South Carolina Senate Passes 6-Week Abortion Ban

[Cope]

Sure, but they're legally males and covered under the law equally...as males.



What about it? It means women have to travel unfortunately but it doenst make those abortions a crime.



But they are stuck with the bill. You are complaining about equality and fairness...please explain how it's equal or fair for the people that DIDINt produce the kid having to pay for the share for one or both of the people that DID produce the kid.

The state has an obligation to protect the child and the taxpayers.

Dont hide from this...this is the end result of what you want to demand. Address it directly...how do you justify this if the parents are available?



There is no 50-50 arrangement to make standard...because that choice affects others. The kids and the taxpayers.

So figure out a real-life % for choice and get back to me. If the kids and taxpayers get an equal piece of the pie...then that will end up 50% against your 25% choicer right there. Then what choice do you think the women would make?

Choices...equal? Great...everyone gets a piece of the pie. Looks like men would lose.



See above.



It doesnt matter because if there is a kid, no arrangement you are imagining is legal.

OTOH you do now seem to be revealing another motive (one that others have used): using this ability to walk away to convince women to have the abortions. To manipulate or coerce the women into having the abortion. Is this the case? Please say. From your arguments now, it seems the case.

it is a Hail Mary for sure, and an admission, a realization the laws for child support wont change...because they are equal. So men have recognized they have to convince the women to 'get rid of it' before there is a kid.



What rights arent equal? I've asked a few times now. If you want 'fairness,' then I await the justification for shifting the burden of either parent's 'choices' onto the kids and taxpayers.



Why repeat a lie? If a woman gets pregnant, she cannot escape consequences...abortion is painful and costly. You just want men to ALSO be able to choose the woman's consequences...Good lord. That makes men sound pathetic...if you cant handle her deciding, dont sleep with her, dont whine and try to take away her choices. That's not 'a man.'



No, that's wrong. It was implemented because men were leaving kids/families behind in poverty. Just walking away. From relationships and marriages. And until DNA testing, lots of them still got away with it. But many fewer today.

Lursa, it is becoming evident that the discussion you want to have and the one I am having are very different.

I wish you well.

 

[Deuce]

Welcome to a mans world where you have to bear the consequences of you decisions instead taking the easy way out. Start holding yourself to a higher standard instead of sleeping around.

They don't usually just come out and admit this is about making sure women suffer consequences. Most of the time you have to push them a bit. Thanks for being honest about your real goal.

 

[Deuce]

but its also only about 3-4% of the total killed unborn's that are from rape/incest - the other 95-96% are for convenience

False. Many are due to medical complications. Your side thinks women should be at the risk of death because they had the audacity to miscarry.

 

[Cope]

Sure, but they're legally males and covered under the law equally...as males.

Irrelevant.

What about it? It means women have to travel unfortunately but it doenst make those abortions a crime.

Irrelevant.

But they are stuck with the bill. You are complaining about equality and fairness...please explain how it's equal or fair for the people that DIDINt produce the kid having to pay for the share for one or both of the people that DID produce the kid.

Irrelevant.

The state has an obligation to protect the child and the taxpayers.

Irrelevant.

Dont hide from this...this is the end result of what you want to demand. Address it directly...how do you justify this if the parents are available?

Irrelevant.

There is no 50-50 arrangement to make standard...because that choice affects others. The kids and the taxpayers.

Uh 50-50 possession and support arrangements will soon be the standard. (maybe next decade or so)

So figure out a real-life % for choice and get back to me. If the kids and taxpayers get an equal piece of the pie...then that will end up 50% against your 25% choicer right there. Then what choice do you think the women would make?

Choices...equal? Great...everyone gets a piece of the pie. Looks like men would lose.

Irrelevant again. No kid in my scenario at all, so please stop bringing one in to it.

See above.



It doesnt matter because if there is a kid, no arrangement you are imagining is legal.

OTOH you do now seem to be revealing another motive (one that others have used): using this ability to walk away to convince women to have the abortions. To manipulate or coerce the women into having the abortion. Is this the case? Please say. From your arguments now, it seems the case.

Not to convince, to give them information on which to base their own decision.

it is a Hail Mary for sure, and an admission, a realization the laws for child support wont change...because they are equal. So men have recognized they have to convince the women to 'get rid of it' before there is a kid.

They will be changing. No longer is the mother to be seen as a stay at home mom doing all the nurturing. Thank the women's lib movement and sexual revolution if you want to.

What rights arent equal? I've asked a few times now. If you want 'fairness,' then I await the justification for shifting the burden of either parent's 'choices' onto the kids and taxpayers.

I've explained about 8 times now.
Women get two choices: the choice to have sex, AND the choice on whether or not to have the baby.
Men get one choice: the choice to have sex.

Why repeat a lie? If a woman gets pregnant, she cannot escape consequences...abortion is painful and costly. You just want men to ALSO be able to choose the woman's consequences...Good lord. That makes men sound pathetic...if you cant handle her deciding, dont sleep with her, dont whine and try to take away her choices. That's not 'a man.'

Yes, painful and costly. The men should pay for the procedure.
Yes, I am certainly a man (Father of 5) legally AND biologically

No, that's wrong. It was implemented because men were leaving kids/families behind in poverty. Just walking away. From relationships and marriages. And until DNA testing, lots of them still got away with it. But many fewer today.

They do this NOW, at even greater rates because women have kids they can't afford (on their own) and lots of times (even with support)

 

[Lursa]

Lursa, it is becoming evident that the discussion you want to have and the one I am having are very different.

I wish you well.

Yes, it's easier to walk away than to answer the tough questions. That's fine, anyone can read and consider the posts.

You think it's more fair for men (or women) to walk away and let the kids and taxpayers accept the financial consequences.

 

[Lursa]

Irrelevant.

LOL then stop trying to correct it.

Irrelevant.

No, this is completely relevant and you just wrote "na huh"

But they (kids, taxpayers) are stuck with the bill. You are complaining about equality and fairness...please explain how it's equal or fair for the people that DIDINt produce the kid having to pay for the share for one or both of the people that DID produce the kid.​

​

The state has an obligation to protect the child and the taxpayers.​

​

Dont hide from this...this is the end result of what you want to demand. Address it directly...how do you justify this if the parents are available?​

LOLOL So you ARE hiding from it.

Uh 50-50 possession and support arrangements will soon be the standard. (maybe next decade or so)

Apparently you havent seen the case law on this. I can post it for you...what have you got to show they'll overturn a child's statutory right to child support?

 

[Lursa]

Irrelevant again. No kid in my scenario at all, so please stop bringing one in to it.

Not to convince, to give them information on which to base their own decision.

Word for word what some others have posted, LOL And in those threads, it always fails...it's emotional manipulation.

And since no arrangement (legal or otherwise) can stop the woman from abortion OR having it, it truly is a Hail Mary. LOL...specifically, 'what information' for their decision?

Search on the "Opt-out" threads. It fails everytime. For a number of reasons.

Actually if you hadnt said you wanted to escape from subject, I'd suggest continuing in one of those or posting your own. It is off-topic here at this point.

They will be changing. No longer is the mother to be seen as a stay at home mom doing all the nurturing. Thank the women's lib movement and sexual revolution if you want to.

Agreed. And the child support laws treat men and women equally. The man has every right to apply for custody or joint custody. Today, the courts favor men much more...as it should. If they dont, well, just remember it's still mostly male judges applying the laws.

I've explained about 8 times now.
Women get two choices: the choice to have sex, AND the choice on whether or not to have the baby.
Men get one choice: the choice to have sex.

That's biology. If women COULD choose not to get pregnant...they would.

That choice...to risk a pregnancy, comes at the exact same time for BOTH. Before they have sex. Equal. After that, if there's a pregnancy, she cannot escape consequences (like I've written). The man CAN. (unequal in the man's favor, if she aborts) But what pisses men off is that that decision IS up to the woman. So...if you dont want to risk your reproductive status...dont hand it over to the woman.

Yes, painful and costly. The men should pay for the procedure.

If the woman choose that, sure.

Yes, I am certainly a man (Father of 5) legally AND biologically

Reproducing doesnt make one a man or a woman. Even the lowest life forms reproduce. Being a man or woman is about responsibility and commitments.

They do this NOW, at even greater rates because women have kids they can't afford (on their own) and lots of times (even with support)

I'm all for solutions for that. Like being pro-choice and not forcing women to have kids they cant afford or arent prepared to raise.

 

[Cope]

LOL then stop trying to correct it.


No, this is completely relevant and you just wrote "na huh"

But they (kids, taxpayers) are stuck with the bill. You are complaining about equality and fairness...please explain how it's equal or fair for the people that DIDINt produce the kid having to pay for the share for one or both of the people that DID produce the kid.​

​

The state has an obligation to protect the child and the taxpayers.​

​

Dont hide from this...this is the end result of what you want to demand. Address it directly...how do you justify this if the parents are available?​

THIS? This was directly addressed, as I have said, about 8 times now. The woman is free to choose to have the baby, with no support from the father, or abort the baby. Assuming the father says they don't want the baby, or to be a part of it's life.
Then the woman is free to choose, with perfect knowledge of the life and consequences she is agreeing to take on.

Apparently you havent seen the case law on this. I can post it for you...what have you got to show they'll overturn a child's statutory right to child support?

Again. Child support in the discussion I have been having, which you keep trying to turn, involves NO child.

 

[stealthycat]

False. Many are due to medical complications. Your side thinks women should be at the risk of death because they had the audacity to miscarry.

no, "many" are not

where do you get your information from? link to "many"

miscarriage is awful, went through it with my wife on our second child ... abortion is NOT miscarriage and its disgusting for you to try and equate it as such

DISGUSTING

 

[Lursa]

THIS? This was directly addressed, as I have said, about 8 times now. The woman is free to choose to have the baby, with no support from the father, or abort the baby. Assuming the father says they don't want the baby, or to be a part of it's life.

Yes she is...no one denied that.
And it has nothing to do with what the 'father' says he wants or doesnt want.

Then the woman is free to choose, with perfect knowledge of the life and consequences she is agreeing to take on.

She is. And what ever you're describing wont matter at the state level.

If she has the kid, she faces no legal consequences and the state still uphold's the child's statutory right to support from both parents.

Again. Child support in the discussion I have been having, which you keep trying to turn, involves NO child.

Yes I know...you can keep writing that. The thing is...you cant control her decision either way. And then...see above.

Here's two of the arguments that also show your 'solution' isnt remotely equal. (Again, I've debated this many times in the past...this is cut and paste):

1) Why would the state ever pass such a law, which would effectively remove child support laws "for men only?" That's not equal, lol. Why would the state choose to render child support null and void for men?

--and--

2) The state wont stop men from contacting their kids later. Because it's in the child's best interests to have BOTH parents involved in their lives

You cant stop them. If they say they cant or wont pay, they can still reach out to them. You cant stop them from contacting them online or otherwise. Once the kids are older, they can also reach out to the father. There are no laws to prevent contact unless there's some specific RO.

The state doesnt even prevent fathers who have kids because they raped the mother from contacting their kids. From jail or once out. Not if the parent isnt considered a danger. Because *it is in the child's best interest.'*

So again, not equal. Men can have 'opted out' and still contact their kids, have a relationship later, if they want. It's the same as a woman "agreeing" to let the man opt out of financial support if she has the kid..."the state decides." Not her.

 

[stealthycat]

90% of that number use mifepristone which is an early termination. So, stop with the nonsense.

termination ?

you mean killing the unborn to stop a pregnancy ? yeah .. I'm against that

 

[Deuce]

no, "many" are not

where do you get your information from? link to "many"

Where did you get yours? You linked no proof that 3-4% are from rape/incest nor that literally every other abortion was "for convenience."

miscarriage is awful, went through it with my wife on our second child ... abortion is NOT miscarriage and its disgusting for you to try and equate it as such

It's not equating the two, it's what has happened. Take a woman who did everything you religious zealots think should be done. She got married. She tried to have a baby with the husband she loved. She wanted the baby, and wanted to raise it to adulthood like most families.

Except something happened during the pregnancy that resulted in a non-viable fetus. The baby died in the womb.

And the laws you people wrote forced her to sit there and wait while the dead baby inside her womb began to rot, until the infection was so bad that it was life-threatening, because your laws said that's what was necessary. Why? A cluster of cells that in a perfect world would have later formed a heart were pulsating, and your dumb **** laws said this meant the baby has a heartbeat and is alive. So therefore this was an "elective" abortion for "convenience" that you people want banned. The convenience of not dying. And the result? The infection nearly killed her, and it rendered her sterile. That woman will never be able to have a baby.

Because of laws you support.

This isn't a hypothetical. This happened. This is a real consequence of your beliefs.

 

[Seth]

They don't usually just come out and admit this is about making sure women suffer consequences. Most of the time you have to push them a bit. Thanks for being honest about your real goal.

You're quite welcome. I would have everyone suffer the consequences of their actions if I had it within my power.

 

[Lursa]

You're quite welcome. I would have everyone suffer the consequences of their actions if I had it within my power.

It seems odd to consider kids punishment...it's rather dehumanizing and vengeful.

And in many cases... they would suffer too. Unwanted, neglected, abused, poor, juvenile delinquency, the risks for them are much higher.

But, as long as you feel better about it

 

[Phys251]

no, "many" are not

where do you get your information from? link to "many"

miscarriage is awful, went through it with my wife on our second child ... abortion is NOT miscarriage and its disgusting for you to try and equate it as such

DISGUSTING

Actually, it is politicians on the right that are trying to force miscarriages to get investigated.

US women are being jailed for having miscarriages

More and more American women are facing prison for allegedly harming their unborn baby by using drugs.

www.bbc.com

You're quite welcome. I would have everyone suffer the consequences of their actions if I had it within my power.

How "libertarian" of you.

 

[Seth]

How "libertarian" of you.

Very libertarian, actualy:
"We believe further that most people are responsible for the direction their lives take and should receive the benefits of their industry and bear the costs of their decisions and mistakes."

https://www.libertarianism.org/topics/responsibility

 

[Phys251]

Very libertarian, actualy:
"We believe further that most people are responsible for the direction their lives take and should receive the benefits of their industry and bear the costs of their decisions and mistakes."

https://www.libertarianism.org/topics/responsibility

You want to punish women for behaving in manners you don't approve of. Control of women's bodies is what anti-choiceism is all about.

 

[Lursa]

Very libertarian, actualy:
"We believe further that most people are responsible for the direction their lives take and should receive the benefits of their industry and bear the costs of their decisions and mistakes."

https://www.libertarianism.org/topics/responsibility

What is the libertarian view of forcing govt oversight into a person's body, reproductive choices, reproductive status, etc? And into govt use of force (legal or otherwise) to act without that person's consent?

Do libertarians recognize people's Constitutional rights? (Just checking, I thought they did, just wanted confirmation.)

 

[Seth]

You want to punish women for behaving in manners you don't approve of.

I pay for every child I created. Asking women to do the same is not punishment, it's equality. When you've been spoiled for so long, an end to being spoiled feels like oppression.

 

[ClaraD]

termination ?

you mean killing the unborn to stop a pregnancy ? yeah .. I'm against that

No, I mean termination....if Mifepristone is taken at a certain early point, implantation hasn't occurred....its stopping a pregnancy. You realize that many birth control methods also do this right? They interrupt a fertilized ovum from implanting.

 

[ClaraD]

It seems odd to consider kids punishment...it's rather dehumanizing and vengeful.

And in many cases... they would suffer too. Unwanted, neglected, abused, poor, juvenile delinquency, the risks for them are much higher.

But, as long as you feel better about it

I would invite anyone who opposes abortion and wants to force people to be parents to go to any country in Central America...any one of them...especially the ones that forbid abortion and some forbid multiple forms of birth control. When you see hungry kids on the street, with no shoes, no clean clothes, not just dirty, but filthy, their ribs sticking out, lice in their hair and them begging for a small amount just to clean your car windshield then tell me what is more evil.....
Or a grandmother sitting on a cardboard box begging so she can feed 5 grandbabies that were left to her because her daughter was murdered her boyfriend. Now that is pure evil....not abortion.

 

[Lursa]

I would invite anyone who opposes abortion and wants to force people to be parents to go to any country in Central America...any one of them...especially the ones that forbid abortion and some forbid multiple forms of birth control. When you see hungry kids on the street, with no shoes, no clean clothes, not just dirty, but filthy, their ribs sticking out, lice in their hair and them begging for a small amount just to clean your car windshield then tell me what is more evil.....
Or a grandmother sitting on a cardboard box begging so she can feed 5 grandbabies that were left to her because her daughter was murdered her boyfriend. Now that is pure evil....not abortion.

It's strange that @Seth didnt respond to my posts. Maybe he's not able to support his libertarian views? Or he's ashamed of that?

 

[Phys251]

I pay for every child I created.

For every child that YOU created? Cis men have the minor role in sexual reproduction. What an arrogant comment by you.

Asking women to do the same is not punishment, it's equality.

There is equality. If a cis man gets pregnant, he should be able to get an abortion.

When you've been spoiled for so long, an end to being spoiled feels like oppression.

Projection. You want women's oppression.

 

[Seth]

You want women's oppression.

I don't even live in SC to then have had a hand in this law being created It's always funny when other people try to tell you what you think

 

[Loulit01]

Oh, look, NC just turned blue.