I'm a progressive I'm also pro life, abortion rights are doomed, give up the fight.

No, I really don't think he does!

Biologically his though, right? What other way is there?

Who is doing the forcing?

 

I believe what I posted because it's true , , ""If he didn't want a child he shouldn't have had sex.""

I hope you were looking in a mirror when you said that, it would be the honest thing to do..

See, you consider that a victory. because you have nothing else....no statement, no stand, no argument you can back up without quibbling about words...""

Just …..meaningless meandering drawn out pointless "arguments" used to distract from the fact you have no argument....

...and when posters don't bother to follow you down the rabbit hole you consider that a victory because you HAVE NOTHING ELSE

 

Trust me, it IS forgettable

OK, I do believe I addressed this at one time, you must've forgot :


"A health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when, according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health." https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2019/S240




Doesn't look like much changed at all..

SO what was your question?


What changed?


What do you object to?



Did you finally have a point ???


I wasn't the one who introduced this law into the thread....

 

OH, and what ""neighborhoods"" are those ???

 

Fox is a "she".

Obviously the child and the man are biologically related but, no more or less so than a sperm donor. Genetic relationship does not necessarily justify financial obligation - but Fox is assuming that this is necessarily the case.

"The State"/Gov't/Law is doing the forcing.

A man is forced to be responsible for the financial consequences that stem from a unilateral decision of another person.

One person is then being punished for the unilateral actions/decisions of another. This is a violation of the Rule of Law.

Equality under the law is also being violated. The woman has the ability to avoid the financial consequences of an unintended pregnancy where the man does not.

 

A "man" wouldn't consider supporting his child as a punishment


To the rest of the post all I can say is GOOD!


The decision to have sex was the "man's " decision unless he can prove rape...

 

Why should a someone be forced to pay for financial consequences of the unilateral and reckless decision of another This is what you keep avoiding - as if this problem doesn't exist.

Repeating the same nonsensical gibberish - gibberish that has been previously refuted - does not address this problem.

You also conveniently avoided responding to the legal problem created by the violation of the rule of law. You agree that the State should be allowed to force one a person to be responsible for the consequences of another persons reproductive decision.

The problem is that you don't agree with the State giving the man the ability prevent a woman from killing his child =- abiding by the consequences of another persons reproductive decision.

This is hypocrisy on steroids.

Then you trot out the pathetic "the man decided to have sex argument" - which you already know is abject nonsense.

 

It isn't a problem to me or taxpayers

Yup , repeating your gibberish sure didn't change the FACT that men have to support born children.


.

Again , I don't see a problem

Your whole tirade is nonsense.....have you tried going to court and getting these "men" off the hook for child support so taxpayers have to pay for them ?

Were you laughed out of court?

 

1) you don't speak for all taxpayers - and certainly not for me - sans the fact that this has nothing to do with anything under discussion.
2) The argument is not about what the law is - I know you realize this but, having no coherent argument you have to come up with something ... right

3) of course you see a problem - you are just being obtuse and disingenuous because you can not deal with the hypocrisy of your beliefs.

How is it not a problem for a man to be able to force a woman - through law - to carry a pregnancy to term.

4) See 2 - this argument has never been about what the law is - so your comments are nothing but avoidance and denial.

 

No problem, he can't

No, it's "I Do Not Care".

 

Women ARE forced to pay child support, just like men aren't they?

How do you know that? Their sex is in question according to the default avatar, much like yours!

 

Okay, so you think that SOMETHING was changed? You didn't say that it doesn't look like ANYTHING has changed.

 

So then you would ALSO say that if SHE didn't want a child SHE shouldn't have had sex?

You're the one who admitted that you don't have an argument!

 

I believe what I posted because it's true , , ""If he didn't want a child he shouldn't have had sex.""

Nope, that doesn't follow at all... see, here is how it is...women can have abortions and men can't...so if men don't want kids their only option is to not have sex...


And somehow I don't see men any more likely to do that than women...

No, I didn't (WHF?)

....YOU are the one who can NEVER discuss the topic but just post nonsensical crap like "Okay, so you think that SOMETHING was changed? You didn't say that it doesn't look like ANYTHING has changed.""


YOU are the one who brought up this law, I didn't......why are you so afraid to take a stand and make a statement about this law you seem so concerned with...so concerned that you are speechless as to why you are so concerned [/QUOTE]

 

No, "their" sex isn't "in question" …...they just don't feel the need to say what sex they are.....unless this is a dating site it shouldn't matter one way or another...to intelligent people.

 

Double standard!

Yes, you DID say that!

I notice that you were incapable of replying to that post!

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Nope, that doesn't follow at all... see, here is how it is...women can have abortions and men can't...so if men don't want kids their only option is to not have sex...

No, that's called biology/science/FACT.


How would you change that " double standard" ? Are you going to call what ever or whoever invented humans and complain???

Yes, you did/no I didn't/yes you did/no I didn't...….some day , MAYBE, you'll grow past that stage and actually have something to say....I'm not real hopeful since you have said anything yet.

I've noticed that you haven't replied to any post with anything more than a 1st grader's questions..... "why?" ..." define "something" " or something having nothing to do with anything like the inane, off topic "So then there's no way that @Giftedone could know your sex?"""

I haven't seen you make one solid BRAVE statement about your beliefs....

 

I realize that you do not care about violations of the "rule of law" when it is in relation to something you agree with - you have made that crystal clear.

The problem with removing rule of law protections (for things you agree with) is they are not just removed for things you agree with.

It is not about what the law is now - it is about the possibilities that have been opened up by removal of legal protections.

Bottom line - If you agree that the law should be able to force one person to be responsible for the consequences of the unilateral reproductive decision of another - you then agree that a women can be forced by law to be responsible for the unilateral reproductive decisions of a man.

 

Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.

You can't change biology.

Again, if you think it's some horrible violation of men's rights, have the law changed.

 

That's exactly how it works - I hate to burst your bubble but - if you think our legal system doesn't work on the basis of legal precedent you dont understand our legal system.

Various legal systems make bad law all the time - If you agree with "Law" simply on the basis that it is "Law" - then you agree with nations that have anti-abortion Law. Obviously this is a pathetic and nonsensical attempt on your part to move the goalposts.

This is not about "what the law is" - as much as you would desperately like to fallaciously move the goal post because you can not handle the consequences of your own beliefs

This is about your beliefs. You believe that the law should be able to make one person responsible for the consequences of the unilateral reproductive decisions of another.

You are welcome your belief - just do not come crying to me when you don't like the consequences of the beliefs that you hold.

 

Yes they are.

 

Uh, what consequences are those?

Men have to pay for their kids and women can have abortions.

No matter what you or I think that's the way it is... and should be...


IF you think "That's exactly how it works -"....then HAVE THE LAW CHANGED SO "" MEN "" DO NOT HAVE TO SUPPORT THEIR CHILDREN..


BYE

 

This not about "what the law is". It is about whether or not one agrees with the law. You running around crying "its the law - its the law" does not make that law right.

In some States the Law has become very restrictive to Abortion - do you agree with this because its "The Law" Obviously not - which makes you a hypocrite.

I don't don't like hypocrisy in Law. You do. Since this hypocrisy is something you agree with - quit complaining and posting to others with respect to laws restricting abortion.

What is more disingenuous and pathetic hypocritical gibberish - is you saying "Then have the law changed".

If you believe that the law should be able to force one person to be responsible for the consequences of the reproductive choice of another or "others" - one consequence of this belief is that the law should be able to force women to carry a pregnancy to term.

When did you switch sides and become a Pro- Life advocate ?

 

When did YOU?

You think it's WRONG for women to have the right to their own bodies because "men" have to support their children.

 

This is nonsensical gibberish and straw man fallacy. I do not think it is wrong for a woman to have the right to their own bodies - and have done nothing but support this right.

I do not think the law should be able to force one person to be responsible for the consequences of the reproductive desires or decisions of others.

This is what you believe - not me. Quit projecting your hypocritical nonsense beliefs onto me.