Santorum 2012?

[fellowtraveller]

That's OK, but not many are fooled by such rhetoric.

Enough to make choice the default in this country.

Game, set, match.

[bush_cheney2004]

Enough to make choice the default in this country.

Game, set, match.

Not for third-tri abortions in Quebec except when the mother's life is threatened. The "default" choice by doctors is to say "Hell No!"...they won't kill "babies".

So Quebec sends them to the USA.

[bush_cheney2004]

that's a fetus.

The magic of the birth canal never ceases to amaze! How much baby has to emerge before it is safe?

Cheney and Shady, how many adopted children do you each have? If they are hard to count, a rough estimate will do.

967....or do you want me to include my sperm cells?

It must be disheartening to be a prolifer in Canada, where the govt has steadfastly refused to sway from the position that reproductive health is a womens health issue and none of your f**king business..

Maybe...I don't live in Canada, or need abortions to be performed there.

[Shady]

that's a fetus.

And this is science! Embrace it, don't ignore it.

It must be disheartening to be a prolifer in Canada

I don't consider my self a prolifer, I consider myself a prosciencer. I don't pretend that science from the 1960s is the same science as today. And as for Canada, it's actually been heartening to see that the majority of Canadians are also against the practices of late-term abortions. You're on the wrong side of history my friend.

reproductive health is a womens health issue and none of your f**king business.

The issue isn't about reproductive health. It's about the killing of unborn babies in the 7th, 8th or 9th month. It's about recognizing science, and recognizing the taking of a human life. It's the government's business, and all of ours.

[msj]

Jeez, I wish I had known this much sooner. I'd have saved a fortune in wining and dining.

Then you weren't doing it right.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The issue isn't about reproductive health. It's about the killing of unborn babies in the 7th, 8th or 9th month. It's about recognizing science, and recognizing the taking of a human life. It's the government's business, and all of ours.

'Zactly! Only a partisan fool would insist that it's not baby killin'. Just admit it and move on.

[Shady]

'Zactly! Only a partisan fool would insist that it's not baby killin'. Just admit it and move on.

Definitely. I guess they just decide to pick and choose when to they embrace science, and when they don't.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Shady

[fellowtraveller]

Definitely. I guess they just decide to pick and choose when to they embrace science, and when they don't.

Yep. Tough shit for you.

[Shady]

Yep. Tough shit for you.

Not for me, for you. You're on the wrong side of history my friend. Your demise was the advent of the 3D ultrasound, and the culmination of developmental information from prenatal science.

[Guest American Woman]

The issue isn't about reproductive health. It's about the killing of unborn babies in the 7th, 8th or 9th month. It's about recognizing science, and recognizing the taking of a human life. It's the government's business, and all of ours.

Why, when discussing abortion, do so many make it about the "7th, 8th, or 9th month?" The vast, VAST majority of abortions take place early in the pregnancy. I agree that when the fetus becomes viable, able to survive on its own, it should be a different matter - ie: not "on demand."

[bush_cheney2004]

Why, when discussing abortion, do so many make it about the "7th, 8th, or 9th month?" The vast, VAST majority of abortions take place early in the pregnancy. I agree that when the fetus becomes viable, able to survive on its own, it should be a different matter - ie: not "on demand."

Agreed...most reasonable people express the same idea..."choice" has an expiration date.

[cybercoma]

Why, when discussing abortion, do so many make it about the "7th, 8th, or 9th month?" The vast, VAST majority of abortions take place early in the pregnancy. I agree that when the fetus becomes viable, able to survive on its own, it should be a different matter - ie: not "on demand."

Over 90% before the 12th week and roughly 80% by week 8 to put numbers on it.

Edited March 6, 2012 by cybercoma

[Shady]

Why, when discussing abortion, do so many make it about the "7th, 8th, or 9th month?"

I think it's because that generally seems to be the most offensive of the practice. Although, that's just a guess on my part. For each person it may be different.

The vast, VAST majority of abortions take place early in the pregnancy. I agree that when the fetus becomes viable, able to survive on its own, it should be a different matter - ie: not "on demand."

I tend to agree.

[fellowtraveller]

All abprtion should be banned, the Conservatives are running out of babies to eat.

[BubberMiley]

I think it's because that generally seems to be the most offensive of the practice.

Why? Isn't a baby a baby?

[Bonam]

The men need to be held accountable by law - it's not the responsibility of the woman to "nag" the man into supporting his child/children. If a man shirks his responsibility, then it is the man wanting the state to provide for his child. Putting that 'fault' on the woman is ludicrous. Furthermore, it's not the responsibility of "related people other than the biological parents" to provide for the child - they didn't create it. Do you think "other relatives" should be held responsible for their other debts, too?

It is the role of parents to provide for their child, it is not the role of government to force parents to provide for their child.

In fact, current law demonstrates entirely to the contrary: all 50 US states have some form of safe haven laws, under which parents can usually simply abandon a child at a hospital or other location, and the child then becomes the responsibility of the state. This shows that the law views the parents as being able to voluntarily relinquish responsibility for their children, in which case the government becomes responsible.

The only case where financial responsibility is forced by the state on an unwilling individual, is when it is forced on one parent (almost always the father, biological or supposed) on behalf of the other. Besides the sickening inherent injustice of many of these situations, which has been discussed and exemplified here ad nauseam (with the usual defense from supporters of these laws amounting to no more than: "men should just suck it up"), it is inconsistent for the state to allow parents to relinquish responsibility for their children voluntarily, and yet in other circumstances force the father to pay endlessly for a child against his will (where in some cases the child is not even his at all).

Edited March 7, 2012 by Bonam

[cybercoma]

How is it injustice when a man gets a woman pregnant and tries to stick her with the entire bill after walking away?

If you make a kid, you share in the fiscal responsibility of raising that child. It's the least you can do if you're not going to be there physically and emotionally raising the child.

What's injustice is the number of deadbeats that walk away from their kids and stick the mother with the entire responsibility of being a parent, while they're off living life as though they played no role in creating that life.

And since raising children is perceived as a woman's responsibility, make no mistake about it, it's usually the man that walks away from the kids.

Edited March 7, 2012 by cybercoma

[bush_cheney2004]

.... it is inconsistent for the state to allow parents to relinquish responsibility for their children voluntarily, and yet in other circumstances force the father to pay endlessly for a child against his will (where in some cases the child is not even his at all).

Agreed....so inconsistent be the approach that some children now have to sue in order to get biological information about birth parents. Maury Povich still has a cheesy television show with DNA proof of paternity as the punchline. Pregnancies and fetuses have become a political commodity, wreaking havoc with traditional family law that just can't keep up.

How much for that baby in the window?

[Guest American Woman]

It is the role of parents to provide for their child, it is not the role of government to force parents to provide for their child.

It is if a parent chooses not to provide. It's the role of the parents to raise their kids, too, but the government "forces" certain restrictions and requirements on them.

In fact, current law demonstrates entirely to the contrary: all 50 US states have some form of safe haven laws, under which parents can usually simply abandon a child at a hospital or other location, and the child then becomes the responsibility of the state. This shows that the law views the parents as being able to voluntarily relinquish responsibility for their children, in which case the government becomes responsible.

The government does that so children aren't abandoned to die. You think that's a bad thing? If everyone were responsible and did what they were supposed to do, there would be no need for laws, police, courts, jails, prisons.

The only case where financial responsibility is forced by the state on an unwilling individual, is when it is forced on one parent (almost always the father, biological or supposed) on behalf of the other. Besides the sickening inherent injustice of many of these situations, which has been discussed and exemplified here ad nauseam (with the usual defense from supporters of these laws amounting to no more than: "men should just suck it up"),

Noooo. That hasn't been the argument. The argument is the child's rights, as a minor with no say, no responsibility for the situation, come first and foremost. But I'm sure you'll still continue to only hear "mean should just suck it up."

...it is inconsistent for the state to allow parents to relinquish responsibility for their children voluntarily, and yet in other circumstances force the father to pay endlessly for a child against his will (where in some cases the child is not even his at all).

The "in some cases where the child is not even his at all" is a red herring as it's a different topic altogether. Again, with marriage comes the 'willingness' on the father's part to his name on the birth certificate, and if he does that without question, the child is legally his - and he has accepted the child as such. Apparently some men need the child to carry their DNA in order to love the child, even after they've been raising and loving the child and the child knows him as Dad, but that's not the child's problem.

Where I disagree with a man having to pay support for a child that's not his is when he marries the child's mother and becomes the step dad. The child already has a biological father, and the financial responsibility should fall on him. In the U.S., step dads aren't ordered to pay support.

Edited March 7, 2012 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Again, with marriage comes the 'willingness' on the father's part to his name on the birth certificate, and if he does that without question, the child is legally his - and he has accepted the child as such. Apparently some men need the child to carry their DNA in order to love the child, even after they've been raising and loving the child and the child knows him as Dad, but that's not the child's problem.

Legal responsibility and voluntary liability are two very different things. Conflating marriage with paternity only confuses the issue even more. The welfare of the child now has to yield to the very individual rights issues that sanction abortion of children in the first place.

Edited March 7, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

It is something else for a man, who can bang whoever he wants with impunity, to complain about "paying" for a woman's right to the same thing.

Bang? So the woman is not involved? That is - women don't bang men?

I find your opinions on this to be horribly condescending to women voters. It's as though you think they're not smart enough to vote "properly", rather they just pick the political figures that will be the best "provider". You seem to think that the place for a woman is to find that provider, as though they don't or can't provide for themselves, and that they do this through political institutions.

Huh?

Many Western women are single. They fear the future, wonder how to manage, would like to marry but they can't find a suitable mate. Hollywood calls this the RomCom market.

Under the circumstances, they vote for the Leftist politician. These women believe that at least, the State will protect them.

Edited March 9, 2012 by August1991

[August1991]

The real inconvenient truth is the startling improvement in technology, living conditions, and human health since governments have taken a greater role in the economy thanks to women's suffrage.

Sorry, BM. I strongly disagree.

The greatest advances in basic technology occurred in the 19th century - when governments were small and individual innovation was easy. After years of peace and small government, physicists discovered an anomaly in the 1880s and a minority Jew, Einstein, resolved the problem.

Government bureaucracies, a feature of the 20th century, are synonym for stagnation, Soviet planning and even the Holocaust.

---

If living conditions improved in the 20th century, it was because of discoveries from the 19th century.

Edited March 9, 2012 by August1991

[kimmy]

Sorry, BM. I strongly disagree.

The greatest advances in basic technology occurred in the 19th century - when governments were small and individual innovation was easy. After years of peace and small government, physicists discovered an anomaly in the 1880s and a minority Jew, Einstein, resolved the problem.

Government bureaucracies, a feature of the 20th century, are synonym for stagnation, Soviet planning and even the Holocaust.

---

If living conditions improved in the 20th century, it was because of discoveries from the 19th century.

Tell me when the transistor was invented.

-k

[August1991]

Tell me when the transistor was invented.

Without using wikipedia, I'd say 1948 - but it was based on technology from the 1920s which in turn was based on basic research from the late 1800s.

I think that it's correct to say that a physicist from 1930 would not be truly surprised by any technology today (microwave, nuclear energy, bluray discs, computers, iPhones - transistors.)

And I think that it's correct to say that this 1930 physicist would owe the 19th century to her/his understanding of the universe.

---

When Mark Steyn says that government debt means that we are borrowing from our children, he ignores that we all borrow from the past. Mark Steyn flies around the world on airplanes and then posts his adventures on the Internet.

Mark Steyn's grandfather did neither. God knows what Steyn's grandchildren will do.

Edited March 9, 2012 by August1991

[olpfan1]

Agreed....so inconsistent be the approach that some children now have to sue in order to get biological information about birth parents. Maury Povich still has a cheesy television show with DNA proof of paternity as the punchline. Pregnancies and fetuses have become a political commodity, wreaking havoc with traditional family law that just can't keep up.

How much for that baby in the window?

There is no such thing as a "traditional family" there hasnt been for decades

so can we please stop talking about it