I am glad you can dismiss the entire post because of a site you don't like. That's well within your right, so feel free be snarky ;-). But rest assured the report is going to Congress once the new administration is in. So at that point, it is in their hands and we'll see what happens.
Interesting that "shit happens" and "having a kid is not doing too bad" is the response for the guy who is now saddled with an unwanted significant financial and emotional burden, but it should be mandatory to allow women the option to get rid of the "shit happening" and not dealing with the burden of a child. Seems like a double standard. For record, I'm pro-life, with the typical exceptions (rape, incest, health of the mother), I'm just interested how people respond when the shoe is on the other foot. The general sentiment is, "should have been more careful," or "those are the consequences." Why isn't that the response for women?
The point is, each individual person (both the man and the woman) should be responsible for protecting themselves. Do not have unprotected sex with someone if you don't want to risk the possibility of pregnancy or STD.
She probably shouldn't be allowed to collect child support in this case. Though he should have warn a condom regardless.
I agree with this, although I can't help but notice you emphasized unprotected sex. Does that make a difference when it comes to a resulting pregnancy/STD? IMHO, the "choice" is made at the time of having sex, unprotected or not.
When it comes to abortion many people are quick to pick a side and make their assertions. I find myself somewhere in the middle on this one. I consider myself pro life in that once a fetus has a heart beat it should no longer be allowed to be aborted. Yet, before then, and even in some rare circumstances after then I can understand why it is done. If a women is raped and becomes pregnant, if their child is going to be born with some horrible debilitating disease and will have no quality of life. I am of the opinion that in most cases, just give the child up for adoption if you cannot care for it. Practice safe sex if you don't want a baby, birth control and condoms. I also believe before that heart beat, that it is the woman's decision. It's her body. If the shoe was on the other foot and it was men who had babies, you think we'd give women a say?
Yes if I was married. I would listen to their thoughts but ultimately make my decision. I wouldnt keep it from the spouse and do it just because I want to.
You're correct, that is exactly when the "choice" is being made (by both parties) and, while nothing is 100% except for abstinence, at least with both parties taking personal responsibility for their own sexual activity you decrease the chances of unwanted pregnancy and STDs because you're "double covered".
So blue, who opposes women's rights, cites totally debunked fiction from a source known for making shit up to say WONDERFUL!!!! Women will be without health care!!!!! I received health care from Planned Parenthood when I had part time jobs and no health insurance. The only health care I got for about 3 or 4 years was from PP. And I never needed an abortion. Had I ever been pregnant I am 100% certain I would have. So, blue, how many years in prison should I have received? Going to one's own doctor is going to be harder for the 30 million or so scheduled to lose their health insurance when the Affordable Care Act is replaced by a Trump tweet. Spud hit nail on head. If you really oppose abortion because you are "pro life", do everything you can to 1) prevent unwanted pregnancy 2) create options for pregnant women and children. Anti abortion groups, and politicians, are vehemently opposed to both. Opposed to birth control, opposed to sex education, opposed to rape prevention programs, opposed to emergency contraception, opposed to Violence Against Women Act, opposed to WIC which provides food aid for low income pregnant women, mothers and infants, opposed to children's health insurance, opposed to family leave, opposed to childcare. But most of them love the death penalty and military interventions. The pattern is clear. States in the U.S. that have the most restrictions on abortion have the fewest service for pregnant women and children. States that have the most liberal abortion laws have the most services for pregnant women and children. It's not just this country. Countries all over the world, on all continents, same pattern. Liberal abortion laws, provide for pregnant women and children. Restrictive abortion laws, few or no services. Not just in rich countries like Germany or Canada, in poor countries as well. They are not pro life. They are pro forced pregnancy. Their position is sex is a sin (only for women) and women must be punished. Sorry, well, not sorry, blue, Planned Parenthood is not going away. True, without Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement they will unfortunately serve fewer women. But they are not going away. In places like Texas where clinics were closed there has been a spike in maternal mortality, but hell, if the sluts did not insist on having vaginas they would not have gotten pregnant.
This is a complex and emotional subject. There will always be hypothetical scenarios that the answer or solution isn't fair to all involved. You're example illustrates something that isn't fair to the man. Not disagreeing with that. Just not sure what a fair answer would be. But, and while I have no data to support this, I would imagine the number of men who said they would support their child and then went on to actively and intentionally avoid paying child support is much higher than those men who were tricked into paying child support for a child they didn't want.
The loss of plan parenthood plus the loss of health insurance after the Obama Care appeal is going to leave millions of women in poverty without birth control. The implications of that are troublesome to say the least.
If PP provided 100% of the abortions in this country then your argument would make sense. I wouldn't agree with it but at least I would understand it. But they don't. Many other doctors and large national healthcare providers offer abortion services. We're not talking about cutting federal funding to everyone that is involved with abortions, instead we're singling out only one organization. That doesn't make sense to me and seems vindictive for reasons I can't understand. Does your wife's doctor perform abortions? Has he ever written a prescription for the morning after pill? That is a termination of a pregnancy AKA abortion. Does your pharmacy fill these prescriptions? Have you asked? If your wife's doctor has performed an abortion or written a prescription for the morning after pill shouldn't we cut his access to federal payment for any and all services? What about pharmacies?
The vast majority of married women consult husbands. But if a woman is battered, if the husband forcibly withholds her birth control, she should not need his permission. These things do happen. Teens nearly always consult parent(s). But if a teen's parent would beat the shit out of her, or throw her on the street, or call her whore the rest of her life, or if her father was the one who got her pregnant, she should not need their consent. I was raised in a traditional Jewish home. Jewish law teaches the "soul" enters the fetus mid-pregnancy but it is not a human life until fully born. That is why, in any conflict between life and health of pregnant woman and life of fetus, the woman gets priority (opposite of Catholic teaching). Jewish ethics teaches that if a woman (or couple) are physically or emotionally incapable of caring for a child, abortion is ethical, but not in case of financial difficulties. The idea being Jewish charity would help in case of financial need. Also, that the future child's quality of life should not be determining factor. But the overriding Jewish law is that no woman should ever be forced to carry a pregnancy against her will. I don't entirely agree with this; financial difficulties are very real and we don't live in closed communities any more where private charity took care of needs. I don't believe in a "soul". Also, if a fetus carries severe illness or birth defect, not nearsighted but Tay-Sachs, anencephaly, something else that means the future child will have no quality of life, die in agony at an early age, to me the caring decision is to terminate the pregnancy, the same way I make the caring decision to euthanize a cat who is suffering with no hope. Many women have had to make the wrenching choice to end a much-wanted pregnancy that went horribly wrong. People like blue trivialize their pain. I am reviewing Jewish law because of this view that evil feminists, excuse me "feminazis" (Nazi party opposed abortion, birth control, sex education so how we became the Nazis I don't know) invented the idea that a human life begins at birth or that abortion can be an ethical choice. Jewish law and ethics go back a very long time, way before any modern feminist movement. The early Catholic church permitted abortion until "ensoulment". Only later did the Catholic church take a 100% no abortion/birth control stance. A bit off the Planned Parenthood topic, but I think necessary to establish. If you outlaw abortion you are taking away my religious freedom (among other things).
I agree with you. You are correct and said it more eloquently than some posting in here. Thank you for that.
You don't get it @crandc Pregnant women must be held captive for 9 months until they give birth and then after they give birth they must incur thousands and thousands of dollars in debt when they don't have health insurance, not to mention the pain of labor, and then their children must make it on their own without any support from the government, because we decided help from the government is bad.
This, when you take affordable/accessible birth control away from women you are dooming them to poverty.
While I get your satire, i know of a few women who had no insurance and the state picked up the entire bill for the birth and appointments. Just clarifying btw. Not saying i dont agree with most of your post.
