See ya Planned Parenthood. Disgusting practices.

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
80d2972a02297ec7fadcc4bed2d252bb.jpg
 
Sedatedfork said:
What is the plural of fetus? Is it Festus? Just trying to figure out whether Festus Ezili is somehow connected to all of this.
Click to expand...

Well I'm not one to gossip and you didn't hear it from me but he hasn't been playing/practicing and he's had a lot of free time... let's just say he's gotten to know Portland... in the Biblical sense.
 
crandc said:
No double standard, D Rock. I do think women need to prevent pregnancy, but if a man is absolutely determined no child and does not trust his partner, or wants to use double protection, he should. I mean, there are men who poke holes in condoms. There are women who sabotage their birth control. Not the most common situation but does happen. So best practice if you are not totally sure of your partner, protect yourself.

.
Click to expand...

Since it does take 2 to get pregnant and obviously a man cannot force a woman to have an abortion, do you think it would be fair that the man have the option of petitioning a court or something, saying that he does not want the pregnancy- will not be part of the child's life- and no be forced to pay child support. Then the woman can make an informed decision about if she should continue the pregnancy on her own? I know this would never happen but it does seem to be fair, and gives both parties a say about if they are ready to have a child. I fully support a woman's right to get an abortion, but I really don't see how you can deny a double standard when they both made, or didn't make, a decision that resulted in a pregnancy but the decision and consequences that come with it are 100% up to the mother.
 
WarriorFan said:
Since it does take 2 to get pregnant and obviously a man cannot force a woman to have an abortion, do you think it would be fair that the man have the option of petitioning a court or something, saying that he does not want the pregnancy- will not be part of the child's life- and no be forced to pay child support. Then the woman can make an informed decision about if she should continue the pregnancy on her own? I know this would never happen but it does seem to be fair, and gives both parties a say about if they are ready to have a child. I fully support a woman's right to get an abortion, but I really don't see how you can deny a double standard when they both made, or didn't make, a decision that resulted in a pregnancy but the decision and consequences that come with it are 100% up to the mother.
Click to expand...

No.

The civil courts should never force someone to do something like this.
 
crandc said:
No double standard, D Rock. I do think women need to prevent pregnancy, but if a man is absolutely determined no child and does not trust his partner, or wants to use double protection, he should. I mean, there are men who poke holes in condoms. There are women who sabotage their birth control. Not the most common situation but does happen. So best practice if you are not totally sure of your partner, protect yourself.

I absolutely do not agree that "abortion is murder". But consider the implications of saying it is. How many years imprisonment should a woman receive? 25? Life? Death penalty? In some Latin American countries women are serving 20, 30, even 40 years for abortion. Many of them insist it was a miscarriage but the burden of proof is on the woman; if she can't prove it happened naturally, she's presumed guilty. The person who drives a woman to an appointment becomes accessory to murder, how many years imprisonment should they receive? You can close all clinics but you can't confiscate knitting needles, coat hangers, the acids and bleaches women squirted into their uteri, the herbs that in massive doses cause uterine contractions and hemorrhage. You won't be ending abortion, just safe abortion.

How would you be able to tell if a woman self-aborts at home? In Romania under Ceaucescu every woman had to undergo mandatory monthly pelvic exams. If she showed signs of recently terminated pregnancy she was interrogated by police. Do you want that? Small government conservatives?

Ever hear of abortion tourism? It's exactly what it sounds like; women travel from countries where abortion is illegal to countries where it is legal Some countries set up roadblocks to try to catch these women when they return. If a woman fits the profile - young, made overnight trip, carrying sanitary pads - she is pulled aside for a forced pelvic exam. Do you want to build another wall to keep American women from traveling to Canada for legal abortions, or just have forced pelvics?

Since 1 in 3 American women have abortions, how would you pay for all the prisons? Trump and Congress have already announced another massive tax cut for the rich, and if there is anything more sacred than sperm, it's tax cuts for the rich. What programs would you cut/eliminate to build prisons for, say, a million new women each year, plus anyone who helped them?

It was just reported the abortion rate declined in the past few years in this country. Not because of the male legislators' manic glee passing hundreds of new vagina restrictions, but because there are fewer unwanted pregnancies. Mostly due to Affordable Care Act, which mandates that all insurance, not just that sold through ACA, cover contraceptives with no co-pay. While the nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Service, a male millionaire, claims he never knew of a woman unable to afford birth control, in fact there are quite a few and cutting funds to Planned Parenthood made that worse, as they had to start charging for services they used to provide free. Even for women who had employer paid health insurance, many plans covered prescriptions and devices but explicitly excluded birth control, despite the fact that 98% of heterosexually active American women use birth control at some point in their lives, including conservative women. The Hobby Lobby decision, that said secular for-profit businesses could exclude birth control if Jesus said so, was a blow to both women's rights and religious freedom, but fact is for most corporations their god is profit. Unpregnant employees cost less than pregnant ones. Ending the Affordable Care Act could cost as many as 65 million American women their access to birth control.And increase the demand for abortion.

That's a hell of a lot of women to lock up. I guess the "lock her up" chants at Trump rallies did not just apply to Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...

Wow, not really sure where all this came from. Was this intended to be a response to me or simply making more pro-choice arguments? Aside from the first paragraph, none of this had anything to do with my comments. I said nothing about murder or imprisonment for women who have had abortions. I suppose I did discuss consequences, but not in that regard.

I'm more interested in the mores of the issue. You seem to be making this into a man versus women issue or a religious vs. non religious issue, when this is a human kind issue. I'm a practicing Christian male. I have nothing against birth control or sexual education. In fact, I'm completely for both of those things, but I have a big problem with abortion being used as birth control to the tune of 1 in 3 American women!!! Assuming you're stats are correct and 1 in 3 American women have abortions, how can that figure not be very disturbing to everyone, regardless of what side of the argument you're on?!? You're either killing a life on one side or you're using abortion as a form of birth control on the other, which means you're lacking in some area (be it education or whatever).

I don't buy the argument that they're left with no other choice. Owning up to the responsibility is a choice, adoption is a choice. Before this even becomes an issue, and despite what the majority of society thinks, abstinence IS a viable choice. Millions of people practice abstinence until marriage (my wife and I did) and careful family planning after marriage to avoid unwanted pregnancies. To say men and women are incapable of such self control is selling everyone short, and, frankly, pathetic. And to say people should be able to have sex whenever they want, well, that's a choice then too, isn't it, and there are consequences to our choices. All of this is just people wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

I understand there are situations where people are going to have sex even if it was still the norm for couples to wait until they're in a mature and stable relationship, and even where couples in mature and stable relationships may not be able to provide for a child. There should be and are solutions for those situations, but I firmly believe, as a society, sex without ownership of the consequences and abortion as a form of birth control speaks very poorly of our society.

Again, I'm not addressing legal repercussions of having an abortion. I'm addressing what I believe the cause of the abortion problem. And, yes, it is a problem.
 
Denny Crane said:
No.

The civil courts should never force someone to do something like this.
Click to expand...

What is the court forcing in that scenario? WarriorFan didn't say the court was forcing the woman to have an abortion as a result of ruling in favor of the father. The only thing S/he said was that the woman would have the knowledge that she would have to provide for the child without the father's assistance.

Courts shouldn't force women to have or not have abortions, but it's ok for courts to force men to allow their baby mommas to abort their wanted child or alternatively force them to provide for an unwanted child?
 
D-Rock said:
What is the court forcing in that scenario? WarriorFan didn't say the court was forcing the woman to have an abortion as a result of ruling in favor of the father. The only thing S/he said was that the woman would have the knowledge that she would have to provide for the child without the father's assistance.

Courts shouldn't force women to have or not have abortions, but it's ok for courts to force men to allow their baby mommas to abort their wanted child or alternatively force them to provide for an unwanted child?
Click to expand...

The reasoning behind child support is so the child doesn't starve.

It's not an issue of fairness to either the man or woman involved.
 
riverman said:
so? crandc has her own voice...
Click to expand...

Uhh, yeah. Which is why I asked if her comment, which was directed to me, was intended to address my comments, or if she was just bringing up other unrelated pro-choice arguments. I can't see how they related. If they weren't intended to, that's fine.
 
D-Rock said:
force them to provide
Click to expand...
Teen prostitution is how they deal with it in a lot of places in India.....impoverished people don't have all these intellectual choices...often rape is involved..sometimes disease....it's not as simple as assuming there's money to provide for that child...especially for kids in say....high school..I think education is where it starts. Sometimes teen pregnancy is a culture that makes welfare a career instead of a temporary stop gap....I don't think we'd have so much teen pregnancy in some cases if you had to work 40 hours a week for a welfare check.....I paid child support for 25 years after getting divorced...never complained..love my kids...what I didn't like was not being granted joint physical custody .....with legal custody you get a bill, not an opportunity sometimes to parent within your ways and means. I've never gotten a woman pregnant by mistake. I've never had a woman get pregnant by deception....I have traveled the world and seen many unwanted, impoverished children. Folks who want to protect these kids should adopt them
 
D Rock, only the first paragraph was addressed to you. Sorry if I was unclear.

What do you mean by "owning up to the responsibility"? Is that ONLY carrying to term? I would say a woman who makes an appointment with a clinic, goes through counseling, and undergoes a surgical procedure, even an out-patient one, is taking responsibility. And that's in states like California. In many others she has to be forced to undergo and pay for medically unnecessary ultrasound, hear a medically inaccurate lecture prepared by anti-abortion groups, see pictures of fetuses, hold funeral services for fetus, wait 24, 48, or 72 hours, which involves making two appointments with a clinic that may be hundreds of miles away, since the majority of women seeking abortions already have at least one child, arrange childcare, transportation, time off work she may not be paid for, may lose her job by taking time off ... how much pain is owning up to responsibility?

I have an adopted niece, she just got accepted at Mills College with a $32K scholarship (yes, bragging). Adoption can be a loving alternative but ONLY when freely chosen. Women are not breeding animals and must never be forced to bear a child so that someone else can have him/her.

As far as a man making a woman sign a legal document or somesuch that he would not be responsible for accidental pregnancy - well, aside from the fact that, as has been pointed out, child support is for the child, I can't imagine even the horniest hetero woman going with a man like that! I mean, I know some women have shitty taste in men, but that is pretty extreme even for straight ladies.
 
Denny Crane said:
The reasoning behind child support is so the child doesn't starve.

It's not an issue of fairness to either the man or woman involved.
Click to expand...

I understand that your response is somewhat hyperbole, but with all the government support available, a child is not going to starve without child support. As an anecdote, I had friends in graduate school that got $900 a month just in food stamps for the mom and three kids under the age of 5. The dad was there and involved. He just wasn't counted as a mouth to feed on that money because he was expected to fend for himself on his student loans.

I'm talking about the ability to choose the consequences of our actions here. In WarriorFan's scenario, the mom just has to deal with the reality that she'll need to get help from family or friends or the government if she decides to go through with the pregnancy. It's her choice. I get that public policy is to avoid making the state responsible for the welfare of the child, and I completely agree. And, again, for the record, I think fathers should be responsible. I just don't see how it's a remotely equitable policy when the father has no say in the existence or non-existence of the child. Isn't one of the big arguments for abortion that it makes women more equal to men in the bedroom because they are now able to have a similar (obviously not exactly the same) lack of responsibility for the resulting pregnancy?

Don't get me wrong, if we allowed men to walk away from the responsibility, we'd undoubtedly have a lot more deadbeat dads. It's just interesting to me that society places so much emphasis on the woman's desire to choice whether to keep the baby or not, but virtually no regard for the fetus, high concern for the welfare of a child, and very little regard for the father's desire for or ability to care for the fetus or the child, and this is what has been deemed as the best course of action in these situations. I suppose it's just one of those things where we live in an imperfect world and we have to do the best we can. I think we can do better though.
 
crandc said:
As far as a man making a woman sign a legal document or somesuch that he would not be responsible for accidental pregnancy - well, aside from the fact that, as has been pointed out, child support is for the child, I can't imagine even the horniest hetero woman going with a man like that! I mean, I know some women have shitty taste in men, but that is pretty extreme even for straight ladies.
Click to expand...


Can't you see a double standard in that? 2 people create a pregnancy. If the woman says she wants and abortion or says that she wants to keep it, fine, I hope she keeps it but it is completely her choice. The man, however, gets no choice. I know he could have used protection; same could be said for her. I know child support is for the child, though that is an odd response considering that abortion is most certainly not for the child. It is so the mother doesn't have her life upended (in most cases). What if the father wants to continue with his life as though nothing happened (just like we allow the mother to choose).
 
D-Rock said:
I understand that your response is somewhat hyperbole, but with all the government support available, a child is not going to starve without child support. As an anecdote, I had friends in graduate school that got $900 a month just in food stamps for the mom and three kids under the age of 5. The dad was there and involved. He just wasn't counted as a mouth to feed on that money because he was expected to fend for himself on his student loans.

I'm talking about the ability to choose the consequences of our actions here. In WarriorFan's scenario, the mom just has to deal with the reality that she'll need to get help from family or friends or the government if she decides to go through with the pregnancy. It's her choice. I get that public policy is to avoid making the state responsible for the welfare of the child, and I completely agree. And, again, for the record, I think fathers should be responsible. I just don't see how it's a remotely equitable policy when the father has no say in the existence or non-existence of the child. Isn't one of the big arguments for abortion that it makes women more equal to men in the bedroom because they are now able to have a similar (obviously not exactly the same) lack of responsibility for the resulting pregnancy?

Don't get me wrong, if we allowed men to walk away from the responsibility, we'd undoubtedly have a lot more deadbeat dads. It's just interesting to me that society places so much emphasis on the woman's desire to choice whether to keep the baby or not, but virtually no regard for the fetus, high concern for the welfare of a child, and very little regard for the father's desire for or ability to care for the fetus or the child, and this is what has been deemed as the best course of action in these situations. I suppose it's just one of those things where we live in an imperfect world and we have to do the best we can. I think we can do better though.
Click to expand...

The typical amount of child support owed by one of the parents is $4800/year. Only 1/2 that is typically actually paid.

FYI.
 
What if penises could suddenly suck instead of spit? Then the man could vacuum out the woman's egg and fertilize it without her ever knowing. Pay to have it implanted and carried to term then when born take the egg laying woman to court for child support. Revenge is ours!

"Honey, did you cum?"

"No, I removed! Muhahahahaha!"
 
SlyPokerDog said:
What if penises could suddenly suck instead of spit? Then the man could vacuum out the woman's egg and fertilize it without her ever knowing. Pay to have it implanted and carried to term then when born take the egg laying woman to court for child support. Revenge is ours!

"Honey, did you cum?"

"No, I removed! Muhahahahaha!"
Click to expand...

66650239.jpg
 
SlyPokerDog said:
What if penises could suddenly suck instead of spit? Then the man could vacuum out the woman's egg and fertilize it without her ever knowing. Pay to have it implanted and carried to term then when born take the egg laying woman to court for child support. Revenge is ours!

"Honey, did you cum?"

"No, I removed! Muhahahahaha!"
Click to expand...

For the penis to be efficient enough to vacuum up the women’s egg 83.7% of the time, the average length of the male penis would need to increase by 258% to reach the egg.
 
riverman said:
Teen prostitution is how they deal with it in a lot of places in India.....impoverished people don't have all these intellectual choices...often rape is involved..sometimes disease....it's not as simple as assuming there's money to provide for that child...especially for kids in say....high school..I think education is where it starts. Sometimes teen pregnancy is a culture that makes welfare a career instead of a temporary stop gap....I don't think we'd have so much teen pregnancy in some cases if you had to work 40 hours a week for a welfare check.....I paid child support for 25 years after getting divorced...never complained..love my kids...what I didn't like was not being granted joint physical custody .....with legal custody you get a bill, not an opportunity sometimes to parent within your ways and means. I've never gotten a woman pregnant by mistake. I've never had a woman get pregnant by deception....I have traveled the world and seen many unwanted, impoverished children. Folks who want to protect these kids should adopt them
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this. Education is what is needed the most. Ideally, it should come from parents, but sadly, that doesn't happen all the time, and seems to be happening less and less. I do, however, firmly believe that abstinence until you think you can handle the responsibility is a viable policy. Maybe if that was taught as the primary way to address the problem of unwanted pregnancies and protection as a secondary option, we'd be better off. I guess I value human life (even in the form of a fetus) to the degree that I feel that there are VERY few circumstances that justify it's ending. I don't consider inconvenience or the financial or emotional trauma the comes with pregnancy as one of those circumstances. I don't say that to imply that pro-choice people don't value life, I just define life differently. And I consider the "choice" to be the decision to have sex. As I've said before, I'm not against abortion in the case of rape, incest, or health of the mother (I struggle with the idea of aborting a fetus because it will likely have a birth defect), I just think society is looking for the easy way out in a lot of instances. I don't mean to imply that the process of an abortion is easy. Crandc has pointed out that it certainly isn't, but clearly, someone who chooses to have an abortion feels that it's the easier of the two paths, no?

Admittedly, I probably have a slanted view on this. I was raised in a loving home with my mom able to stay at home (and wanting to do so) and if I ever found myself in this situation, I would have a support system. Most aren't that fortunate. I guess I'd just like to see abortions viewed as something that is acceptable, both legally and socially, but in certain very limited circumstances (more limited than they are) instead of the staggering volume and relatively casual way they're viewed currently.

And, yes, Crandc, women are not incubators, but the lives they can carry inside of them are not things that should be discarded simply because they are inconvenient or even life altering. I'm pretty certain it's a commonly accepted view that once you have a child, your life truly ins't your own anymore. You owe a duty to that child. I just feel that duty begins well before it's born, and in some respects, well before it's conceived.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

truebluefan
Clinton, Trump, and the battle over Planned Parenthood
Replies
0
Views
331
truebluefan
truebluefan
dviss1
Politics Conservatives Duped Again
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
rasheedfan2005
rasheedfan2005
SlyPokerDog
Kids learn important lesson about how government works
Replies
13
Views
789
SlyPokerDog
SlyPokerDog
SlyPokerDog
Politics The war on women is getting disgusting
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
Cippy91
Cippy91
magnifier661
Politics Look who's funding Carly Fiorina's Camp?
Replies
5
Views
649
jlprk
jlprk

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top