Abortion

FreeDuck wrote:

There's a doozy of an assumption right there.

And that was a doozy of a stereotype.

Quote:

And what makes you believe you have the power to refuse it?

The fact that the baby inside of her is a part of me.

I would do whatever I had to do. What makes you think that she has the power to kill my baby without my consent?

Quote:

Am I? Quote me. Nevertheless, what I had in mind when I wrote that were things that are nearly universally held as immoral, so you can breath now.

What is universally held is immoral?? Killing perhaps??

JustWonders wrote:

It was a question I've thought about, certainly. Of course, we'll never know, but I wouldn't rule out that there's a slight possibility it could affect a political demographic.

You mean you think there would be less Democrats and more Republicans if Republicans were less likely to have abortions? That implies that political persuasion is genetic. An interesting supposition.

CalamityJane wrote:

Don't be so harsh on him Anon, although he wishes to, he hasn't gotten a voice or vote in it anyway.

Are you kidding me?? The father has no vote??? Bullsh!t. That's a perfect example of feminism gone overboard.

You clowns think it's funny, but trust me, if that is MY baby in the womb, I would do whatever is necessary to stop her from killing it, laws be damned.

mysteryman wrote:

Can I ask a question?

If those in favor of abortion say that the majority of the country support them,why are the afraid to put it on a ballot?

Even if the USSC overturns Roe v Wade,that still wont end abortion.
It will kick it back to the state level,allowing the voters of each state to decide what they want?

What is wrong with that?
If abortion is that popular,or that much in demand,then I would think that the abortion rights group would want the public to vote on it.

I dont call the group that favors abortion "pro-choice",because they arent.

I told them that I was pro-choice,but that I wanted the choice to be for life,not death.
I was told that I was not "pro-choice",because I dont support abortion,unless medically neccessary.

I tell you what's wrong with that: Special interest groups would dominate
such state elections, and we all know that the voter turn out in any given
state is rather low (around 40 %) and teenagers who would be most
affected by such an election outcome as they cannot vote due to the age requirement of 18 years.
Besides, why should men have the right to vote on an issue that will effect a woman for the rest of her life.

If there ever was such a ballot, mysteryman, wouldn't it be only fair,
if we all could vote on mandatory vasectomies for those repeat offenders
who are partially to blame for an unwanted pregnancy. As jp said,
it takes two to Tango, why not take responsibility for the leading role?

Birth control is never just a one way street.

Did I hear someone mention clowns????

Does Badger Care pay for abortions? If so, what percentage of their total cost is represented by abortions?

Having a dependent does not imply having a kid out of wedlock. It's likely that those people would also be priced out of school because the additional money would probably not be enough to cover childcare.

It's too bad that your wife had to work so hard, but truly, how likely is it that her situation would have improved if those with dependents didn't get extra money. Do you think that she would have gotten more?

There are also a lot of men out there who think they get to decide the future of a woman just because he was lucky enough to boink her. There are some who think that "whatever it takes" includes aggressive, illegal, and immoral acts. For many men, it's more about preserving their perceived power over "inferior" women than it is about committing to raise a child

The fact that it resides within her own sovereign body, using her blood and organs for its survival, and the fact that it is legally her right to do so.

That would certainly qualify, though it might defeat the purpose.

Tell me, why should women have the right to vote on an issue that will effect a man for the rest of her life.
As for your hypothetical about mandatory vasectomies for men that are repeat offenders,I have absolutely no problem with that,as long as you support mandatory sterilization for women that have more then one abortion also.

Is that a deal?

Quote:

no, what's really funny here, is that you seem to believe that women are simply your personal legacy production machine.

btw, if there are any clowns around here...

Spare me your femi-nazi rhetoric. If you stopped obsessing about men trying to control you, you might see how incredibly selfish you sound.

Do not feel sorry for her... I am quite proud of her and what she has accomplished.

I don't know if she personally would have seen more financial aid but that isn't the point. The point is that people with dependents who are unable to to pay for that dependent take money out of the system. The more of these people there are the more money it is going to cost to help them.

I find it hard to believe you really don't think these things have an effect on others.

What you're arguing here actually comes down on the side of abortion. Abortion would certainly cost the taxpayers less than the social programs that support disadvantaged children and families. I wouldn't argue that these kinds of programs don't affect others, but I am arguing that abortion doesn't.

I'm not seeing the link between what you describe and abortion.

The decision to have children absolutely effects everyone, but I wouldn't support regulating that either.