Pence: Abortion will end in U.S. 'in our time'

[soylentgreen]

You the one who wants to force people to be parents by refusing to give them the option of terminating financial responsibility. You want to make people subjects because they had sex. And it's only men that you want to trap like this
.

And once again you demonstrate that you have no understanding of what it is to be a parent if you think it is just about financial responsibility. Please stop misusing the word parent here in connection with a someone who merely is in the position of paying child support. They are not parents, the one actually raising the child is a parent.

And no i am not interested at all if people have sex. This is a discussion about what happens when sex results in an unwanted birth of a child.

And no i have repeatedly stated that both people involved are responsible. Nor do i, as you seem to do, assume that the male will be the one who has to pay and the woman who gets to raise the child. It can just as easily be the other way around and if so the woman is as much responsible for child support as the man will be for his parenting skills.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Nonsense, if you can demonstrate to the court that the caregiver is being dishonest or not using the money to care for a child then that child can be taken from them. That is also in the law. What is not in the law is that the person paying child support has any legal right to then demand what happens to that money or have any control over the raising of that child. For the good reason that they are not the care giver.

And again we see nothing more here than the selfish nature of many men. Unless they are given control then they consider it an injustice. Once again i need point out that you have every right to take the caregiver to court if you have a case of neglect. But if all you have is a feeling of disgruntlement that you are not the one dictating what the child is fed, schooled or housed then you have nothing except your own impotence.

You're making big assumptions about character based on the sex of the parties involved. I'm outlining a fairly basic concept of justice: If you have no say, then you shouldn't have to pay. It's only the rallying cry of the founding of the United States. It shouldn't be that hard to warp your head around.

And once again you demonstrate that you have no understanding of what it is to be a parent if you think it is just about financial responsibility. Please stop misusing the word parent here in connection with a someone who merely is in the position of paying child support. They are not parents, the one actually raising the child is a parent.

And no i am not interested at all if people have sex. This is a discussion about what happens when sex results in an unwanted birth of a child.

And no i have repeatedly stated that both people involved are responsible. Nor do i, as you seem to do, assume that the male will be the one who has to pay and the woman who gets to raise the child. It can just as easily be the other way around and if so the woman is as much responsible for child support as the man will be for his parenting skills.

This post and the one above is about little more than the objectification of men. Your arguments are rooted in gender stereotyping and social shaming -- and, of course, quibbling about semantics.

Suffice it to say there is nothing you've stated above that hasn't also been used exhaustively as arguments against abortion rights or even birth control. All you've done is switch the sexes.

 

[soylentgreen]

You're making big assumptions about character based on the sex of the parties involved. I'm outlining a fairly basic concept of justice: If you have no say, then you shouldn't have to pay. It's only the rallying cry of the founding of the United States. It shouldn't be that hard to warp your head around.
.

I make no assumptions what so ever. Nothing in what i said needs rely on any assumption. And i doubt if your founding fathers were giving rallying cries that men should not be held responsible for their own actions.

This post and the one above is about little more than the objectification of men. Your arguments are rooted in gender stereotyping and social shaming -- and, of course, quibbling about semantics.

No, once again i need point out that i have made it quite clear that it works regardless of the gender. The one who has custody of a child is the parent and the one who pays child support is not, regardless of gender. It is you who always brings it back to the idea that it is the man and the man alone who must suffer.

Suffice it to say there is nothing you've stated above that hasn't also been used exhaustively as arguments against abortion rights or even birth control. All you've done is switch the sexes

So on one hand you acknowledge that i have not centered on men alone and then try to use that as an excuse not to agree with it, amazing.

 

[AGENT J]

What I have always suggested and how it should work +/-.

- woman becomes pregnant, she has the option to abort within the law (I think Rvw at 24 weeks abortion for any reason is just fine and after that only special circumstances, i would be ok if that dropped to 20 weeks but never lower than that.) The woman is free to abort within the law and nobody gets to tell her yes or no.

- If woman decides to have the child she must notify the father in the same time frame of abortion restriction. He then must decide if he wants to keep or negate his parental rights before a certain time frame, maybe the 22 week mark. That way his choice also gives her time to reflect on her decision. her decision may depend on him.

- If she decided to have the baby then again the man has a time frame to respond

- if she is having the baby but wants to negate her parental rights then again the man can decided what his choices are and they can both choose to give the baby up for adoption/foster care or the man can choose to take on the child himself.

- if either parent negates thier rights thier rights are forever terminated unless extreme circumstances come up. Death, abuse etc. OR the parent with custody simply AGREES to reinstate.

This is what would be equal and fair and promote the best "overall" results. A person cant be forced to be a "parent", a women cant be forced to give birth. I may have left something out too but thats the basics.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

I make no assumptions what so ever. Nothing in what i said needs rely on any assumption. And i doubt if your founding fathers were giving rallying cries that men should not be held responsible for their own actions.


No, once again i need point out that i have made it quite clear that it works regardless of the gender. The one who has custody of a child is the parent and the one who pays child support is not, regardless of gender. It is you who always brings it back to the idea that it is the man and the man alone who must suffer.

I'm sure all the millions of non-custodial parents out there -- 80% of them men -- will agree with you. lol Again, you're so invested in shaming as a deflection from my arguments.

So on one hand you acknowledge that i have not centered on men alone and then try to use that as an excuse not to agree with it, amazing.

Another deflection. You know your arguments are hollow. You know you can't logically reconcile pro-choice and pro-status quo child support arguments without slipping into sexism.

 

[HowardBThiname]

No that is a cop out. It is up to you to present evidence not to suggest others seek your proof.

Your lack of knowledge is not my concern. If you want to stay uneducated -- that's your choice.

Even if so it is still an argument on your part that lacks all ethical consideration. Your basically condoning women beating on the grounds that it will happen any way if men are not allowed to do as they please.

You've got that completely backasswards, as is typical for the vast majority of your posts.

If women are at greater risk of being murdered by the biological father of their child when pregnant because they don't want the responsibility, and yet you continue to insist that those men take responsibility for supporting the child for 18 years -- you're the one who's ignoring the increased potential for violence against women by refusing to look at alternatives.

If the shoe fits (and, it does in this case) kick yourself with it.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

What I have always suggested and how it should work +/-.

- woman becomes pregnant, she has the option to abort within the law (I think Rvw at 24 weeks abortion for any reason is just fine and after that only special circumstances, i would be ok if that dropped to 20 weeks but never lower than that.) The woman is free to abort within the law and nobody gets to tell her yes or no.

- If woman decides to have the child she must notify the father in the same time frame of abortion restriction. He then must decide if he wants to keep or negate his parental rights before a certain time frame, maybe the 22 week mark. That way his choice also gives her time to reflect on her decision. her decision may depend on him.

- If she decided to have the baby then again the man has a time frame to respond

- if she is having the baby but wants to negate her parental rights then again the man can decided what his choices are and they can both choose to give the baby up for adoption/foster care or the man can choose to take on the child himself.

- if either parent negates thier rights thier rights are forever terminated unless extreme circumstances come up. Death, abuse etc. OR the parent with custody simply AGREES to reinstate.

This is what would be equal and fair and promote the best "overall" results. A person cant be forced to be a "parent", a women cant be forced to give birth. I may have left something out too but thats the basics.

I like this a lot. Thanks. I think this is reasonable policy approach that respects the agency and humanity of all involved.

 

[HowardBThiname]

What I have always suggested and how it should work +/-.

- woman becomes pregnant, she has the option to abort within the law (I think Rvw at 24 weeks abortion for any reason is just fine and after that only special circumstances, i would be ok if that dropped to 20 weeks but never lower than that.) The woman is free to abort within the law and nobody gets to tell her yes or no.

- If woman decides to have the child she must notify the father in the same time frame of abortion restriction. He then must decide if he wants to keep or negate his parental rights before a certain time frame, maybe the 22 week mark. That way his choice also gives her time to reflect on her decision. her decision may depend on him.

- If she decided to have the baby then again the man has a time frame to respond

- if she is having the baby but wants to negate her parental rights then again the man can decided what his choices are and they can both choose to give the baby up for adoption/foster care or the man can choose to take on the child himself.

- if either parent negates thier rights thier rights are forever terminated unless extreme circumstances come up. Death, abuse etc. OR the parent with custody simply AGREES to reinstate.

This is what would be equal and fair and promote the best "overall" results. A person cant be forced to be a "parent", a women cant be forced to give birth. I may have left something out too but thats the basics.

This is a very good and well-explained option, and one that would suit virtually any accidental pregnancy situation. It's fair to all parties involved. I would potentially add that if both parties agree to terminate, the male could pay for the abortion since it will take a physical toll, however slight, on the female.

Good, comprehensive plan. I'm guessing that something along these lines is implemented one day, because it's in the best interest of all parties.

 

[AGENT J]

I like this a lot. Thanks. I think this is reasonable policy approach that respects the agency and humanity of all involved.

This is a very good and well-explained option, and one that would suit virtually any accidental pregnancy situation. It's fair to all parties involved. I would potentially add that if both parties agree to terminate, the male could pay for the abortion since it will take a physical toll, however slight, on the female.

Good, comprehensive plan. I'm guessing that something along these lines is implemented one day, because it's in the best interest of all parties.

Thanks. I have explained it better before in the past but its what i have always believed and wanted. Hopefully its what we move to because it does have the best interests of all involved and its pretty legally sound, fair and equal.

 

[Lursa]

I think you get my point, which is why I said agree to disagree earlier. That sex is agreement to be a parent is a fundamental pro-life argument..

Yes...but the consequences are not necessarily to become a parent. Not for either. And that's because if the woman chooses abortion or miscarries...the father also must accept those consequences.

You wish to absolve men of their accountability at the expense of others. And I believe that is essentially where we disagree.

Because it is equal when it makes a difference: they both have the choice in taking that risk. That you believe men should not be held to that would be support of that absolution of accountability.

 

[Lursa]

I followed your links. I addressed many of the arguments therein earlier in this very thread. But I have a real issue with comparing consensual sex to criminal behavior. The idea that sex should be punished is exactly the sort of puritanism I pointed to earlier.

Why? :doh

 

[Lursa]

What I think you're missing here is that "equality" can never be achieved if you have to artificially support it with a crutch. And, that's all the current law is -- a crutch testifying to the fact that women are weaker and cannot get by in the world without the legislated assistance of men.

I get it that it's hard for a woman to raise a child by herself, but that's exactly what our current child-support laws are encouraging. They're sending the message that it's okay to have a child because the courts will go after the biological father for support. The message we should be sending is that it's not okay to have a kid until both parties are committed to raising it. There are always going to be cases, such as divorce, when such laws are vital, but, again, we're not talking about that -- we're talking about ACCIDENTAL pregnancies where the biological father wants nothing to do with the baby.

Granted they both made the mistake, but the consequences should not include an 18-year commitment from either of them. The woman can opt-out via abortion or adoption, but if she chooses to keep the baby, her choice should not lock the biological father into supporting a child he does not want (that's the key -- does not want). It's an emotional trap for the child, a financial trap for the man, and an admission from the woman that she's not equal or as good as a man.

I look at the so-called feminists these days and all I see is growing dependency. I don't really want to go down this road again with you, because I think you're a pretty smart cookie when it comes to most issues, but we have a strong difference of opinion when it comes to what makes a woman strong and equal.

Answered about a million times already. Just re-read the thread :roll:

 

[Lursa]

No, he had his chance to exercise his legal rights at the beginning when he had the choice of saying no, taking precautions or just talking and finding out what would happen if things go wrong. Because the woman got pregnant then it means he failed to exercise those rights and now must face the consequences of his actions. And again i will note strongly that regardless of what the woman does that does not absolve him of his actions. A person must be responsible for their own actions and not rely on the weak ethics of blaming others for things they have done. (Lursa: and IMO men are complete idiots to risk this if they consider the consequences so high and life-altering...yet they refuse to consider not having sex with that woman :doh )


And again we see nothing more here than the selfish nature of many men. Unless they are given control then they consider it an injustice. Once again i need point out that you have every right to take the caregiver to court if you have a case of neglect. But if all you have is a feeling of disgruntlement that you are not the one dictating what the child is fed, schooled or housed then you have nothing except your own impotence.

Very good.

It really comes down to some men believing they are entitled to sex without consequences. It's been ingrained in them since time immemorial.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Answered about a million times already. Just re-read the thread :roll:

Your responses did not address the issues (to my satisfaction). We do, however, have a number of posters here that understand the situation and who have offered reasonable and workable solutions. Solutions that I believe will one day be implemented to society's benefit. Until then, we'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess.

 

[Lursa]

Your responses did not address the issues (to my satisfaction). We do, however, have a number of posters here that understand the situation and who have offered reasonable and workable solutions. Solutions that I believe will one day be implemented to society's benefit. Until then, we'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess.

Not a single one does not force the taxpayers to pick up the slack for the parents who actually produced the child.

So they are not fair...they are even 'less' fair but I have been clear there's no way to make it fair. Just make it so the people responsible for the kid pay for the kid if they are available.

 

[soylentgreen]

I'm sure all the millions of non-custodial parents out there -- 80% of them men -- will agree with you. lol Again, you're so invested in shaming as a deflection from my arguments.
.

As i am sure that has nothing to do with the argument that it works both ways. That more men are paying child support is an indicator of the type of society we have and not some kind of judgement against men.

Another deflection. You know your arguments are hollow. You know you can't logically reconcile pro-choice and pro-status quo child support arguments without slipping into sexism

You seem to want it both ways. To be able to say that both women and men are responsible while complaining only men must carry the burden. Your focus is only on allowing men to have control while paying lip service to the fact that it is a women's right to decide.

 

[soylentgreen]

Your lack of knowledge is not my concern. If you want to stay uneducated -- that's your choice.


.

Your inability to post any facts to back you and suppose that a vague generalisation is all that is needed is laughable. Please do give us a link where you support a man killing a woman because she demanded that he stand up to his responsibility.

You've got that completely backasswards, as is typical for the vast majority of your posts.

If women are at greater risk of being murdered by the biological father of their child when pregnant because they don't want the responsibility, and yet you continue to insist that those men take responsibility for supporting the child for 18 years -- you're the one who's ignoring the increased potential for violence against women by refusing to look at alternatives.

If the shoe fits (and, it does in this case) kick yourself with it

So basically your argument is we be scared of men because they might kill if they do not get their way. Pathetic.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

As i am sure that has nothing to do with the argument that it works both ways. That more men are paying child support is an indicator of the type of society we have and not some kind of judgement against men.




You seem to want it both ways. To be able to say that both women and men are responsible while complaining only men must carry the burden. Your focus is only on allowing men to have control while paying lip service to the fact that it is a women's right to decide.

Only men carry the burden by law. The only thing I'm arguing for men to control is themselves.

 

[soylentgreen]

Very good.

It really comes down to some men believing they are entitled to sex without consequences. It's been ingrained in them since time immemorial.

These ones we argue against seem to have the idea that parenting is the same as having to pay child custody. That the parent, regardless of gender is getting the easy part of only having to raise the child while they must suffer financially.

I have been a house parent for a few years with toddler and a baby to raise and it was hard work. I loved doing it but i was really glad to get back to a job and leave that 24/7 responsibility to my wife while i relaxed with a 9 to 5 and the luxury of having adult conversations with adults.

These guys have obviously never been parents.

 

[soylentgreen]

Only men carry the burden by law. The only thing I'm arguing for men to control is themselves.

You forget that the woman will be raising the child while you are free to do as you please.
Once again you demonstrate nothing more than the selfish attitude of considering only you as having the burden.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

You forget that the woman will be raising the child while you are free to do as you please.
Once again you demonstrate nothing more than the selfish attitude of considering only you as having the burden.

Oh, FFS. Just stop. If you're not going pay attention and address my actual arguments, at least stop spewing your emotional vitriol. We're talking about legal structures here, not personal character.

 

[Lursa]

Only men carry the burden by law. The only thing I'm arguing for men to control is themselves.

Perfect. And they have 100% ability to do that.

At least I believe that but you have disagreed.

 

[Bodi]

Women of the USA: why do you insist on entertaining the fantasy that forced motherhood is bad but forced fatherhood is good?

The Vice President of the United States is calling to take away rights which allow you to choose what to do with your body. This autonomy on a physical level is part of what makes us human. But it is also a choice of how to behave in society, and whether or not we should be parents.

It seems quite clear to me that men and women should both be allowed to have sex with one another without risking a prison sentence, if the other chooses to enforce non-custodial support.

Why do you suppose that women still want to financially abuse men in this way? Are women really so vindictive that they are willing to risk it all just to snub men? Or are they too meek and mild mannered to stand up for themselves?

I know how that feels. I once tried to present evidence in court of the unconstitutionality of forced fatherhood. The judge refused to admit it. It really hurts to go to a place where one expects to find honor, civility, respect, wisdom and justice, and find ignorance and obstinate discrimination in its place. But I feel my situation is slightly different. Whereas I presently am incapable of rightly exercising autonomy, woman can and do disavow motherhood. Therefore, advocacy I do is not in defense of an existing legal protection of men. Unfortunately, I believe women have grown smug and self righteous. They do not understand that their rights are at risk because of their egotistical complacency. If women stood up for what was right for all people, and not just all women, they could speak to a much wider audience.

Pence: Abortion will end in U.S. 'in our time' | TheHill

It isn't women's vindictiveness it is their selfishness...

 

[Lursa]

Your inability to post any facts to back you and suppose that a vague generalisation is all that is needed is laughable. Please do give us a link where you support a man killing a woman because she demanded that he stand up to his responsibility.


So basically your argument is we be scared of men because they might kill if they do not get their way. Pathetic.

Plenty of men kill their wives/girlfriends. Esp. when they are pregnant (see: Scott Peterson).

However a few of us have pointed out that that risk doesnt seem any higher than for other risks associated with pregnancy or life in general.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Plenty of men kill their wives/girlfriends. Esp. when they are pregnant (see: Scott Peterson).

However a few of us have pointed out that that risk doesnt seem any higher than for other risks associated with pregnancy or life in general.

More studies are warranted but it does appear that pregnant women are at an increased risk of homicide, but a decreased risk of suicide. I'm not sure what the decreased suicide could indicate but the risk of murder appears to be higher, especially for women who are young, black and under-educated, i.e. This is a peer-reviewed study that addresses the increased risk.

RESULTS:

Pregnancy-associated homicide victims were most frequently young, black, and undereducated, whereas pregnancy-associated suicide occurred most frequently among older white women. After adjustments, pregnancy-associated homicide risk ranged from 2.2 to 6.2 per 100,000 live births, depending on the degree of misclassification estimated, compared with 2.5-2.6 per 100,000 nonpregnant/nonpostpartum women aged 10-54 years. Pregnancy-associated suicide risk ranged from 1.6-4.5 per 100,000 live births after adjustments compared with 5.3-5.5 per 100,000 women aged 10-54 years among nonpregnant/nonpostpartum women. Assuming the most conservative published estimate of misclassification, the risk of homicide among pregnant/postpartum women was 1.84 times that of nonpregnant/nonpostpartum women (95% confidence interval, 1.71-1.98), whereas risk of suicide was decreased (relative risk, 0.62, 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.68).
CONCLUSION:

Pregnancy and postpartum appear to be times of increased risk for homicide and decreased risk for suicide among women in the United States.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27026475

While I'm not trying to make the point that we should allow men to opt-out for ONLY that reason, I think we should include that reason in our discussion, because there is a demonstrable risk to women.