MmmmBacon: Thank you, Ryan, for killing any chance you might have had of winning the Presidency in 2016. You have almost single-handedly given the Presidency to the Democrats until at least 2020, if not 2024, and for that I again thank you. Oh, and way to learn from the arse-kicking the GOP took in November 2012, Sir.

What a crazy bastard!

Yes Paul, thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.

And say hi to your buddy Phil Gingrey and pass our gratitude along as well. With guys like you, there is little need for anyone to prove the GOP is in a fog bank and flying blind in the mountains. Or maybe it is a train wreck we all know is going to happen but really don't care if it does.. Good times, good times.

I've gotten a girl pregnant and she decided to abort on her own. I was very supportive of her decision, (smart move!) but I would never have pretended I had the same rights over her own body as me, just because I put my dick in her.

That's a pretty selfish way of thinking.  It's HER body, not yours. If SHE doesn't want the damn thing in her, than that's HER choice, not yours. That's called morality.

No man has any right to tell a woman to bear a child.

It's as simple as that.

DEAL WITH IT.

clowncar on fire: quickdraw: clowncar on fire: Oh for the love of God, would someone please explain to me why this is pro-rapist

clowncar on fire: Unfortunately, rapists occasionally impregnate their victims and are granted coverage under this law is well.

Looks like you did a great job of answering your own question. How efficient of you.

The bill, as written, would apply to all daddy-to-be's regardless of how they put that baby there. That does not make it a pro- anything other than granting a biological dad to be some say bill. I would not expect that the court would give much weight to a rapist seeking an injunction as much as a spouse or common law partner.

But if the only way you can distort the intent is by insisting that only rapists would be the only ones to benefit from this bill then rant on....

Biological dads should have zero say over the decision of the woman bearing the child.

That is just being decent. Do you think you owned her body when you got your moves on?

Men act like it's so hard to make a baby on their end.

clowncar on fire: I will agree with you on the intrusiveness that the legal system has taken with women's health issues though. I'm hoping for a best case scenario where- if time permitting-- the biological father to be could at least offer options to an abortion but that would only be in situations where time permitted. I believe there may be circumstances where the woman may not be aware of all of her options or that by presenting these options in a legal environment, the father would be compelled legally to care for his child other than by just offering hollow promises. So yeah, I imagine only someone who is serious enough about wanting a father would seek this route, and in the eyes of the mother, may be offering a real alternative option to the mother other than lipservice.

That's just because you're a decent person who expects others to be decent people. There are, excluding the rape scenario, only four permutations for an unwanted or unintended pregnancy:
Both parents agree they want the child
Both parents agree they do not want the child
The mother wants the child but the father does not
The father wants the child but the mother does not

Unfortunately, in every single sense of the word, the latter scenario is the most uncommon; and if or when it does become an issue, it's almost never in the context of abortion, but in the context of adoption--usually because daddy doesn't want mommy's new husband to legally adopt the kid. I understand what you are thinking of--that a woman who thinks she has no economic or social option but to abort her baby might change her mind if the father were to contest the abortion--but realistically speaking, any man who cared enough about her and the baby would ALREADY have made that commitment, he wouldn't have waited till he learned she was contemplating abortion and then gone to court to prevent her from doing so.

If the father and mother have enough of a relationship that he can say "Don't get an abortion, I'll take care of the kid," then there's no need for him to go to court to enforce it; and if she's such a biatch that she'd say "No, I'm getting one anyway because screw you," then chances are he'd never even know she was pregnant to begin with. So if the law is to require a biatch to notify her baby-daddy before she gets that abortion....then you run into the time issue I mentioned already.

Of course, the other issue is when a woman is pregnant by someone she is afraid to notify--an abusive boyfriend or jealous husband--and that raises another problem of whether her right (and the baby's!) right to safety trump his right to notice.

Skyrmion: IANAL. So can anyone explain to me how a law that "would give states the right to ban all abortion" could be constitutional in light of Roe v Wade?

It's patently unconstitutional, but it could still stand on the books for years while challenges wind their way through the courts.

clowncar on fire: Confabulat: No man has any right to tell a woman to bear a child.

It's as simple as that.

DEAL WITH IT.

This hurts but... I agree with you 100%.

But, does that man- maybe not a rapist but a common law partner or husband-- have a right to at least have his side of the matter be heard? I am hoping this bill would not block a termination but could delay it long enough for all options to be layed out a "time out" period as it were?

I would think anyone who sought this course of action may be serious about being a father and could be accountable to the court for failing to do so should the woman change her mind?

My argument in this would be that any man and woman who are trying to make a family should be able to have this dialogue on their own. No government intervention should be required or necessary.

If it takes a court order for the man to be able to raise his points to the woman, this is all doomed anyway.

And guys can always make a new baby. If you made one, go make another. Big deal, you'll have fun.

And if the guy and woman aren't friends anymore and don't want to be together anymore but he still expects her to incubate his child for most of a year so he can have it because it's "his?"

Go to hell, asshole. People like that sort are the worst of the worst.

last I checked the country has an issue with fathers not wanting to acknowledge it's their kids.

ongbok: I wonder if any of these guys even read any of the bills that their puppet masters tell them to support. I bet they don't even know what they attached their name to until the media brings it up.

are you kidding? they know what's in it, and they don't just agree with it, they strongly agree with it.

clowncar on fire: The bill, as written, would apply to all daddy-to-be's regardless of how they put that baby there. That does not make it a pro- anything other than granting a biological dad to be some say bill. I would not expect that the court would give much weight to a rapist seeking an injunction as much as a spouse or common law partner.

But if the only way you can distort the intent is by insisting that only rapists would be the only ones to benefit from this bill then rant on....

Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

serpent_sky: How absolutely sick and demented do you have to be to not only think about how you can protect the "rights" of rapists, but to share that thought with other people?

I was trying to figure out what the hell these guys are thinking in that weird time leading up to the election when they just wouldn't let the topic die, and you could tell, just from the way they were talking about it that they knew that there are taboos on rape, such that they must preface what they say with that boilerplate "of course I think rape is a terrible, horrible thing" right before they state their beliefs. They had to say this not because it's what they believe, but because they know they'll catch hell if they don't.

And I think this is what it comes down to: I, like most everyone, have a basic moral code. I don't do things that will cause harm or danger or misery to other individuals. It's not a set of rules that I read somewhere, and I adhere to it because transgressions would feel wrong; would leave me with guilt. I don't adhere to it because I know that I'll be punished if I don't. Now the constant with all these men talking about rape is, of course, their religion. If you were to ask Akin, Mourdock and now Paul where their moral code comes from, they would invariably and without hesitation tell you "the Bible". Their moral code, unlike mine, is written down, and they can reference it for you. They believe not just that their personal moral codes, but the law of the land as well, are based on and should continue to be based on the Bible.

But the Bible doesn't really portray rape as that big a deal. The Old Testament has some rules about it, but they're not really set up to benefit the victim; the victim is treated more like property. If the woman isn't married, the rapist has to pay the victim's father and then marry the victim. If she is married, they both get the death penalty unless she can prove that she called for help.

So if your moral code, your concept of right and wrong starts and ends with the Bible, you probably rank rape somewhere between shoplifting and slapping a baby. And you're likely to put your foot in your mouth when asked about it, because, no matter how awesome you think the Bible is, those of us reading it with objectivity have known for a long time that it's actually a pretty bad basis for law if you're not a heterosexual male member of a brone-age tribal desert community.

log_jammin: last I checked the country has an issue with fathers not wanting to acknowledge it's their kids.

this is only a GOP end run attempt on the abortion issue, yet again.
it is a bit creepy.

The GOP biatches when the left tries to get around the 2nd amendment, but then pulls this shiat to get around SCOTUS ruling.

Girls, you cant have it both ways.

serpent_sky: I honestly cannot wrap my brain around how anyone, anywhere, could come out with stances that are pro-rape or defend rapists in any way, shape or form.  How the flying fark did this ever become the norm for the GOP?

Because the President's black.

clowncar on fire: a woman cannot and should never be be compelled to have a child if she chooses not to. Kind of a sick society if women were to become involuntary breeding machines

I agree with the radical theologian Mary Daly who once poignantly wrote that forcing fertility on women is morally equivalent to forcing sterility on them. If you can make her do one, you can make her do the other. Seems better to me to focus on ways to keep abortion safer, legal and more and more rare at the same time. Years ago my wife needed a D&X to remove an anencephalic fetus that had no brain but was threatening to perforate her uterus but she had to instead be induced to deliver because of the "partial-birth abortion ban"--which has no exception for the health/life of the mother--and then had to have a D&C afterwards because the placenta wouldn't detach and she couldn't stop bleeding. Of all the things you shouldn't force a woman to ever do--forcing her to deliver a brainless baby when she doesn't have to or medically shouldn't has got to be farking up there somewhere.

Fluorescent Testicle: clowncar on fire: Oh for the love of God, would someone please explain to me why this is pro-rapist and not pro biological father to be who may, in a very small percentage of the cases, happened to be a "father" as a result of having raped someone? This bill is about giving both parties a chance to have their say in an abortion.

1. If you honestly believe that the true reason for this bill is to give "Baby-daddies" parental rights, and that it's not just another attempt by the anti-woman lobby to limbo under that ever-pesky Constitution, then I have a bridge to sell you. A bridge that comes with its own fleet of alien space ships. And one of the space ships contains a tyrannosaurus with a saddle and a laser cannon. And the tyrannosaurus shiats pure cocaine on Friday nights.

2. Men should not be allowed to override women's reproductive choices regardless of anything, ever, but has this hypothetical "The man is not a deadbeat and he wants to raise his child, but the woman wants to abort" situation ever happened outside of domestic abuse situations and the over-active derpmaginations of Republicans?

/Of course, you're just deflecting because "Republicans good, Dems bad," even if the Republicans are morally indefensible.
//Trust me, they are morally indefensible.

Not to mention the fact that if Planned Parenthood v. Casey found Pennsylvania's spousal notification provision to be an unconstitutional barrier to abortion, there's no way that it's constitutional to allow the baby-daddy to completely overrule a woman's decision.

Why is this topic so hard for men to understand. You have no right whatsoever to the child in the woman's womb. None. Zero. Not in ANY circumstance.

Deal with it, its never going to change until "Junior" becomes a documentary.

/man