Acceptable registrations in the queue through March 16 at 11:00a ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.

Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619

History and Science Both Support Mississippi's Abortion Law

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues across the U.S. and throughout the World. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
User avatar
FakeAndyStuart
Posts: 485
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2015 7:07 pm
Location: MOVED! Now residing in CurmudgeonLand

Re: History and Science Both Support Mississippi's Abortion Law

Post by FakeAndyStuart » Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:44 am

Anyone who is truly "pro-life" would spend more time worrying about the baby after it was born than before. Take all this money spent on laws, court cases and protesting and start supporting pregnant women, with health care, nutrition and even perhaps adoption services. And the Mississippi and new Texas laws do NOTHING to make the father accountable (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phOW-CZJWT0). These laws are nothing more than political power grabs.



screen glare
Posts: 2778
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:05 am

Re: History and Science Both Support Mississippi's Abortion Law

Post by screen glare » Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:24 am

The main problem in the “always with us/will never end” abortion existence is: a woman’s body is necessary to conceive, develop, and deliver a person.

So the practice of terminating pregnancies will only have a chance to not exist when a woman’s body used to carry and deliver is removed from the reproduction equation.

In the future we may see that scientific possibility happen.

Fertilized eggs may be sustained and allowed to develop into a person outside the womb.

Science fiction often becomes non-fiction years later. Look for human gestation facilities to become reality in the future. Then you can all move on and futilely fight about other issues.
Last edited by screen glare on Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:25 am, edited 1 time in total.



zzand
Posts: 1709
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:16 am
Location: right here

Re: History and Science Both Support Mississippi's Abortion Law

Post by zzand » Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:24 am

Making the father accountable. Seems to me that when a woman accepts a man into her bed she is making him part of the process and if she gets pregnant he should have a say in the process as well, but he doesn't which in my mind is wrong. Oh sure, if she decides to keep it he is on the hook for support, but if she decides to abort he gets no say, sorry but that it just wrong. He played a part in making the baby, he deserves a say in the future of that baby.



User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: History and Science Both Support Mississippi's Abortion Law

Post by audiophile » Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:01 am

Agree 100% Zzand!


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

User avatar
FakeAndyStuart
Posts: 485
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2015 7:07 pm
Location: MOVED! Now residing in CurmudgeonLand

Re: History and Science Both Support Mississippi's Abortion Law

Post by FakeAndyStuart » Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:24 am

zzand wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:24 am
Making the father accountable. Seems to me that when a woman accepts a man into her bed she is making him part of the process and if she gets pregnant he should have a say in the process as well, but he doesn't which in my mind is wrong. Oh sure, if she decides to keep it he is on the hook for support, but if she decides to abort he gets no say, sorry but that it just wrong. He played a part in making the baby, he deserves a say in the future of that baby.
Nice how you took one part of the post and then ducked the rest of the question. But let's go with that - how DO you give him a say in the future? Does he have to ask for it? Does that require him to chip in for costs? If HE decides to agree with the decision to end the pregnancy, does he then become financially liable to some random third party vigilante as well?

And please address the rest - how does the Texas law protect the BORN as well as the unborn? I'll hang up and listen to your answer.



zzand
Posts: 1709
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:16 am
Location: right here

Re: History and Science Both Support Mississippi's Abortion Law

Post by zzand » Wed Sep 22, 2021 1:07 pm

How does the prospective dad have a say? If he wants the baby or not, just the same as the mom. If he does not and signs the proper papers then he has no parental rights. Yes he chips in for costs, be it the abortion or raising the child. And as far as the vigilante part goes, not familiar enough with the law so say for sure but he would be as liable as the mom in my mind. I don't think the law is designed to protect those already born as all states already have those types of laws on the books, it is there to protect the unborn. I don't agree with this law at all and eventually it will make it's way through the court system and either be greatly changed or done away with.



User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: History and Science Both Support Mississippi's Abortion Law

Post by audiophile » Wed Sep 22, 2021 2:12 pm

Excellent points. Life is so precious!

I support the law, in part, because it gives reasonable power back to the fathers.

If a third party, had something to do with killing my child, you can pay the price.


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

km1125
Posts: 3570
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:09 pm

Re: History and Science Both Support Mississippi's Abortion Law

Post by km1125 » Wed Sep 22, 2021 2:15 pm

Neckbeard wrote:
Tue Sep 21, 2021 10:38 pm
It's not killing though? lol its just pregnancy termination and its not your business or mine if a woman chooses to terminate pregnancy.

There is availability for newborns... with no disabilities... if you are willing to pay... But what is the majority of the children in the system? Older kids and kids with disabilities. Once a kid hits like 6 months, they are unlikely to get adopted, and our foster care system is absolutely being choked to death by these children no one will take.

You mentioned Bethany. My wife and I were very excited to work with them. We wanted to get a newborn but they explained that the few newborns they get, go to people who have done foster care for them longest, and that for newborns, we would be better off taking the chance of paying about $30-50k for a service and the expenses of a mother, and to hope the mom doesn't change her mind, or to try and negotiate an adoption internationally and live abroad for a month or longer while papers are processed. We said we would like to volunteer to do foster care, and they arranged for us to go to an orientation.
....
If you kill it in the first 6 weeks, THEN it's just a "pregnancy termination". After that (at some point),, IT'S A BABY.

It's funny that you argue against such kids going into adoption but then detail how much of a need there is for just such kids.

Completely separate issue from the older kids, and perhaps they should be placed in a separate system. Some (many?) of those older kids weren't placed into child services from birth, but got there because of horrible uncaring parents.



Deleted User 9015

Re: History and Science Both Support Mississippi's Abortion Law

Post by Deleted User 9015 » Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:03 pm

km1125 wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 2:15 pm
Neckbeard wrote:
Tue Sep 21, 2021 10:38 pm
It's not killing though? lol its just pregnancy termination and its not your business or mine if a woman chooses to terminate pregnancy.

There is availability for newborns... with no disabilities... if you are willing to pay... But what is the majority of the children in the system? Older kids and kids with disabilities. Once a kid hits like 6 months, they are unlikely to get adopted, and our foster care system is absolutely being choked to death by these children no one will take.

You mentioned Bethany. My wife and I were very excited to work with them. We wanted to get a newborn but they explained that the few newborns they get, go to people who have done foster care for them longest, and that for newborns, we would be better off taking the chance of paying about $30-50k for a service and the expenses of a mother, and to hope the mom doesn't change her mind, or to try and negotiate an adoption internationally and live abroad for a month or longer while papers are processed. We said we would like to volunteer to do foster care, and they arranged for us to go to an orientation.
....
If you kill it in the first 6 weeks, THEN it's just a "pregnancy termination". After that (at some point),, IT'S A BABY.
You aren't killing, you're terminating the pregnancy. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. I know emotionally charged words feel good but cmon man.
km1125 wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 2:15 pm
It's funny that you argue against such kids going into adoption but then detail how much of a need there is for just such kids.
There really isn't a NEED for newborns. There is demand. People do not NEED newborns. My wife and I did not NEED a newborn, we wanted one. When you say NEED that would mean that the adoption of a newborn could not be replaced by participating in foster care or adopting an older child or a child with a disability. We could have but decided not to, and I do not believe that women should be forced to go through a pregnancy they do not want to go through because someone else may want a newborn. That's archaic thinking to be honest.
km1125 wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 2:15 pm
Completely separate issue from the older kids, and perhaps they should be placed in a separate system. Some (many?) of those older kids weren't placed into child services from birth, but got there because of horrible uncaring parents.
About half of children in foster care are basically there for a temporary stay because their parent(s) is/are incapable of being a parent for various reasons. Since those kids eventually go back in a year or two, they are basically not adoptable. The other half are children who are given up completely and often are from the most horrific of situations. This half of foster children need serious mental health interventions and are adoptable. Their circumstances should make these kids a priority in the system, but that isn't how it goes.

So, when we look at the situation and we see that people want the clean slate baby but have no use for the kid that's been through some shit, it seems to be backwards thinking to believe that one of the grounds for preventing abortion is that there are people who want babies. It really isn't a separate issue at all. Preventing abortion means that more children are birthed by mothers who do not want them and currently, only 4% of unwanted pregnancies end in adoption. I don't think that it is unreasonable to believe that the children of these mothers would be as likely or more likely than other children to end up in foster care, so really, it makes this bloated system even more bloated.

If "life is so precious" to some people, I just wonder why they don't have a house full of foster kids and if they instead went out and bought a clean slate.

Bottom line, rather than worrying about the unborn, we should get our house in order in terms of how we care for the born, because were not getting the job done.



Post Reply Previous topicNext topic