Poll of the Day > I'm sorry for women living in Arkansas. New bill regarding abortions.

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
WastelandCowboy 07/08/17 6:00:30 PM #1:	https://www.bustle.com/p/this-arkansas-bill-would-force-rape-survivors-to-notify-their-attacker-if-they-need-abortion-67717?utm_term=share Arkansas women may soon be forced to notify their sexual partner or family members if they want to have an abortion, thanks to a provision passed in the state's 2017 legislative session. H.B. 1566, the Tissue Disposal Mandate, would make it illegal for a woman to have an abortion without communicating with the man who impregnated her — whether that be her husband, boyfriend, a casual hook-up, or a perpetrator of sexual assault. The new provision is linked to the state's preexisting Final Disposition Rights Act of 2009. According to that law, family members related to the deceased person have say over what happens to the body. Under the new provision, embryonic or fetal tissue from an abortion would be considered a "deceased" family member. As such, the woman and father of the fetus have equal say over its disposal. A teenage girl seeking an abortion would have no say because, legally, she would have to be at least 18 to exercise final disposition rights over the tissue. If the girl and her sexual partner are minors, their parents would make the decision. If he is 18 and she is a minor, he has final say. "What's most detrimental about this is that they just tied it into an existing Arkansas law that talks about disposing of human remains of any person who is deceased. And that law gets very specific on who has the right to consent," says Lori Williams, Clinic Director of Little Rock Family Planning Services, one of three abortion providers in the state. "Many of the patients do not wish to involve their partner in the decision to terminate a pregnancy." Under current Arkansas law, the physician can dispose of the embryonic or fetal tissue following a surgical abortion or miscarriage through incineration or other means, while women who opt for a medical abortion can dispose of the tissue at home. Under the new provision, physicians will face criminal penalties if they fail to notify the woman's sexual partner about how he wants to dispose of the tissue. "He was there at conception so he ought to be there through the whole process," Republican Representative Kim Hammer, the bill's primary sponsor, tells Bustle. "I think that all life, from conception through birth and right up through death by natural causes, needs to be treated with dignity, respect, and also a unified approach to deal with the remains." The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Arkansas, and the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit in June, Hopkins v. Jegley, challenging the provision, along with three other measures that they say jeopardize women's reproductive rights in the state. Talcott Camp, deputy director of the Reproductive Freedom Project at the ACLU, tells Bustle that the involved parties filed a motion requesting the judge to block enforcement of the law while the case is pending. Currently, the provision is set to go into effect on July 30. "In most cases, a woman has a circle of support in her decision. But, that circle should include the people she brings in — her family members, her clinicians, her faith leader, her mom. Whoever she brings in, that's who belongs there," Camp says. "The state has no business notifying anybody who she does not choose to bring into the circle of her decision process." <cite>WastelandCowboy posted [p:882562222] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote>https://www.bustle.com/p/this-arkansas-bill-would-force-rape-survivors-to-notify-their-attacker-if-they-need-abortion-67717?utm_term=share <quote>Arkansas women may soon be forced to notify their sexual partner or family members if they want to have an abortion, thanks to a provision passed in the state's 2017 legislative session. H.B. 1566, the Tissue Disposal Mandate, would make it illegal for a woman to have an abortion without communicating with the man who impregnated her — whether that be her husband, boyfriend, a casual hook-up, or a perpetrator of sexual assault. The new provision is linked to the state's preexisting Final Disposition Rights Act of 2009. According to that law, family members related to the deceased person have say over what happens to the body. Under the new provision, embryonic or fetal tissue from an abortion would be considered a "deceased" family member. As such, the woman and father of the fetus have equal say over its disposal. A teenage girl seeking an abortion would have no say because, legally, she would have to be at least 18 to exercise final disposition rights over the tissue. If the girl and her sexual partner are minors, their parents would make the decision. If he is 18 and she is a minor, he has final say. "What's most detrimental about this is that they just tied it into an existing Arkansas law that talks about disposing of human remains of any person who is deceased. And that law gets very specific on who has the right to consent," says Lori Williams, Clinic Director of Little Rock Family Planning Services, one of three abortion providers in the state. "Many of the patients do not wish to involve their partner in the decision to terminate a pregnancy." Under current Arkansas law, the physician can dispose of the embryonic or fetal tissue following a surgical abortion or miscarriage through incineration or other means, while women who opt for a medical abortion can dispose of the tissue at home. Under the new provision, physicians will face criminal penalties if they fail to notify the woman's sexual partner about how he wants to dispose of the tissue. "He was there at conception so he ought to be there through the whole process," Republican Representative Kim Hammer, the bill's primary sponsor, tells Bustle. "I think that all life, from conception through birth and right up through death by natural causes, needs to be treated with dignity, respect, and also a unified approach to deal with the remains." The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Arkansas, and the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit in June, Hopkins v. Jegley, challenging the provision, along with three other measures that they say jeopardize women's reproductive rights in the state. Talcott Camp, deputy director of the Reproductive Freedom Project at the ACLU, tells Bustle that the involved parties filed a motion requesting the judge to block enforcement of the law while the case is pending. Currently, the provision is set to go into effect on July 30. "In most cases, a woman has a circle of support in her decision. But, that circle should include the people she brings in — her family members, her clinicians, her faith leader, her mom. Whoever she brings in, that's who belongs there," Camp says. "The state has no business notifying anybody who she does not choose to bring into the circle of her decision process." </quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WastelandCowboy 07/08/17 6:00:44 PM #2:	Abortion activists worry that if the provision were to be enacted, it would essentially allow third parties to block the woman's abortion. While the law does not allow the sexual partner or other family members to explicitly say they want the procedure canceled, they must all agree on the method of disposal — and could go to court if their opinions clash. Camp fears that if a woman was obligated to go to court, she could be pushed past the point where she is legally allowed to have an abortion in the state. In Arkansas, abortions are banned after 22 weeks. "This is all happening before she even gets the abortion, because the doctor has to know he or she will be able to dispose of the tissue legally and without facing criminal liability," Camp says. "And, meanwhile, time's just a wasting." The lawsuit argues the provision is unconstitutional. In the 1992 Supreme Court case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court struck down a ruling that a woman must notify her spouse to seek an abortion. Arkansas' Tissue Disposal Mandate would go even further, by requiring notification of any man involved in the pregnancy. Williams, of Little Rock Family Planning Services, describes the lack of protections for women impregnated through sexual assault or domestic violence as particularly alarming. "There's actually no protections whatsoever in place [for sexual assault or domestic violence survivors]," she says. "And, it's not just about exceptions for rape and incest or sexual assault or domestic violence, it's a woman not having the ability to make this decision on her own." Hammer, the bill's sponsor, says he doesn't think the law is intended to be like that. "I can't speak for judges in the state of Arkansas, but I don't see judges who ultimately have the control to make that decision applying it that way," he says when further pressed on the issue. "But, I will tell you, if that becomes an issue I'd be glad to bring clarity to that so somebody who is in that unfortunate situation isn't required to do that. I don't agree with the idea that she would have to notify who raped her." In 2014, around 4,590 abortions were provided in Arkansas, a 4 percent increase in abortion rates from 2011, according to the Guttmacher Institute. In addition to the provisions set to be enacted in July, the state already has a slew of restrictive abortion measures: A woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information to dissuade her from the procedure, as well as wait 48 hours before the procedure is provided. Additionally, abortion coverage is banned under state insurance exchange plans. Camp says the hearing requested by the ACLU to delay enforcement of the Tissue Disposal Mandate is set for July 13. In the meantime, she encourages women to stand up against the legislation. "They should talk to their medical providers and their family members and they should make their representatives accountable," she says. "This law is blatantly immoral because it's cruel, cruel, cruel to a woman at a time when what she needs is support and respect." <cite>WastelandCowboy posted [p:882562229] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><quote>Abortion activists worry that if the provision were to be enacted, it would essentially allow third parties to block the woman's abortion. While the law does not allow the sexual partner or other family members to explicitly say they want the procedure canceled, they must all agree on the method of disposal — and could go to court if their opinions clash. Camp fears that if a woman was obligated to go to court, she could be pushed past the point where she is legally allowed to have an abortion in the state. In Arkansas, abortions are banned after 22 weeks. "This is all happening before she even gets the abortion, because the doctor has to know he or she will be able to dispose of the tissue legally and without facing criminal liability," Camp says. "And, meanwhile, time's just a wasting." The lawsuit argues the provision is unconstitutional. In the 1992 Supreme Court case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court struck down a ruling that a woman must notify her spouse to seek an abortion. Arkansas' Tissue Disposal Mandate would go even further, by requiring notification of any man involved in the pregnancy. Williams, of Little Rock Family Planning Services, describes the lack of protections for women impregnated through sexual assault or domestic violence as particularly alarming. "There's actually no protections whatsoever in place [for sexual assault or domestic violence survivors]," she says. "And, it's not just about exceptions for rape and incest or sexual assault or domestic violence, it's a woman not having the ability to make this decision on her own." Hammer, the bill's sponsor, says he doesn't think the law is intended to be like that. "I can't speak for judges in the state of Arkansas, but I don't see judges who ultimately have the control to make that decision applying it that way," he says when further pressed on the issue. "But, I will tell you, if that becomes an issue I'd be glad to bring clarity to that so somebody who is in that unfortunate situation isn't required to do that. I don't agree with the idea that she would have to notify who raped her." In 2014, around 4,590 abortions were provided in Arkansas, a 4 percent increase in abortion rates from 2011, according to the Guttmacher Institute. In addition to the provisions set to be enacted in July, the state already has a slew of restrictive abortion measures: A woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information to dissuade her from the procedure, as well as wait 48 hours before the procedure is provided. Additionally, abortion coverage is banned under state insurance exchange plans. Camp says the hearing requested by the ACLU to delay enforcement of the Tissue Disposal Mandate is set for July 13. In the meantime, she encourages women to stand up against the legislation. "They should talk to their medical providers and their family members and they should make their representatives accountable," she says. "This law is blatantly immoral because it's cruel, cruel, cruel to a woman at a time when what she needs is support and respect."</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
green dragon 07/08/17 6:11:43 PM #3:	I didn't read the whole thing, but it kinda makes sense that the lady would have to tell the guy. They shouldn't have to tell the guy if they were a victim of sexual assult <cite>green dragon posted [p:882562702] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote>I didn't read the whole thing, but it kinda makes sense that the lady would have to tell the guy. They shouldn't have to tell the guy if they were a victim of sexual assult</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doctor Foxx 07/08/17 6:14:24 PM #4:	green dragon posted... I didn't read the whole thing, but it kinda makes sense that the lady would have to tell the guy. This isn't just telling the guy--it's getting permission (by way of requiring agreement about tissue disposal). Abusive spouse you're trying to leave? Rapist family member? They have to give the OK before anything can happen. Unknown father? no abortions for you! And moreover stuff like this is designed to draw out the pregnancy until it is far enough along that they can legally deny the abortions. It's just another way to block access. --- Never write off the Doctor! <cite>Doctor Foxx posted [p:882562806] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>green dragon posted...</cite> <quote>I didn't read the whole thing, but it kinda makes sense that the lady would have to tell the guy.</quote> This isn't just telling the guy--it's getting permission (by way of requiring agreement about tissue disposal). Abusive spouse you're trying to leave? Rapist family member? They have to give the OK before anything can happen. Unknown father? no abortions for you! And moreover stuff like this is designed to draw out the pregnancy until it is far enough along that they can legally deny the abortions. It's just another way to block access.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smarkil 07/08/17 6:20:17 PM #5:	I'm pro killing babies, but a lot of this stuff seems like it makes sense. Not all of it, but a lot of it. Parents should be involved if an underaged child is having an abortion. And the significant other should also be involved. That makes total sense. --- If my daughter was in it, Id have to be the co-star - Deoxxys on porn <cite>Smarkil posted [p:882563075] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote>I'm pro killing babies, but a lot of this stuff seems like it makes sense. Not all of it, but a lot of it. Parents should be involved if an underaged child is having an abortion. And the significant other should also be involved. That makes total sense.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doctor Foxx 07/08/17 6:21:58 PM #6:	Smarkil posted... I'm pro killing babies, but a lot of this stuff seems like it makes sense. Not all of it, but a lot of it. Parents should be involved if an underaged child is having an abortion. And the significant other should also be involved. That makes total sense. They're not going through pregnancy and assuming the risks. Informing them would be one thing, this requires their permission. That's not OK. It turns the woman in question into an incubator with zero say. --- Never write off the Doctor! <cite>Doctor Foxx posted [p:882563145] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>Smarkil posted...</cite> <quote>I'm pro killing babies, but a lot of this stuff seems like it makes sense. Not all of it, but a lot of it. Parents should be involved if an underaged child is having an abortion. And the significant other should also be involved. That makes total sense.</quote> They're not going through pregnancy and assuming the risks. Informing them would be one thing, this requires their permission. That's not OK. It turns the woman in question into an incubator with zero say.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The_Beta_Male 07/08/17 6:26:28 PM #7:	Doctor Foxx posted... green dragon posted... I didn't read the whole thing, but it kinda makes sense that the lady would have to tell the guy. This isn't just telling the guy--it's getting permission (by way of requiring agreement about tissue disposal). Abusive spouse you're trying to leave? Rapist family member? They have to give the OK before anything can happen. Unknown father? no abortions for you! And moreover stuff like this is designed to draw out the pregnancy until it is far enough along that they can legally deny the abortions. It's just another way to block access. Oh, of course you would see it that way. You're a female and your bias is as apparent as ever. You conveniently forget that there would be no baby were it not for both parties; just because the woman carries the child and births it doesn't entitle them to more privileges for the creation of life that they didn't make by themselves. So yeah, you can cut that bullshit right there and enjoy this pro-choice L. well done, arkansas. all abortion should be illegal. if a woman gets knocked up accidentally that's their problem and they should have been smarter about it. you can't just flush away a human life so you can do it again a few months later, nah fuck that and i don't give a shit if anyone gets upset over these words. i'm neither pro choice nor pro life b/c labels are fucking stupid, but I'm anti-abortion because it's murder and lets stupid would-be mothers continue being stupid and irresponsible --- #TeamShenti #AlphaAF #Unbannable https://www.facebook.com/shentex <cite>The_Beta_Male posted [p:882563364] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>Doctor Foxx posted...</cite> <quote><cite>green dragon posted...</cite> <quote>I didn't read the whole thing, but it kinda makes sense that the lady would have to tell the guy.</quote> This isn't just telling the guy--it's getting permission (by way of requiring agreement about tissue disposal). Abusive spouse you're trying to leave? Rapist family member? They have to give the OK before anything can happen. Unknown father? no abortions for you! And moreover stuff like this is designed to draw out the pregnancy until it is far enough along that they can legally deny the abortions. It's just another way to block access.</quote> Oh, of course you would see it that way. You're a female and your bias is as apparent as ever. You conveniently forget that there would be no baby were it not for both parties; just because the woman carries the child and births it doesn't entitle them to more privileges for the creation of life that they didn't make by themselves. So yeah, you can cut that bullshit right there and enjoy this pro-choice L. well done, arkansas. all abortion should be illegal. if a woman gets knocked up accidentally that's their problem and they should have been smarter about it. you can't just flush away a human life so you can do it again a few months later, nah fuck that and i don't give a shit if anyone gets upset over these words. i'm neither pro choice nor pro life b/c labels are fucking stupid, but I'm anti-abortion because it's murder and lets stupid would-be mothers continue being stupid and irresponsible</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KogaSteelfang 07/08/17 6:28:06 PM #8:	Doctor Foxx posted... Smarkil posted... I'm pro killing babies, but a lot of this stuff seems like it makes sense. Not all of it, but a lot of it. Parents should be involved if an underaged child is having an abortion. And the significant other should also be involved. That makes total sense. They're not going through pregnancy and assuming the risks. Informing them would be one thing, this requires their permission. That's not OK. It turns the woman in question into an incubator with zero say. I feel that the father should have some say in whether or not his child lives. I know you don't consider it a child though, but not everyone has that opinion and it's completely unfair to the fathers as it is. --- What did the pirate say on his 80th birthday? Aye Matey! <cite>KogaSteelfang posted [p:882563432] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>Doctor Foxx posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Smarkil posted...</cite> <quote>I'm pro killing babies, but a lot of this stuff seems like it makes sense. Not all of it, but a lot of it. Parents should be involved if an underaged child is having an abortion. And the significant other should also be involved. That makes total sense.</quote> They're not going through pregnancy and assuming the risks. Informing them would be one thing, this requires their permission. That's not OK. It turns the woman in question into an incubator with zero say.</quote> I feel that the father should have some say in whether or not his child lives. I know you don't consider it a child though, but not everyone has that opinion and it's completely unfair to the fathers as it is.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doctor Foxx 07/08/17 6:35:56 PM #9:	KogaSteelfang posted... I feel that the father should have some say in whether or not his child lives. I know you don't consider it a child though, but not everyone has that opinion and it's completely unfair to the fathers as it is. Until the father assumes the same health and life risks that the mother does through pregnancy, he should not have an equal say in the matter. You can't even realistically force parents to pay child care--it's cruel to force somebody to bring a child to term when it is against their wishes. Pregnancy is completely unfair to the mothers even when it's wanted. So... the person assuming the risk needs to have the say about the medical procedures. As my OBGYN put it--birth control comes with risks, abortion comes with risks, but the biggest risk of all is going through a pregnancy. http://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/528098789/u-s-has-the-worst-rate-of-maternal-deaths-in-the-developed-world it's also forcing the mother to assume huge expenses. Heaven forbid she doesn't have health insurance. http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/07/01/having_a_baby_in_the_u_s_costs_a_lot_of_money_especially_if_you_actually.html http://time.com/money/4319343/childbirth-cost-insurance-mother/ The average total price charged for pregnancy and newborn care was about $30,000 for a vaginal delivery and $50,000 for a C-section, with commercial insurers paying out an average of $18,329 and $27,866, the report found. Women with insurance pay out of pocket an average of $3,400, according to a survey by Childbirth Connection, one of the groups behind the maternity costs report. Two decades ago, women typically paid nothing other than a small fee if they opted for a private hospital room or television. Congrats on the debt! --- Never write off the Doctor! <cite>Doctor Foxx posted [p:882563766] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>KogaSteelfang posted...</cite> <quote>I feel that the father should have some say in whether or not his child lives. I know you don't consider it a child though, but not everyone has that opinion and it's completely unfair to the fathers as it is.</quote> Until the father assumes the same health and life risks that the mother does through pregnancy, he should not have an equal say in the matter. You can't even realistically force parents to pay child care--it's cruel to force somebody to bring a child to term when it is against their wishes. Pregnancy is completely unfair to the mothers even when it's wanted. So... the person assuming the risk needs to have the say about the medical procedures. As my OBGYN put it--birth control comes with risks, abortion comes with risks, but the biggest risk of all is going through a pregnancy. http://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/528098789/u-s-has-the-worst-rate-of-maternal-deaths-in-the-developed-world it's also forcing the mother to assume huge expenses. Heaven forbid she doesn't have health insurance. http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/07/01/having_a_baby_in_the_u_s_costs_a_lot_of_money_especially_if_you_actually.html http://time.com/money/4319343/childbirth-cost-insurance-mother/ The average total price charged for pregnancy and newborn care was about $30,000 for a vaginal delivery and $50,000 for a C-section, with commercial insurers paying out an average of $18,329 and $27,866, the report found. Women with insurance pay out of pocket an average of $3,400, according to a survey by Childbirth Connection, one of the groups behind the maternity costs report. Two decades ago, women typically paid nothing other than a small fee if they opted for a private hospital room or television. Congrats on the debt!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 07/08/17 6:39:31 PM #10:	Can't let grown women make their own decisions after all --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mead "I'm Mary Poppins ya'll!" <cite>Mead posted [p:882563934] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote>Can't let grown women make their own decisions after all</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Amuseum 07/08/17 6:40:03 PM #11:	if the father has no say on whether the baby would be born, that means he should be also absolved of all duties of child-rearing and fees, including not paying hospital fees, no alimony and child support, --- Ergonomic keyboard layouts for Android https://goo.gl/KR1vK6 5-suited Draw Poker for Android http://goo.gl/KhmXi <cite>Amuseum posted [p:882563956] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote>if the father has no say on whether the baby would be born, that means he should be also absolved of all duties of child-rearing and fees, including not paying hospital fees, no alimony and child support,</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KogaSteelfang 07/08/17 6:41:16 PM #12:	Doctor Foxx posted... KogaSteelfang posted... I feel that the father should have some say in whether or not his child lives. I know you don't consider it a child though, but not everyone has that opinion and it's completely unfair to the fathers as it is. Until the father assumes the same health and life risks that the mother does through pregnancy, he should not have an equal say in the matter. You can't even realistically force parents to pay child care--it's cruel to force somebody to bring a child to term when it is against their wishes. Pregnancy is completely unfair to the mothers even when it's wanted. So... the person assuming the risk needs to have the say about the medical procedures. As my OBGYN put it--birth control comes with risks, abortion comes with risks, but the biggest risk of all is going through a pregnancy. http://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/528098789/u-s-has-the-worst-rate-of-maternal-deaths-in-the-developed-world Seems to me the baby is the one at most risk, but that's ok apparently because it can't understand that it's life is at risk. People have convinced themselves it's not a baby, so it's acceptable to just kill it off. And if pregnancy is the riskiest of the choices, aren't they especially stupid to not use the safer birth control option? Don't want a pregnancy, use preventative measures. Abortion is the most unfair option, and people defending it staying that way makes no sense to me. --- What did the pirate say on his 80th birthday? Aye Matey! <cite>KogaSteelfang posted [p:882564013] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>Doctor Foxx posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KogaSteelfang posted...</cite> <quote>I feel that the father should have some say in whether or not his child lives. I know you don't consider it a child though, but not everyone has that opinion and it's completely unfair to the fathers as it is.</quote> Until the father assumes the same health and life risks that the mother does through pregnancy, he should not have an equal say in the matter. You can't even realistically force parents to pay child care--it's cruel to force somebody to bring a child to term when it is against their wishes. Pregnancy is completely unfair to the mothers even when it's wanted. So... the person assuming the risk needs to have the say about the medical procedures. As my OBGYN put it--birth control comes with risks, abortion comes with risks, but the biggest risk of all is going through a pregnancy. http://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/528098789/u-s-has-the-worst-rate-of-maternal-deaths-in-the-developed-world</quote> Seems to me the baby is the one at most risk, but that's ok apparently because it can't understand that it's life is at risk. People have convinced themselves it's not a baby, so it's acceptable to just kill it off. And if pregnancy is the riskiest of the choices, aren't they especially stupid to not use the safer birth control option? Don't want a pregnancy, use preventative measures. Abortion is the most unfair option, and people defending it staying that way makes no sense to me.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Erik_P 07/08/17 6:41:44 PM #13:	green dragon posted... I didn't read the whole thing, but it kinda makes sense that the lady would have to tell the guy. They shouldn't have to tell the guy if they were a victim of sexual assult KogaSteelfang posted... Doctor Foxx posted... Smarkil posted... I'm pro killing babies, but a lot of this stuff seems like it makes sense. Not all of it, but a lot of it. Parents should be involved if an underaged child is having an abortion. And the significant other should also be involved. That makes total sense. They're not going through pregnancy and assuming the risks. Informing them would be one thing, this requires their permission. That's not OK. It turns the woman in question into an incubator with zero say. I feel that the father should have some say in whether or not his child lives. I know you don't consider it a child though, but not everyone has that opinion and it's completely unfair to the fathers as it is. Do either of you understand what rape is? --- #welchingalldayerrday <cite>Erik_P posted [p:882564033] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>green dragon posted...</cite> <quote>I didn't read the whole thing, but it kinda makes sense that the lady would have to tell the guy. They shouldn't have to tell the guy if they were a victim of sexual assult</quote> <cite>KogaSteelfang posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Doctor Foxx posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Smarkil posted...</cite> <quote>I'm pro killing babies, but a lot of this stuff seems like it makes sense. Not all of it, but a lot of it. Parents should be involved if an underaged child is having an abortion. And the significant other should also be involved. That makes total sense.</quote> They're not going through pregnancy and assuming the risks. Informing them would be one thing, this requires their permission. That's not OK. It turns the woman in question into an incubator with zero say.</quote> I feel that the father should have some say in whether or not his child lives. I know you don't consider it a child though, but not everyone has that opinion and it's completely unfair to the fathers as it is.</quote> Do either of you understand what rape is?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doctor Foxx 07/08/17 6:42:45 PM #14:	KogaSteelfang posted... And if pregnancy is the riskiest of the choices, aren't they especially stupid to not use the safer birth control option? Don't want a pregnancy, use preventative measures. Abortion is the most unfair option, and people defending it staying that way makes no sense to me. Do you think birth control works 100% of the time? It does not. Even for stuff that works 99% of the time that's still 10 pregnancies per 1000 users of the method... and most methods are under 90% effective. --- Never write off the Doctor! <cite>Doctor Foxx posted [p:882564083] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>KogaSteelfang posted...</cite> <quote>And if pregnancy is the riskiest of the choices, aren't they especially stupid to not use the safer birth control option? Don't want a pregnancy, use preventative measures. Abortion is the most unfair option, and people defending it staying that way makes no sense to me.</quote> Do you think birth control works 100% of the time? It does not. Even for stuff that works 99% of the time that's still 10 pregnancies per 1000 users of the method... and most methods are under 90% effective.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doctor Foxx 07/08/17 6:44:18 PM #15:	Amuseum posted... if the father has no say on whether the baby would be born, that means he should be also absolved of all duties of child-rearing and fees, including not paying hospital fees, no alimony and child support, They can be like the many fathers that just don't pay child support, which is what already happens. http://time.com/3921605/deadbeat-dads/ (there are deadbeat moms too... just know that many parents do not pay, do not have a life with their children, and do not face consequences for it) Alimony is for marriage which is an unrelated matter. --- Never write off the Doctor! <cite>Doctor Foxx posted [p:882564161] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>Amuseum posted...</cite> <quote>if the father has no say on whether the baby would be born, that means he should be also absolved of all duties of child-rearing and fees, including not paying hospital fees, no alimony and child support,</quote> They can be like the many fathers that just don't pay child support, which is what already happens. http://time.com/3921605/deadbeat-dads/ (there are deadbeat moms too... just know that many parents do not pay, do not have a life with their children, and do not face consequences for it) Alimony is for marriage which is an unrelated matter.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KogaSteelfang 07/08/17 6:47:09 PM #16:	Doctor Foxx posted... KogaSteelfang posted... And if pregnancy is the riskiest of the choices, aren't they especially stupid to not use the safer birth control option? Don't want a pregnancy, use preventative measures. Abortion is the most unfair option, and people defending it staying that way makes no sense to me. Do you think birth control works 100% of the time? It does not. Even for stuff that works 99% of the time that's still 10 pregnancies per 1000 users of the method... and most methods are under 90% effective. Oh, that totally justifies killing your child without informing the father, just because you feel like it. --- What did the pirate say on his 80th birthday? Aye Matey! <cite>KogaSteelfang posted [p:882564319] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>Doctor Foxx posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KogaSteelfang posted...</cite> <quote>And if pregnancy is the riskiest of the choices, aren't they especially stupid to not use the safer birth control option? Don't want a pregnancy, use preventative measures. Abortion is the most unfair option, and people defending it staying that way makes no sense to me.</quote> Do you think birth control works 100% of the time? It does not. Even for stuff that works 99% of the time that's still 10 pregnancies per 1000 users of the method... and most methods are under 90% effective.</quote> Oh, that totally justifies killing your child without informing the father, just because you feel like it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doctor Foxx 07/08/17 6:49:15 PM #17:	KogaSteelfang posted... Oh, that totally justifies killing your child without informing the father, just because you feel like it. It's what humans have been doing with unwanted pregnancies since they understood pregnancy. it's really just Christianity that introduced the idea of a fetus being its own human, as a way to give fathers control over their offspring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion Modern medicine just offers a safer option that minimizes the total risk to life. --- Never write off the Doctor! <cite>Doctor Foxx posted [p:882564419] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>KogaSteelfang posted...</cite> <quote>Oh, that totally justifies killing your child without informing the father, just because you feel like it.</quote> It's what humans have been doing with unwanted pregnancies since they understood pregnancy. it's really just Christianity that introduced the idea of a fetus being its own human, as a way to give fathers control over their offspring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion Modern medicine just offers a safer option that minimizes the total risk to life.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Erik_P 07/08/17 6:49:19 PM #18:	KogaSteelfang posted... Doctor Foxx posted... KogaSteelfang posted... And if pregnancy is the riskiest of the choices, aren't they especially stupid to not use the safer birth control option? Don't want a pregnancy, use preventative measures. Abortion is the most unfair option, and people defending it staying that way makes no sense to me. Do you think birth control works 100% of the time? It does not. Even for stuff that works 99% of the time that's still 10 pregnancies per 1000 users of the method... and most methods are under 90% effective. Oh, that totally justifies killing your child without informing the father, just because you feel like it. I'm gonna ask you again: do you know what rape is? --- #welchingalldayerrday <cite>Erik_P posted [p:882564425] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>KogaSteelfang posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Doctor Foxx posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KogaSteelfang posted...</cite> <quote>And if pregnancy is the riskiest of the choices, aren't they especially stupid to not use the safer birth control option? Don't want a pregnancy, use preventative measures. Abortion is the most unfair option, and people defending it staying that way makes no sense to me.</quote> Do you think birth control works 100% of the time? It does not. Even for stuff that works 99% of the time that's still 10 pregnancies per 1000 users of the method... and most methods are under 90% effective.</quote> Oh, that totally justifies killing your child without informing the father, just because you feel like it.</quote> I'm gonna ask you again: do you know what rape is?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KogaSteelfang 07/08/17 6:52:00 PM #19:	You do realize rape is a vastly different legal situation than just not not wanting to have a baby, right? It shouldn't be used as the standard to support abortion. --- What did the pirate say on his 80th birthday? Aye Matey! <cite>KogaSteelfang posted [p:882564546] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote>You do realize rape is a vastly different legal situation than just not not wanting to have a baby, right? It shouldn't be used as the standard to support abortion.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doctor Foxx 07/08/17 6:53:53 PM #20:	KogaSteelfang posted... You do realize rape is a vastly different legal situation than just not not wanting to have a baby, right? It shouldn't be used as the standard to support abortion. And by these laws a victim of rape could not seek abortion. That's wrong. --- Never write off the Doctor! <cite>Doctor Foxx posted [p:882564634] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>KogaSteelfang posted...</cite> <quote>You do realize rape is a vastly different legal situation than just not not wanting to have a baby, right? It shouldn't be used as the standard to support abortion.</quote> And by these laws a victim of rape could not seek abortion. That's wrong.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KogaSteelfang 07/08/17 6:56:07 PM #21:	Doctor Foxx posted... KogaSteelfang posted... You do realize rape is a vastly different legal situation than just not not wanting to have a baby, right? It shouldn't be used as the standard to support abortion. And by these laws a victim of rape could not seek abortion. That's wrong. I'm pretty sure the rapist would automatically lose his right to have a say in the matter, as he should. He's either out of the picture and the victim should be allowed to operate as if he gave consent(Ironic) or he's already tied up in the legal system and should have that right taken. It's a much more complicated situation than just not wanting a baby, and as I said, shouldn't be used as the standard to defend it because of how vastly different that situation is. --- What did the pirate say on his 80th birthday? Aye Matey! <cite>KogaSteelfang posted [p:882564751] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>Doctor Foxx posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KogaSteelfang posted...</cite> <quote>You do realize rape is a vastly different legal situation than just not not wanting to have a baby, right? It shouldn't be used as the standard to support abortion.</quote> And by these laws a victim of rape could not seek abortion. That's wrong.</quote> I'm pretty sure the rapist would automatically lose his right to have a say in the matter, as he should. He's either out of the picture and the victim should be allowed to operate as if he gave consent(Ironic) or he's already tied up in the legal system and should have that right taken. It's a much more complicated situation than just not wanting a baby, and as I said, shouldn't be used as the standard to defend it because of how vastly different that situation is.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Erik_P 07/08/17 6:57:08 PM #22:	KogaSteelfang posted... You do realize rape is a vastly different legal situation than just not not wanting to have a baby, right? It shouldn't be used as the standard to support abortion. So basically you're a victim blamer. "Oh you were a a victim of a sex crime and are now pregnant through no fault of your own? You've gotta talk to the criminal that abused you for permission to abort! Next time don't wear something that'll entice people and keep your legs closed!" --- #welchingalldayerrday <cite>Erik_P posted [p:882564801] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>KogaSteelfang posted...</cite> <quote>You do realize rape is a vastly different legal situation than just not not wanting to have a baby, right? It shouldn't be used as the standard to support abortion.</quote> So basically you're a victim blamer. "Oh you were a a victim of a sex crime and are now pregnant through no fault of your own? You've gotta talk to the criminal that abused you for permission to abort! Next time don't wear something that'll entice people and keep your legs closed!"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Erik_P 07/08/17 6:59:28 PM #23:	KogaSteelfang posted... Doctor Foxx posted... KogaSteelfang posted... You do realize rape is a vastly different legal situation than just not not wanting to have a baby, right? It shouldn't be used as the standard to support abortion. And by these laws a victim of rape could not seek abortion. That's wrong. I'm pretty sure the rapist would automatically lose his right to have a say in the matter, as he should. He's either out of the picture and the victim should be allowed to operate as if he gave consent(Ironic) or he's already tied up in the legal system and should have that right taken. It's a much more complicated situation than just not wanting a baby, and as I said, shouldn't be used as the standard to defend it because of how vastly different that situation is. Dude, the bill this topic is about details if a woman gets raped she needs consent from her rapist to abort a pregnancy! It's clear you have no fucking clue what you're talking about based on your post you just made. Make up your mind: should the rapist have rights or not? --- #welchingalldayerrday <cite>Erik_P posted [p:882564913] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>KogaSteelfang posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Doctor Foxx posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KogaSteelfang posted...</cite> <quote>You do realize rape is a vastly different legal situation than just not not wanting to have a baby, right? It shouldn't be used as the standard to support abortion.</quote> And by these laws a victim of rape could not seek abortion. That's wrong.</quote> I'm pretty sure the rapist would automatically lose his right to have a say in the matter, as he should. He's either out of the picture and the victim should be allowed to operate as if he gave consent(Ironic) or he's already tied up in the legal system and should have that right taken. It's a much more complicated situation than just not wanting a baby, and as I said, shouldn't be used as the standard to defend it because of how vastly different that situation is.</quote> Dude, the bill this topic is about details if a woman gets raped she needs consent from her rapist to abort a pregnancy! It's clear you have no fucking clue what you're talking about based on your post you just made. Make up your mind: should the rapist have rights or not?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smarkil 07/08/17 6:59:44 PM #24:	Doctor Foxx posted... And by these laws a victim of rape could not seek abortion. That's wrong. No it doesn't. It just says there are no special protections enumerated in the bill. I'm not sure why they wouldn't put them in there when it definitely should be, but as the bill's sponsor says... Hammer, the bill's sponsor, says he doesn't think the law is intended to be like that. "I can't speak for judges in the state of Arkansas, but I don't see judges who ultimately have the control to make that decision applying it that way," he says when further pressed on the issue. "But, I will tell you, if that becomes an issue I'd be glad to bring clarity to that so somebody who is in that unfortunate situation isn't required to do that. I don't agree with the idea that she would have to notify who raped her." I find it hard to believe that a judge will have a lot of sympathy for a rapist wanting to meet his child. --- If my daughter was in it, Id have to be the co-star - Deoxxys on porn <cite>Smarkil posted [p:882564925] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>Doctor Foxx posted...</cite> <quote>And by these laws a victim of rape could not seek abortion. That's wrong. </quote> No it doesn't. It just says there are no special protections enumerated in the bill. I'm not sure why they wouldn't put them in there when it definitely should be, but as the bill's sponsor says... <quote>Hammer, the bill's sponsor, says he doesn't think the law is intended to be like that. "I can't speak for judges in the state of Arkansas, but I don't see judges who ultimately have the control to make that decision applying it that way," he says when further pressed on the issue. "But, I will tell you, if that becomes an issue I'd be glad to bring clarity to that so somebody who is in that unfortunate situation isn't required to do that. I don't agree with the idea that she would have to notify who raped her."</quote> I find it hard to believe that a judge will have a lot of sympathy for a rapist wanting to meet his child.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doctor Foxx 07/08/17 7:02:39 PM #25:	KogaSteelfang posted... I'm pretty sure the rapist would automatically lose his right to have a say in the matter, as he should. That's not the case. Read the topic. "There's actually no protections whatsoever in place [for sexual assault or domestic violence survivors]," she says. "And, it's not just about exceptions for rape and incest or sexual assault or domestic violence, it's a woman not having the ability to make this decision on her own." KogaSteelfang posted... He's either out of the picture and the victim should be allowed to operate as if he gave consent(Ironic) or he's already tied up in the legal system and should have that right taken. That's also assuming that the victim knows the rapist--and that the rapist gets tied up with the legal system. in most cases they may know the perpetrator, but do not necessarily get charged. And in arkansas now they can essentially withhold consent about burial process to force the woman to stay pregnant and carry to term. --- Never write off the Doctor! <cite>Doctor Foxx posted [p:882565064] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>KogaSteelfang posted...</cite> <quote>I'm pretty sure the rapist would automatically lose his right to have a say in the matter, as he should.</quote> That's not the case. Read the topic. "There's actually no protections whatsoever in place [for sexual assault or domestic violence survivors]," she says. "And, it's not just about exceptions for rape and incest or sexual assault or domestic violence, it's a woman not having the ability to make this decision on her own." <cite>KogaSteelfang posted...</cite> <quote>He's either out of the picture and the victim should be allowed to operate as if he gave consent(Ironic) or he's already tied up in the legal system and should have that right taken.</quote> That's also assuming that the victim knows the rapist--and that the rapist gets tied up with the legal system. in most cases they may know the perpetrator, but do not necessarily get charged. And in arkansas now they can essentially withhold consent about burial process to force the woman to stay pregnant and carry to term.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doctor Foxx 07/08/17 7:04:32 PM #26:	Smarkil posted... I find it hard to believe that a judge will have a lot of sympathy for a rapist wanting to meet his child. I don't really. The issue is that if it does have to go to court to have it resolved, the woman is going to continue along her pregnancy. it's not hard to have court drag things past that 22 week mark and then no longer be able to pursue an abortion. --- Never write off the Doctor! <cite>Doctor Foxx posted [p:882565157] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>Smarkil posted...</cite> <quote>I find it hard to believe that a judge will have a lot of sympathy for a rapist wanting to meet his child.</quote> I don't really. The issue is that if it does have to go to court to have it resolved, the woman is going to continue along her pregnancy. it's not hard to have court drag things past that 22 week mark and then no longer be able to pursue an abortion.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smarkil 07/08/17 7:08:02 PM #27:	Doctor Foxx posted... Smarkil posted... I find it hard to believe that a judge will have a lot of sympathy for a rapist wanting to meet his child. I don't really. The issue is that if it does have to go to court to have it resolved, the woman is going to continue along her pregnancy. it's not hard to have court drag things past that 22 week mark and then no longer be able to pursue an abortion. And that will only happen in the one case until precedent is established one way or another. It's also worth noting that this bill has only been established in the legislature. It still has to go through the senate, and then through the governor. Also are there a lot of rapists that want to try to keep children from women they impregnate? --- If my daughter was in it, Id have to be the co-star - Deoxxys on porn <cite>Smarkil posted [p:882565311] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>Doctor Foxx posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Smarkil posted...</cite> <quote>I find it hard to believe that a judge will have a lot of sympathy for a rapist wanting to meet his child.</quote> I don't really. The issue is that if it does have to go to court to have it resolved, the woman is going to continue along her pregnancy. it's not hard to have court drag things past that 22 week mark and then no longer be able to pursue an abortion.</quote> And that will only happen in the one case until precedent is established one way or another. It's also worth noting that this bill has only been established in the legislature. It still has to go through the senate, and then through the governor. Also are there a lot of rapists that want to try to keep children from women they impregnate?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doctor Foxx 07/08/17 7:13:07 PM #28:	Smarkil posted... Also are there a lot of rapists that want to try to keep children from women they impregnate? Keep them away from the mother? Not so much. But keep the mother pregnant and be sure he can have a child? Surely there are more than a few. Smarkil posted... And that will only happen in the one case until precedent is established one way or another. That's one case too many, it shouldn't need to happen. --- Never write off the Doctor! <cite>Doctor Foxx posted [p:882565594] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>Smarkil posted...</cite> <quote>Also are there a lot of rapists that want to try to keep children from women they impregnate?</quote> Keep them away from the mother? Not so much. But keep the mother pregnant and be sure he can have a child? Surely there are more than a few. <cite>Smarkil posted...</cite> <quote>And that will only happen in the one case until precedent is established one way or another.</quote> That's one case too many, it shouldn't need to happen.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KogaSteelfang 07/08/17 7:16:33 PM #29:	Doctor Foxx posted... That's not the case. Read the topic. "There's actually no protections whatsoever in place [for sexual assault or domestic violence survivors]," she says. "And, it's not just about exceptions for rape and incest or sexual assault or domestic violence, it's a woman not having the ability to make this decision on her own." It shouldn't be a decision to be made on her own. There are 3 people involved, the mother, the father, and the baby. Why does she get 100% of the say just because it affects her body? I agree it's unfair that pregnancy is so rough on a woman, but that's nobody's fault. Why should that justify stripping the father of his right to protect his child? That's also assuming that the victim knows the rapist--and that the rapist gets tied up with the legal system. in most cases they may know the perpetrator, but do not necessarily get charged. And in arkansas now they can essentially withhold consent about burial process to force the woman to stay pregnant and carry to term. No, it's assuming the court is aware that the pregnancy resulted from rape. --- What did the pirate say on his 80th birthday? Aye Matey! <cite>KogaSteelfang posted [p:882565753] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>Doctor Foxx posted...</cite> <quote>That's not the case. Read the topic. "There's actually no protections whatsoever in place [for sexual assault or domestic violence survivors]," she says. "And, it's not just about exceptions for rape and incest or sexual assault or domestic violence, it's a woman not having the ability to make this decision on her own."</quote> It shouldn't be a decision to be made on her own. There are 3 people involved, the mother, the father, and the baby. Why does she get 100% of the say just because it affects her body? I agree it's unfair that pregnancy is so rough on a woman, but that's nobody's fault. Why should that justify stripping the father of his right to protect his child? <quote>That's also assuming that the victim knows the rapist--and that the rapist gets tied up with the legal system. in most cases they may know the perpetrator, but do not necessarily get charged. And in arkansas now they can essentially withhold consent about burial process to force the woman to stay pregnant and carry to term.</quote> No, it's assuming the court is aware that the pregnancy resulted from rape.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SkynyrdRocker 07/08/17 7:16:42 PM #30:	Amuseum posted... if the father has no say on whether the baby would be born, that means he should be also absolved of all duties of child-rearing and fees, including not paying hospital fees, no alimony and child support, <cite>SkynyrdRocker posted [p:882565760] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>Amuseum posted...</cite> <quote>if the father has no say on whether the baby would be born, that means he should be also absolved of all duties of child-rearing and fees, including not paying hospital fees, no alimony and child support,</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
faramir77 07/08/17 7:39:28 PM #31:	I don't know about the US, but where I'm from this would constitute a blatant violation of health care privacy laws. --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiCtAUrZbUk -- Defeating the Running Man of Ocarina of Time in a race since 01/17/2009. -- <cite>faramir77 posted [p:882566850] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote>I don't know about the US, but where I'm from this would constitute a blatant violation of health care privacy laws.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
helly 07/08/17 7:39:51 PM #32:	KogaSteelfang posted... And if pregnancy is the riskiest of the choices, aren't they especially stupid to not use the safer birth control option? Don't want a pregnancy, use preventative measures. Abortion is the most unfair option, and people defending it staying that way makes no sense to me. you are aware that the only 100% success rate of not getting pregnant is to not have sex at all. every single thing has a chance to fail. condoms can break, birth control isn't even 100% effective. --- Vote to keep the ability to hide the tabs on the Xbox One Dashboard https://xbox.uservoice.com/forums/363186--new-ideas/suggestions/19542517 <cite>helly posted [p:882566872] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>KogaSteelfang posted...</cite> <quote> And if pregnancy is the riskiest of the choices, aren't they especially stupid to not use the safer birth control option? Don't want a pregnancy, use preventative measures. Abortion is the most unfair option, and people defending it staying that way makes no sense to me. </quote> you are aware that the only 100% success rate of not getting pregnant is to not have sex at all. every single thing has a chance to fail. condoms can break, birth control isn't even 100% effective.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KogaSteelfang 07/08/17 7:47:57 PM #33:	helly posted... KogaSteelfang posted... And if pregnancy is the riskiest of the choices, aren't they especially stupid to not use the safer birth control option? Don't want a pregnancy, use preventative measures. Abortion is the most unfair option, and people defending it staying that way makes no sense to me. you are aware that the only 100% success rate of not getting pregnant is to not have sex at all. every single thing has a chance to fail. condoms can break, birth control isn't even 100% effective. Yeah, all I said was that it's dumb to not use birth control if you don't want to be pregnant, then she explained that birth control is less risky than a pregnancy, so it really only supported that point anyway. Of course accidents can happen, and in that case, I don't feel that informing the father and coming to an agreement on the matter is an absurd idea. Anyway, I've said my peace on the subject. So, I'm out. --- What did the pirate say on his 80th birthday? Aye Matey! <cite>KogaSteelfang posted [p:882567247] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>helly posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KogaSteelfang posted...</cite> <quote> And if pregnancy is the riskiest of the choices, aren't they especially stupid to not use the safer birth control option? Don't want a pregnancy, use preventative measures. Abortion is the most unfair option, and people defending it staying that way makes no sense to me. </quote> you are aware that the only 100% success rate of not getting pregnant is to not have sex at all. every single thing has a chance to fail. condoms can break, birth control isn't even 100% effective.</quote> Yeah, all I said was that it's dumb to not use birth control if you don't want to be pregnant, then she explained that birth control is less risky than a pregnancy, so it really only supported that point anyway. Of course accidents can happen, and in that case, I don't feel that informing the father and coming to an agreement on the matter is an absurd idea. Anyway, I've said my peace on the subject. So, I'm out.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Krazy_Kirby 07/08/17 8:46:30 PM #34:	The_Beta_Male posted... Doctor Foxx posted... green dragon posted... I didn't read the whole thing, but it kinda makes sense that the lady would have to tell the guy. This isn't just telling the guy--it's getting permission (by way of requiring agreement about tissue disposal). Abusive spouse you're trying to leave? Rapist family member? They have to give the OK before anything can happen. Unknown father? no abortions for you! And moreover stuff like this is designed to draw out the pregnancy until it is far enough along that they can legally deny the abortions. It's just another way to block access. Oh, of course you would see it that way. You're a female and your bias is as apparent as ever. You conveniently forget that there would be no baby were it not for both parties; just because the woman carries the child and births it doesn't entitle them to more privileges for the creation of life that they didn't make by themselves. So yeah, you can cut that bullshit right there and enjoy this pro-choice L. well done, arkansas. all abortion should be illegal. if a woman gets knocked up accidentally that's their problem and they should have been smarter about it. you can't just flush away a human life so you can do it again a few months later, nah fuck that and i don't give a shit if anyone gets upset over these words. i'm neither pro choice nor pro life b/c labels are fucking stupid, but I'm anti-abortion because it's murder and lets stupid would-be mothers continue being stupid and irresponsible cant murder what truly isnt alive --- Kill From The Shadows. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot <cite>Krazy_Kirby posted [p:882569780] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>The_Beta_Male posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Doctor Foxx posted...</cite> <quote><cite>green dragon posted...</cite> <quote>I didn't read the whole thing, but it kinda makes sense that the lady would have to tell the guy.</quote> This isn't just telling the guy--it's getting permission (by way of requiring agreement about tissue disposal). Abusive spouse you're trying to leave? Rapist family member? They have to give the OK before anything can happen. Unknown father? no abortions for you! And moreover stuff like this is designed to draw out the pregnancy until it is far enough along that they can legally deny the abortions. It's just another way to block access.</quote> Oh, of course you would see it that way. You're a female and your bias is as apparent as ever. You conveniently forget that there would be no baby were it not for both parties; just because the woman carries the child and births it doesn't entitle them to more privileges for the creation of life that they didn't make by themselves. So yeah, you can cut that bullshit right there and enjoy this pro-choice L. well done, arkansas. all abortion should be illegal. if a woman gets knocked up accidentally that's their problem and they should have been smarter about it. you can't just flush away a human life so you can do it again a few months later, nah fuck that and i don't give a shit if anyone gets upset over these words. i'm neither pro choice nor pro life b/c labels are fucking stupid, but I'm anti-abortion because it's murder and lets stupid would-be mothers continue being stupid and irresponsible</quote> cant murder what truly isnt alive</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
green dragon 07/08/17 9:50:22 PM #35:	Erik_P posted... Do either of you understand what rape is? Did you not read my second sentence? <cite>green dragon posted [p:882572581] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>Erik_P posted...</cite> <quote> Do either of you understand what rape is?</quote> Did you not read my second sentence?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The_Beta_Male 07/08/17 9:51:53 PM #36:	Krazy_Kirby posted... cant murder what truly isnt alive dumbest thing ever written by human fingers --- #TeamShenti #AlphaAF #Unbannable https://www.facebook.com/shentex <cite>The_Beta_Male posted [p:882572645] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>Krazy_Kirby posted...</cite> <quote>cant murder what truly isnt alive</quote> dumbest thing ever written by human fingers</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 07/08/17 10:15:39 PM #37:	Asinine and pointless ranting about the morality of abortion or legal issues pertaining to same, I'd just like to point out that I'm sorry for women living in Arkansas because they live in Arkansas. The same applies to men, most dogs, and some fictional characters. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:882573650] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote>Asinine and pointless ranting about the morality of abortion or legal issues pertaining to same, I'd just like to point out that I'm sorry for women living in Arkansas because they live in Arkansas. The same applies to men, most dogs, and some fictional characters. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 07/08/17 10:28:28 PM #38:	Considering that men can stuck with child support payments if the woman chooses to have a child against their will, this seems like a step towards equality and a bargaining chip towards a better system. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:882574173] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote>Considering that men can stuck with child support payments if the woman chooses to have a child against their will, this seems like a step towards equality and a bargaining chip towards a better system.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Krazy_Kirby 07/08/17 10:33:30 PM #39:	The_Beta_Male posted... Krazy_Kirby posted... cant murder what truly isnt alive dumbest thing ever written by human fingers why its techincally "living" it isnt really human yet. cant murder what isnt a human. obviously my opinion is shared by others since there are three separate laws depending on location. at conception, viable birth, and at birth. --- Kill From The Shadows. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot <cite>Krazy_Kirby posted [p:882574378] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>The_Beta_Male posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Krazy_Kirby posted...</cite> <quote>cant murder what truly isnt alive</quote> dumbest thing ever written by human fingers</quote> why its techincally "living" it isnt really human yet. cant murder what isnt a human. obviously my opinion is shared by others since there are three separate laws depending on location. at conception, viable birth, and at birth.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SmokeMassTree 07/08/17 10:38:17 PM #40:	Feminists man "I want equality" Well here is this bill that would make consent to abortions pretty equal "No!, it's my body. If I want to murder a baby I'll fucking do it!" Joke of a movement --- A.K. 2/14/10 T.C.P. Victorious Champion of the 1st Annual POTd Hunger Games and the POTd Battle Royale Season 3 <cite>SmokeMassTree posted [p:882574600] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote>Feminists man "I want equality" Well here is this bill that would make consent to abortions pretty equal "No!, it's my body. If I want to murder a baby I'll fucking do it!" Joke of a movement</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SushiSquid 07/08/17 10:43:06 PM #41:	Zeus posted... Considering that men can stuck with child support payments if the woman chooses to have a child against their will, this seems like a step towards equality and a bargaining chip towards a better system. No it's not. A step towards equality would be if a man could legally sign away his responsibility if the woman does not get an abortion. I would be just fine with that, as it would be a fair system. I think forcing a man to have a child is bad, too. This law is not a step towards anything but attacking women. For the record, a fetus's brain starts emitting basic electrical signals at 12 weeks, but doesn't show brain waves until 24 weeks, or 5 months. Beyond that time you have an argument for personhood. Before 24 weeks, I cannot see a moral argument for why abortion should be considered wrong. It's not a person. To equate it with the mother's rights is insulting. <cite>SushiSquid posted [p:882574809] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Considering that men can stuck with child support payments if the woman chooses to have a child against their will, this seems like a step towards equality and a bargaining chip towards a better system.</quote> No it's not. A step towards equality would be if a man could legally sign away his responsibility if the woman does not get an abortion. I would be just fine with that, as it would be a fair system. I think forcing a man to have a child is bad, too. This law is not a step towards anything but attacking women. For the record, a fetus's brain starts emitting basic electrical signals at 12 weeks, but doesn't show brain waves until 24 weeks, or 5 months. Beyond that time you have an argument for personhood. Before 24 weeks, I cannot see a moral argument for why abortion should be considered wrong. It's not a person. To equate it with the mother's rights is insulting.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 07/08/17 10:45:56 PM #42:	SushiSquid posted... A step towards equality would be if a man could legally sign away his responsibility if the woman does not get an abortion. I would be just fine with that Because a woman just just dump a baby on a guy's lap and walk away from all responsibility Really equal logic you have there --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mead "I'm Mary Poppins ya'll!" <cite>Mead posted [p:882574954] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>SushiSquid posted...</cite> <quote>A step towards equality would be if a man could legally sign away his responsibility if the woman does not get an abortion. I would be just fine with that</quote> Because a woman just just dump a baby on a guy's lap and walk away from all responsibility Really equal logic you have there</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SushiSquid 07/08/17 10:49:28 PM #43:	Mead posted... SushiSquid posted... A step towards equality would be if a man could legally sign away his responsibility if the woman does not get an abortion. I would be just fine with that Because a woman just just dump a baby on a guy's lap and walk away from all responsibility Really equal logic you have there I'm not really sure where you're getting that. If a woman has the right to abandon responsibility of the pregnancy through abortion (which I'm fine with), then giving a man that same right would be equal. I guess I shouldn't say I would be just fine with that, though. To be fair, it's not a realistic thing in our current society. For it to be truly equal, there would have to be no social stigma against abortion. <cite>SushiSquid posted [p:882575105] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mead posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SushiSquid posted...</cite> <quote>A step towards equality would be if a man could legally sign away his responsibility if the woman does not get an abortion. I would be just fine with that</quote> Because a woman just just dump a baby on a guy's lap and walk away from all responsibility Really equal logic you have there</quote> I'm not really sure where you're getting that. If a woman has the right to abandon responsibility of the pregnancy through abortion (which I'm fine with), then giving a man that same right would be equal. I guess I shouldn't say I would be just fine with that, though. To be fair, it's not a realistic thing in our current society. For it to be truly equal, there would have to be no social stigma against abortion.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 07/08/17 10:55:36 PM #44:	1. Wow, the far right trolls came out in force for this topic! 2. Abominable law that's blatantly in violation of federal law and will easily be destroyed in court once challenged, hopefully soon. Mead posted... SushiSquid posted... A step towards equality would be if a man could legally sign away his responsibility if the woman does not get an abortion. I would be just fine with that Because a woman just just dump a baby on a guy's lap and walk away from all responsibility Really equal logic you have there It can never be true equality, 100% the same. Because only the woman gets to decide if the baby is born or if the fetus is aborted. Instead, you get the closest proximity to equality possible with such a restriction. Man wants baby, woman does not: Fetus is aborted, sorry dude. Man doesn't want baby, woman does: Baby is born, but man has no obligations to provide or care for it The man still has less rights than the woman, but it's a hell of a lot closer to equality than what we have now. <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:882575360] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote>1. Wow, the far right trolls came out in force for this topic! 2. Abominable law that's blatantly in violation of federal law and will easily be destroyed in court once challenged, hopefully soon. <cite>Mead posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SushiSquid posted...</cite> <quote>A step towards equality would be if a man could legally sign away his responsibility if the woman does not get an abortion. I would be just fine with that</quote> Because a woman just just dump a baby on a guy's lap and walk away from all responsibility Really equal logic you have there</quote> It can never be true equality, 100% the same. Because only the woman gets to decide if the baby is born or if the fetus is aborted. Instead, you get the closest proximity to equality possible with such a restriction. Man wants baby, woman does not: Fetus is aborted, sorry dude. Man doesn't want baby, woman does: Baby is born, but man has no obligations to provide or care for it The man still has less rights than the woman, but it's a hell of a lot closer to equality than what we have now.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 07/08/17 10:56:16 PM #45:	SushiSquid posted... Zeus posted... Considering that men can stuck with child support payments if the woman chooses to have a child against their will, this seems like a step towards equality and a bargaining chip towards a better system. No it's not. A step towards equality would be if a man could legally sign away his responsibility if the woman does not get an abortion. I would be just fine with that, as it would be a fair system. I think forcing a man to have a child is bad, too. This law is not a step towards anything but attacking women. That would also be fair but, realistically speaking, it'd just shift the burden onto the state which is an imperfect solution as well. SushiSquid posted... For the record, a fetus's brain starts emitting basic electrical signals at 12 weeks, but doesn't show brain waves until 24 weeks, or 5 months. Beyond that time you have an argument for personhood. Before 24 weeks, I cannot see a moral argument for why abortion should be considered wrong. It's not a person. To equate it with the mother's rights is insulting. Which is weak, but a complete side-argument. Mead posted... SushiSquid posted... A step towards equality would be if a man could legally sign away his responsibility if the woman does not get an abortion. I would be just fine with that Because a woman just just dump a baby on a guy's lap and walk away from all responsibility Really equal logic you have there Then they could choose to abort. Or both parties could put the kid into the foster system. At any rate, what he suggested is hypothetically fair although the burden would be eaten by taxpayers. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:882575386] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>SushiSquid posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Considering that men can stuck with child support payments if the woman chooses to have a child against their will, this seems like a step towards equality and a bargaining chip towards a better system.</quote> No it's not. A step towards equality would be if a man could legally sign away his responsibility if the woman does not get an abortion. I would be just fine with that, as it would be a fair system. I think forcing a man to have a child is bad, too. This law is not a step towards anything but attacking women.</quote> That would also be fair but, realistically speaking, it'd just shift the burden onto the state which is an imperfect solution as well. <cite>SushiSquid posted...</cite> <quote>For the record, a fetus's brain starts emitting basic electrical signals at 12 weeks, but doesn't show brain waves until 24 weeks, or 5 months. Beyond that time you have an argument for personhood. Before 24 weeks, I cannot see a moral argument for why abortion should be considered wrong. It's not a person. To equate it with the mother's rights is insulting.</quote> Which is weak, but a complete side-argument. <cite>Mead posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SushiSquid posted...</cite> <quote>A step towards equality would be if a man could legally sign away his responsibility if the woman does not get an abortion. I would be just fine with that</quote> Because a woman just just dump a baby on a guy's lap and walk away from all responsibility Really equal logic you have there</quote> Then they could choose to abort. Or both parties could put the kid into the foster system. At any rate, what he suggested is hypothetically fair although the burden would be eaten by taxpayers.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SushiSquid 07/08/17 10:59:36 PM #46:	Zeus has a point that the burden would be eaten by taxpayers in such a system. It's probably for the best socially that a man be forced to have responsibility of a child he doesn't want. That doesn't mean it's fair to him, especially if he thought birth control was properly being used. For anyone who thinks there aren't any women who would trick men into having children: my brother's second kid came into being because his wife (now ex-wife) went off birth control without telling him, even though she knew he was very against having another child with her. What Zeus does not have a point about: Zeus posted... Which is weak, but a complete side-argument. It's not weak. An argument of personhood is literally the defining argument about abortion. It's also not anything to the side. This law was created to restrict abortion. That's its whole point. <cite>SushiSquid posted [p:882575530] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote>Zeus has a point that the burden would be eaten by taxpayers in such a system. It's probably for the best socially that a man be forced to have responsibility of a child he doesn't want. That doesn't mean it's fair to him, especially if he thought birth control was properly being used. For anyone who thinks there aren't any women who would trick men into having children: my brother's second kid came into being because his wife (now ex-wife) went off birth control without telling him, even though she knew he was very against having another child with her. What Zeus does not have a point about: <cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Which is weak, but a complete side-argument. </quote> It's not weak. An argument of personhood is literally the defining argument about abortion. It's also not anything to the side. This law was created to restrict abortion. That's its whole point.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 07/09/17 12:10:33 AM #47:	What baffles me is how few pro-lifers are in favour of things that would reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancies in the first place, such as subsidized birth control and sex ed that goes beyond "if you have sex you'll get pregnant and die," to say nothing of how few promote shoring up support networks to ensure the quality of that life they were so desperate to protect before birth. In most cases, it's got nothing to do with the sanctity of life. It's about wanting those dirty sex-havers to suffer for their dirty sex-having, hiding behind some flimsy moral veneer of trying to protect the life of a kid they don't really give two **s about. Bloody hypocrites. It's disgusting. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:882578796] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote>What baffles me is how few pro-lifers are in favour of things that would reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancies in the first place, such as subsidized birth control and sex ed that goes beyond "if you have sex you'll get pregnant and die," to say nothing of how few promote shoring up support networks to ensure the quality of that life they were so desperate to protect before birth. In most cases, it's got nothing to do with the sanctity of life. It's about wanting those dirty sex-havers to suffer for their dirty sex-having, hiding behind some flimsy moral veneer of trying to protect the life of a kid they don't really give two **s about. Bloody hypocrites. It's disgusting.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The_Beta_Male 07/09/17 1:12:38 AM #48:	Krazy_Kirby posted... The_Beta_Male posted... Krazy_Kirby posted... cant murder what truly isnt alive dumbest thing ever written by human fingers why its techincally "living" it isnt really human yet. cant murder what isnt a human. obviously my opinion is shared by others since there are three separate laws depending on location. at conception, viable birth, and at birth. 1/10 troll effort, bro, b/c how can something reproduced by 2 humans, aka two living creatures, not be a living organism in his or her own right? get out bro u losed --- #TeamShenti #AlphaAF #Unbannable https://www.facebook.com/shentex <cite>The_Beta_Male posted [p:882581312] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>Krazy_Kirby posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The_Beta_Male posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Krazy_Kirby posted...</cite> <quote>cant murder what truly isnt alive</quote> dumbest thing ever written by human fingers</quote> why its techincally "living" it isnt really human yet. cant murder what isnt a human. obviously my opinion is shared by others since there are three separate laws depending on location. at conception, viable birth, and at birth.</quote> 1/10 troll effort, bro, b/c how can something reproduced by 2 humans, aka two living creatures, not be a living organism in his or her own right? get out bro u losed</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Krazy_Kirby 07/09/17 1:22:23 AM #49:	The_Beta_Male posted... Krazy_Kirby posted... The_Beta_Male posted... Krazy_Kirby posted... cant murder what truly isnt alive dumbest thing ever written by human fingers why its techincally "living" it isnt really human yet. cant murder what isnt a human. obviously my opinion is shared by others since there are three separate laws depending on location. at conception, viable birth, and at birth. 1/10 troll effort, bro, b/c how can something reproduced by 2 humans, aka two living creatures, not be a living organism in his or her own right? get out bro u losed perhaps you should look up the biology of how long it takes for it to develop (especially since you think it is either a "he" or "she" at the very start...) then look up the laws regarding it being a life --- Kill From The Shadows. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot <cite>Krazy_Kirby posted [p:882581695] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote><cite>The_Beta_Male posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Krazy_Kirby posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The_Beta_Male posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Krazy_Kirby posted...</cite> <quote>cant murder what truly isnt alive</quote> dumbest thing ever written by human fingers</quote> why its techincally "living" it isnt really human yet. cant murder what isnt a human. obviously my opinion is shared by others since there are three separate laws depending on location. at conception, viable birth, and at birth.</quote> 1/10 troll effort, bro, b/c how can something reproduced by 2 humans, aka two living creatures, not be a living organism in his or her own right? get out bro u losed</quote> perhaps you should look up the biology of how long it takes for it to develop (especially since you think it is either a "he" or "she" at the very start...) then look up the laws regarding it being a life</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WastelandCowboy 07/09/17 1:23:20 AM #50:	Lol Shenti. Go back to your steroids and red pill BS. <cite>WastelandCowboy posted [p:882581720] in I'm sorry ... [t:75544895]...</cite> <quote>Lol Shenti. Go back to your steroids and red pill BS.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Poll of the Day > I'm sorry for women living in Arkansas. New bill regarding abortions. (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > I'm sorry for women living in Arkansas. New bill regarding abortions.