You quoted me, then me, then fuzzy. Are you suggesting fuzzy was the only person who posted anything to read in that thread. Even after reading my response two posts down, where I specifically mention the poster to whom I was referring.
man. You're really an unintelligent man.
That extremely unlikely to happen. It would obliterate the well-established women's right to privacy, which is recognized as a cons utional right. What arguably needs to happen is technology allowing the transplant of the fetus to another womb without killing it.
That would be a terrific solution, but likely kill the IVF business, so it might never happen, tbh...
I'm ok with the current legalese on the matter... I guess that makes me pro-choice?
Again, that's the risk men take. I see no problem with it. The money is for a child. It's not a fine.
There's actually a legal option, but the women would need to want to let go of the newborn too.
Wow, you really are that stupid, Cleveland.
After claiming that you "researched" the topic, you yourself said this:
So I quoted the only article you could have been referring to, the one that had already been torn apart earlier in the thread:
Considering you directly responded to that post from Fuzzy yourself...
...it's a good indication that this was the article you were passing off as the results of your "research."
You should probably a.) learn to read, and b.) don't try to blatantly lie about your own statements that are easy to find on here before calling anyone else "an unintelligent man," Cleveland.
you all are stupid.
yes, the defense has avenues to challenge the decision with relevant case law to cite as precedent.
Theres your answer.
That's a shame.
this was never in dispute. but excellent side pointThe money is for a child. It's not a fine.
The decision overturned laws that forced women to notify their husbands prior to the procedure. Two of the desenting justices even agreed that piece should be overturned. If you want to bring that back, the question still stands... How do you enforce this? And then what's the NEXT step to get to where the father "has a say" as you put it? Because even with Spousal Notice, it's still ultimately the woman's decision to terminate the pregnancy.
"Politically unpopular" for good reason. You're requiring a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term for 40 weeks if the man who ejaculated inside of her doesn't give his blessing. One hopes that the climate will always be in a place where that is unpopular, but who knows.Many pro-life groups have suggested requiring the father's consent before an abortion can be done, but this would probably be politically unpopular in the present climate.
If that means the father being exempt from child support then I'm fine with that. But like I said, that's a flaw in the child support system, and those flaws can be addressed without interfering with women's dominion over their own bodies.As a compromise, I think the idea of a "financial abortion" for fathers early on in pregnancy is a good one.
ElNono hadn't posted any articles I that thread?
I disagree. I think leaving it up to the father to not "opt out" would put thousands more kids in jeopardy.
He did, but Fuzzy's is the only one you directly acknowledged, Cleveland.
Even if you were passing off the article ElNono posted as your own "research," you still "plagiarized" by your own standards, so it's a moot point anyway.
right. men don't have unilateral options
this is all pre-birth though. it would allow the pregnant woman to make an advised decision on how to proceed... whether it be raising the child, turning to adoption, or abortion
and i was under the understanding that aborted fetuses aren't kids yet, so there is nobody being put into jeopardy
That reaffirms my statement.
They're "kids" now? I thought they were still "parasitic lumps of tissue" at that point?
I said I read it in the thread. And . You still don't know what plagiarism is. Honest question. Do you have a college degree?
You're at the wrong point.
And yet you didn't cite it meticulously. Seeing as how this is somehow extremely important to you on a message board, you're a hypocrite.
I didn't cite what? Tell me specifically the word I used as my own, but didn't attribute in said thread.
Thing is, phasing out mandatory child support would be a lot easier if birth control were freely and easily available to all women, and if contraception and sex education were a higher priority, but those are also things conservatives oppose.
Which bolsters my opinion that this is really just about trying to prevent promiscuous sex.
You never had a point
they aren't my buddies
they aren't anti-choice
the only thing offensive here is your stupidity
Agreed. , Colorado cut unwanted teen pregnancies and abortions by 40% with a sensible sex ed program and those who say they are most against abortion won't ever talk about it.
how many posts in these discussions have actually been anti abortion outside of CN?
To your last part yes, agreed. If the man has no say in the baby's life in either scenario...he wants/she doesn't or she wants/he doesn't, the man should at least have an option to bear no financial responsibility in the latter case. The woman is aware the baby is not wanted by the father, she can continue with the pregnancy and take sole responsibility. It makes no sense how it is now. The father wants it? Too ing bad she is aborting. The father doesn't want it? Too ing bad he's paying for it.
It's all connected, you can just look at the unwanted pregnancies there if you choose.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
