A woman's basic right over her body doesn't "belong w/ the states"

Commander Dutch said:
@ThatOwlWoman I knew he couldn't do it.
Click to expand...
I notice that he totally ignored the part where, if the new mother applies for public assistance, a child support case against daddy is mandated by the state.* So maybe it's NOT that the lazy sluts are greedy and out to rape men for 18 years of support. lol

* In Missouri, at least, if the state gets a child support order against the daddy, the mom doesn't get that money. It goes to the state to reimburse the taxpayers for whatever funds are being given to support the mom -- food stamps, "welfare," rent assistance, etc. If there is any left over after that, it goes to the mom. If she is able to earn enough to disqualify herself for public assistance, then she gets all of it -- if she chooses to pursue it. Many women don't. Not worth the hassle of tracking down the deadbeat, plus they don't want him in their lives.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I've addressed it multiple times. Why are you ignoring my rebuttals? Don't fit in with your skewed worldview?

See my post right above this one.
Click to expand...
I asked a very simple question, you have refused to answer it. Instead, you come back with 'stats', anecdotes, and irrelevant rebuttals.

I'll ask again. Why does a woman have a right to decide whether to be a mother or not, but the man who fathered said child doesn't have that same right?
 
All of these broken families reenforce my belief that "married with children" should NOT be the assumed default mode.

Despite what insipid family values bloviators like J.D.Vance like to preach,
everybody isn't best suited to that lifestyle,
and it would certainly be beneficial to know oneself before committing to it
and then not being able to meet the commitment.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I notice that he totally ignored the part where, if the new mother applies for public assistance, a child support case against daddy is mandated by the state.* So maybe it's NOT that the lazy sluts are greedy and out to rape men for 18 years of support. lol

* In Missouri, at least, if the state gets a child support order against the daddy, the mom doesn't get that money. It goes to the state to reimburse the taxpayers for whatever funds are being given to support the mom -- food stamps, "welfare," rent assistance, etc. If there is any left over after that, it goes to the mom. If she is able to earn enough to disqualify herself for public assistance, then she gets all of it -- if she chooses to pursue it. Many women don't. Not worth the hassle of tracking down the deadbeat, plus they don't want him in their lives.
Click to expand...
oh, the lazy sluts are greedy, for sure.

you have proven how the states uses feminist tropes to achieve it's gestapo oppression.
 
ExpressLane said:
We just had a family of 5 killed by a drunk illegal alien.
Click to expand...

Anecdotal data is always hard to deal with in cases like this because it is a tragedy for someone. What we need to be mindful of is: yes there are bad people in all groups. Do we let the tiny fraction of a minority of truly evil people in this group define the ENTIRE group for us?

This is what the Germans did in the 1930's. They needed a scapegoat so they chose one and attributed ALL the problems to that one. The scapegoats were demonized as "poison mushrooms" that grew up within their society that poisoned their society. The attendant blood libels that rode along helped move people toward solutions that were quite horrible.

All of this anti-immigrant stuff reeks of that. Like a rotting corpse.

Yes it IS a tragedy that occasionally an undocumented alien does something truly horrible. But as a nation of Americans the statistics still show WE are far more dangerous and law breaking than the "illegals".

Yeah, let's secure the border. No, let's not make the Mexicans into our own "Giftpilz"
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I asked a very simple question, you have refused to answer it. Instead, you come back with 'stats', anecdotes, and irrelevant rebuttals.

I'll ask again. Why does a woman have a right to decide whether to be a mother or not, but the man who fathered said child doesn't have that same right?
Click to expand...
Oh, that's simple. It's her body. The only thing he had to do with it was drop off some sperm. If he did not want to be a father and/or on the hook for child support, he should have refrained from sex or used protection. He has no right to force her to either abort or give birth, any more than she has the right to force him to get a vasectomy.

The end.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I notice that he totally ignored the part where, if the new mother applies for public assistance, a child support case against daddy is mandated by the state.* So maybe it's NOT that the lazy sluts are greedy and out to rape men for 18 years of support. lol

* In Missouri, at least, if the state gets a child support order against the daddy, the mom doesn't get that money. It goes to the state to reimburse the taxpayers for whatever funds are being given to support the mom -- food stamps, "welfare," rent assistance, etc. If there is any left over after that, it goes to the mom. If she is able to earn enough to disqualify herself for public assistance, then she gets all of it -- if she chooses to pursue it. Many women don't. Not worth the hassle of tracking down the deadbeat, plus they don't want him in their lives.
Click to expand...
DtM is a hypocrite and a liar....and that's his good features. :)

IMO, a man shouldn't have a say in whether a woman to whom he isn't married should be forced to carry his baby. If they are married, that's a conundrum. Did both agree to the child? Are there health reasons on why the woman shouldn't carry the baby? Are they splitting up?

If an unmarried woman decides to carry a man's child and the man is against it, that's also a conundrum. Did she tell him as soon as she found out? Did he protest and opt to split abortion costs, if not pay for all of it if she couldn't? There is an element of unfairness that a woman conceives, hides it from the man and then sues him for child support.
 
BartenderElite said:
This is the right's mantra now: abortion is back w/ the states - "where it belongs."

Can anyone explain why such a sacred right "belongs w/ the states?" And we don't have to debate if abortion is "murder" here. Everyone is dug in on that, on both sides. And it's irrelevant to this discussion.

A woman's right to choose and to have that decision be between her & her healthcare provider shouldn't be something that's at the whim of whatever state she happens to live in. Freedoms are universal.
Click to expand...
A baby is t a woman's body. Stop that foolishness
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Oh, that's simple. It's her body. The only thing he had to do with it was drop off some sperm. If he did not want to be a father and/or on the hook for child support, he should have refrained from sex or used protection. He has no right to force her to either abort or give birth, any more than she has the right to force him to get a vasectomy.

The end.
Click to expand...
so, it's always the mans fault. NEVER the womans fault or responsibility.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so, it's always the mans fault. NEVER the womans fault or responsibility.
Click to expand...
Oh, it's both parties' fault if an unintended pregnancy occurs. He didn't put on a raincoat. She didn't take her b.c. correctly or didn't use any at all. They're both Catholic and thought that the rhythm method was as infallable as the Pope. They were both drunk or otherwise impaired and took no precautions.

So should she have access to the abortion medication? A surgical abortion if she discovers the pregnancy too late for the medication? Should he be able to force her to give birth because he wants a kid, even if he's willing to cover all the expenses and raise it? If they agree that they'll do that and he takes the kid, should he be able to go after her later on for child support if something happens to his income or he gets married to someone else who demands it?
 
Commander Dutch said:
DtM is a hypocrite and a liar....and that's his good features. :)

IMO, a man shouldn't have a say in whether a woman to whom he isn't married should be forced to carry his baby. If they are married, that's a conundrum. Did both agree to the child? Are there health reasons on why the woman shouldn't carry the baby? Are they splitting up?

If an unmarried woman decides to carry a man's child and the man is against it, that's also a conundrum. Did she tell him as soon as she found out? Did he protest and opt to split abortion costs, if not pay for all of it if she couldn't? There is an element of unfairness that a woman conceives, hides it from the man and then sues him for child support.
Click to expand...
I think those kinds of cases are few and far between. Possibly more common is a couple who had casual sex, like a one-night stand, and she finds out a month or so later that she's pregnant. In many states it will be too late by then to get an abortion, so either she finds the money to go to another state and have the procedure, or she has the child. Should the guy then be held responsible for child support? Hairy ethical situations here, aren't they?

Then there are women who deliberately get pregnant in order to capture a man. That still happens in the 21st Century, believe it or not. There is one of those in our own family. lol
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I think those kinds of cases are few and far between. Possibly more common is a couple who had casual sex, like a one-night stand, and she finds out a month or so later that she's pregnant. In many states it will be too late by then to get an abortion, so either she finds the money to go to another state and have the procedure, or she has the child. Should the guy then be held responsible for child support? Hairy ethical situations here, aren't they?

Then there are women who deliberately get pregnant in order to capture a man. That still happens in the 21st Century, believe it or not. There is one of those in our own family. lol
Click to expand...
Agreed that most cases are simply an unwanted conception where both parties would prefer to an abortion. Still, the conundrums exist and need to be resolved in a fair and intelligent manner.

Agreed on women trapping a man through pregnancy, if not simply using him to pay for her desired child. There are men who only want a bedwarmer and a cook. Still, our laws should be fair and enforced with courts that are fair to all parties involved.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I asked a very simple question, you have refused to answer it. Instead, you come back with 'stats', anecdotes, and irrelevant rebuttals.

I'll ask again. Why does a woman have a right to decide whether to be a mother or not, but the man who fathered said child doesn't have that same right?
Click to expand...
So you do not understand that a baby comes from a woman's body? Why does the guy have a right over the woman's body? You really cannot understand that?
 
BartenderElite said:
This is the right's mantra now: abortion is back w/ the states - "where it belongs."

Can anyone explain why such a sacred right "belongs w/ the states?" And we don't have to debate if abortion is "murder" here. Everyone is dug in on that, on both sides. And it's irrelevant to this discussion.

A woman's right to choose and to have that decision be between her & her healthcare provider shouldn't be something that's at the whim of whatever state she happens to live in. Freedoms are universal.
Click to expand...

You. like all democrats hate democracy.

The idea of people voting offends you. Only the rulers of your party are qualified to decide important issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top