Abortion

Sparky Rhiwabon said:
Obviously abortion shouldn’t be banned but here’s another angle on it - I see lots of people saying things like “it should be the woman's choice, no one else’s“. But, what about the poor dad-to-be? Don’t they get a choice either way?
Click to expand...
Nah.
 
Blackwidow said:
Why should he have? Does he carry the baby - is it his body?
Life just tells you that at the end in most of the cases the poor dad-to-be can be out of it (often without paying child support) and the mom-to-be has all the disadvantages in job, money, life.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t the dad normally have to pay child support if they’re not together? Or do you not agree that they should?
 
Strootman's Finger said:
I didn't write it, it's a popular idiom, one that was generally accepted up until the line was drawn in the sand and everyone had to chose a side. Now people defend their sides at all costs and no one looks at the bad of their own side.
Click to expand...

Don't you have it backwards and a bit sideways?

conservatives think liberals are stupid, and liberals think conservatives are evil
 
nimic said:
This is exactly what makes the US constitution and its relationship to the Supreme Court so bad. It's up to the 9 people on the Supreme Court (who were all put there for partisan reasons by whatever party was in power when their predecessor happened to retire or die) to decide what the intent of the founding fathers was with the Constitution. Because obviously it says nothing about abortion, nothing about modern weapons, nothing about internet surveillance, etc. They get to decide. And if you happen to get three picks in your term, like Trump did, suddenly everything changes. Biden and the Dems in Congress can win 70% of the vote next election, and it still wouldn't alter the fact that those three people are going to be there for decades to come, deciding. In a democracy.

It's just a bad system. It might well have made perfect sense in the 18th century, but since then other countries have figured out better and more up-to-date ways of doing things.

Edit: I'm not an American, I'm just upset like one.
Click to expand...

The only nitpick I have with your complaints, with which I agree wholeheartedly in principle, is that things are set up such that they aren't supposed to change radically if you get new Justices on the Court. The principle of stare decisis was created to avoid radical shifts in law and interpretation of the Constitution (in short, stare decisis imposed a test for overturning old law that looked to (1) intervening events between the old ruling and the new case; (2) reasonable expectations or reliance on such old law by society; and (3) risk of undermining faith in the law. In large part, the Court has been steadfast in adhering to stare decisis, the problem being that the new Court is full of Justices who don't really give a rat's ass about it and would prefer to see it thrown out when it suits their idealogical leanings. Hence how you get a decision like Dobbs.
 
Kearnkoff69 said:
The only nitpick I have with your complaints, with which I agree wholeheartedly in principle, is that things are set up such that they aren't supposed to change radically if you get new Justices on the Court. The principle of stare decisis was created to avoid radical shifts in law and interpretation of the Constitution (in short, stare decisis imposed a test for overturning old law that looked to (1) intervening events between the old ruling and the new case; (2) reasonable expectations or reliance on such old law by society; and (3) risk of undermining faith in the law. In large part, the Court has been steadfast in adhering to stare decisis, the problem being that the new Court is full of Justices who don't really give a rat's ass about it and would prefer to see it thrown out when it suits their idealogical leanings. Hence how you get a decision like Dobbs.
Click to expand...

Good nit picking, you make an important point.
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
Doesn’t the dad normally have to pay child support if they’re not together? Or do you not agree that they should?
Click to expand...
He does and he should, but it is not even close to an equivalent situation. If the sex was consensual, they both, by definition, are equally responsible for the child when it is born. If the farther gets custody the mother will pay child support and vice versa. However, if a woman decides to not carry the child the man can't just take over the duties of being pregnant, it is not an equal situation.
 
calodo2003 said:
We’ll see a lot more of this…

Click to expand...

My company's HR sent out an internal memo saying that in light of the ruling they are looking at ways to ensure continuous access to all medical care we currently have, regardless of whether that requires travel to another state. Seeing as how almost all employees are in WI that is going to be a thing.
 
WI_Red said:
My company's HR sent out an internal memo saying that in light of the ruling they are looking at ways to ensure continuous access to all medical care we currently have, regardless of whether that requires travel to another state. Seeing as how almost all employees are in WI that is going to be a thing.
Click to expand...
This ruling will make a difference as to where large companies move.

Completely off topic, but I think I know where this money came from…

 
shamans said:
This is what I sort of predicted earlier in the thread and it's good to see.

I tbh thought it would be governments but if private companies can fund some and governments of the other states fund the others there can be a workaround.
Click to expand...
I think there would be pushback or bureaucratic gridlock from local / state governments, especially in red states. But one can hope. Private companies might have to do the heavy lifting on this, but their impact will be limited numbers-wise unfortunately.
 
nimic said:
Until they make it a crime to in any way help anyone get an abortion. Pay a taxi that drives someone to the state where they get an abortion? Accessory to murder (or something). I can see that coming in some of the most regressive states.
Click to expand...
No doubt that’s in the offing. That’s why I posted that ‘Traffic Stop’ clip a few pages ago; it could get that bad.
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
Obviously abortion shouldn’t be banned but here’s another angle on it - I see lots of people saying things like “it should be the woman's choice, no one else’s“. But, what about the poor dad-to-be? Don’t they get a choice either way?
Click to expand...

Chappelle covered this point well I think. She's got the right to abort, but if she keeps it and the guy doesn't want any part of it, he doesn't have to. "If you can abort, I can abandon".
 
Bebe said:
Chappelle covered this point well I think. She's got the right to abort, but if she keeps it and the guy doesn't want any part of it, he doesn't have to. "If you can abort, I can abandon".
Click to expand...
"Covered it well". Wow.
 
Bebe said:
Chappelle covered this point well I think. She's got the right to abort, but if she keeps it and the guy doesn't want any part of it, he doesn't have to. "If you can abort, I can abandon".
Click to expand...
You know, I'd seen this Chappelle chap hailed as a genius, but reckoned he sounded like a prick and kept clear. Seems I was right.
 
Bebe said:
Chappelle covered this point well I think. She's got the right to abort, but if she keeps it and the guy doesn't want any part of it, he doesn't have to. "If you can abort, I can abandon".
Click to expand...

Luckily for Chappelle it was comedy. Because if he or anyone else had that attitude in real life, they'd be a scumbag.
 
Lads, I'm being a bit tongue in cheek (as, presumably, was Chappelle). Maybe not the best day for it in hindsight.
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
Obviously abortion shouldn’t be banned but here’s another angle on it - I see lots of people saying things like “it should be the woman's choice, no one else’s“. But, what about the poor dad-to-be? Don’t they get a choice either way?
Click to expand...

Poor dad to be isn’t at risk of eclampsia, amniotic fluid emboli (a doctor in my hospital died of this last year) or peripartum cardiomyopathy all of which can kill you. Poor dad to be can quite frankly go feck himself. Men should not have any choice in anything to do with pregnancy whatsoever. Pregnancy is the most risky thing a woman can ever do.
 
Cloud7 said:
Poor dad to be isn’t at risk of eclampsia, amniotic fluid emboli (a doctor in my hospital died of this last year) or peripartum cardiomyopathy all of which can kill you. Poor dad to be can quite frankly go feck himself. Men should not have any choice in anything to do with pregnancy whatsoever. Pregnancy is the most risky thing a woman can ever do.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If poor dad had to carry the baby, abortion would have been free and easy centuries ago.
 
I just can't understand the US. They won't approve gun reform that will help keep actual people, living breathing children safe. But certain people have went to all this effort to preserve the embryonic life of the foetus. It doesn't seem right.
 
Reiver said:
I just can't understand the US. They won't approve gun reform that will help keep actual people, living breathing children safe. But certain people have went to all this effort to preserve the embryonic life of the foetus. It doesn't seem right.
Click to expand...
 
A classic example of religion sticking its beak where it isn’t welcome.
Not going to affect me ever (unless one of my kids moves to the US against my wishes) but what a sad day……..
 
nimic said:
Until they make it a crime to in any way help anyone get an abortion. Pay a taxi that drives someone to the state where they get an abortion? Accessory to murder (or something). I can see that coming in some of the most regressive states.
Click to expand...
What if 50 million people donate a cent each, how would they prosecute that?
 
I'll probably be labelled a conspiracy theorist, but surely there has to be a bigger agenda behind this. Like, it's not just because "crazy Christians".

Considering that country doesn't seem to be ruled by Christians, but rather by large corporations/rich folk.
 
Kanu said:
I'll probably be labelled a conspiracy theorist, but surely there has to be a bigger agenda behind this. Like, it's not just because "crazy Christians".

Considering that country doesn't seem to be ruled by Christians, but rather by large corporations/rich folk.
Click to expand...

Watch ‘The Family’ on Netflix.

It is also somewhat crazy Christians at the state & local level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.