If he was really remorseful. He would cut his penis off in the garage with a box cutter.This guy isn't fooling me. He's setting himself up to boink all those fat ugly chicks. Very clever.
View attachment 208351
As every good liberal man should do.If he was really remorseful. He would cut his penis off in the garage with a box cutter.
Hey! Theres a solution!This guy isn't fooling me. He's setting himself up to boink all those fat ugly chicks. Very clever.
View attachment 208351
This will never happen cause hoes gotta hoe10% stop being hoes and getting pregnant acting responsible sexually.
I've heard this statement many times and hadn't had an opportunity to ask a clarifying question (and I may have watched too many crime stories).
There is a unique, independent set of DNA created at the moment the egg and sperm meet - it is not the mothers, it is not the fathers. How does the 'absolute authority over their own body' argument reconcile itself with the presence of another set of DNA? If it is not the mother, and it is not the father?
Thanks for the reply! Yes, I'm having trouble keeping track of this thread, too Even though I get a notification when someone replies to my post, even that is getting buried with all the notifications generated in this thread.This thread is moving so fast I almost missed your reply.
Does a person have a right to alter their own reproductive organs? To what degree?
Does a man have an absolute right to perform a vasectomy, or does the government have a legitimate stake in stopping that activity?
In my view, he does and it does not.
Does a woman have an absolute right to a hysterectomy if she is certain she never wants to carry a pregnancy to term or experience delivery without permission from the state?
In my view, she does.
Does a pregnant woman still have that right?
In my view, she still does.
The uterus that an unborn child needs to sustain life belongs to a completely different person, and she can do whatever she wants with it - including having it surgically removed - regardless of the contents of the organ.
“Fetal Rights” can too easily be used as a Trojan horse for state control over bodily (and reproductive) liberty. I am far more comfortable with a pregnant woman speaking for the life inside her than I am with the state doing so.
Again, I don’t see abortion as murder, because in my view a person has absolute authority over their own body, including anything (or anyone) else inside it.
Murder is unjustified homicide. Even if we could agree that abortion is homicide, I will still argue that the right to arbitrate justification belongs to the individual (woman) over the state.
Precisely! Adoption right now is a "sellers market." I know it's awful using those terms for children, but that's what it feels like it's become. There are far more couples wanting to adopt than there are children available for adoption, so the adoption agencies can do whatever the heck they want, and make it as expensive as they want.3 of my co-workers had adopted children domestically and overseas, and through foster care, they wouldn't do it again nowadays because of the process had gone so bad.
There is finite amount of people can afford adoption. The average cost to adopt a child from the U.S. is $26k-45k, while average savings for Americans is $4500. The average wait time is 18 months. Who has got that time and money? Now add the resession and inflation, you do the math.
The only easy pass it to be in the foster system, adopting your foster child is fairly cheap and straight forward.
Another exception is to adopt someone in your family.
Our government is very inefficient of doing the right thing, that's a given.
It only takes 1 bad apple so everybody else has to suffer. There are few bad parents out there over the years, abuse the kids they adopted. So the vetting process is kinda like turning your life upside down and shake it.
The private agencies are in the making money business, and intended to keep doing it. So they are not interested in making the process easier either.
I have a picture of her face in my mind if you are correct and she is one ugly woman.What ever books can be legally thrown at the leaker should be thrown with all vigor, regardless who it was.
I still think it was someone on the left side of the court. I think their motivation is much stronger than that claimed for it to have come from the right side of the court.
If my girlfriend can decide to terminate the life of our offsrping, planned or unplanned, why do I still get stuck with the bill if I decide I'm not ready for parenthood and leave her, and move on with my life? The dudes still get dragged through the mud in the legal system when they don't want to be a parent, being forced to pay child support, having their payments garnished all because the lady wants to be a mother.
[family court cases can get sand-bagged] initially by magistrates, friends of the court, and commissioners who are county employees paid to create collaborative programs with county agencies like CPS and DCSS. {{meaning, Child Support agencies}} The county recieves $2 from HHS for every $1 of child support that it collects. If the state does not disburse child support after 3 years, the state and the feds split the support plus interest 66/34. The state recieves a bonus from HHS every time the open or enforce a child support case. The states are financially rewarded for opening TANF cases.
That is just disgustinghttps://familycourtmatters.org/2011...ned-about-its-share-than-kids-getting-theirs/
This probably deserves its own thread, but as some like to say here, "Follow the money".
This is also a good reason why we see mothers getting custody and men getting stuck with support in a majority of cases. All in the name of "For the children" but the bottom line is "income for the State"
I disagree, particularly with the latter, which is a legal exception, thus far, in 50 out of 50 states. (If that changes, then I am 100% confident such restrictions would be overturned, as they should.)I think most people would support abortion in the case of rape / incest or in events where the mother could die from giving birth and no other feasible option with a low risk for survival for the mother existed. Unfortunately it was never presented as an option to allow just that.
Worse: they intentionally and knowingly use the less than 2% as a straw man, to avoid fighting for the more than 98% of abortions that are purely elective.The issue is that the left has hijacked those talking points to make it seem incredibly common and the reason why abortion is so valuable to them when ignoring the fact that the vast majority of abortions are performed as a direct result of irresponsibility from the would be parents. Condoms and other forms of birth control are more effective than the vaccine... They should try it. Let's face it, the majority of the women shreaking about this aren't fighting for those cases specifically. They're fighting to continue their degenerate and unsafe lifestyles.
There will be other forms of middle ground, particularly around the period of gestation at which elective abortion is permitted: from none, to 6 weeks, to 10 weeks, to 15 weeks, etc. Again, the will of the people in each state will determine the matter for each state.But now it's an all for nothing game. I think the common middle ground is allowing it for the actually legitimate and rare exceptions as highlighted in my first line. Rape, incest, medically documented risk to the mother.
Strangely, nobody ever wants to address this point. It is no more of an issue now than it was before: men have no agency regarding the offspring, once conceived. (All the more reason for men to take personal responsibility regarding the single act that leads to procreation.)Additionally, what protection are there for the men in the states where abortion will remain legal? If my girlfriend can decide to terminate the life of our offsrping, planned or unplanned, why do I still get stuck with the bill if I decide I'm not ready for parenthood and leave her, and move on with my life? The dudes still get dragged through the mud in the legal system when they don't want to be a parent, being forced to pay child support, having their payments garnished all because the lady wants to be a mother. But when the would-be mother decides she isn't responsible enough or 'ready' to be a mother, she can scoop her little problem away without guilt or shame from her peers.
I was just discussing this point with someone yesterday. I don't think the legislature should rush a special session on this, particularly as we simply have more important emergencies to deal with. Let it slide to after the midterms and talk about it in the next full session. I know the super pro life people think it's a raging emergency but, frankly, it's not. Status quo can go on another six months.So I consider myself Pro Life. But also small government. So I have no strong feelz either way as far as legislation goes.
Am I crazy for thinking the statehouse should avoid tackling this in the special session and wait until next session to carefully debate and craft solid legislation (or not) rather than rushing something through just to tackle it in a rush?
Buh-bye.Billie Jo Armstrong (Green Day lead singer) Announced he is renouncing his citizenship over this and moving to the UK.
The UK has some pretty strong abortion rules. Stronger than some states here in the US.