Alabama’s Draconian Abortion Ban Has Women On Twitter Ready To Fight

There are other examples

https://5newsonline.com/2017/01/12/...o-pay-child-support-despite-not-being-father/

https://nypost.com/2017/07/23/man-ordered-to-pay-65k-in-child-support-for-kid-who-isnt-his/

 

There are many laws on the booms that require one man to pay for another mans child

 

Marriage is better than shacking up

 

I just wanted to know if YOU knew what a bill was since you didn't seem to connect it to law...

 

What TF else would abortion be for if not convenience??????

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Men were NEVER stigmatized for having sex outside of marriage, and/or illegitimate kids or having three wives and cheating on them...

Women were.





Baloney, that's your alternate universe.

Have you ever heard of a man being called a slut because he had lots of sex?




That has NOTHING to do with :

Men were NEVER stigmatized for having sex outside of marriage, and/or illegitimate kids or having three wives and cheating on them...

Women were.

Again, you can't address my post \so babble on about something not related....it's so obvious you have nothing...

 

Why?

Living together saves on lawyer fees for the break ups...

 

Same answer for both - when significant brain function exists - this happens around 22-24 weeks. This is the same definition of the coroner/medical practice. When significant brain function ends - the plug is pulled and the dirt nap begins. I would even be OK with pushing the time back a few weeks "just to make sure" - to remove all doubt.

The question is more of personhood than one of being a human as per the taxonomic definition of Homo sapiens. Can we say someone is a person - when they have no cognition - no memories - no thoughts - nothing - no ability to feel pain, experience joy, interact with friends and family .. nothing - none of the five senses - no experience of anything - nothing.

What folks do is they project what this entity might be- and the personhood it might have - onto what it is now - and it is simply not that in the present.

If you make a list of what you value about your own humanity - what would be on that list ? Friends, Family, Joy, Hardship, memories, pleasure. Do you value Life ? or is it that you value the qualities of Life. Life does not have much value without the quality part - any human will beg for death under extreme torture.

Folks project the happy qualities of their own experience onto an entity that experiences none of this.

 

1 in a million examples are aberrations, not really things you can use to paint a society.

 

I am well aware of this as stated in my post. Not sure why you are restating ?

 

In your opinion - others feel differently. The question is whether or not society at large should stigmatize others on the basis of choosing another type of commitment format - not just "shacking up".

 

Abortion is the woman's choice and requires no justification. Restricting a woman's right to choose is what must be justified.

Her body, her choice. "Convenience" isn't an issue.

Medicare, Medicaid ... as you know, they're partly federal.

 

How many times do you need to be told that a baby exists at birth.

There are different names for different things....it's how we communicate….if all things were called one word then communication wouldn't be possible.

If one wants to call a fetus a "baby" then why not call it a teenager or an adult...?? They are all stages of life..

 

Putting yourself in harm's way by swimming in the ocean costs everyone money. If women should pay for their abortions, sex being a voluntary activity, shouldn't we charge swimmers who get into trouble?

 

See, NO mention of "child support " in the OP...none, zero, zip.....

 

No, but he contributed to the process which LED to her decision to carry the unintended pregnancy to term. If it wasn't for his role, she wouldn't be pregnant. And let's not forget that he may have coerced/threatened her to carry to term if he is anti-abortion or just really wants a kid.

So is this an argument against the compulsory nature of child support?

 

Well a bill is part of the legislative process obviously, making it part of 'LAW.' It was signed, so if it wasn't immediately challenged by the courts, then it would currently be law, but it isn't.

 

That minor thing about women sometimes needing it to continue to live.

 

1) by getting in a car one contributes to the process of getting into an accident - if the person did not get into the car they would never be in an accident. This however is not justification for punishing the person driving a car for the actions of the person who rear ended them.

There is also the well established principle in law of mitigation. After the fact damages are not awarded - say in the example of someone throwing a rock through a window - the person not fixing that window and a month later a storm comes and ruins a couch.

We are not talking about the case where there was complicity in the woman's decision -what a silly statement. We are talking about a "unilateral decision" that is against the will of the other party.

Bad and invalid arguments all around.

2) The argument is against the violation of the rule of law principles described. Law by definition is compulsory - the question is whether or not that law is valid.

 

Well secular marriage is utterly meaningless, isn't it?

 

Tell that to @Giftedone who thoroughly disagrees with you in post 3034. (22-24 weeks.)

 

I'm terribly sorry, but you can't say "her body, her choice" in the abortion debate and be taken seriously as a conservative! I agree with that sentiment, but it has nothing to do with abortion.

 

Don't put words in my mouth por favor. This is against forum rules and in this case you have misstated and embellished my words.

While I personally think that a Person exists at 22-24 weeks - significant brain function - the reason for this is because good arguments can be made at this point. This does not mean there are not also arguments against personhood against this point - which is what thorough disagreement would entail.

Where I thoroughly disagree is that good arguments can be made for personhood in the early stages.

Then you have the question of what I personally think with respect to personhood - and what is legitimate justification for law. These are two separate questions. Just because I believe a person exists -and is therefor entitled to rights - including the right to life - does not mean that I believe that these rights trump the rights of the woman.

 

So idty used to stigmatize out of wedlock sex

And many refrained from doing so for fear of getting caught

They might have missed a few organisms

but in the long run everyone was better off

 

Sort of like pregnancies from unreported rape I suppose