• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas passes law banning abortion after 6 weeks...

highroller said:
Roe v. Wade was decided by a conservative court . Which is why it took decades to get activist judges on the court. These are not conservative justices these are activists.
Click to expand...
However way you wish to describe the 5 Republican SC justices, Roe v Wade won't be overturned. If you pay very close attention to what's been done in red states with abortion laws they've passed each playing around the edges of the case, i.e., when life begins, where abortions can take place, how abortion facilities are outfitted/constructed, medical professional licensing, abortion clinics associated with local hospitals. All legalize the practice but only up to a certain point and with certain provisions and they've done this based on the SC's ruling on Roe v Wade. This Texas law (like the one out of Mississippi that got struck down) both play around the edges in their attempts to make getting an abortion more difficult. And in the case of this TX law, more risky from a (financial) punitive standpoint for everyone involved. Doctors have a lot to lose if their practice gets sued by a class-action case. Individuals much more. But I submit one plaintiff will eventually stand up and say "Enough is enough" and take on this perceived giant and win for the reasons I've previously outlined.
 
Objective Voice said:
However way you wish to describe the 5 Republican SC justices, Roe v Wade won't be overturned. If you pay very close attention to what's been done in red states with abortion laws they've passed each playing around the edges of the case, i.e., when life begins, where abortions can take place, how abortion facilities are outfitted/constructed, medical professional licensing, abortion clinics associated with local hospitals. All legalize the practice but only up to a certain point and with certain provisions and they've done this based on the SC's ruling on Roe v Wade. This Texas law (like the one out of Mississippi that got struck down) both play around the edges in their attempts to make getting an abortion more difficult. And in the case of this TX law, more risky from a (financial) punitive standpoint for everyone involved. Doctors have a lot to lose if their practice gets sued by a class-action case. Individuals much more. But I submit one plaintiff will eventually stand up and say "Enough is enough" and take on this perceived giant and win for the reasons I've previously outlined.
Click to expand...
I do think they will overturn it. It’s WHY they are there.
 
trouble13 said:
If you had ever been through a child custody battle or knew someone who has you would not be asking your question. The deck is massively stacked against men.

Some men are forced to pay for child support on children that they didn't sire. How that for a kick in the teeth to men. Not only did his wife have an affair, she falsely listed him as the father on an official government document, and even after DNA tests prices the court still insists the guy pay mommy support for a child that isn't his. Is that draconian enough for you?
Click to expand...
Bullshit.
 
trixare4kids said:
I'm not sure I understand your question. It appears that you are comparing a raped man's parental financial responsibility to a raped woman terminating her pregnancy as being the same. If this is what you meant, how are they even alike?
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I'm doing!

Obviously there are undeniable biological differences involved but this is a legal issue.

Men and women are not being presented with equal legal options
 
trouble13 said:
If you had ever been through a child custody battle or knew someone who has you would not be asking your question. The deck is massively stacked against men.

Some men are forced to pay for child support on children that they didn't sire. How that for a kick in the teeth to men. Not only did his wife have an affair, she falsely listed him as the father on an official government document, and even after DNA tests prove it, the court still insists the guy pay mommy support for a child that isn't his. Is that draconian enough for you?
Click to expand...
Brought to you by the red pill community.
 
Napoleon said:
Whether or not that child exists is entirely the choice of the woman. Men are held financially liable for the choice of women presumably because they have an interest in the child. If men do have such an interest that justifies financial liability then why shouldn’t there be equity in requiring women to compensate men for that interest if they choose to terminate the pregnancy?
Click to expand...

You realize that men have plenty off off-ramps before it reaches that stage, right? You make it seem like men are powerless here.

Are you a men's rights advocate or something equally silly? God I hate moderates, they're the most extreme bunch.
 
choiceone said:
Yes, and there are also studies showing language accent works this way - even among native speakers. A trace of a Southern accent (which would include Black English) gets a more negative result. But here it is not clear that employers are inferring race from accent. The social class with a negative result is just "Southern," black or white.
Click to expand...

What is clear though is that people who try to sound certain that there is no causal link between race and economic outcomes are willin to ignore evidence that contradict their view and this is unreasonable. By the way, the study mentions that they examined if employers deduced social class from the resumes..."We also find little evidence that employers are inferring social class from the names."
 
highroller said:
Brought to you by the red pill community.
Click to expand...
I'm not part of their community but they do make some very strong points.

Judging by the reactions from the prochoice crowd in this thread, they don't seem to be to find of getting the same kind of answers to men who speak out against injustices directed at them. Maybe that's something you should all consider before telling men if they don't like the consequences they should of kept it zippered
 
Napoleon said:
Whether or not that child exists is entirely the choice of the woman. Men are held financially liable for the choice of women presumably because they have an interest in the child. If men do have such an interest that justifies financial liability then why shouldn’t there be equity in requiring women to compensate men for that interest if they choose to terminate the pregnancy?
Click to expand...
That's an interesting concept
 
highroller said:
I do think they will overturn it. It’s WHY they are there.
Click to expand...
I think the 5 conservative judges are letting this Texas law run as a trial balloon. They want to see how it polls, how people react to the republican politicians that support it, what kind of legal challenges it faces, and so on. That's why the 5 let this insanity stand. If it backfires on the republicans they know they have to be very careful with Roe v. Wade.
 
Dans La Lune said:
You realize that men have plenty off off-ramps before it reaches that stage, right? You make it seem like men are powerless here.

Are you a men's rights advocate or something equally silly? God I hate moderates, they're the most extreme bunch.
Click to expand...


How is that "moderate"? It's incel. The people complaining will never actually have to worry about any of this.
 
trouble13 said:
I'm not part of their community but they do make some very strong points.

Judging by the reactions from the prochoice crowd in this thread, they don't seem to be to find of getting the same kind of answers to men who speak out against injustices directed at them. Maybe that's something you should all consider before telling men if they don't like the consequences they should of kept it zippered
Click to expand...
I have a lot of sympathy for men in that community; however, I don’t believe that the solution is to take rights away from people.
 
Objective Voice said:
However way you wish to describe the 5 Republican SC justices, Roe v Wade won't be overturned.
Click to expand...
It just was. Roe v Wade specified at what point an abortion was legal or not. This Texas shit overrode it.
 
choiceone said:
A woman can force a man to have an orgasm and collect the semen, notably by drugging him and doing this in his drugged state (I have been watching too many SVU reruns). If she wants to, she can use that semen to make herself pregnant. If she then gives birth to his child, that is a child from her raping him.
Click to expand...
Did you know that pigs can fly high enough to get fined by the FAA? The way it works is that the pig accidentally walks onto the end of a seesaw that is a mile long. It just so happens that someone drops an ACME anvil the size of the Empire State Building on the other end of the seesaw at that precise moment. By my calculations, the pig would briefly achieve 33.45 thousand feet before plummeting back to earth to receive its fine. Fortunately, it can only do that once, or we could have a real problem on our hands.
 
trouble13 said:
I'm not interested in the heartbeat. Men don't get 6 weeks to opt out if parenthood and neither should women
Click to expand...

Unwanted pregnasies are usually the result of both parties not wanting to have kids, and this is as true for men as for women.
 
trixare4kids said:
If you read the article, he was held responsible, but I agree with you. Seems rather harsh to hold a 14 year old male statuary rape victim responsible for a six year old daughter he didn't even know about.
Click to expand...

I agree, too. They held him responsible even though the female partner was older and exploited him because in their first encounters he consented, though he was too young.

I frankly don't have the same attitude toward child support as lots of people.

I think that if both people want to continue the pregnancy, both should be equally responsible, which would mean the man would pay half the pregnancy-related, childbirth, and nursing-related costs as well as child support. If neither wants to continue the pregnancy, the man would pay half the abortion-related expenses.

If he wants the continuation and she doesn't, or she wants the continuation and he doesn't, she should have the right to decide because it is her body. In both cases, he would technically owe her half of the lowest possible cost incurred, which would be equal to half of the expenses that would be incurred by abortion if she had one. However, if she alone wants the continuation, I think he should be allowed a paper abortion, giving up all parental rights in exchanged for giving up a responsibility for child support.

Of course, the reasons we do not have such a system are:
1) women fear that if men have to take responsibility for any expense during the pregnancy/childbirth, they will demand to be part of the choice of whether or not to continue a pregnancy, and
2) the government wants to get the man to pay half of the child support so that it does not have to when the woman has a low-paying job or no job.
 
But in any case, women have been punished, so I know you're celebrating.
 
Aristaeus said:
I understand there is no rape exemption, but what about if the pregnant woman's life is at risk, for example an ectopic pregnancy?
Click to expand...
The Texas law makes this exception: I read the bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom