The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[Renegade7]

6 minutes ago, Destino said:

The frustrating aspect of this entire debate is that logically reaching a broad consensus should be possible, like so many political arguments it boils down to where our society prefers to draw the lines.  Reaching it, however, feels all but impossible.  

 

Hard prolife and prochoice sides are not interested in compromise and both hold a great deal of political influence.  Politicians can easily be argued to benefit from having this battle continue.  Even if you get by those two problems, you have court rulings that limit what legislative options might look like.

 

 

 

Hate to say this but feel GOP rallies the pro-life flag because it's a sensitive topic that can drive evangelicals to the polls in a way tax cuts cant.  like has been mentioned, it's more pro-birth, Alabama is 50th in education so it's not like they really give a damb about kids down there.

[NoCalMike]

Well..........this thread certainly went places once I went to sleep last night.

[thegreaterbuzzette]

7 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Do you see anyone saying to get away with child support if the Dad says he told Mom to abort?  

 

Cause I saw that.  (And I'll point out, it's a common suggestion when this subject rises from the dead.  I'm not trying to single out one person for using what I think is a monumentally dishonest suggestion.  My problem is with the suggestion.)  And I'm absolutely certain that the end of child support is the predictable consequence of that proposal.  

You do understand that a key part of problem solving, critical thinking, negotiation, etc.....is taking a look at things from all angles? It helps to get a different perspective and ensure you are covering all your basis. It's not a matter of one saying "these should be the new laws", it is questions and proposal to spark discussion and hope that a middle ground path can be forged. 

Edited May 17, 2019 by thegreaterbuzzette
Typo

[tshile]

@Destino well said and what I’ve been thinking for a while now on this topic. 

 

The tragedy is the seriousness of the issue. It’s a shame people can’t put their political dogfight mentality to the side when the seriousness rises to such a level (like what we see with guns right now)

 

@thegreaterbuzzette

i think I agree with what you’re trying to say, I just don’t agree with how it’s coming across. I think most people arguing with you also would agree with what you’re trying to say, if it is what I think it is

 

which is that, the role (and therefore responsibilities) of the male in the unwanted pregnancy scenario needs to be higher in our society 

 

ie: it would be nice if the men that want to opine on abortion would hold other men to higher standers in regards to getting women pregnant. 

 

Ultimately that’s a two way street. I’m not saying this mentality caused it (because historically I would bet it didn’t) but when a significant portion of the debate includes people saying men have no business in the process, the decision, and the laws... makes it hard to get buy in that men’s responsibility should increase. 

[Renegade7]

18 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Do you see anyone saying to get away with child support if the Dad says he told Mom to abort?  

 

Cause I saw that.  (And I'll point out, it's a common suggestion when this subject rises from the dead.  I'm not trying to single out one person for using what I think is a monumentally dishonest suggestion.  My problem is with the suggestion.)  And I'm absolutely certain that the end of child support is the predictable consequence of that proposal.  

 

Nah, I think you overracting.  My feelings on child support are that it really needs to be about supporting the child and needs an overhaul in how that's executed.  In some cases it's a minimal amount that keeps them in poverty while in some states parents can accumulate child support while in jail. 

 

I would ignore anyone that brings up the father requesting an abortion because if they didnt want a kid they should've wore a condom.  And the reason I'm not getting into a woman lying about being on birth control to get a trap baby is because I dont want parents paying child support anymore, lessening the damage of the trap.  Next step is custody discussions of stuff like that, but that's offtopic, imo.

Edited May 17, 2019 by Renegade7

[Larry]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

which is that, the role (and therefore responsibilities) of the male in the unwanted pregnancy scenario needs to be higher in our society 

 

I'm not opposed to that, as an abstract theory.  But I think I'd need something a lot more specific before I can really have an opinion/pick another fight.   

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I'm not opposed to that, as an abstract theory.  But I think I'd need something a lot more specific before I can really have an opinion/pick another fight.   

I think the underlying issue is that an unwanted pregnancy has very different impacts on the two parties. 

 

Men have the ability to “wash their hands” of the entire situation.  The only repercussion is child support. Which in my opinion is wholly inadequate the grand scheme of “raising a child” especially if we as a society are interested in an adequate well-being of the child and mother; re: economics, education, quality of life, mental and physical well being, etc. 

 

im in a healthy relationship where my wife and I both contribute equally to the raising of our children. We have two. We both work 1 full time job. I find the task overwhelming to put it mildly. My day starts at 6 am and I don’t get ‘me time’ until 9pm at the earliest. Last night it was 11:30 pm. 

 

Single parenting? I don’t know how those people do it. Single mother of multiple children working multiple jobs and still hovering around the poverty line? All I can think of when I look at that, now that I’m a parent, is that holy **** we as a society need to do something to help these people. 

 

I say all that to justify my position that simply being on the hook for child support is wholly inadequate to me. Hence, in my opinion it’s possible for the man to “wash his hands of the situation”

 

so yeah, I think the idea that society should impose more responsibility on the man in those situations is a valid one. I don’t know “how” to do it. And, in my opinion, the feminists and the hard pro-choice and liberals need to come off the “men have no say in the decision, the laws, etc” garbage as part of this change. 

21 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Well..........this thread certainly went places once I went to sleep last night.

Yeah but honestly it’s an abortion debate and this one is at least adult-like. 

 

Which I find incredible. I usually avoid the topic entirely because of what it usually devolves to. 

 

This forum has a tendency to reach the higher standards on stuff like this compared to most. Maybe not the greatest debates, but more often than not at least the people involved behave somewhat like adults. Which is surprising rare to find in my opinion. 

[Larry]

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

Men have the ability to “wash their hands” of the entire situation.  The only repercussion is child support. Which in my opinion is wholly inadequate the grand scheme of “raising a child” especially if we as a society are interested in an adequate well-being of the child and mother; re: economics, education, quality of life, mental and physical well being, etc. 

 

Oh, I'd absolutely love to have more fathers take a more active parenting role.  

 

1)  Kinda hard to force people to do it, though.  

 

2)  And I get the impression that it's not unheard of for the woman to not want Dad to be a parent.  

 

(My brother had a child out of wedlock.  And to hear him tell it, that's precisely what Mom wants:  A big check every month, and stay away from me and the kid, forever.  Began the day he was born, when she intentionally didn't call him till the next day, because she didn't want him to be present for the birth day.  But to be honest, I've only heard about the relationship from what he tells me.  And I'm absolutely certain that he can be a really difficult person.)  

 

But yeah, I'd absolutely prefer every kid to have an involved Dad in his life.  At least as an abstract theory.  

 

[MartinC]

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

If they have zero real power in the decision, how would their input even matter?

 

There are three kinds of thing in this world, and only three.

 

Things you have complete control over (your effort and attitude for example - or, to pick something at random, who you have sex with and whether you use contraception).

 

Things you have influence over but not control

 

Things you have zero influence or control over

 

If you get a woman pregnant and you have conversations about having the child or not that would fall under "things I have influence over but not control".  The woman may take your views into consideration in making HER decision. Provided she does not live in a State with laws from the dark ages the women has complete control of this decision - which is how it should be. At that point for the father this then falls into the 'things I have zero influence over' category.

 

The outrage of these laws is that people are trying to take that control away (of her own body by the way).

 

 

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

But yeah, I'd absolutely prefer every kid to have an involved Dad in his life.  At least as an abstract theory.  

 

 

Then there needs to be more legal protections for fathers to be able to do that, because that's not an uncommon story.  Better, a lot of men that get out of jail that's used against them in any attempts to adjust custody rulings and they dont stand a chance in getting them changed.  The courts are heavily skewed towards the mother, our legal system isnt doing a good enough job for the fathers that do want to be involved and be in their kids lives.

[MartinC]

9 hours ago, Larry said:

 

So, Congress should be prohibited from legislating on a particular societal issue, based on the demographic makeup of congress?  A congress which was democratically elected, by people of all demographics?  

 

Surely it's not the "imposed" aspect that you're objecting to.  Everything congress does is imposed on the entire country.  That's what governments do.  They pass laws which everybody in the country is required to follow.  

 

What does congress have to do, in your opinion, for them to have the right to legislate on this issue?  Do they have to be composed entirely of women?  

 

I'll point out that abortion laws only affect pregnamt women.  Does congress have to be composed only of pregnant women?  Or will women who have been pregnant in the past be sufficient?  Or is mere female gender sufficient for a congressman to be considered qualified to legislate on this, one, issue?  

 

For representative Government to work - people elected have to represent the whole of the constituent that elected them (including people who did not vote for them ). If a minority impose their will on a majority thats tyranny. That applies to any issue but especially something as basic as a human beings control over his/her own bodily functions. 

 

Now you can fairly argue that woman had the opportunity to cast their vote and influence who has the power that is being exercised (let's set aside gerrymandering and voter suppression for a moment). And the evidence of the 2018 mid-midterms is that's a point that has not been lost on women, people of color and young people.

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, MartinC said:

The outrage of these laws is that people are trying to take that control away (of her own body by the way).

And the outrage from the other side is that there is more involved than just her body. 

 

We’re not not talking about legislating tattoos and piercings.

 

theres another life involved. Which is where the whole “bodily autonomy” arguments falls apart. I’m very much of the mindset that people should be allowed to do what they want to themselves. I draw the line at where it affects other people. So I think applying an argument that’s suited for tattoos and piercings (for example) to abortion is silly and shallow. 

[MartinC]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

And the outrage from the other side is that there is more involved than just her body. 

 

We’re not not talking about legislating tattoos and piercings.

 

theres another life involved. Which is where the whole “bodily autonomy” arguments falls apart. I’m very much of the mindset that people should be allowed to do what they want to themselves. I draw the line at where it affects other people. So I think applying an argument that’s suited for tattoos and piercings (for example) to abortion is silly and shallow. 

 

It may surprise you to know that my PERSONAL view is that I largely agree with your statement. I just don't feel that I have the right to impose my personal morality and view of when a collection of cells becomes human life on the person most intimately impacted.

[tshile]

1 minute ago, MartinC said:

 

It may surprise you to know that my PERSONAL view is that I largely agree with your statement. I just don't feel that I have the right to impose my personal morality and view of when a collection of cells becomes human life on the person most intimately impacted.

 

This comes off as cowardly to me. 

 

And look, that’s not really meant as an insult. Because the truth is... I don’t just avoid these debates because they tend to turn into trash mud slinging... I avoid them because I’m not currently able/willing to take a hard stance. I find the entire think incredibly complex, serious, and many aspects uncertain. 

 

So my own stance is cowardly. So I’m not just trying to take a shot at you. 

 

In fact, I don’t really care if that’s your stance. You have that right just as much as I have my right to sort of punt on the issue of abortion when it comes to my political choices. 

 

But I do care that you, at least appear to, are trying to say the rest of us also can’t have a say. Just because you or I punt on the issue doesn’t mean all men should. It doesn’t mean only women can be decision makers on this. This ties into the issue I took with you yesterday on the old white male comments. 

 

Part of the complexities to this issue, to me, is that it’s not simply a women’s issue. It’s a society issue. As such every member of society has the right to be involved in the discussion. 

 

And more importantly, there is and can be value found in the opinions on the subject from people that are not women. Pretending otherwise is foolish. And given the seriousness of the topic, dictating otherwise is damaging. 

[Fresh8686]

12 hours ago, Larry said:

 

I'm pretty sure that impregnating women without their consent is called "rape", or something like that.  

 

Pretty sure it's illegal.  In all 50 states.  

 

If not, then I've been missing out on a lot of fun, over the years.  

What the **** is this ****? And it's pretty telling that TWA laughed at it.

 

[Larry]

17 minutes ago, tshile said:

theres another life involved. Which is where the whole “bodily autonomy” arguments falls apart. I

 

Actually, no, they don't.  

 

See, the pesky thing is that even grown adult fully-recognized persons are not entitled to demand that somebody else donate their body to being that person's life support system.  

[redskinss]

I don't feel like reading this entire thread so I'm sure this has been brought up multiple times but ill give my opinion on the subject anyway. 

 

I've always thought that because I have a wife of 25 years and two children that I love and raise that this was a subject I didn't really relate to and because of that didn't much care about but there are a couple things that have always made me lean pro life.

 

If a woman doesn't want a pregnancy the fetus is nothing but cells but if she does it's a life, that's a conundrum to me.

 

For example, if a couple is pregnant with a child that they strongly desire to have and someone deliberately punches the woman in the stomach to intentionally cause a miscarriage what is their crime?

 

Is it assault and battery?

Or is it murder?

 

I tend to lean towards the penalty being far more severe than just simple assault, I know that if that had happened to my wife and the judge ordered probation or something for assault I would have lost my ****in mind which makes me realize I tend to see it as more of a life than just cells.

 

And secondly, (and I realize this is selfish) millions of woman have had abortions not because they were afraid for their health or the babies health but simply because they had a plan for their life and a the financial burden of a child wasn't in those plans.

 

I think that in order for a woman to have the right to not have her life derailed financially a man should have that right too.

He should have the right to wave any and all financial responsibility for the child just as a woman does, I realize that is not going to be a popular opinion and I'm probably going to get ripped for it but it's the way I feel.

 

I do feel a man should be responsible for his actions such as raising a child he conceived but I think a woman should too and it's not right that she has a choice to bear that burden but a man doesnt.

 

 

 

Edited May 17, 2019 by redskinss

[Larry]

 

17 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

What the **** is this ****? And it's pretty telling that TWA laughed at it.
 

 

It was . . . a response to the post I quoted?  You know, this one?  

 

13 hours ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

How about instead of laws criminalizing abortions (both getting and performing), a law was passed to criminalize men who impregnated women without consent?

 

[PeterMP]

16 minutes ago, redskinss said:

For example, if a couple is pregnant with a child that they strongly desire to have and someone deliberately punches the woman in the stomach to intentionally cause a miscarriage what is their crime?

 

Is it assault and battery?

Or is it murder?

 

Depends on the state and the situation, but many states have explicit fetal homicide laws on the books.

 

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

[MartinC]

27 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

 

 

But I do care that you, at least appear to, are trying to say the rest of us also can’t have a say. Just because you or I punt on the issue doesn’t mean all men should. It doesn’t mean only women can be decision makers on this. This ties into the issue I took with you yesterday on the old white male comments. 

 

 

A thing I have learned (the hard way) is there ARE some things in life that are just none of my business. However strongly I may feel about that thing or want my view to be heard - it's not my decision.

 

On the "old, white, male' thing I totally get that there are a TON of thing's politicians and Gvts HAVE to legislate on that impact people who are not old, white or male. And it's a fact that Gvts are made up largely of old, white males. What is vital to the survival of democracy and representative Gvt is that in exercising their power these old, white males don't seek to impose minority views on a majority. Anything else takes us down a very dark dangerous road.

 

You can argue we have the power to deal with that at the ballot box, and you would be right (GET OUT AND VOTE!!). I would point to gerrymandering and rampant voter suppression - I would also point to the way Gvts of all stripes pack the courts - and especially the SCOTUS -  with politically appointments to ensure their views survive electoral censor. 

[tshile]

21 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Actually, no, they don't.  

 

See, the pesky thing is that even grown adult fully-recognized persons are not entitled to demand that somebody else donate their body to being that person's life support system.  

 

Think this is a matter of opinion. 

 

No one demanded they support another life. Their actions led to them being in that situation. The question is what the rules should be once you’re in that situation, where you’ve now created a life that’s dependent on you (at least short term)

 

i find almost all the attempts to overly simplify different areas of this issue... completely inappropriate, with respect to the seriousness, to put it nicely. 

 

 

[PeterMP]

19 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

 

It was . . . a response to the post I quoted?  You know, this one?  

 

 

Larry, it certainly seems like you equated raping women with fun as long as rape isn't a crime.  Now, I took it as a bad joke, but rather than get defensive, it might be useful to either clarify yourself or apologize.

[Fresh8686]

Just now, Larry said:

 

 

It was . . . a response to the post I quoted?  You know, this one?  

 

Yea, is that all you got? Do you understand how weak that joke was? Do you understand how people who may have wives or daughter or sisters who have been raped would react when they hear **** like that? My wife was raped at 19 and had an abortion, this is real life and people don't think that **** is funny.

It says something about a person, when they make a joke like that. It says something about the relationship they have with women in general and what kind of heart they have. You need to really take a second and put yourself in someones shoes who has been raped and then ask yourself was that **** funny?

Jesus Christ, what in the **** is wrong with people?

[PeterMP]

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Think this is a matter of opinion. 

 

No one demanded they support another life. Their actions led to them being in that situation. The question is what the rules should be once you’re in that situation, where you’ve now created a life that’s dependent on you (at least short term)

 

i find almost all the attempts to overly simplify different areas of this issue... completely inappropriate, with respect to the seriousness, to put it nicely. 

 

To add on, if I injure you to the point that it negatively affects you, even if I'm not found guilty of a crime, I can be held responsible (financially).  I'm not sure if there has ever been a case where person A has injured person B and then person B needs a blood transfusion and person A has been forced to give it.

 

But even in the context of the injury happening person A did not commit a crime, they are likely going to bear some responsibility (e.g. paying for medical bills and lost wages).  That might not be as extreme as forcing somebody to carry a baby, but in general society does recognize if you have created a situation where somebody is not (no longer) self-sufficient, you have a responsibility.

Edited May 17, 2019 by PeterMP

[redskinss]

3 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Depends on the state and the situation, but many states have explicit fetal homicide laws on the books.

 

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

It was kind of a rhetorical question.

 

Even pro choicers feel that an assault of a pregnant woman should result in more severe penalties than that of a non pregnant woman but how can they defend that position without acknowledging that the fetus is not expendable by choice?

 

That's what always gets me in this debate.