Supreme Court faces Friday deadline in case that could shape abortion access and the future of American health care

[raleighherdfan]

If there are mandatory vasectomies at 15 years old, we no longer have an abortion problem and we are not having this conversation. But cowardly idiots like you would much rather force the women to carry the child and raise it for minimum of 18 years.

I have no problems with an abortion in the case of rape or incest. I have no problem with abortion in the case the mother is truly at risk medically I have no problem in the case of the courts forcing the “father” a lifetime of financial responsibility in the case of two consenting individuals who chose to have sex and risking the pregnancy. or putting the child up for adoption (if both parents consent). Equal responsibility.

“15 yr old vasectomies” is still a straw man argument that makes no sense. It particularly makes little sense considering the women’s lib movement (your ilk) has worked vehemently to eliminate fathers rights for caring and taking responsibility for caring for a child.

 

[extragreen]

How so?

And 15? I guess if you are the neighborhood tom cat and have knocked up a bunch of girls maybe so.

If you are still fully on board are you good with the mandatory vaccines??

 

[extragreen]

I have no problem in the case of the courts forcing the “father” a lifetime of financial responsibility

Bwwwwaaaaaahahahaha!!

In 2017, the average amount of child support received by custodial parents from their noncustodial counterparts stood at 3,431 U.S. dollars.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Bwwwwaaaaaahahahaha!!

In 2017, the average amount of child support received by custodial parents from their noncustodial counterparts stood at 3,431 U.S. dollars.

Why is that? Answer: The Govt replaced the father in many of these homes. Created a society full of dependent govt rubes. If the courts did their job, they would hold fathers accountable...but wait....women's lib says, "we dont need a man".

 

[extragreen]

Why is that? Answer: The Govt replaced the father in many of these homes. Created a society full of dependent govt rubes. If the courts did their job, they would hold fathers accountable...but wait....women's lib says, "we dont need a man".

You really are an idiot. And a liar.

 

[ThunderCat98]

So the 13 year old “woman” has to take responsibility for having sex to the extent of having to go through pregnancy, give birth, and possibly raise a child at that age, yet that same “woman” can’t have the responsibility to make the choice about her own body if she wants to take hormone suppressors.

I love when you deplorables take stances that contradict each other.

A 13-year-old is not capable of voting, because they are idiots. A 13-year-old is also not capable of driving or purchasing firearms for the same reason. I realize yore a perverted freak, but a 13-year-old is also not capable of
exercising consent to have sex. Similarly, a 13-year-old is not capable of making a decision that will impact them physically and mentally for the rest of their life. Do you disagree with that logic?

Now, that being said, are they capable of fvcking up and having sex before they are old enough to understand the repercussions? Sure. And like any choice we make at any age, there are consequences to those actions - to include the possibility of pregnancy.

There's no inconsistency in saying a 13-year-old is wholly incapable of making a decision to irreparably alter their body, AND wholly incapable of appreciating the impact and consequences of having sex at that age.

Yore argument is dumb.

 

[riflearm2]

There's no inconsistency in saying a 13-year-old is wholly incapable of making a decision to irreparably altering their body, AND wholly incapable of appreciating the impact and consequences of having sex at that age.

But that's not the argument, Tier Three.

The argument is that on one hand you claim that a 13 year old can't make a choice to do what they want with their body, but on the other hand, you claim they aren't old enough to make a choice about what to do with their body when it comes to pregnancy.

 

[i am herdman]

But that's not the argument, Tier Three.

The argument is that on one hand you claim that a 13 year old can't make a choice to do what they want with their body, but on the other hand, you claim they aren't old enough to make a choice about what to do with their body when it comes to pregnancy.

Do you really think a 13 should be able to walk in to any medical facility and make a decision and get healthcare on their own?

 

[extragreen]

Do you really think a 13 should be able to walk in to any medical facility and make a decision and get healthcare on their own?

Do you think a 13 year old, with an unwanted pregnancy, should be forced to give birth to and raise a child for 18 years??

 

[riflearm2]

Do you really think a 13 should be able to walk in to any medical facility and make a decision and get healthcare on their own?

In most cases, no. But forcing her to carry a baby to term is not the right decision.

 

[ThunderCat98]

But that's not the argument, Tier Three.

The argument is that on one hand you claim that a 13 year old can't make a choice to do what they want with their body, but on the other hand, you claim they aren't old enough to make a choice about what to do with their body when it comes to pregnancy.

So, in both scenarios, 13 is too young to make an informed and competent choice. Where's the inconsistency in that?