TN GOP Bill Would Give Fathers (Including Rapists) Veto Power Over Abortions | Hemant Mehta | Friendly Atheist | Patheos

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  jbb  •  3 months ago  •  190 comments

By:   Hemant Mehta (Friendly Atheist)

TN GOP Bill Would Give Fathers (Including Rapists) Veto Power Over Abortions | Hemant Mehta | Friendly Atheist | Patheos
It's a Valentine's Day gift to sexual predators across the state.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



By Hemant Mehta February 13, 2021

A bill in Tennessee would require women seeking an abortion to get the permission of the father first. If he says no, she can't have it.

It's a gift to sexual predators across the state. Naturally, it's the brainchild of Republicans.

State Sen. Mark Pody has previously filed bills to reject marriage equality, ban abortions after a heartbeat is detected, and tried to make the Bible the "Official State Book."

MarkPodyTN-1024x574.png

Now, SB 494 (and HB 1079 in the State House, sponsored by State Rep. Jerry Sexton ) would give men veto power over a woman's body, forcing her to give birth if he decides he wants her to cause her pain against her will.


At the hearing, if the man can prove that he is the biological father and that there is a "reasonable probability" that the woman would obtain an abortion, the court shall issue an injunction prohibiting her from terminating the pregnancy. Proof of parenthood requires only that the petitioner acknowledges paternity. A DNA test is not required.
If the woman violates the injunction by obtaining an abortion, the court may hold her in civil or criminal contempt. There are no exceptions for rape or incest.

Congratulations to rapists all across Tennessee. Pody and Sexton, both of whom are Christians, decided to reward you for your future crimes.

This is what happens when a "pro-life" mentality overrides common sense, basic human decency, and any modicum of respect for women.

The bill, if it became law, would almost certainly be deemed unconstitutional, but that doesn't matter to Republicans because they will pass anything in the hopes that a conservative super-majority on the Supreme Court would eventually give them the victory they want.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JBB
PhD Principal
1  seeder  JBB    3 months ago

Is it any wonder that the once Grand Old Party of Abraham Lincoln is now known merely as the gop?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @1    3 months ago

it really isn't a wonder that the grand old party is now known as merely the Democratic Party.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    3 months ago

Wow... that goes to show you that there is no room for being sensible, only extremism. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.1    3 months ago

Perrie, does anyone other than idiots believe that the Democratic Party from the 1860's is the same Democratic Party 160 years later?  

You dont have to answer, it can be a rhetorical question for everyone. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.2    3 months ago

He's not talking about the Dems of then. He is saying that the GOP today is not the GOP but rather like Dems... He is talking about Trumpism.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.1    3 months ago

not sure how that relates to my post. which is factual

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.3    3 months ago

if you are referring to my post, you couldn't be more wrong

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.5    3 months ago

There is nothing factual about it and if there is, please enlighten us.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.6    3 months ago

the term grand old party was originally used for the Democratic Party.

later. it came to signify the Republican Party. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
1.1.8  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.7    3 months ago

link??

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.1.9  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.7    3 months ago

Ummmm..... no. 

The term "Grand Old Party" is a traditional nickname for the Republican Party and the abbreviation "GOP" is a commonly used designation. The term originated in 1875 in the  Congressional Record , referring to the party associated with the successful military defense of the Union as "this gallant old party." The following year in an article in the  Cincinnati Commercial , the term was modified to "grand old party." The first use of the abbreviation is dated 1884. [129]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)#:~:text=The%20term%20%22Grand%20Old%20Party,%22this%20gallant%20old%20party.%22

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.9    3 months ago

Um, yes.

Why Is the Republican Party Known as the GOP? - HISTORY

The “grand old party” moniker was actually first adopted by the Republicans’ elder rival—the  Democratic Party —which traced its roots back to  Thomas Jefferson  and  Andrew Jackson . In his 1859 inaugural address, Kentucky’s Democratic Governor Beriah Magoffin proclaimed, “The grand old party has never changed its name, its purposes, or its principles, nor has it ever broken its pledges.” The following year a Democratic newspaper in New Haven, Connecticut, looked ahead to the presidential election of 1860 and warned that “this grand old party is divided and in danger of defeat.”

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.8    3 months ago

link??

Yes.

Read post #1.1.10

Thanks.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.1.12  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.10    3 months ago

Ummm... no

Not to be confused with the current   Democratic Party   or the   Republican Party   in the United States, both of which indirectly descend from this party.
"Democratic Republican" redirects here. For other uses, see   Democratic Republican (disambiguation) .

The   Democratic-Republican Party , better known at the time under various other names, [a]   was an   American political party   founded by   Thomas Jefferson   and   James Madison   in the early 1790s that championed   republicanism , political equality, and expansionism. The party became increasingly dominant after the   1800 elections   as the opposing   Federalist Party   collapsed. The Democratic-Republicans later splintered during the   1824 presidential election . One faction of the Democratic-Republicans eventually coalesced into the   modern Democratic Party , while the other faction ultimately formed the core of the   Whig Party .

The Democratic-Republican Party originated as a faction in Congress that opposed the centralizing policies of   Alexander Hamilton , who served as   Secretary of the Treasury   under President   George Washington . The Democratic-Republicans and the opposing   Federalist Party   each became more cohesive during Washington's second term, partly as a result of the debate over the   Jay Treaty . Though he was defeated by Federalist   John Adams   in the   1796 presidential election , Jefferson and his Democratic-Republican allies came into power following the   1800 elections . As president, Jefferson presided over a reduction in the national debt and government spending, and completed the   Louisiana Purchase   with   France .

It can be a bit confusing but, to put it simply, there have been two Republican parties in our long political history — a Republican Party headed by Thomas Jefferson and one led by Abraham Lincoln.

The party led by Jefferson, which emerged in 1792, is also called the Democratic-Republicans, a term historians tend to use in order to cut down on confusion. This party eventually became the modern Democratic Party of today, which is why, at least until recently, Democrats held annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners.

The modern Republican Party was born in 1854 in Wisconsin and it was this party that Lincoln, who was once a Whig, joined and eventually led. In fact, it’s still called the “Party of Lincoln.”

But even though both parties used the same name, they were miles apart in ideology and political principles, which is why Carl poses the question.

So what are the differences? First the Jeffersonians.

In my book “The Last Jeffersonian,” I defined Jefferson Republican principles by specific policies: limited government, federalism, economy and accountability, sound money, low taxes and tariffs, no national debt, strict construction of the Constitution, protection of civil liberties, and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Jefferson’s party was formed for the express purpose of opposing the big government agenda of Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist Party that was subverting the Constitution and imposing more government on the country with an array of new internal taxes, profligate spending, a national bank, assumption of state debt, a loose interpretation of the Constitution with like-minded judges to carry out the plan, the suppression of civil liberties with the Alien and Sedition Acts, and a foreign policy that seemed destined for war had it not been for Washington’s mighty hand.

In the election of 1800 voters across the country threw out the Federalists, after 12 years of uninterrupted rule, in favor of Jeffersonians in what was billed the “Revolution of 1800.” Jefferson won the White House and Republicans took control of both house of Congress.

In his inaugural address, on March 4, 1801, President Jefferson, in a complete reversal of Hamiltonianism, called for “a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”

As President, Jefferson did something extraordinary: He actually carried out his party’s platform.  He cut taxes, slashed spending, and repealed laws, like the Sedition Act. Government actually shrank under his leadership, and it remained very limited.

Jeffersonian conservatism governed the nation, for the most part, for the next six decades through it’s organ, the old Democratic Party of Jefferson and Jackson. Only the Lincoln Revolution of 1860, which brought back the policies of Hamilton, broke the hold and ended Jefferson’s dream of a great “empire of liberty.”

Lincoln’s Republicans were the opposite of Jefferson’s. Lincoln considered himself an “old Henry Clay tariff Whig,” strictly following the economic program of Hamilton and Clay, which consisted of high protective tariffs, direct taxes, federally-funded internal improvements, direct subsidies to big business, and a national banking system with fiat money. The party also supported a loose construction of the Constitution, activist judges, and, beginning in 1898, an interventionist foreign policy.

As President, Lincoln opposed secession (unlike Jefferson), trampled the Constitution, waged war without congressional consent, seized Northern telegraph offices, closed down hostile newspapers, appropriated money without authorization, used troops to intimidate Democrats during elections, illegally suspended habeas corpus, arrested and imprisoned 14,000 citizens without trial, seized control of the Maryland state legislature by arresting key members, banished a congressman to the Confederacy, waged war on civilians, and even contemplated arresting the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for opposing his actions.

In short, the Founder’s Republic – self-determination and constitutional government – ended under Lincoln and the “Yankee Leviathan” State was born.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.12    3 months ago

Did you read the entire link I gave you?

Or even the part I quoted from it?

Beriah Magoffin - Wikipedia

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
1.1.14  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    3 months ago
it really isn't a wonder that the grand old party is now known as merely the Democratic Party.

Factually incorrect by a mile.

The Southern Democrats prior to 1860 may have used the phrase before the Republican Party,

But they disappeared upon Lincoln's election.

The Republican Party adopted the "meme", title, slogan, whatever in 1888 and has owned it ever since.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.14    3 months ago
Factually incorrect by a mile.

Is is silly to argue history.

I made no claims about Southern Democrats--not that it makes any difference. A Democrat is a Democrat.

Maybe you should look at the link in post 1.1.13. 

Say, is a Democratic newspaper in New Haven, Connecticut, considered to be Southern Democratic?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.1.16  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.13    3 months ago

I read everything that people show me. Did you read what I posted. 

So big deal, one dude misnamed himself. Clearly, the Democratic-Republicans of Jefferson were not the Republicans of Lincoln. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.16    3 months ago
So big deal, one dude misnamed himself. Clearly, the Democratic-Republicans of Jefferson were not the Republicans of Lincoln. 

Who claimed they were?

What does that have to do with "grand old party" being used to describe the Democratic Party prior to it being used to describe the Republican Party?

 
 
 
JBB
PhD Principal
1.1.18  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.17    3 months ago

Because the once Grand Old Party of Lincoln is currently known merely as "the gop". Nobody calls the Democratic Party "the gop". Everyone today knows that the Republicans are the gop...

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
1.1.19  igknorantzrulz  replied to  JBB @1.1.18    3 months ago
Nobody calls the Democratic Party "the gop". Everyone today knows that the Republicans are the gop.

Yep, but Tex thinks it's no big deal. How many times have you heard the Democratic Party called the gop ? Cause i never have, but i love how they like to twist up the Dixiecrats while using Dixie cups as communication devices as well, or, haven't any herd of that mentality neither...?

 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
1.1.20  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.10    3 months ago

 Yes, but Connecticut is in the south, or something!

good research.  [removed]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.21  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @1.1.18    3 months ago

The gqp

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.1.22  pat wilson  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.19    3 months ago

Lol, I'm so glad you're back. Please don't make bets with assholes.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
1.1.23  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.15    3 months ago
I made no claims about Southern Democrats-

Sure you did, you found three or references to them before  they disappeared after 1860, congrats.

A Democrat is a Democrat.

Depends on the country and the century.

post 1.1.13. 

Deflection.

Say, is a Democratic newspaper in New Haven, Connecticut, considered to be Southern Democratic?

Not in this century, but I understand the silly semantic game. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.24  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.4    3 months ago
which is factual

GREAT! So you can provide a link to support your claim. 

Please proceed.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.25  Trout Giggles  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.19    3 months ago

Where have you been, Old Friend?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.24    3 months ago

Already provided the link, please DO try at least to keep up.

AT least before spouting off to me, anyways, I don't give a shit what you post to anyone else.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.27  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.26    3 months ago
Already provided the link, please DO try at least to keep up.

Well since it was utterly refuted, I thought you had something more. Guess not...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.27    3 months ago
Well since it was utterly refuted,

Actually, it was not, but you believe the bullshit if you choose to, I don't care.

I thought you had something more. Guess not.

When the basics can't be understood, I see no point in trying to convince others.

Waste of my time.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.29  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.23    3 months ago

I made ZERO claims about Southern Democrats. To claim otherwise is just flat out wrong and untrue.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
1.1.30  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.25    3 months ago
Where have you been, Old Friend

Making NEW enemies, cause i'm one who lost a bet, due to the Republicans, SO DAMN FAKE, cause if you caught Minority Speaker Mitch the witch way did TRUMP GO,cause ALL OF A SUDDEN, he NOW KNOWS, how Trump mislead his minions, and had to buy a boat, asz he found out Lying Witches don't actually FLOAT, when it comes to the Courts and the Constitution, and due to his Two Faces, he probably needs an institution, as his TRUTH  NOW FOUND RESOLUTION, all it took, was a little Revolution, hittin too close to home and the NEED to be on the RIGHT SIDE of History, as after he and so many, silent SO DAMN LONG, about Trumper's little tweets and dancing along to his tweeted LYING SONG, while tuggin on Putins' wong and Chi's Wang, so i hit the Bong and sat on Facebook, till bucked off, as eye see friends and their ship sinking, and due to too many too lazy for Thinkingm, while Living the Covid Dream, and since reigning today, it's a Covid Wet Dream, Weaver Chicken, little whole lotta BEER, N now, right back HERE DEER , to buck a system i'll steer awry, cause i got some built up & pent VENTS, i'll be heiring, cause to heir is human, but do forgive me is a new Line to cross like my eyes after tea, H, SEA???, cause gonna mangle and tangle my forwards in reverse tackle as eye bait and switch it up, till i get a Holy Mackerel, cause i shot him with a sling, shot back and around the scales of injustice i will be determining, cause whence i've got proper motivation, my limits have not a reachable destination , but i'll be reaching past present INTENSE, cause i'm Fine, of coarse, off course, and with out remorse about less off's i'll make more on and on, till i sing a long serenade, like a mutha fckn EXPLODING GRENADE, with a glass of Lemon 2 Aide,N 2 abett , cause my vents allow the reign, that will moisten  eyes, as i tear tears down cheeks with smears i'll not have to make up, Cause i Luv Me some Make Up Sex, built upon a crumbled foundation, till there is a very fine line between X 2 C, and Y, B 4 Z some C the panes, to see through, cause walk a mile on my sole, and i'll show someone A whole, lotta LOVE, can't ya just feel my pent up passion, n Luv, as it never in fashion, like my White Dove, as i'll get my peace  out

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
1.1.31  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.29    3 months ago

It's takes a special kind of dishonesty to make a  claim about southern democrats, see it get deservedly  rebutted and mocked, and then claim you  brought up the subject. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.32  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.31    3 months ago

I am just wondering where the hel anyone got it that I brought up Southern Democrats or even had mentioned them.

Also, why do Democrats make geographical differences for their Party members?

It seems weird to me.

I mean, it isn't like Northern Democrats ever shied away from the Southern Democrats---especially when it gave the Democratic Party control of Congress for decades.

Must be some type of weak-ass "defense" of the Democratic Party---"It was them, not us!"

LOL!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.23    3 months ago
Depends on the country and the century.

I choose to believe that the very VAST majority of people reading these posts understand what Democrats we are discussing. If they don't they should butt the hell out or ask someone which ones if they are so freaking confused about which Democrats are being discussed.

Unless one is being obtuse, of course.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
1.1.34  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.33    3 months ago

Obtuse is calling the modern Democratic party, the part of slavery, like you do over and over,

then getting all worked up over JBB's constant taunting about the GOP and trolling his seed.

Do you really think that  81 million people voted for slavery recently.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.35  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.34    3 months ago
then getting all worked up over JBB's constant taunting about the GOP and trolling his seed.

Gee, you almost make it sound like taunting is allowed here!

Do you really think that  81 million people voted for slavery recently.

Do you really think that I ever even suggested such nonsense?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
1.1.36  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.35    3 months ago

what's taunting...?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.38  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.36    3 months ago

ask the mod

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
1.1.39  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.38    3 months ago

JBB constantly makes it the first comment of his seed, addressed to no one, (that's not taunting directly for a violation)

but you always respond, you always claim it, proving the problem is yours, no one else's.

Congratulation's.

You are welcome.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
1.1.40  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    3 months ago

Lol really? Back on ignore, again, there is no point in even reading your comments. They are not even "funny" stupid, just depressing stupid. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.41  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.39    3 months ago

flag me or ticket me then.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.42  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.1.40    3 months ago

I'll do my best to not lose any sleep over what some anonymous person on the internet thinks of me.

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
1.1.43  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.21    3 months ago

goq

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.44  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.1.43    3 months ago

That's it!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.45  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.4    3 months ago
"not sure how that relates to my post. which is factual"

LOL!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.46  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.45    3 months ago

it is factual.

I take notice that you provided nothing to refute it 

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
1.1.47  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.45    3 months ago

all hat, no cattle.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.48  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.46    3 months ago

Can't refute what isn't there

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.49  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.48    3 months ago

you could have just stopped at "can't refute", that way your statement would be truthful

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.50  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.49    3 months ago

Can't refute what isn't there to be refuted

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.51  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.50    3 months ago

can't refute, got it

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.52  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.51    3 months ago

How does one refute what doesn't exist?

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.54  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.52    3 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.55  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.54    3 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.56  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.28    3 months ago

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.57  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.56    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2  Gordy327    3 months ago

Well, there's another unconstitutional (and just plain stupid) bill. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @2    3 months ago

So my question is....if the woman is forced to carry to term, does she have to get her rapist's permission to put the baby up for adoption? Or are they going to actually enforce child support payments for a change?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1    3 months ago

This is what blows me away about this law. From what I have read, all the 'petitioner' has to execute a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity that is not subject to being rescinded or challenged.

So hypothetically, some rich dude can claim to be the baby daddy and the woman CANNOT challenge his claim. Sure he is on the hook for child support BUT he can effectively control the lives and bodies of as many women as he can afford...

Ain't patriarchy grand!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dulay @2.1.1    3 months ago
Ain't patriarchy grand!

it sucks

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1    3 months ago
if the woman is forced to carry to term, does she have to get her rapist's permission to put the baby up for adoption?

I would assume so. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.3    3 months ago

And now we have Solomon's Dilemma. Force a woman to raise a child she never wanted or give it to its rapist father?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.4    3 months ago
And now we have Solomon's Dilemma. Force a woman to raise a child she never wanted or give it to its rapist father?

Hmph, some "choice."

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3  Texan1211    3 months ago

this bill will not pass.

y'all can stop clutching your pearls now.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
3.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @3    3 months ago

what, NO NECKLACE...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
3.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.1    3 months ago

Republicans showing off again...? Or how would you explain such a proposal ?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.2    3 months ago
Or how would you explain such a proposal ?

Irrational. Delusional. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.2    3 months ago

sorry, I don't explain every move a Republican makes. 

this is a stupid bill and will not pass.

o just refuse to get all riled up over it.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.4    3 months ago
sorry, I don't explain every move a Republican makes. 

No, but you try to spin them.

this is a stupid bill and will not pass.

You are most likely correct. 

But what does this bill say about the Republican who is trying to get it passed.  That is the question many people are looking at.  What kind of world is that particular Republican wanting with women subservient to men?

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
3.1.6  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.5    3 months ago
But what does this bill say about the Republican who is trying to get it passed.  That is the question many people are looking at.  What kind of world is that particular Republican wanting with women subservient to men?
  1. It says that he's an antiquated ass-clown without common sense. 
  2. An antiquated one in which the only "superior" being is a white middle-aged to older aged male.
 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.7  Ozzwald  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @3.1.6    3 months ago
It says that he's an antiquated ass-clown without common sense.

Total, absolute, agreement...

An antiquated one in which the only "superior" being is a white middle-aged to older aged male.

And we are 2 for 2.

giphy.gif

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @3.1.6    3 months ago
antiquated ass-clown

That's actually very funny but does ass-clownery ever go out of fashion?

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
3.1.9  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.8    3 months ago

I suppose for some, it doesn't. jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.5    3 months ago
You are most likely correct. 

Yes.

But what does this bill say about the Republican who is trying to get it passed.

It says plenty about HIM.

Not Republicans in general.

SO please just stow the "Republican war on women" bullshit.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.11  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.10    3 months ago
It says plenty about HIM.

Not Republicans in general.

SO please just stow the "Republican war on women" bullshit.

You're saying that no other Republican has tried to take away a woman's rights?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.11    3 months ago

is THAT what YOU read?

show me where!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.13  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.12    3 months ago

show me where!

Didn't you just write, "It says plenty about HIM. Not Republicans in general."?  I merely pointed out that he is simply 1 among many Republicans attempting to remove women's rights.

Unless you would like to claim that no other Republicans are doing that.  At which time I would provide multiple links showing you wrong.....again.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.13    3 months ago

I can't help you understand what I wrote.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.15  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.14    3 months ago
I can't help you understand what I wrote.

so, absolutely nothing to prove your claim that I was being hypocritical.

I figured as much when I read it.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
4  igknorantzrulz    3 months ago

iF yOu mean nonsense, i'll have ya NO, i'll insert mine where ever change isn't accepted

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4    3 months ago

oh, fee. how wonderful

 
 
 
MrFrost
PhD Principal
5  MrFrost    3 months ago

The republican war on women marches on.. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @5    3 months ago

ffs, this bull will not pass.

y'all can calm down.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1    3 months ago
ffs, this bull will not pass.

He has lost the battle, but the war on women continues.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @5.1.1    3 months ago
but the war on women continues.

I suppose in some deluded minds that it will always exist.

Not one thing to do with reality.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.2    3 months ago
Not one thing to do with reality.

So now you are denying the reality of even this article??

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @5.1.3    3 months ago

please read what I actually wrote. it appears you are very confused about what I write!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.4    3 months ago
please read what I actually wrote. it appears you are very confused about what I write!

You wrote, "Not one thing to do with reality."

Do you deny writing that?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @5.1.5    3 months ago

nope. I wrote it, if you have any doubts, simply look at my name appearing on the post.

there is no war on women.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.6    3 months ago
"there is no war on women"

Not on the Democrat/liberal/progressive side - that is correct.  

The so called 'conservatives'/republicans are a whole 'nother story!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
6  igknorantzrulz    3 months ago

and it's still a week away...but it's been Marching on and over women from the beginning and won't end

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6    3 months ago

the myth of a GOP war on women is nothing more than exactly that.

a MYTH.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
6.1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1    3 months ago

You apparently mythed the point 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1.1    3 months ago

While apparently you never had one.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
6.1.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.2    3 months ago

yea, and what's your point...?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
7  Paula Bartholomew    3 months ago

I am betting that if any one of those old farts would get their side nooky pregnant, there is no way they would say no to an AB.  In fact, they would demand it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1  Texan1211  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @7    3 months ago

no need for such pearl clutching. the bill will go nowhere

 
 
 
JBB
PhD Principal
7.1.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1    3 months ago

You have no way of knowing that...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @7.1.1    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
7.1.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.2    3 months ago

the fact that it has even been brought up for DISCUSSION, is the point, some aren't sharp enough to point out, but, i guess i'm a dull person, yet not yet a Dolt, ever had your nuts stripped, off your bolt ? cause castration legal in this nation would be fine with me, cause i'm not really into RAPISTS being able to decide for a woman, ANYTHING, but, that is just silly ole Me, and this clown, who happens to Represent WHO AGAIN ? Republicans, and his Republican Constituency that voted him into office, no ? If someone else, please do tell, or drop it, cause it does show, if you mean what i know, no ...? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @7.1.3    3 months ago
the fact that it has even been brought up for DISCUSSION, is the point, some aren't sharp enough to point out, but, i guess i'm a dull person, yet not yet a Dolt, ever had your nuts stripped, off your bolt ?

If that's what you think of yourself, so be it.

Let me see if I can make it PLAIN ENOUGH FOR EVERY SINGLE PERSON HERE:

THIS IS A STUPID PROPOSAL BY AN IGNORANT PERSON. IT WILL NOT PASS.

NOW, IF THAT ISN'T CLEAR ENOUGH TO SOME FINE FOLKS, NOTHING EVER WILL BE.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
8  Bob Nelson    3 months ago

They're mentally and morally diseased.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @8    3 months ago

sounds like just one guy proposed this.

who is "they"?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1    3 months ago
who is "they"?

American fascists, including those on NT.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @8.1.1    3 months ago

LMAO!

That's a good one!

In another week or so, the word "fascist" will carry all the weight of "racist" or "xenophobe"---misused and so overused as to be virtually worthless.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
8.1.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.2    3 months ago
the word "fascist" will carry all the weight of "racist" or "xenophobe"

You're learning.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @8.1.3    3 months ago

What I have learned is that those words lose lots of their sting and meaning when they are bandied about by ignorant people who use them FAR too often and who often misuse them.

I liken it to the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" way too many times.

Comes a time after lying that the words won't matter because no one will believe them.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
8.1.5  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.4    3 months ago
I liken it...

You're wrong.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @8.1.5    3 months ago

LOL!

Over used and misused.

And totally false in most cases.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
8.1.7  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.6    3 months ago

Once again you don't like the shoe even though it fits like a glove.  Kind of like the boy who cries wolf when referring to "fake News".  Comes a time after lying that the facts will come out and bite you.

There has been, and there is an ongoing war on women from religious and conservative quarters that formerly resided in the GOP and have now taken up residence in the party of Trump.  You saying otherwise points to ignorance in the matter or outright support for it. In either case, you are part of the problem.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
8.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Bob Nelson @8    3 months ago
They're mentally and morally diseased.

What more could you want out of a party...?

 
 
 
bbl-1
PhD Quiet
9  bbl-1    3 months ago

The christian hold on the GOP makes it plainer everyday that their yearning to inflict power over women derives from the power the Islamic Theocracies possess over half of their populations.

I fail to understand how any reasonable, thoughtful woman would align themselves with the GOP.  I make this statement with full knowledge of knowing that not all women are reasonable or thoughtful.  Such as Rep. Boebert and others, to clarify my point.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.1  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @9    3 months ago

this bill is going nowhere.

rest easy

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1    3 months ago
this bill is going nowhere. rest easy

Actually, it's passed onto the docket without objection TWICE and been referred to the Judiciary Committee. 

BTW, based on your standard, all the whining here about the early Impeachment articles against Trump in the US House was mere overreaction since they were 'going nowhere' too. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
9.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Dulay @9.1.1    3 months ago
Actually, it's passed onto the docket without objection TWICE and been referred to the Judiciary Committee. 

A bill like that should not have even been proposed in the first place.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.2    3 months ago

Pody has filed multiple anti-abortion bills this year. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
9.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  Dulay @9.1.3    3 months ago
Pody has filed multiple anti-abortion bills this year. 

Sounds like he's trying to appeal to somebody or some group.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.4    3 months ago

Yes the "I have a dick and I want to control everyone who doesn't" group...

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
9.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  Dulay @9.1.5    3 months ago
Yes the "I have a dick and I want to control everyone who doesn't" group..

Or maybe the "I have a small dick so I'm trying to compensate through politics."

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @9.1.1    3 months ago
Actually, it's passed onto the docket without objection TWICE and been referred to the Judiciary Committee. 

Let me know when it passes and becomes law. Otherwise, a waste of time.

BTW, based on your standard, all the whining here about the early Impeachment articles against Trump in the US House was mere overreaction since they were 'going nowhere' too. 

Quote me then instead of mouthing off about what I posted on another article.

In other words--prove your damn crap!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.8  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.7    3 months ago
Quote me then instead of mouthing off about what I posted on another article.

Where did I say anything about what you posted in another article Tex? 

In other words--prove your damn crap!

Not my crap, yours Tex. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @9.1.8    3 months ago

yawn.

Go bother someone who gives a fuck.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.9    3 months ago
yawn. Go bother someone who gives a fuck.

Yes Tex, 'we' all know that question that you don't want to answer quickly cause you to loose interest. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @9.1.10    3 months ago

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
10  Tacos!    3 months ago

It's unconstitutional on its face in multiple ways.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Participates
11  lady in black    3 months ago

The republican war on women marches on in the year 2021.  Only if these 2 subhuman men and all men who "order" women not to have an abortion agree to be castrated

 
 
 
zuksam
Sophomore Silent
12  zuksam    3 months ago

I don't know how a exemption for rape would work, it would have to be an exemption under the claim of rape because there's no way our legal system could try and convict a rapist in under 20 weeks. I think this whole thing is stupid attempt to cause trouble while framing it as making things fair for men, I don't think it will work. Since they're not likely to ever be able to stop women from having abortions they should make it at least partially fair for men by allowing a man to abort his responsibility for the child. Since abortion rights give women a "get out of jail free card" it's only right to provide men the same option even if it's by a different method, why should a woman's freedom of choice infringe on a man's freedom of choice. If a woman has the right to terminate her parental responsibilities so should the man, why should a woman's right to choose include the ability to enslave a man for 18 years. What about Men's freedom of choice, Our bodies our choice, nobody should be forced to labor against their will to pay for someone else's freedom of choice.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
12.1  Gordy327  replied to  zuksam @12    3 months ago
they should make it at least partially fair for men by allowing a man to abort his responsibility for the child. Since abortion rights give women a "get out of jail free card" it's only right to provide men the same option even if it's by a different method, why should a woman's freedom of choice infringe on a man's freedom of choice.

When the man gets pregnant, the he will have a choice. But you conflate child bearing to child rearing. Those are two separate issues with their own laws regarding parental responsibility.

What about Men's freedom of choice, Our bodies our choice,

Is the man the one getting pregnant?

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
12.1.1  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Gordy327 @12.1    3 months ago

While I completely agree with your statement, I have also seen [many times] women manipulate the system to get a LOT of money from the "father" and that money often never ends up going to the child's well-being, welfare, and daily care of said child. 

When my ex and I divorced, I made it a point to keep Friend of the Court out of our child-rearing responsibilities. My lawyer was going for the jugular and I refused to sign the paperwork until he fixed it. If I'd have signed it blind, my ex would've been broke and unable to be a productive and loving father. Any time money was needed for our daughter, he paid at least half. I've never asked him for money, but he's offered it in many instances. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @12.1.1    3 months ago

"While I completely agree with your statement, I have also seen [many times] women manipulate the system to get a LOT of money from the "father" and that money often never ends up going to the child's well-being, welfare, and daily care of said child."

That's your experience.  Not everyone/anyone else's, I guess you could say anecdotal?  

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
12.1.3  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Tessylo @12.1.2    3 months ago
Not everyone/anyone else's, I guess you could say anecdotal?

So, you're asking me if no one else has ever seen this occur? I can't reply with an answer regarding others; therefore, yes it's anecdotal. Yet, relevant to the conversation. You seem to be making an assumption that I believe this bill is somehow a good thing; I do not. It's awful.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @12.1.3    3 months ago

I'm not making that assumption.  You are.  

I'm just saying that your experiences, while maybe valid, doesn't really matter, in regards to manipulating the system.  If that's what those women have done, it's on them.  

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
12.1.5  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Tessylo @12.1.4    3 months ago

That's why I used the phrase "you seem to be"... that's not making an assumption on my part. You rectified the "seem" part with, "I'm not making that assumption." However, in no way am I making an assumption. I pointed out mere appearances.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @12.1.5    3 months ago

Okey dokey - I've had my say and am moving on now

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
12.1.7  Dulay  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @12.1.1    3 months ago

I have seen [many times] where men manipulate the system and avoid paying child support by moving from job to job so that the court can't catch up with them and garnish their wages. They fail to support their kids most of the year but may swoop in on birthdays or Christmas with presents and act like a dad for a day. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
12.1.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @12.1.1    3 months ago

I'm glad you and your ex found a workable solution and he sounds like a good man.

My husband's ex took him for a ride. She got everything in the divorce including their daughter and he got left paying all the bills. Then the slut moved to California far enough away he really didn't have any kind of visitation (we lived in Texas then Arkansas). She used the child support for riding lessons for all her girls instead of putting some away for a college fund. She did a good job of raising her, mostly, but his daughter turned out to be a materialistic brat just like her mother.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
12.1.9  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Dulay @12.1.7    3 months ago

Oh I agree. I've seen that too.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
12.1.10  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Trout Giggles @12.1.8    3 months ago
I'm glad you and your ex found a workable solution and he sounds like a good man.

When it comes to things for our daughter, yes. Otherwise... not so much. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
12.1.11  Trout Giggles  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @12.1.10    3 months ago

Good father, then? ;)

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
12.1.12  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Trout Giggles @12.1.11    3 months ago

For the most part.

He's good at making our daughter, now that she's 17, feel guilty for all sorts of random things. She has met or exceeded his expectations for school, but he can't manage to tell her that he's proud of her. She needed my help with a paper for one of her classes [I'm good at writing, her father, not so much] and it just so happened to be due the week of his birthday. She asked if she could just spend the evening with him for his birthday, but stay with me for the surrounding week because she needed my help. Rather than being an adult and saying, "Sure. I understand," he pouted like a 5 year old, making her feel guilty for asking, and refuses to speak to her now. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
12.1.13  Trout Giggles  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @12.1.12    3 months ago

I'm sorry he acted like that to your daughter

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
12.1.14  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Trout Giggles @12.1.13    3 months ago

Me too. I never once said anything bad about her dad to her. Never spoke ill of him in front of her. She learned what kind of guy he can be as she got older. I've pointed his short-comings out to him regarding how he speaks to our daughter and never recognizes her accomplishments. I even pointed out to him that if he never recognizes her achievements, then why should she bust her butt just to please him? I'm just grateful that his wife is a mature, kind, and understanding woman. She's a lot younger, but she's very smart. Although, she's never had kids of her own, she's always treated my daughter like she's her own. I had to remind my daughter that her "bonus mom" was thrown an ornery, hormonal, teenage Gemini and that she needed to be patient and explain things to her sometimes. My daughter's stepmom is often her advocate in my ex's house.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
12.1.15  Trout Giggles  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @12.1.14    3 months ago

That's good that she got a Bonus Mom. I tried to do right by my step daughter but she slapped my husband's hand away and I had to do the same to her.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
12.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  zuksam @12    3 months ago

I'm sure you'll mansplain it.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Participates
12.3  lady in black  replied to  zuksam @12    3 months ago

When men can get pregnant then they can have a say. 

 
 
 
zuksam
Sophomore Silent
12.3.1  zuksam  replied to  lady in black @12.3    3 months ago

If the choice belongs solely to the Woman then Women can be financially responsible for that choice.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.3.2  Tessylo  replied to  zuksam @12.3.1    3 months ago

Who says the Woman isn't responsible for that choice?

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
12.3.3  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Tessylo @12.3.2    3 months ago

Friend of the Court.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.3.4  Tessylo  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @12.3.3    3 months ago

What?

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
12.3.5  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Tessylo @12.3.4    3 months ago

If you've ever dealt with child support or any situation involving financial child support or custody agreement, you'd understand.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.3.6  Tessylo  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @12.3.5    3 months ago

So that explains everything then?

Okey dokey.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
12.3.7  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Tessylo @12.3.6    3 months ago

It actually does.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.3.8  Tessylo  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @12.3.7    3 months ago

To you I suppose

 
 
 
bbl-1
PhD Quiet
12.3.9  bbl-1  replied to  zuksam @12.3.1    3 months ago

Unfortunately and in too many cases the taxpayers become the responsible party.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
12.3.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  zuksam @12.3.1    3 months ago

Most of the time that's exactly what happens. Baby Daddy flies the coop and leaves Mother Hen with all the bills and headaches

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.4  Tessylo  replied to  zuksam @12    3 months ago

The man has absolutely no say in this matter.  NONE.  ZIP.  ZERO.  ZILCH.  NADA.  DIDDLY SQUAT.

 
 
 
zuksam
Sophomore Silent
12.4.1  zuksam  replied to  Tessylo @12.4    3 months ago

If Men have no Say they shouldn't have to Pay!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.4.2  Tessylo  replied to  zuksam @12.4.1    3 months ago

Pay what?

 
 
 
zuksam
Sophomore Silent
12.4.3  zuksam  replied to  Tessylo @12.4.2    3 months ago

So you've made all these comments and you don't even have a clue what I'm talking about ?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.4.4  Tessylo  replied to  zuksam @12.4.3    3 months ago

You're the one who appears 'to not have a clue what you're talking about'

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
12.4.5  Bob Nelson  replied to  zuksam @12.4.3    3 months ago
So you've made all these comments and you don't even have a clue what I'm talking about ?

You must ask your Daddy to explain where babies come from.

When a man impregnates a woman, he takes full and permanent responsibility for the eventual consequences. Morally, that is. Legally, men kinda do whatever they like...

 
 
 
zuksam
Sophomore Silent
12.4.6  zuksam  replied to  Bob Nelson @12.4.5    3 months ago
full and permanent responsibility for the eventual consequences.

But not the Woman. Why ! Is it any less her fault was she not involved ? In America we are supposed to support Equality. So if the Woman can get out of her "full and permanent responsibility" the Man should have the same option. We're talking about Legally here, you wouldn't want to bring Morality into a discussion about Abortion. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.4.7  Tessylo  replied to  zuksam @12.4.6    3 months ago

There is nothing immoral about abortion.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
12.4.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  zuksam @12.4.1    3 months ago

they usually don't. If they were any kind of a man, they would have wrapped that wiener at least 3 times to avoid the problem

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
12.4.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  zuksam @12.4.6    3 months ago

Wait! So because a woman chooses to have sex with a man, if she gets pregnant she is on her own. Is that what I'm getting from you? Yes, she does the ultimate choice, but if men want to play they have to pay. Women don't get pregnant on their own...well maybe if they choose AI...but the point is it takes two to dance the mattress mambo, does it not?

I offered this solution earlier but nobody liked it so I will trot it out again.

Women...stop having sex with men. If you don't have sex with them, you can't get pregnant. If you can't get pregnant, you can avoid all this nonsense Zuk is suggesting.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
12.4.10  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Trout Giggles @12.4.9    3 months ago

Women...stop having sex with men. If you don't have sex with them, you can't get pregnant. If you can't get pregnant, you can avoid all this nonsense Zuk is suggesting.

Agreed.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
12.4.11  Trout Giggles  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @12.4.10    3 months ago

Glad someone likes it

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
12.4.12  Bob Nelson  replied to  zuksam @12.4.6    3 months ago

I don't think anyone said the woman is not equally responsible.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
12.4.13  Gordy327  replied to  zuksam @12.4.1    3 months ago
If Men have no Say they shouldn't have to Pay!

When men get pregnant, they'll have a say.

In America we are supposed to support Equality. So if the Woman can get out of her "full and permanent responsibility" the Man should have the same option.

There's nothing equal about a pregnancy.

We're talking about Legally here, you wouldn't want to bring Morality into a discussion about Abortion. 

Legally, the woman is the one having to endure a pregnancy, so she has full legal say and autonomy. After birth, both parties have legal responsibilities. 

 
 
 
zuksam
Sophomore Silent
13  zuksam    3 months ago

The best solution for protecting the fathers right to have his baby if he wants it would be to remove the fetus and either put it in a artificial womb or implant it in a surrogate. That way the woman can terminate her pregnancy without killing the child against the fathers wishes. Maybe we should be working on these technologies so that men's rights can also be preserved.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
13.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  zuksam @13    3 months ago

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
13.2  Gordy327  replied to  zuksam @13    3 months ago
The best solution for protecting the fathers right to have his baby

The father has no such right, as it doesn't exist. There is no way to provide such a right without infringing on the rights of the woman. If the father wants a baby and the woman agrees, no problem. But if the woman wants an abortion, the father is out of luck. Removing a fetus and keeping it viable long enough to gestate in an artificial womb is some sci-fi level stuff, but nowhere near medical technological reality. A similar issue arises with surrogacy, not to mention the legalities involved. 

 
 
 
zuksam
Sophomore Silent
13.2.1  zuksam  replied to  Gordy327 @13.2    3 months ago
There is no way to provide such a right without infringing on the rights of the woman.

It's being removed either way so it's really about her right to kill the unwanted Baby.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  zuksam @13.2.1    3 months ago

There is no 'killing' involved.  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
13.2.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tessylo @13.2.2    3 months ago
There is no 'killing' involved.  

...and there's no baby involved.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
13.2.4  Gordy327  replied to  zuksam @13.2.1    3 months ago
It's being removed either way so it's really about her right to kill the unwanted Baby.

A woman has a right to an abortion if she chooses. That's long been established (despite opposition). She is also not required to obtain permission from any other party. That too has been legally established. And there's no baby in an abortion. Regardless, my initial statement is factually correct and stands!

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
13.2.5  Thrawn 31  replied to  zuksam @13.2.1    3 months ago

So you are suggesting that the should have to birth and raise her rapists baby? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.3  Tessylo  replied to  zuksam @13    3 months ago

That's just crazy. . . . to say the least . . . . . 

 
 
 
charger 383
PhD Quiet
13.4  charger 383  replied to  zuksam @13    3 months ago
"Maybe we should be working on these technologies "
An Axolotl Tank from the Dune books? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.5  Tessylo  replied to  zuksam @13    3 months ago

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Participates
14  evilgenius    3 months ago

How about any man that wants "pre-natal" rights just keep their wang in their pants? Men should not get rights over a woman because they have worse impulse control than humping dogs. As for father's - if they can't raise their children with enough common sense to wait until they reach adulthood for such activity, perhaps their parental rights should be examined?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
15  Tessylo    3 months ago

81294279_2455338604782502_8798759943495745536_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=xzhlHpT3HZ4AX8gMbb2&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=c5ff8ec657aaf785bb5fe2a3de1087f4&oe=6059E27C

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
15.1  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @15    3 months ago

That pretty much sums it up. Peoples thinking on certain subjects seem to be 1 extreme or the other, with nothing considered in the middle. You provide perfect examples of that.

 
 
 
Freewill
Sophomore Participates
15.2  Freewill  replied to  Tessylo @15    3 months ago

And conversely, you can be passionately "pro-life" and not be "anti-choice".  You can be for sensible border control and enforcement of existing federal immigration law without wanting to see "toddlers ripped from their parents and being put in cages" (regardless of what presidential administration it happens under).  And we can be for common sense gun laws while recognizing that the NRA is also in the business of gun safety and proper training rather than an all out enemy in a binary war with the 2nd Amendment in the balance. 

We are experiencing an epidemic of myopic, partisan ignorance and we as a civilization and country are suffering because of it.

Very true, but the myopia, the partisan exaggeration, straw-manning and the hyperbole go both ways and cause the country to suffer because neither side wants to look for common ground.  Before we can work together we need to quit looking at each other as opposite ends of a political spectrum and instead look at each other as members of the same team with different viewpoints and ideas to bring to a table of compromise and quest for reasonable solutions.  A bit of introspection prior to demonizing others is a good place to start. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
15.2.1  Gordy327  replied to  Freewill @15.2    3 months ago
And conversely, you can be passionately "pro-life" and not be "anti-choice".

It sometimes seems as if that is increasingly more of a rarity.

 
 
 
Freewill
Sophomore Participates
15.2.2  Freewill  replied to  Gordy327 @15.2.1    3 months ago
It sometimes seems as if that is increasingly more of a rarity

Why do you feel that it "seems" that way Gordy? There may be some pro-lifers who think that force should be used to enforce their beliefs, but many like me do not.  The motto "choose life" itself clearly indicates that many feel the choice should not be removed, but yet they wish to offer an honest and rational opinion as to why life might be, or can be, the best choice. 

I suppose I should have added to that sentence and said that one can be passionately "pro-life" and not be "anti-choice", or a hater of women, both of which I've been called for simply expressing my well supported opinions on the science of embryology and making a non-religious "pro-life" case in support of the motto "choose life". 

As Tessylo's meme indicates, few are "pro-abortion", so let's work together to try and minimize the number of times that horrible choice must be made.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
15.2.3  Gordy327  replied to  Freewill @15.2.2    3 months ago
Why do you feel that it "seems" that way Gordy?

Because of all the discussions of abortion rights over the years, I've encountered very few who hold a pro-life and pro-choice position. Many pro-lifers want to restrict choice to various degrees or outright prohibit it. There is the occasion where I encounter someone who understands that abortion is not for them (they take a pro-life stance) while acknowledging they cannot make that determination for anyone else and recognize the need to keep abortion legal and let others make their own choices. But such instances are far and few in between.

There may be some pro-lifers who think that force should be used to enforce their beliefs

Yes there are. We see this with certain bills or legislation passed in some states.

The motto "choose life" itself clearly indicates that many feel the choice should not be removed,

I see that more as an emotional appeal to sway people to make a specific choice. How many would actually support choice being removed if it came to that though?

but yet they wish to offer an honest and rational opinion as to why life might be, or can be, the best choice.

That is always an option for a pregnant woman. But that is not for them to decide for anyone else. I've yet to see a rational opinion on it either.

I suppose I should have added to that sentence and said that one can be passionately "pro-life" and not be "anti-choice", or a hater of women,

Yes, it is possible. 

both of which I've been called

Which is not right.

As Tessylo's meme indicates, few are "pro-abortion", so let's work together to try and minimize the number of times that horrible choice must be made.

I don't know anyone who's "pro-abortion," nor do I see anyone advocating women getting abortions. "Pro-abortion" is just a disingenuous term and an attempt to shame those who support abortion rights, especially when some equate "pro-abortion" with pro-choice, as they are distinctly different.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Principal
16  Hal A. Lujah    3 months ago

Tennessee women should be able to file murder charges against male masturbators too.  Each Kleenex is like it’s own genocide.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Dulay
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom


47 visitors