Sam Brownback cuts medicaid funding to Planned Parentood

[*bfine32*]

(01-20-2016, 10:41 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Absolutely he should.  Again.  Informed decisions.

But what if the woman knew he wants no part of being a father.

No onus on her to make an informed decision?

Seems you're kind of one-sided here. Child support goes on log after the embryo is viable. 

[GMDino]

Abortion is legal.

A woman has a right to choose to have an abortion.

MOST of the people arguing in this thread are anti-abortion but understand they do not have a say in what the woman does because of those firs two sentences.

Brownback is destroying the state of Kansas with his policies.

[fredtoast]

(01-20-2016, 10:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Should a man be forced to pay support for a child he does not want?

Every Mother is also legally responsible for the financial support of her child.  The law applies equally to both parents, just the way you want.

The decision of what happens to the mothers body has nothing to do with child support.

Both parents are equally responsible for financial support....equal rights.

Both parents are responsible for their own bodies....equal rights.

[*bfine32*]

(01-20-2016, 10:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Every Mother is also legally responsible for the financial support of her child.  The law applies equally to both parents, just the way you want.

The decision of what happens to the mothers body has nothing to do with child support.

Both parents are equally responsible for financial support....equal rights.

Both parents are responsible for their own bodies....equal rights.

Both parents are responsible for ensuring the child is carried to term or not......equal  rights.

Hey wait a minute

 

Of course the mother has a legal out if she doesn't want to be responsible.. 

[fredtoast]

(01-20-2016, 10:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Both parents are responsible for ensuring the child is carried to term or not......equal  rights.

Wrong.  Until the child is born the mother has control over her own body.

She can not make any medical decisions about the fathers body and he can not make any medical decisions about her body.

Basically you want to give the man the right to carry a child when it is medically impossible for him to carry a child.

[fredtoast]

(01-20-2016, 10:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But what if the woman knew he wants no part of being a father.

Then it is his responsibility to make sure he does not get her pregnant.

He is responsible for his body.  She is responsible for hers.  Equal rights for all.

[BmorePat87]

I was hoping that my answers would avoid turning this into another 20 page abortion thread in which the same people tell each other why something is a human life while the other same people tell them why it isn't. And it then goes on and on and on and on and on and on and no one changes their opinion.

But it happened anyways. Good bye, thread.

[*bfine32*]

(01-20-2016, 11:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Wrong.  Until the child is born the mother has control over her own body.

She can not make any medical decisions about the fathers body and he can not make any medical decisions about her body.

Basically you want to give the man the right to carry a child when it is medically impossible for him to carry a child.

We've all seen the her body, her choice T-Shirts.

Why give the woman a legal means to avoid the financial responsibility of raising child, but not the male?

Basically you DO take that right away from a man because it is medically impossible for him to carry the child.  

Paying child support against your will lasts a hell of a lot longer than carrying a baby to viability. 

Could the answer be: With actions there are consequences?

[*bfine32*]

(01-20-2016, 11:10 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I was hoping that my answers would avoid turning this into another 20 page abortion thread in which the same people tell each other why something is a human life while the other same people tell them why it isn't. And it then goes on and on and on and on and on and on and no one changes their opinion.

But it happened anyways. Good bye, thread.

When was the last post about whether it is a life or not?

I've purposely left that dynamic out. 

But you're right: We should probably stick to the topics that folks change their minds on.  

[fredtoast]

(01-20-2016, 11:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why give the woman a legal means to avoid the financial responsibility of raising child, but not the male?

They both have 100% equal rights to use birth control.

I am really starting to feel sorry for your son.

[fredtoast]

(01-20-2016, 11:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Basically you DO take that right away from a man because it is medically impossible for him to carry the child.  

OMG.  He FINALLY gets it.

The law is designed to deal with reality.  When science advances to the point that the man can take the fetus and keep it alive until it is viable then the law will change.

Maybe there is some hope for you after all.

[*bfine32*]

(01-20-2016, 11:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am really starting to feel sorry for your son.

(01-20-2016, 11:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: OMG.  He FINALLY gets it.

Good open-minded, mature discussion.

Dude was right, Keep Lucie out of these we can advance the discussion. 

[Vlad]

(01-20-2016, 10:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: Abortion is legal.

A woman has a right to choose to have an abortion.

MOST of the people arguing in this thread areanti-abortion but understand they do not have a say in what the woman does because of those firs two sentences.

Brownback is destroying the state of Kansas with his policies.

Before women could vote they didn't say "a woman has the right to choose to vote" did they?
No, they said a woman has the right to vote.

So why don't you just say  "a woman has the right to abort her baby (or fetus)"?

Because by throwing "choice" in there, it helps to deflect from the heinousness of the act and focus solely on the poor woman.

If I'm not anti-abortion, then I must be pro-abortion. Call it what it is.

[fredtoast]

(01-21-2016, 12:16 AM)Vlad Wrote: If I'm not anti-abortion, then I must be pro-abortion. Call it what it is.

So you oppose the right to free speech for anyone who says something you disagree with?

Because I am able to be in favor of free speech for the KKK even though I abhor what they say.  

Maybe you will understand someday when you are more mature and able to think of freedom in terms of something other than your own personal beliefs.

[fredtoast]

(01-20-2016, 11:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Good open-minded, mature discussion.

Dude was right, Keep Lucie out of these we can advance the discussion. 

Sorry, but I fail to see what either of those comments have to do with being open minded.

The first one was relating to your ignorance of what options a man has if he does not want to get a woman pregnant.  I said I was sorry for your son because many young men learn about birth control from their fathers.

And the second one was me giving you a compliment for finally being able to process a concept you have been struggling with for years.

[*bfine32*]

(01-21-2016, 01:17 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry, but I fail to see what either of those comments have to do with being open minded.

The first one was relating to your ignorance of what options a man has if he does not want to get a woman pregnant.  I said I was sorry for your son because many young men learn about birth control from their fathers.

And the second one was me giving you a compliment for finally being able to process a concept you have been struggling with for years.

I process the concept that you think rights should be awarded based on biological differences between men and women. 

My son fully understands steps he can take to prevent pregnancy, but I have also taught him to take responsibility for his actions.

I feel sorry for your daughters if the learned to accept responsibility from you.  "You can just go get rid of it."


Don't start none, won't be none. 

[fredtoast]

(01-21-2016, 01:24 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I process the concept that you think rights should be awarded based on biological differences between men and women. 

And I understand that you think that the law should ignore the clear biological differences between men and women and give men rights as if they were able to bear children.

I want the law to address reality.  You want it to address what you want.

You have never answered how the law should settle a dispute between a man and a woman over what the woman can do with her body.  You seem to be saying that a man should be able to force a woman to bear the child, yet not be able to force her to have an abortion.  And that makes no sense at all.

[*bfine32*]

(01-21-2016, 01:32 AM)fredtoast Wrote: And I understand that you think that the law should ignore the clear biological differences between men and women and give men rights as if they were able to bear children.

I want the law to address reality.  You want it to address what you want.

You have never answered how the law should settle a dispute between a man and a woman over what the woman can do with her body.  You seem to be saying that a man should be able to force a woman to bear the child, yet not be able to force her to have an abortion.  And that makes no sense at all.

The sense is made that they should be required to agree on the course of action. I have answered the question. She should be required to carry the child to term and then surrender all rights and responsibilities.

You support laws that allows a woman to terminate her financial  responsibility or rearing a child and not a male based solely on biological  differences and that makes no sense at all.

Would it matter if the father was transgender and felt she too was pregnant or do you just what your laws to address reality?

[fredtoast]

(01-21-2016, 01:24 AM)bfine32 Wrote: My son fully understands steps he can take to prevent pregnancy,

Then stop bothering me with your silly questions and go ask him what option a man has if he does not want to pay child support.

[StLucieBengal]

BmorePat Wrote:Because abortions are legal and have been for the last 40 years. As a society, we value access to safe medical procedures to prevent back alley procedures and home "remedies" like we once had in this country. 

Since not everyone knows to practice safe sex, we offer a valuable, legal service and provide education for the future. 

Why are we putting PP clinics mostly in poor and minority neighborhoods? Where are all the PP's in the rich suburbs?

Obviously they are targeting The poor and minority groups. Which resembles negative eugenics.

You are too busy trying to go on about back alley abortions.... They don't need PP. they also don't need clinics who's top money maker is wiping out populations. To keep them down ..... Or as VD says.... Good old population control.