Guest American Woman Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) I disagree...the state has a prenatal interest as well, because of the costs born by society should the fetus go full term or be aborted. The apparatus to support a female's fickle choice has to be maintained either way. What makes a female's choice "fickle?" But yes, women do have control over what happens to their body just as men have control over what happens to theirs. As I said, both are free to makes choices regarding their own bodies. Don't want to chance a pregnancy but want to have sex? - have a vasectomy and when/if a baby is desired, have it reversed. Men can take responsibility for their lives - they can ensure that they are never "forced" to pay for an unplanned child. And yes, the state does have a prenatal interest as in regards to the pregnancy going full term - as you said. In other words, in regards to the child who is born. As I see it, you're not saying anything different from what I have said. From a practical viewpoint, women really do have (safe) total control because of medical technology and abortifactants. The political problems loom larger the more that the state or other actors must be engaged to preserve her right to control "her own body". The state is really only "involved" if the state is denying a woman the right to control what goes on with her body. The anti-choice group is the one wanting the state to be involved. But by the same token, men really do have total control too - and I've explained why. Edited February 24, 2012 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 The rights of an adult do not supersede the rights of a minor; providing for children is more than a "moral" issue, it's a legal issue, as a child is unable to provide for their own needs. Agreed, and hence the state has a compelling interest in both the fetus and child. Fathers are legally burdened with financial support and in many jurisdictions have such a responsibility regardless of paternity if married to the mother, so great is the state's interest in safeguarding the needs of the child. Therefore, abortion represents a legal discontinuity for the state that is controlled by one person, the mother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) ...abortion represents a legal discontinuity for the state that is controlled by one person, the mother. Of course, because only the mother gets pregnant. But conception is not controlled by one person - that is my point. Men have total control over whether or not such a situation exists; men can ensure that they aren't part of such a situation. So some men don't like that women get to make the call when an unplanned pregnancy occurs? Fortunately, they can make sure they are never involved in such a situation. They have that control. It cannot happen if a man takes complete responsibility to ensure it doesn't happen. Seems to me, though, that so many expect the woman to be the one to take the most responsibility, and then cry victim if they are "forced" to pay - as if they have no control over the situation. But for their actions, they wouldn't be in that situation. Furthermore, the payment is for their child, who had absolutely no say, no control, over the situation - and the woman is also legally responsible for the child. So as I said, men can only control what happens to their body - just as women are the ones controlling what happens to theirs - and both should have the freedom to do so. Edited February 24, 2012 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 ... Men can take responsibility for their lives - they can ensure that they are never "forced" to pay for an unplanned child. Right...no disagreement there. And yes, the state does have a prenatal interest as in regards to the pregnancy going full term - as you said. In other words, in regards to the child who is born. As I see it, you're not saying anything different from what I have said. The difference may be subtle, and is made clearer with an example like fetal alcohol syndrome or other substance abuse, wherein the state has an interest in preventing birth "defects". This means that resources are committed long before birth in an effort to influence the mother's actions. The state is really only "involved" if the state is denying a woman the right to control what goes on with her body. The anti-choice group is the one wanting the state to be involved. But by the same token, men really do have total control too - and I've explained why. Men do not typically require the apparatus of the state or health care system to enjoin such a choice and responsibility, but are excluded from self determination much earlier in the process. Women who suffer miscarriages are also robbed of choice/control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 We certainly don't need Ron Paul either. He wants to get rid of regulations. Can you imagine what will happen to the food industry? If Ron Paul wins in 2012 we will be calling him "President E. Coli". The Microbial Infection in Chief!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) Of course, because only the mother gets pregnant. Right, but everybody gets to pay for her "choice"! But conception is not controlled by one person - that is my point. Men have total control over whether or not such a situation exists; men can ensure that they aren't part of such a situation. So some men don't like that women get to make the call when an unplanned pregnancy occurs? Fortunately, they can make sure they are never involved in such a situation. They have that control. Having control over conception is altogether different from having control over an entire pregnancy. But for their actions, they wouldn't be in that situation. Furthermore, the payment is for their child, who had absolutely no say, no control, over the situation - and the woman is also legally responsible for the child. This is not always the case, as I have stated before, the male spouse is assumed to be the father even when paternity is not proven because the state has an interest in doing so. So as I said, men can only control what happens to their body - just as women are the ones controlling what happens to theirs - and both should have the freedom to do so. Yep, but women need outside actors and state sponsorship to realize that control in a safe manner. Freedom is not free. Edited February 24, 2012 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) Right, but everybody gets to pay for her "choice"! Noooo. Everybody gets to pay for their choice. As I've pointed out repeatedly now, the pregnancy is a result of both of their choices. Having control over conception is altogether different from having control over an entire pregnancy. Having control over whether or not a pregnancy exists is pretty much having total control over the pregnancy. But I'm guessing you already knew that. This is not always the case, as I have stated before, the male spouse is assumed to be the father even when paternity is not proven because the state has an interest in doing so. He assumes that responsibility because of marriage laws, which he willfully, freely agreed to - but if the man claims infidelity and is proven not to be the father right from the get-go, refusing to have his name on the birth certificate, I would need some proof that he is legally responsible financially. Yep, but women need outside actors and state sponsorship to realize that control in a safe manner. Freedom is not free. Actually, no - they don't "need" it, but for those who think they should be able to deny them the right. Edited February 24, 2012 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) Noooo. Everybody gets to pay for their choice. As I've pointed out repeatedly now, the pregnancy is a result of both of their choices. But there are more than two actors when things go awry. The state is left to clean up the mess either way. Having control over whether or not a pregnancy exists is pretty much having total control over the pregnancy. But I'm guessing you already knew that. Again, this is where the female exercises more "total control", while enjoining only half of the legal responsibility for a live birth. He assumes that responsibility because of marriage laws, which he willfully, freely agreed to - but if the man claims infidelity and is proven not to be the father right from the get-go, refusing to have his name on the birth certificate, I would need some proof that he is legally responsible financially. You need proof that states/provinces assume paternity? I think we have already covered this in earlier threads. The point of this circumstance is to demonstrate that the state has already predetermined the male's legal responsibility regardless of control over conception by his actions. That females should enjoy the opposite and absolute control over the fate of an unborn child seems arbitrary and capricious given the state's interests and assumed liability. Actually, no - they don't "need" it, but for those who think they should be able to deny them the right. In the absence of modern technology, I fail to see how a woman can safely and reliably terminate a pregnancy without the aid of another actor. Edited February 24, 2012 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) He assumes that responsibility because of marriage laws, which he willfully, freely agreed to - but if the man claims infidelity and is proven not to be the father right from the get-go, refusing to have his name on the birth certificate, I would need some proof that he is legally responsible financially. It appears there are two sides to this story. If I read it right, there is what is called 'Assumed Paternity' in the confines of a marriage. That establishes that the State is saying he is the father. If not challenged there and then, the issue (it appears ) is not readily changable. Anyhow, a good read is here...... http://www.dna-geneticconnections.com/paternity.html ETA....oooooh found this one, good read too , but for comedy not for serious discussion. Here is a little taste... ...Women are not naturally faithful creatures and it is a travesty to acculturate men with the notion that if they are good to their wives their wives will be faithful to them. That's extremely unlikely http://fathersforlife.org/mens_issues/advice_to_men.htm Edited February 24, 2012 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 ETA....oooooh found this one, good read too , but for comedy not for serious discussion. Very funny....no wonder it is "cheaper to keep her/him"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf Larsen Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) As I said before Santorum belongs working in a church, not in the White House! Santorum is a right-wing religious nut case! And frankly, he's not the only nutcase in the Republican field. While watching an early Republican debate I thought that half a dozen lunatics who escaped from the insane asylum were on stage. Obama is a warmongering so-and-so who gives hundreds of billions of dollars to the rich in bailouts, just like Bush. He has attacked civil liberties. Obama is a rotten capitalist politician. The only difference between Obama and the Republican field is that Obama does not appear to be insane. Well, maybe Mitt Romney is not insane, but he is insanely opportunist! Edited February 27, 2012 by Wolf Larsen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 Religious freedom trumps free birth control pills. Exactly. That's what some people, for whatever reason, can't seem to grasp. One can be a strong proponent of birth control, sterilization, and abortion inducing drugs, but at the same time, recognize the first amendment, and be very uncomfortable with the federal government ordering religious institutions to pay for it. It really shouldn't be a difficult concept for people to understand. The shiny object is birth control, which for some reason, distracts people from the real and important issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 I still didn't hear an answer to the question of whether "Chick-Fil-A" is a religious institution. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 Exactly. That's what some people, for whatever reason, can't seem to grasp. One can be a strong proponent of birth control, sterilization, and abortion inducing drugs, but at the same time, recognize the first amendment, and be very uncomfortable with the federal government ordering religious institutions to pay for it. It really shouldn't be a difficult concept for people to understand. The shiny object is birth control, which for some reason, distracts people from the real and important issue. Hospitals and universities are not religious institutions. That's what some people, for whatever reason, can't seem to grasp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) Hospitals and universities are not religious institutions. That's what some people, for whatever reason, can't seem to grasp. Oh really? The University of Notre Dame would not agree: A place of teaching and research, of scholarship and publication, of service and community, the University takes seriously our charge as a Catholic institution. Deeply committed to Father Sorin's vision that the University would be "one of the most powerful means of doing good in this country," a living Catholic mission continues to be the foundation of the University today. Report on Catholic Mission 2011 http://nd.edu/faith-and-service/ I guess you have never heard of "Touchdown Jesus". Edited February 28, 2012 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 I guess you have never heard of "Touchdown Jesus". "To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us. To have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A." -the Chick-Fil-A company mission statement. I hear their chicken sandwiches are heavenly. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 How do people like Santorum even get elected? Its just insane to me that even some Americans are that insane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 I watched some of the coverage on CNN tonight. At one point one of the correspondents mentioned talking with a senior Santorum strategist-- who he identified by name but whose name I don't recall-- who said that Santorum had been hurt by some of Santorum's remarks this week. The CNN panel referred to Santorum's remarks as "going down the rabbit hole"-- strange tangents where Santorum called the president a "snob" for saying he wanted every American to go to college, ranted about "liberal indoctrination" at universities, and said that JFK's famous speech about separation of church and state made him "want to puke". The strategist said that they would return the focus to Santorum's economic populist message. Also noticed that Rick started off his speech tonight by talking about working women-- his 94 year old mom, his wife, his daughter who is campaigning for him... it seemed fairly apparent that somebody on his team said "Rick-- chicks hate us. Butter them up a little, will ya?" I was disappointed that when Rick mentioned that his mom got a college degree, nobody in the audience had the sense to shout "What a snob!" -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 How do people like Santorum even get elected? Its just insane to me that even some Americans are that insane They get more votes than the other candidates. It's not complicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 How do people like Santorum even get elected? Its just insane to me that even some Americans are that insane The NDP did pretty well in your country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 How do people like Santorum even get elected? Its just insane to me that even some Americans are that insane He hams it up for the religious social conservative crowd, acts hawkish on foreign policy, and tries to come across as a guy you can "have a beer with". Its actually not a bad forumula for success down there, especially in certain states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 He hams it up for the religious social conservative crowd, acts hawkish on foreign policy, and tries to come across as a guy you can "have a beer with". Its actually not a bad forumula for success down there, especially in certain states. His message and style resonates with many people. I don't think it would work at all in Canada, although Preston Manning was a "preacher" kind of guy, and from his work we have Stephen Harper today. It's hard for some of us to accept but the rise of the neo-conservative movement in both Canada and the US is in part a backlash against years of unfettered liberalism. For further reference see the 1980's, acceptance of gay culture into the mainstream, gay marriage seen as an attack on the family, enforced equality, music by Boy George... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j44 Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 How do people like Santorum even get elected? Its just insane to me that even some Americans are that insane Like him or not he seems to believe what he says (most of the time anyway) and people see that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 ...It's hard for some of us to accept but the rise of the neo-conservative movement in both Canada and the US is in part a backlash against years of unfettered liberalism.... Well, if it makes some feel better, it is even harder to accept the rise of the social welfare state! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 ...strange tangents where Santorum called the president a "snob" for saying he wanted every American to go to college. That's a like a guy with a grade 8 education calling a high school grad a "snob". How far up his ass can this guy ram his head? Also noticed that Rick started off his speech tonight by talking about working women-- his 94 year old mom, his wife, his daughter who is campaigning for him... it seemed fairly apparent that somebody on his team said "Rick-- chicks hate us. Butter them up a little, will ya?" Part of the problem is that he doesn't look like Mitt Romney, and you can't fix that. I'm sorta joking in that I know that's not all of it, but it must be a factor. I think he also comes off as less abrasive and the stereotypical "tough guy" conservative male, which may appeal to women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.