Lawmaker Wants Women To Get A Man's Permission To Have An Abortion

Now your'e lying for effect. You know it...and that's another fact.

 

Those imaginary pricks they don;t actually exist, and if they do they are made completely of straw. But I know that the slaughter the babies crowd love to crow about them.

 

Abortion debates are only my business when it's my sperm being involved. How many of your sperm are involved, that you have to come on here and promote some ridiculous notion that your version of morality extends, like an umbrella, over the entire population of this country?

Or any other fetid anti-choice promoter, for that matter? What stake do YOU personally have?

If it's some simplistic and idiotic tax argument, save it for someone else. Because frankly, I can't stomach the duplicitous chatter of a batch of hypocritical hucksters and demagogues. If you were so worried about taxation, then you'd be vocally opposed to the ridiculous sums of tax payer dollars wasted every single second, being sent to countries of dubious alignment.

If it's some fetal rights argument, save it for someone who cares. I don't give a flying fart what anyone says - if it isn't my sperm involved, it ain't my issue. It's a PERSONAL and SOCIAL issue, not a political one, despite what the boondoggle, drooling and slobbering pundits overwhelmingly on the lack luster right like to tell you.

 

Of course they are. There is nothing unconstitutional about administrative courts.

Of course they do. Unless you wish to argue that the constitution forbids regulations.

Of course they are. And indeed, regulations they must abide by are altered to correct clearly misguided decision policies all the time.

But they practice within the confines of legal regulation and administrative adjudication. For which there are laws and regulations. Their decisions can be appealed.

In practice, administrative courts and panels and arbitrators together make FAR FAR more perfectly legal decisions than the criminal and civil courts do. Like it or not, we live in a bureaucratic state, ruled by a mind-boggling array of administrative policies and decisions. When Congress passes an act and the President signs it into law, it must be administered or it's useless. And that means it must be interpreted case by case in light of every dispute that it applies to. Rarely is every instance that comes up, a legal/illegal black and white case. It's more a matter of what scope of actions is permitted under what sets of conditions.

Think of a manager in the private sector. He might have a dozen personalities he's managing, all of whom must use their best judgment all day long. It's the manager's job to oversee and direct all those judgments in the interests of a coherent program. Most companies also have means of getting a manager's decisions examined. These aren't matters of law at all. Good management is far more than following the letter of laws.

There are whole textbooks dealing directly with the role of law in an administrative state. You might enjoy reading one.

 

Translations:

Forcing Birth - means actually preventing intentional homicide.
Choice- Actually means the right to commit intentional homicide
Fetus- A human being or person who resides in utero.

 

Women should have the right to take any human life they please. They do not need permission to end life. What is so hard to understand? If they want to kill, they should kill. If they decide not to kill the man should pay child support for 18 years. He is only needed for the payment, the decision of when and if the baby dies must lie with the mother. Women are not capable of understanding the risks of sex because of their inferior mental development so people should not assume they made a choice to assume a risk when having sex. They simply are not capable of this kind of risk assessment.

 

In America it's commonly known as legal. The reason it is legal is because as far as I know, none of us are God. You even said you were not. But yet you seem to possess God like powers over the rest of us by claiming abortion is killing babies as if they were already born. Glad you had the chance to clear up the confusion for us. You aren't God, but you know it is murdering babies before they even develop. Gotcha!

Again, you are talking as if you are God. Only God can answer those questions, of which it appears you answered them for God. Are you sure you are not God?

I don't know! I'm not the best at it myself. For all I know, I might be screwing it up.

 

Edit your post....the quotes are wrong.......it's something to watch out for here...

 

Wouldn't the kid be BOTH of theirs?

 

The "kid" would....the fetus is ONLY hers.

 

Gotta disagree. It takes 2 to make a fetus.

 

No, it takes a fertilized egg.

And it's the woman's fetus in the context that she has sole right to decide what to do with it.

 

Since you cited it in the article I have to ask: do you actually think that an abortion is comparable to a vasectomy? It seems to me to really suggest a gross misunderstanding of the issues.

 

That's a good decision, not only pro-choice killers are allow to decide whether a baby get murdered or not.

 

Completely agree on the first part.

The second part is the appropriate line of discussion of opinion, not a statement of fact. Let's think about this. If my dog is MINE and no one else's (from here kn, "no one else's" is literally, excluding my spouse), then how can anyone else become responsible for the dog? If my fraudulent investing is mine and no one else's, how can anyone else become responsible for it?

The point being that if the fetus is the woman and the woman's alone, then no responsibility can come to the father IN THE FUTURE excepting if the father wishes it. The point when the man takes on a current or future responsibility for the fetus is the point when the man has a say in the termination of it. You can not be logically consistent w/o that imo.

A fair way out, imo, is to require the woman to inform the father of the pregnancy - hardly an "oppression of women" issue, since the woman holds in her hands the choice of abortion or "burdening" both their lives for 18+ years. So require the woman to tell the father, and the father has 90 days to say "i don't want it" and he'll have no legal obligation. It won't legally be recognized as his.

Because you're talking about it as if it isn't a life, it's a woman's choice. Just give men the same choice. I'll still frown on such men who shirk their parental responsibility, same as women, but it's silly to say that one gender can legally do so and the other can't. It's sexism.

 

No, the man has NO say in determining if the woman has an abortion or not...oh, he can SAY all he wants but he cannot force the woman to abort nor can he force her to give birth.
And, AGAIN, if you think it's unfair for father's to accept responsibility for their kid then petition your Congressperson and request a law allowing men to opt out FORVEVER for any responsibility .

 

The mothers blood could kill it, go learn some biology. The mothers blood never comes in contact with the child in her womb,that is the purpose of the womb and the placenta.

Guess you're showing your ignorance of biology 101.

- - - Updated - - -

Who believe the mother gives the baby in the womb a blood transfusion, yes the idiocy is astounding.

 

Yes puts a bad taste in your mouth knowing it's a child that gets killed in an abortion doesn't it. Still engaged in your denial and attempts to redefine words I see.