SCOTUS Strikes Down Texas Abortion Ban

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: pheonix358

originally posted by: Annee

SCOTUS

Abortion isn't anyone else's business, except the one making that decision and her doctor.

You never seem to even consider, just for a split second, the right of the Father!

Not even a millisecond!

P

As I've stated before.

For eons women took full brunt of the blame and consequences for unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. Plus, any defects, wrong gender, and everything else that goes along with procreation, including not being able to get pregnant. The only thing man was responsible for was the sperm.

Women were told "It's your fault for picking the wrong man" - - - "Now, get out of my house, you've disgraced the family".

Today, if a woman doesn't consider the sperm donor - - - - it's his fault for not picking the right woman. In the majority of cases, the sperm donor still does not want to take responsibility. A small minority will.

There are single dads today, who did pick the right woman. Women that carried the fetus to term, then handed it over to the dad who wanted it.

Make your choices wisely.

So it is a woman right not to take responsibility for her actions and abort the baby, BUT if she does decide to keep it the father MUST pay? If we where going to be fair about this the father should be involve at the beginning also. Ask him if he is willing to pay for the baby and that choice should be binding.

I vote for male abortions also. He get the right to deny paying for the baby during the same period that she get the rights to abort the baby. Once that period is over both live with their choices.


(Personally I would hope both would choose to keep it and help raise it in some manner but...)

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: thesaneone

Funny thing about life, it rarely goes as planned.

Ain't that the truth.

Don't accidentally get pregnant in the middle of a divorce because you threw up your birth control pill out of stress.

Umm or you could just not have sex with each other if you are in the middle of a divorce.

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: dawnstar

ya know, in order for people to be responsible, they have to be given the means to being responsible.

Not spreading your legs is not that hard to do.

Hows abstinence only education working out in those states that practice it?

I don't know how many kids follow the practice, BUT I can guarantee the results are 100% effective,

This practice is GUARANTEED to be 100% effective in birth control.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: thesaneone

and could conceivably lead to a broken marriage!!!

okay, I had enough kids, dear, don't want no more. I'd say we have about 20 years of abstinence before menopause occurs add a few more just for safety sake... hope you don't mind!!!

But you do have to admit it is 100% effective in avoiding an abortion.

a reply to: dismanrc

how about we say 99.9999999% effective, just so we don't make the christians out to be liars.

that doesn't change the fact that there's quite a few people, along with a few states that claim it would be grounds for divorce.

originally posted by: dismanrc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: thesaneone

Funny thing about life, it rarely goes as planned.

Ain't that the truth.

Don't accidentally get pregnant in the middle of a divorce because you threw up your birth control pill out of stress.

Umm or you could just not have sex with each other if you are in the middle of a divorce.

Ever been through a divorce?

High school sweetheart. Only man I'd ever been with. Treated me like a princess (except it was really his need).

Some men aren't meant to share, I guess. He didn't/couldn't share me - - - with his own kids. The kids were beginning to show psychological effects.

originally posted by: dismanrc
I don't know how many kids follow the practice, BUT I can guarantee the results are 100% effective,

This practice is GUARANTEED to be 100% effective in birth control.

And not shooting people is a 100% effective way to end gun violence.

Ah Texit. That will be a poo storm of Great proportions.

Also nice to see you around again. Loved the Co$ posts a reply to: bknapple32

Whenever I hear people being anti abortion, I add them to a running list I have incase I birth an unwanted child so I can drop it off on their doorstep.

My partner and I practice safe sex, but accidents do happen and we'd rather use our basement as something more functional than a holding pen.
a reply to: carewemust

Many. And there's a very small percentage of those who actually regret an abortion link

a reply to: carewemust

How about if you are such a good virtuous human, you take in a neglected child and give it all the love and care that it needs instead of pandering to a clump of cells (most abortions happen before 20 weeks and nothing vaguely human or sentient about it)?

a reply to: pheonix358

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: dismanrc
I don't know how many kids follow the practice, BUT I can guarantee the results are 100% effective,

This practice is GUARANTEED to be 100% effective in birth control.

And not shooting people is a 100% effective way to end gun violence.

That's true.

But look at the news; those evil black AR15 just keep going out and shooting people on their own.

a reply to: Annee

So you had to have sex with him?

Don't see the connection.

If you want o divorce someone and leave them -- then leave them.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: dismanrc

how about we say 99.9999999% effective, just so we don't make the christians out to be liars.

that doesn't change the fact that there's quite a few people, along with a few states that claim it would be grounds for divorce.

I think if your thinking about divorce..sex is not the only issue.

a reply to: dismanrc

I started a thread on here once about it. many it seems feel that sex is an important part of marriage, some to the point that of if you don't want sex, why be married...

we have enough single parent homes in this country as it is. not to mention the financial hit that divorce causes to families that are just scrapping by working together who now have to maintain two households instead of one.
It might be wise advice to give to children and young women AND MEN before marriage, not so much for married men and women who are trying to preserve peace and tranquility in their households.

abstinence only sex education falls short of preparing a child for adulthood, and I thought that was education was supposed to do. why have sex education at all if all if you are going to avoid any knowledge that would be useful in their adult years.

a reply to: dawnstar

Never sadi there was anything wrong with sex. It is just not that important to be the bases to build permanent relationship on. THAT is what we need to be teaching kids. Add the idea of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and you have the bases for teaching kids (and adults). We would have as many single parent families if they thought about theses things first instead of just thinking of pleasure. And before anybody brings it up, no religion has no bering in MY thought. (Yours may very.) I'm just thinking common sence.

We spend WAY to much time thinking about sex, looks and money when we marry. Ask yourself if you would stil want to be with them if you couldn't have sex, your broke and tired and dirty. If you can still say you would want to be next to them then you have found the right person.

And if you have any/all of the other three things then count your blessings.

a reply to: dismanrc

unfortunately many people just don't think like this. many marry when young, they might not want children right after marriage, but most want a child or two sometime in their lifetime, when the time is right. and most young people, although they should, don't really think that far into the future. they don't discuss how they will respond when one or the other decides they have enough children and sterilization is an expensive option! there's a good chance they wont value sex with a similar amount of value.
so, which do you think is less harmful to society? a few "potential lives" ending prematurely, or a few marriages ending and leading to more broken families? it would seem to me that one would lead to more stable families that have a better chance of living happy, more financially secure lives. while the other would lead to more broken families living in poverty, placing an excessive amount of strain on society who more often than not doesn't want the burden and blames the poor for all the world's ills?

we don't live in a perfect world, people aren't perfect. they make mistakes, and society makes mistakes when they try to force people to act as if this world is perfect.

now the truth comes out... the law didn't protect the health of women, it placed them at more risk!

Texas passed its 2013 omnibus abortion bill in the name of protecting women's health — a rationale roundly rejected by the Supreme Court last month. Now, newly released data shows the law may have actually had the opposite effect, putting women at greater risk by increasing the number of later abortions.

A preliminary review of statistics released by the Department of State Health Services in Texas shows that even as the total number of abortions dropped in 2014, the first full year the law was in effect, there was a 27 percent increase in abortions after 12 weeks, from 4,814 procedures in 2013 to 6,117 in 2014.

"Although second-trimester abortion is very safe, it is associated with a higher risk of complications compared to early abortion, and it's more expensive for women," said University of California San Francisco professor Daniel Grossman, who shared his analysis exclusively with NBC News. Grossman's research, part of the Texas Policy Evaluation Project (TxPEP), was repeatedly cited by the court's majority in proclaiming two parts of Texas' abortion law an unconstitutional "undue burden" on women.

www.nbcnews.com...

a reply to: dawnstar

Comes from letting "a village" raise your kids instead of having parents raise their kids.

Comes from forcing "diversity". "multiculturalism" and the whole list of liberal teaching on your kids instead of teaching them to think and reason for themselves. Stop using TV and electronics as babysitters.

Basically it is the breakdown of the family unit that has caused the majority of the issues.

I may not be the perfect parent, but I do try to place my family into my wife. Even now I'm looking at a new job and on my search schools and locality are taking as much input as job and money. I'm tring to balance them. If more people would do that instead of focusing on money we would be far better off.

a reply to: dismanrc

no it comes from people putting more importance on their desires than they do on their partners and children's needs!
and it comes from the fact that we are still transitioning from a culture that placed the man's desires and decisions above those of the women's while telling women that they were wrong for not accepting it.

and it comes from a gov't and business sector who has allowed the economy to get so far out of control that way too many families just cant find a way to support the needs of those families....
which I am sorry, but both the liberals and the conservatives have played a part in that one!!!

but it's what we have to deal with.
so which do you think is better, families falling apart because one partner seems to think a marriage license grants them sex on demand, or that women might sometimes find that their birth control has fallen through and all they can see how going through a pregnancy will cause the family extreme hardships and therefore ends the pregnancy?

men who think that they should have control of the finances, that think that sex when wanted should be delivered, that places their desire for boats, or new trucks or whatever above the needs of their wife and family.... this is wrong is it now?

politicians, on both sides of the aisle, that come up with these welfare programs that increase the taxes on the family, inflates the cost of needs of that family, and then purposely ignores the fact that they are leaving a large portion of the population out in the cold, paying for needs they can't full fill for their own families...... this is wrong also but it's oh so good for businesses who now have customers who wouldn't be their customers if they had to rely solely on their incomes and workers who don't give a crap weather or not they are paid enough to pay the rent and grocery bill for the month matter of fact the last thing they want is a raise, because then they will be in that too rich to get help but too poor to live group.

somewhere in that bible that so many seem to think our laws should be designed accordance jesus say something to the effect that there will be sin, but woa to the ones that causeth the sin!!!

telling people who are pinching every penny and still coming up short every month not to focus on money just doesn't do the trick. telling people that they need to learn responsibility when their jobs being given to others who are willing to take lower pay because the gov't sees them as more worthy to life than you isn't doing squat!