevent murder. If someone violates that law, then we put them away to prevent them from doing it a second time. It has nothing to do with survivors. If we cared a bit about the survivors we'd turn the murderer over to the family and let them have their way. We don't do that.

Well......I think we should. I think the survivors of the victim should have the say-so on the penalty the murderer must serve.

You are correct, we do penalize the murderer to make an example out of him for any other potential murderer that may decide to carry out an evil act. Not to be crass, but does anybody really care if some bum in the street that nobody really knew gets killed compared to an honest working man with a family?

So I disagree there: the idea of penalizing a demon from hell is to give the family some relief and closure.

That's just not true at all. We have laws against murder to prevent it. In cases that it still doesn't prevent it, we then put those people in prison to stop it from happening again. You just proved as much. A person who murders homeless person with no family will receive the exact punishment as a person who murders a mom with two children. It has nothing to do with the victims family. That's not why our laws on murder exist. You're just making shit up - which you've inexplicably done in this entire thread.

 

[Timmy]

Speaking of applying the law equally. Is this guy gonna get the death penalty ? Like all the brown guys who get the dp for murder?

 

[daws101]

You realize that men have never and will never need an abortion?
In fact men should have no say in the matter.

Men should have a say in the matter, but only as a partner and not the sole decider.

No argument there. But the law has made women the "sole decider" for several decades now. And the law must be applies equally. Therefore, until that is changed, men absolutely have the legal right to be the sole decider as well in an abortion.

Really - the best solution is to outlaw abortions. Nobody has the right to commit murder simply because they weren't able to prevent a pregnancy. But short of that, then the next best thing is to require a consensus between the mother and the father. If a consensus cannot be reached, the person desiring the birth wins and takes sole custody of the child.

asshole there is no solution for you except banning abortion.
Not that that would stop it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Speaking of applying the law equally. Is this guy gonna get the death penalty ? Like all the brown guys who get the dp for murder?

Race of Defendants Executed in the U.S. Since 1976
BLACK 495 34.6%
LATINO 120 8.3%
WHITE 797 55.5%
OTHER 24 1.7%

Race of Death Row Inmates Executed Since 1976 | Death Penalty Information Center

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's just not true at all. We have laws against murder to prevent it. In cases that it still doesn't prevent it, we then put those people in prison to stop it from happening again. You just proved as much. A person who murders homeless person with no family will receive the exact punishment as a person who murders a mom with two children. It has nothing to do with the victims family. That's not why our laws on murder exist. You're just making shit up - which you've inexplicably done in this entire thread.

Not at all. But we don't dish out capital punishment based on popularity. One size fits all.

 

[daws101]

That's just not true at all. We have laws against murder to prevent it. In cases that it still doesn't prevent it, we then put those people in prison to stop it from happening again. You just proved as much. A person who murders homeless person with no family will receive the exact punishment as a person who murders a mom with two children. It has nothing to do with the victims family. That's not why our laws on murder exist. You're just making shit up - which you've inexplicably done in this entire thread.

Not at all. But we don't dish out capital punishment based on popularity. One size fits all.

in theory ...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No argument there. But the law has made women the "sole decider" for several decades now. And the law must be applies equally. Therefore, until that is changed, men absolutely have the legal right to be the sole decider as well in an abortion.

Really - the best solution is to outlaw abortions. Nobody has the right to commit murder simply because they weren't able to prevent a pregnancy. But short of that, then the next best thing is to require a consensus between the mother and the father. If a consensus cannot be reached, the person desiring the birth wins and takes sole custody of the child.

You can't make your own hand in this card game. The woman has (and perhaps always will) the last decision on any pregnancy.

When we were kids one of my friends got into trouble with his girlfriend. They ran away to Florida only to be caught several months later and brought back here to Cleveland. She had the baby and afterwards decided that she didn't want it, but she didn't him to have it either.

He fought tooth and nail. Went into severe debt in legal fees. Towards the end, he ended up engaged to my sister, and she even testified in court that she would take the child and raise him as her very own. To no prevail of course. He was the father and his girlfriend the mother. So the bailiff swept that baby out of his arms the last time, and he never seen it afterwards.

He and my sister got married and had two wonderful kids. But what happened to his baby always haunted him.

It bothered him so much that about three or four years ago, he got a program for parents that wanted to find their lost children, and he found that baby---now in his 30's with children of his own. Surprisingly, his son lived in the same town as he did.

Now his son, my niece and my nephew celebrate holidays and events together. He even posts their pictures on Facebook. His lifelong quest finally ended but was created by unfair laws to the father of an infant and an evil woman who (after learning of the reunion) didn't want anything to do with meeting her son. Who can blame her I guess?

Bill Clinton sat in the Oval Office on the phone with head's of state while Monica Lewinsky was giving him a blowjob. Of course, he was married to Hitlery Clinton at this time so he was committing infidelity.

To make a very long story short - a scandal eventually erupted. Bill Clinton went before the American people and adamantly declared "I did not have sex with that woman". He then went before a Grand Jury and did the exact same thing. Only after it came out that she had a dress with his DNA on it did Bill admit he lied to everyone.

He committed a major crime - perjury. But because he was president of the United States, he wasn't held accountable.

The moral of the story: there are tons of crimes being committed every day in this country. It doesn't make it ok or legal. The fact is, this man was wrongfully convicted and it is criminal that women have traditionally been able to murder babies without the man's consent or have babies without the man's consent. At one point - we had slavery and women couldn't vote. We changed all of that.

The laws on abortion are not being applied equally right now. We can and will change that. Hopefully, this innocent man will be the catalyst needed for that change. He followed abortion laws to the "T" and he inexplicably sits in prison for it. If he were a woman, idiots like Jillian would be convulsing on the floor in outrage.

He did not follow any abortion laws to a T. He drugged his girlfriends food and forced her to have an abortion against her will. Tainting somebody's food or drink is against the law.

What you are suggesting is that people be allowed to take the law into their own hands regardless of the harm they do to others. That's not what a country of law and order is about; that's what an uncivilized society is about.

That being said, do you think a guy should go to prison if he slips a date rape drug into a woman's drink because he believes she owes him sex?

 

[Syriusly]

Liberals refuse to apply the law equally or apply their beliefs consistently. They only apply it when it is advantageous to them and reject it when it isn't advantageous to them. Here is another perfect example...

Remee Lee was elated when she became pregnant, but those feelings quickly turned into a nightmare that won't let go of her. Her boyfriend wasn't happy about the pregnancy, but it was Lee's dream to have a child. Until her boyfriend, John Andrew Welden, took that dream away. This week, Welden, 28, pleaded guilty to killing their unborn baby. How? He tricked Lee into taking an abortion pill, causing her to miscarry.

Man tricks pregnant girlfriend into taking abortion pill - CNN.com

If it is ok and legal for a woman to have an abortion that it is absolutely ok and legal for a man to have an abortion. Anything less than that is an injustice. The law applies to all citizens equally. There is no way that a man can be charged with a crime for doing the exact same thing that any woman is legally permitted to do.

If and when a man gets pregnant- I will support his right to have an abortion.

And if and when a man gets pregnant, and his 'wife' slips him potentially dangerious medication without his knowledge or consent, I will support her prosecution too.

 

[P@triot]

Speaking of applying the law equally. Is this guy gonna get the death penalty ? Like all the brown guys who get the dp for murder?

Why would he get the death penalty for doing something 100% legal?

 

[P@triot]

That being said, do you think a guy should go to prison if he slips a date rape drug into a woman's drink because he believes she owes him sex?

Date rape drugs are illegal. Abortions are completely legal. Why do you keep coming up with absurd analogies that don't apply? You can point to something illegal as "proof" of doing something that is legal as being "wrong" in your mind.

 

[P@triot]

He did not follow any abortion laws to a T. He drugged his girlfriends food and forced her to have an abortion against her will. Tainting somebody's food or drink is against the law.

You continue your false narrative. There was no "tainting". This was a legal, FDA approved substance that hundreds of thousands of women take every year. Why do you continue to lie?

 

[P@triot]

What you are suggesting is that people be allowed to take the law into their own hands regardless of the harm they do to others. That's not what a country of law and order is about; that's what an uncivilized society is about.

Um....abortions are currently legal. So this is as stupid as saying "when you suggest an officially licensed driver gets behind the wheel of an automobile - you are suggesting that people take the law into their own hands".

If something is legal - you're allowed by law to take it into your own hands. Guns are legal in this country. It's ok to take a gun into your own hands. Killing is not legal in this country. Therefore, it is not ok to take that gun in your hands and use it to shoot somebody (unless it is self-defense of course).

 

[P@triot]

Liberals refuse to apply the law equally or apply their beliefs consistently. They only apply it when it is advantageous to them and reject it when it isn't advantageous to them. Here is another perfect example...

Remee Lee was elated when she became pregnant, but those feelings quickly turned into a nightmare that won't let go of her. Her boyfriend wasn't happy about the pregnancy, but it was Lee's dream to have a child. Until her boyfriend, John Andrew Welden, took that dream away. This week, Welden, 28, pleaded guilty to killing their unborn baby. How? He tricked Lee into taking an abortion pill, causing her to miscarry.

Man tricks pregnant girlfriend into taking abortion pill - CNN.com

If it is ok and legal for a woman to have an abortion that it is absolutely ok and legal for a man to have an abortion. Anything less than that is an injustice. The law applies to all citizens equally. There is no way that a man can be charged with a crime for doing the exact same thing that any woman is legally permitted to do.

If and when a man gets pregnant- I will support his right to have an abortion.

And if and when a man gets pregnant, and his 'wife' slips him potentially dangerious medication without his knowledge or consent, I will support her prosecution too.

He was pregnant. It was as much his baby as hers. So your position doesn't hold up. The law must be applies equally. If it is ok for a woman to have an abortion - then by law that same right must be extended to a man as well.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Date rape drugs are illegal. Abortions are completely legal. Why do you keep coming up with absurd analogies that don't apply? You can point to something illegal as "proof" of doing something that is legal as being "wrong" in your mind.

Giving her ANY drugs or medications whatsoever with intent and without her expressed consent is AGGRIVATED BATTERY at a bloody minimum. Look it up in any legal dictionary. That is a felony! You're fucking wrong and in far out Uber Right Wing field as usual, Rott!