RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss.

RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (2/21/2012 11:06:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Jim wilson attempted to add an amendment to the bill that would require the father of the child to be financially responsible for the woman’s health care, housing, transportation, and nourishment while she was pregnant. Actually, that isn't a bad idea... Maybe if we get something like that passed in "Blue states," it will scare the abortion foes right out of the building? It isn't like it would be a bad law. I mean, most situations like this would be covered by marriage vows anyway, and the ones that are not, I think this is a basic fairness issue. If the woman has to handle the morning sickness/pain/doctor's visits/etc. The least the man can do is pay for the financial support of the little bugger. Actually, it is a bit over the top. I would be behind this type of legislation if the following change was made. Replace "to be financially responsible" with "share in the financial responsibility." It isn't all on him, which is the way the original is worded. The level of shared responsibility can be determined on a case-by-case basis, according to the facts in the case.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (2/21/2012 11:12:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance The only flaw with that is to determine paternity when the child is in the womb is dangerous to the child... and any guy can say.. oh not mine i didnt fuck her... it isnt until the babys born that it would be feasable...and then you have the same issues we have, with deadbeat dads who dont also pay child support Actually, not true. Amniocentesis and CVS samples can be used to determine paternity. CVS can be done 10 weeks into a pregnancy and amnio isn't usually done until 16-22 weeks in. For those of you worried about complications of these "invasive" procedures (and there is a risk to the mother and the baby), they also have a "non-invasive" option. This is invasive enough to collect blood from the mother, but has no direct risks to the fetus or pregnancy, unlike amnio or CVS collection. It can be done as early as 13 weeks into the pregnancy. http://www.dnaplus.com/fetal_cell_prenatal_paternity_test.htm While all these things are great, there is still a wait time, so medical costs will have to be itemized to make sure the father pays his share.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (2/21/2012 11:33:28 AM)
Desideri, I have mentioned in a couple of threads about the fun filled summer I spent in law school, working as a clerk at support enforcement for the state. It amazed me at the time to what lengths some dads are willing to go to not to pay child support. Guys who live in fancy houses, drive Jaguars, and are willing to spend tons of bucks just to make sure the "crazy bitch" they had the one nighter with and who had the nerve to get pregnant, never get a dime. I am sure even you will admit that it is not quite so easy for the mom to escape her financial responsibility. The fact is, your insistence that "the father pay his share" is, in many cases, fantasy. Were you the one who came up with the number "30% of the dad's income"? That is all very well, but what about the true wanker, who just can't keep it in his pants and has 6 kids with six different women? Do the math.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (2/21/2012 12:46:44 PM)
quote: Jim wilson attempted to add an amendment to the bill that would require the father of the child to be financially responsible for the woman’s health care, housing, transportation, and nourishment while she was pregnant. Actually, that isn't a bad idea... Maybe if we get something like that passed in "Blue states," it will scare the abortion foes right out of the building? It isn't like it would be a bad law. I mean, most situations like this would be covered by marriage vows anyway, and the ones that are not, I think this is a basic fairness issue. If the woman has to handle the morning sickness/pain/doctor's visits/etc. The least the man can do is pay for the financial support of the little bugger. And there are those that wanted to do that, of our own volition but the "mother" was bent on ending the life. I don't know where these ladies get the idea that men don't *want* to be responsible and have a place in their childrens' lives. I think it goes along with the thinking that if you're the possesser of a "Y" chromosome, you can't possibly love your children as mush as the XX-Americans. Re: The words I highlighted in red: As we've discussed, time and time, again; in this day and age, if a woman experiences morning sickness, etc., it is because she has made a *choice* . She makes a choice that affects three lives. That's all well and good but it is a *choice* . Do not ask me to feel sorry for some "poor woman" who is "forced" to go through morning sickness and labor because that argument hasn't been valid in the US since 1973. Peace and comfort, Michael

kalikshama -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (2/21/2012 12:55:04 PM)
Gold star for Lucy! http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=336&articleid=20120207_16_A5_OKLAHO862914 OKLAHOMA CITY - A bill that would declare that personhood starts at conception is headed to the Senate floor. Senate Bill 1433, by Sen. Brian Crain, R-Tulsa, passed the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services on Monday, the first day of the legislative session. The measure says life begins at conception. "Unborn children have protectable interest in life, health and well-being," the bill says. "The laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development all rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens and residents of this state," it says. In response to that bill, Sen. Jim Wilson, D-Tahlequah, who is strongly pro-choice, offered an amendment that would make the father of an unborn child financially responsible for its mother's health care, housing, transportation and nourishment while she is pregnant. Wilson's amendment failed. ---- because obviously if those whoreladies didn't want to have to be responsible for using their bodies to incubate another human life for nine months and then push it out of a tiny hole between their legs, they shouldn't have had sex in the first place. ---- While Sen. Wilson's amendment failed and Sen. Johnson later tabled her amendment, both admit they threw these amendments out there to make a point: you can't keep punishing women with personhood and anti-reproductive choice legislation. It takes two to make an embryo. You can put in all the language you want about what constitutes killing an unborn person to protect things like IVF and miscarriages, as the OK bill is (horribly failing at) trying to do. But in the end, all they do is punish women for a) having wombs and b) having had sex in the first place. There is zero accountability for the sperm that made it all happen.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (2/21/2012 1:08:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama There is zero accountability for the sperm that made it all happen. Yes. No man has ever had to pay child support. That's "zero accountability". How do you do your math? Peace and comfort, Michael

kalikshama -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (2/21/2012 1:18:10 PM)
I'm not on child support. I'm on A bill that would declare that personhood starts at conception.

SpiritedRadiance -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (2/21/2012 1:19:16 PM)
My brother has 4 children... all to women who were very niave enough to believe he was a decent person 4 children who he doesnt support, who he doesnt care for.. 4 lives who now have to survive on single mothers all of which were under 20 at the time of imprengation... all of whom do not have a college degree.. And he doesnt pay support because he cant keep a job and spends his time equally between rehab centers and jail.. and even when he does the state demands his wages to his fines before his back child support.. which currently is around 300,000 dollars... Yeah.. i mean because EVERY man pays child support for the actions of his sperm... yuppers..

kalikshama -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (2/21/2012 1:19:50 PM)
quote: I don't know where these ladies get the idea that men don't want to be responsible and have a place in their childrens' lives. In IASS's case: quote: I have mentioned in a couple of threads about the fun filled summer I spent in law school, working as a clerk at support enforcement for the state. It amazed me at the time to what lengths some dads are willing to go to not to pay child support. Guys who live in fancy houses, drive Jaguars, and are willing to spend tons of bucks just to make sure the "crazy bitch" they had the one nighter with and who had the nerve to get pregnant, never get a dime.

SoftBonds -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (2/21/2012 1:27:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Jim wilson attempted to add an amendment to the bill that would require the father of the child to be financially responsible for the woman’s health care, housing, transportation, and nourishment while she was pregnant. Actually, that isn't a bad idea... Maybe if we get something like that passed in "Blue states," it will scare the abortion foes right out of the building? It isn't like it would be a bad law. I mean, most situations like this would be covered by marriage vows anyway, and the ones that are not, I think this is a basic fairness issue. If the woman has to handle the morning sickness/pain/doctor's visits/etc. The least the man can do is pay for the financial support of the little bugger. Actually, it is a bit over the top. I would be behind this type of legislation if the following change was made. Replace "to be financially responsible" with "share in the financial responsibility." It isn't all on him, which is the way the original is worded. The level of shared responsibility can be determined on a case-by-case basis, according to the facts in the case. I don't think it is over the top, however, I think we are looking at different objectives. You want the man to take responsibility, and I agree with that, I think that is a MINIMUM standard. However, there is a large population of this nation that feels that a woman deserves to be "punished," for not keeping her legs closed, that she should suffer for her sins. These are the people against welfare and abortion. They want the kid born, but don't care if he starves to death afterwards. I want to PUNISH men for not keeping it in their pants. Since the woman is already punished by physical discomforts of various types, I think a financial punishment for the men makes sense. Obviously this punishment will only affect those men who have sex without adequate protection. I don't see why I should have to help support the children created by some man's carelessness, and most women who get knocked up by guys like this end up needing taxpayer support. So you should agree that financially punishing men who can't keep it in their pants, thus saving the taxpayer's dime, is a good thing, right?

Moonhead -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (2/21/2012 1:29:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds These are the people against welfare and abortion. They want the kid born, but don't care if he starves to death afterwards. Exactly. If they're not up to raising a kid whose mother can't bring it up, they should knock it off with trying to stop her getting an abortion.

BitaTruble -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (2/21/2012 1:33:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama There is zero accountability for the sperm that made it all happen. Yes. No man has ever had to pay child support. That's "zero accountability". How do you do your math? Peace and comfort, Michael Interesting. If personhood is enacted at conception, does that mean the non-custodial parent (which will usually be the man until the actual birth takes place although surrogates are an alternative so that should be taken into consideration) will be required to pay child support? Can we take out life insurance on the unborn? Are the unborn going to be tax deductable? If a pregnant woman goes to Disneyland, will she have to pay a fee to get the extra person into the theme park? It's a slippery slope and an all around bad idea. Makes for an interesting thread though. For the record, just because I have never, in my entire life, heard of a man who pays child support for a fetus doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Got a link or do you want to reassess the 'math' remark? We are talking sperm here, not born children. Some men actually do pay child support. So do some women. There is by no stretch of the imagination a 100% compliance on either side.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (2/21/2012 1:42:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama I'm not on child support. I'm on A bill that would declare that personhood starts at conception. Yes and at the end of the facts you presented, you went on elocution safari and ended with: "There is zero accountability for the sperm that made it all happen" First off, just so we're clear; I'm sure you meant the producer of the sperm since sperm's only accountability is did it do its best to impregnate an egg. What I am refuting is your contention that there isn't *plenty* of (legal) accountability for a man that fathers a child. I doubt you could find me a state where I could get a woman pregnant and walk away, saying: "It serves her right for being a slut (as has been suggested, here)" and not have a judgement for child support leveled against me. It won't happen. That makes your statement irresponsible, at best; extremely prejudicial on the whole, and an out-right lie, at the worst. To say that men face no accountability for their actions is ridiculous. Once women recognize that men do, indeed, bear responsibility, things will be a lot less contentious. Sure, there are dead-beat dads. But the law is on the side of trying to curtail that, as much as possible. They're failing miserably and that's a whole nother story. I would have absolutely supported Rep. Williams' amendment. It is the "accountability" of a man that would rather not have his child aborted. Peace and comfort, Michael

SoftBonds -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (2/21/2012 1:44:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble If a pregnant woman goes to Disneyland, will she have to pay a fee to get the extra person into the theme park? Sorry Bita, I agree with everything you meant, and almost everything you said. But Children under 3 are free at Disneyland... I think pregnant women should get a discount there though, you can't go on half the rides...

farglebargle -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (2/21/2012 2:37:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance The only flaw with that is to determine paternity when the child is in the womb is dangerous to the child... and any guy can say.. oh not mine i didnt fuck her... it isnt until the babys born that it would be feasable...and then you have the same issues we have, with deadbeat dads who dont also pay child support We can toss dad in jail until we're sure. No problem.

BitaTruble -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (2/21/2012 3:02:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble If a pregnant woman goes to Disneyland, will she have to pay a fee to get the extra person into the theme park? Sorry Bita, I agree with everything you meant, and almost everything you said. But Children under 3 are free at Disneyland... I think pregnant women should get a discount there though, you can't go on half the rides... That's actually good news. We are planning a family vacation (3 adults, 4 children) to Universal in July so we can all indulge our Harry Potter fetish. Not having to pay extra for the youngest is going to make my daughter a happy camper. I love the idea of kids eat free at Ihop on Tuesdays. Pregnant woman can go to feed the fetus and eat for free! How cool is that. [;)]

SoftBonds -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (2/21/2012 3:07:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble If a pregnant woman goes to Disneyland, will she have to pay a fee to get the extra person into the theme park? Sorry Bita, I agree with everything you meant, and almost everything you said. But Children under 3 are free at Disneyland... I think pregnant women should get a discount there though, you can't go on half the rides... That's actually good news. We are planning a family vacation (3 adults, 4 children) to Universal in July so we can all indulge our Harry Potter fetish. Not having to pay extra for the youngest is going to make my daughter a happy camper. I love the idea of kids eat free at Ihop on Tuesdays. Pregnant woman can go to feed the fetus and eat for free! How cool is that. [;)] yipes. I said Disneyland. I don't know about Universal. It wouldn't surprise me if they have the same policy, lots of parks seem to, but please don't rely on my knowledge given that I haven't been to the park you are going to. LOL, I'd love to try that at a Denny's. I think I have had enough kids though. Don't want to be selfish.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (2/21/2012 7:55:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Desideri, I have mentioned in a couple of threads about the fun filled summer I spent in law school, working as a clerk at support enforcement for the state. It amazed me at the time to what lengths some dads are willing to go to not to pay child support. Guys who live in fancy houses, drive Jaguars, and are willing to spend tons of bucks just to make sure the "crazy bitch" they had the one nighter with and who had the nerve to get pregnant, never get a dime. I am sure even you will admit that it is not quite so easy for the mom to escape her financial responsibility. The fact is, your insistence that "the father pay his share" is, in many cases, fantasy. Were you the one who came up with the number "30% of the dad's income"? That is all very well, but what about the true wanker, who just can't keep it in his pants and has 6 kids with six different women? Do the math. I was not the 30% guy. However, child support to other people does count in determining support in the current issue. So, a guy may have 30% taken initially, and each woman may get 30% of whatever remains, but that means woman #2 gets 21%, woman #3 will only get 14.7%, etc. I have no solution for the chronic impregnators. There has to be something, but I have no idea what. I am not in favor of sterilization in general. I might be agreeable to sterilization as a form of capital punishment for extreme cases where the reproductive organs are utilized in the crime (ie. rape would be included). I know there are men and women who will go out of their ways to get out of support responsibilities. There are also men and women who accept their support responsibilities faithfully. Punishing the latter for the actions of the former isn't going to change anything.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (2/21/2012 8:01:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Jim wilson attempted to add an amendment to the bill that would require the father of the child to be financially responsible for the woman’s health care, housing, transportation, and nourishment while she was pregnant. Actually, that isn't a bad idea... Maybe if we get something like that passed in "Blue states," it will scare the abortion foes right out of the building? It isn't like it would be a bad law. I mean, most situations like this would be covered by marriage vows anyway, and the ones that are not, I think this is a basic fairness issue. If the woman has to handle the morning sickness/pain/doctor's visits/etc. The least the man can do is pay for the financial support of the little bugger. Actually, it is a bit over the top. I would be behind this type of legislation if the following change was made. Replace "to be financially responsible" with "share in the financial responsibility." It isn't all on him, which is the way the original is worded. The level of shared responsibility can be determined on a case-by-case basis, according to the facts in the case. I don't think it is over the top, however, I think we are looking at different objectives. You want the man to take responsibility, and I agree with that, I think that is a MINIMUM standard. However, there is a large population of this nation that feels that a woman deserves to be "punished," for not keeping her legs closed, that she should suffer for her sins. These are the people against welfare and abortion. They want the kid born, but don't care if he starves to death afterwards. I want to PUNISH men for not keeping it in their pants. Since the woman is already punished by physical discomforts of various types, I think a financial punishment for the men makes sense. Obviously this punishment will only affect those men who have sex without adequate protection. I don't see why I should have to help support the children created by some man's carelessness, and most women who get knocked up by guys like this end up needing taxpayer support. So you should agree that financially punishing men who can't keep it in their pants, thus saving the taxpayer's dime, is a good thing, right? No punishment needed. Plus, not all women are punished by pregnancy. I know man women who would be pregnant all the time if it weren't for the responsibilities associated with raising a child. In fact, my wife loved being pregnant both times. That we could not afford to have more was a major concern regarding any more pregnancies. The punishment should come in, IMO, if there is willful violation of support orders. Punishing a guy because he can't/won't keep his willy in his pants is ludicrous. Think of all the guys who don't/won't keep theirs in their pants. Do those guys get punished for taking risky behaviors, even if the women they are screwing aren't getting pregnant?

BitaTruble -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (2/21/2012 9:18:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds yipes. I said Disneyland. I don't know about Universal. It wouldn't surprise me if they have the same policy, lots of parks seem to, but please don't rely on my knowledge given that I haven't been to the park you are going to. LOL, I'd love to try that at a Denny's. I think I have had enough kids though. Don't want to be selfish. It's good. Same policy at Universal.. under 3 is free. :) As for Denny's.. not even for free, dude.. not even for free. My cousin used to work there so I know better! lol

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875