How can you be for forcing a woman to carry a rapist's baby to term and then cutting their welfare benefits? @Fangbeer and @Mac-7 have both ignored this question and I am sick and ****ing tired of their dodges.
When did you stop beating your wife? There’s all sorts of questions being begged here. Is there a special section of the welfare code that deals with children that are the product of rape that I’m unaware of? If it’s Bill Gate’s wife is it okay, since she doesn’t require welfare benefits? Just what is the point of the welfare add on to the question?
Conservatives want to force women to have kids they can't afford but conservatives want to cut funding to things that aid CHILDREN like Welfare, WIC, SNAP, healthy school lunches, etc....and denigrate poor women...
It’s sort of a catch 22 isn’t it? Conservatives want to force men to be responsible for their contribution pregnancy, but we don’t ever talk about that, do we? Why do you think the number of children that can’t be afforded keeps increasing? Conservatives are for traditional family structures. Prior to sexual activity, and by proxie child bearing, a man and a woman are encouraged to enter into a contract called marriage. This contract is a time tested and highly successful method of solving the social problems that we’re currently slogging through. Frankly, I’m shocked that there’s any surprise that after the sexual revolution in the sixties that “liberated” couples from the need to have contracts with the people they were sexually active with that there would be an explosion in the number of men who refuse to take responsibility for the children they created. The sexual revolution didn’t just allow women the ability to have more choices in sexual relationships. It also freed them from the sexual protections that marriage afforded them. Men certainly won that battle. All the free sex they can handle, and no strings to attach them to it. I’m surprised that we’re shocked that we’re now struggling to define sexual consent. Sexual consent in the context of a marriage is cut and dry. Sexual consent in the current year is a miasma of confused yes might mean no in a few more minutes so you’d better ask again a thousand times just to be sure. It makes the modern sexual encounter a sterile battleground of legal land mines and potential assault charges. I’m surprised that we’re shocked that one of the leading indications of poverty in America is whether or not you’re the product of a single parent household. But that, I assume, is not what this thread is about. I thought it was about the ethics of abortion as it pertains to the child product of a rape. So what does that have to do with welfare?
Who doesn't talk about it and why should we, child support laws are in place. Because poor people keep increasing. Ya, except for the FACT that 50% end in divorce What social problems are solved by marriage? VERY sexist to see it from the men's point of view, men didn't win anything, they always had the upper hand and freedom in sex. You're just mad because WOMEN also enjoyed sexual freedom JUST LIKE MEN.... SURPRISE! for YOU...WOMEN LIKE SEX AS MUCH AS MEN........ NO, "we" aren't struggling to define sexual consent. NO means NO and leave the youngsters alone. NO, it isn't. Men cannot rape their wives anymore Only for the insensitive and those who haven't a clue....., if your date is passed out from a drug you slipped into her drink having sex with her is rape...clearer now? WHO IS this "we" who seems so shocked at everything?? Uh, read the OP and the post of mine you quoted
So only poor women get raped? No one should be forced to do anything. Women should not be forced to carry full term and working people should not be forced to buy energy drinks for poor people.
I’m going to respond to this here, because I feel it’s more appropriate. The child can be given up for adoption. If the rapist is identified, which in the vast majority of cases the perpetrator is known to the victim, the rapist should be held responsible for the entirety of this. This is the fault of the rapist, not the child produced by the rape. The rape itself produces permanent and irreversible changes to the body. Trauma produces measurable physical changes your neurology. Adoption can release any permanent legal responsibility Adoption can release any permanent legal responsibility. Where do you live, Iran? Here in America there’s stigma for the rapist as there should be, but I don’t think the majority here in America shuns a woman because she was raped by someone and choose to have the baby... The burden, as I have said, belongs on the shoulders of the rapist. Why absolve them of this responsibility? But not once the child is born, right? That’s the sticking point with Abortion. At what point does the child have rights?
YUP, so easy for YOU to say. Yes, the raped traumatized woman can be FORCED to go through 9 MONTHS of her "sentence" suffering all the temporary and PERMANENT effects of pregnancy, suffer financial/educational/career setbacks, possible job loss....all to make OTHER people happy and give the rapist and OTHER controllers a warm fuzzy feeling. And someday she may even have the joy of the rapist making claims on the child... Yup, you want to sentence raped women to life while the rapists always get a lighter sentence. That's quite barbaric. Held responsible? How? with all his millions? How is he held responsible when HIS body isn't affected by pregnancy? Yes, this is the fault of the rapist NOT the VICTIM. And YOU wish to add to that !!!!!! Barbaric!!!!!!! But it can't change what it did to the woman....the person you seem to care very little for. Why NOT absolve the victim of any responsibility to carry and deliver a rapist's baby??????? There is NO sticking point! The fetus becomes a person with rights ( AND restrictions) AT BIRTH
Divorce does not absolve a parent from their responsibility to a child or parent of their child, so how is this relevant? Marriage is a contract for an ongoing sexual relationship. If you want to end that relationship, cool with me. Divorce is also a binding contract... Have you not been a part of society recently? The SJW angst over sexual relationships is entirely due to the ethical vacuum that was created by dismantling of the institution of marriage. Marriage means yes. In the absence of marriage you need some other legal framework to protect yourself in the event that your partner decides that they now regret the sexual encounter. Have you not heard about the feminists running around yelling about a rape culture because the rape stat includes sexual encounters that take place between partners who are unable to consent due to one or both of them being drunk? I can have sex with my wife after a bottle of wine and be entirely confident that neither one of us is going to charge the other with rape afterward. Yeah, and the point is that marriage is an institution specifically designed to protect woman from that upper hand. Marriage isn’t a woman trap. Woman can and do leave it whenever they want. Men on the other hand, are legally tied to any of their financial responsibilities to the woman, and the products of that sexual relationship even after that relationship has been terminated. I’m not mad at all about it. I’m just pointing out that the institution that gives woman power in that relationship is marriage. What does liking something have to do with the potential consequences of that behavior? If I have sex with a woman who’s been active with multiple partners I can say the child isn’t mine. She can’t say it isn’t hers. There is a biological difference in the consequences for behavior. This makes a contract much more beneficial to the woman, and the absence of a contract much more beneficial to the man. Right, that’s why California considered the yes means yes codes... That’s why the dear colleague letter was needed to expand on title 9 to reduce the standard for a burden of proof. That’s why the me too movement is suddenly hyper aware of all the times they realized they hadn’t given consent. Sure they can. Marriage doesn’t eliminate the problem. No solution can be 100% effective in the elimination of violence. It’s simply the most effective protection against it. That’s the only way to rape someone? I didn’t know. I guess that’s why Hillary was talking about the vast right wing conspiracy. Bill didn’t slip something into Juanita’s drink, or Gennifer’s drink, or Paula’s drink...et cetera..
So just a bunch of non responses. Permanent changes to a person's body is due to the pregnancy. Are you serious? I am happy people like you only have one ****ing vote because it is personal and I do despise your ideology. Your logic is twisted and ****ing flawed. You ignore the entire plight of the woman. The issue here is your ideology assumes the fetus has equal rights as the woman. It doesn't. And it never will. People die in child birth. Forcing a woman to birth a child conceived through rape is the definition of cruel and unusual punishment. You make me sick.
That's just it they don't view it that way. Social conservatives are a cancerous plight on modern society. Thankfully each of them is only one vote.
I am glad though that fangbeer admitted has cool pulling the rug out from under these women. Now imagine this scenario. Someone's wife is raped and they are forced by the state to carry to term. The rapist demands equal access to the kid and is given it. As a husband, how the **** do you reconcile that? Idiocy. It makes no sense.
Note the avoidance of using my ID so I don't get notified of a response. It's relevant because you think marriage is a cure all for everything....a silly idea. Marriage doesn't always insure a father WILL or can support his kids... Being single does not absolve a parent from paying child support....what century are you in? Oh, BS! Marriage is a legal contract, nothing more. Just because one gets married doesn't insure a sex life... Now you're talking irrelevant. So you believe people should be forced to stay married no matter what ?...how barbaric. Yes to what? Nightly rape? I have no idea what all that blather has to do with FORCING a woman to have her rapist's baby....FORCE, you know that thing the rapist used... HOW? Again I wonder what century you are in! Custody and support laws apply equally to women as they do to men.... Baloney, there's no proof of that. Again, you seem totally unaware of laws governing these situations.... That bit of hyperbole doesn't change or refute a word of my : NO, "we" aren't struggling to define sexual consent. NO means NO and leave the youngsters alone. . I'll word it more simply.. men CAN rape their wives but NOW women can report it as rape and the men will be charged There's a lot you don't seem to know and I NEVER said that was the ONLY way to rape someone....twisting what others post is a sure sign you have no argument. LOL! And the next sign you are losing the argument is the "But, but, but CLINTON"....as if that has anything to do with the issue.... Are you aware that radical Muslims want women who have been raped punished as well....I hope you don't fall more in line with them and want women stoned ...
What rug? Welfare isn't a rug. It's a plate of rotten food. You can eat it, but it's not helping you any. Welfare certainly isn't a solution to the problem of rape. Are you suggesting it is? The problem isn't reconciled by murdering the rapist. It's not reconciled by murdering the wife or husband. What makes you think it's reconciled by murdering the child? What happens if the wife kept the child because she didn't know if the child was her husbands or the rapists until after birth? Can she kill it then if she finds out it's the wrong guys? Does that "reconcile " the problem?
OH are you flailing! Yes, food CAN help when you're hungry....something you must not have ever been. Is the problem reconciled by giving the woman a life sentence? Punishing the victim ? What other crime punishes the victim? NO "child " is "murdered" in abortion. It isn't a child until it's born.
You're just dodging the odious hypocrisy of your stance. It's pathetic. You still haven't even met the basic burden of proof that the fetus - not child - fetus is equal to either of the parents. Moreover, your hideous, unpopular ideology tends to be held by men, those who stick to ivory towers. Poison food? Lol. You're absurd.
Not in context of carrying the baby to term which is what we are talking about here One of your fellow libs mentioned welfare as if ithe woman would keep the child which I dont think most women would
Would you give your baby up for adoption? Why does the right think people are androids with no emotions?
