Pages

Thursday, April 10, 2014

No, I am not interested in "punishing" women for having sex


I went to law school. This has affected my way of thinking, for good and for ill. I am now fluent in legalese.

The purpose of legalese is to increase clarity. I realize that that's very difficult for non-lawyers to believe! But it's true, and in this post, I'll show you by translating some legalese. Please bear with me. I promise there's a pro-life point at the end.

It's been said that possession is nine-tenths of the law. I'm not sure that's right. Much of the law (I won't assign a number) is about the allocation of risk.

This is especially true of tort law. A tort is pretty much anything that causes damage to persons or property (other than damages that come out of violating a contract, which are handled, appropriately enough, by contract law). So torts encompass a wide range of things. If you ever go to law school, you will study many old-timey tort cases involving trains. But tort cases may also be about car accidents, slip-and-falls, dog bites, and all sorts of other routine matters.

Torts can be divided into two general categories. Intentional torts are instances where someone deliberately causes damage; for instance, punching somebody may not only lead to criminal charges, but also to a private lawsuit for the intentional tort of battery. Then there are the non-intentional torts, which are accidental. I've already mentioned some of those: slip-and-falls, and so on.

In a non-intentional tort, nobody has done anything criminal or morally abhorrent. But damage has been donein the form of hospital bills, a totaled car, or whatever elseand the court must decide who will foot the bill. Will it be the person who innocently caused the situation? Or will it be the person who innocently was minding her own business and was harmed by the situation? Neither option is ideal, but it has to be somebody. So the law's function is to allocate the risk of the accident.

When it comes to intentional torts, the court may not only order the perpetrator to pay for the actual costs of the damage, but also order additional payment to the victim"punitive damages," so called because their purpose is to punish the person who committed an intentional tort. But for non-intentional torts, punitive damages usually aren't on the table, because nobody needs to be punished; it's purely about compensation.

For non-intentional torts, a key concept is contained in the word "foreseeable." The court asks: who was in the best position to prevent this tort from happening? Put yourself in the shoes of the person being sued. Could that person have reasonably predicted that what happened was at least a possibility? If so, the risk will be allocated to that person. If not, the risk will be allocated to the victim.

The fact that something is foreseeable does not mean that it was intentional. (Remember, the fact that we're even talking about foreseeability probably means that it was a non-intentional tort.) A dog owner does not consent to her dog biting someone. A corporation does not consent to its employees doing stupidly dangerous things on the job. A grocer does not consent to a glass jar falling off of a shelf and injuring a customer. But they may still be liable for the damages caused by their torts. It happens all the time.

So when abortion supporters chant "Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy!" and accuse the pro-life movement of wanting to "punish" sexually active women (as if babies are punishments, as opposed to human beings), my mind always goes to the concept of foreseeability. When a person has sexual intercourse, pregnancy is a foreseeable result. That does not mean that the sexually active person has done something wrong or deserves to be punished. Let me repeat that: saying that pregnancy is foreseeable is not a moral judgment. It's just an acknowledgement that, let's face it, the cause of pregnancy is not exactly mysterious!

So the question is: who will bear the risk of the situation? Will it be the sexually active person, who did not intend for pregnancy to occur, but who at least has some control over the situation? Or will it be the unborn child, who has no control over the situation whatsoever, and whose very life is at stake?

The answer to that question is very easy when two lawyers are speaking to each other in legalese: it's all wrapped up in that one word, "foreseeable." But when trying to have that conversation in plain English, instead of having one word, you have... well, you have this entire blog post.

So don't knock legalese. It's actually pretty useful.

1,389 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1201 – 1389 of 1389
TheDingus said...

I am orders of magnitude more honest in my thinking than any anti-choice person you will ever meet. They argue from their theoretical conclusion (IF the woman remains pregnant, there WILL be a baby [wrong]; therefore preventing the baby from developing is EXACTLY THE SAME as killing a baby [wrong, again]); they erase the biological role of women in reproduction, pretending embryos create themselves independently of women's bodies; and they dismiss women's already extant inalienable rights, wholesale.



Let's take your "of course women have a right to take contraception" argument, for example. What you're really saying is, it's alright to decide not to be pregnant as long as you're not pregnant. Kind of a pointless right, don't you think? That's like saying I have the right to get stitches as long as I don't cut myself.


What if I take contraception, and it fails? I took the steps you say I have the right to take to not be pregnant; but I'm now pregnant. Why are my rights alienable, then? Fundamentally, they're alienable because I'm female. So much for "equal protection of the laws."



What if I'm raped, and I conceive? I did not agree to be pregnant; why are my rights alienable after rape?



Finally, you're asking us to trust a government that has already granted itself the authority to compel reproduction to restrain itself from compelling reproduction, depending on circumstances.


Instead, let us be honest and recognize that government has no power to compel (or prohibit: see China) reproduction, at all. Can they compel you to reproduce? Why not?

TheDingus said...

So you're another one of those who can't tell the difference between living inside of and because of another person, and living outside of and despite another person.

A newborn baby can live all by itself. A developing embryo can't. Shouldn't an "individual" actually have to BE individual?

New born babies are not void of cognitive abilities, and certainly do exercise them. Embryos without brains are void of cognitive abilities, though.

Well, as US Citizens, we certainly ARE assigned rights at birth, to wit: "All persons born... in the United States... are citizens..." We also have rights simply by virtue of being persons. As in "...nor shall any State deprive ANY PERSON of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

To address that, you simply assert that developing embryos are "persons." That's nice that you think so. I don't, and I don't have to, either, any more than I have to be Catholic.

The simple assertion of your beliefs (not to mention fantasies about the abilities of brainless embryos whose very lives are dependent on someone else) is utterly meaningless as a point of law.

TheDingus said...

The Constitution is not silent about being born as a condition for granting rights; the rights of US citizens are granted at BIRTH or naturalization, right there in the 14th Amendment.

Some rights are indeed recognized in the Constitution as belonging to all persons regardless of citizenship. (That would be ALL persons, including women.)

There is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution about having rights if you live inside and because of someone else. Given that abortion was legal when the Constitution was written, we certainly can say they didn't mean fetuses have rights.

But I agree with you that appealing to "originalism" is pointless; they didn't think women, blacks, natives, or males who didn't own property had rights then, either. But we can also deduce they didn't think embryos and fetuses in the womb had rights at the time of the ratification of
the 14th Amendment, since they specifically mention
being born before one is considered a citizen, and since abortion was legal then, too.

Why didn't they say "all
persons conceived in the United States are citizens?"

I'll hazard a guess: because, unlike you, they understood that just being gestated is no guarantee of ever living as an individual person. Also, and again unlike you, they recognized that women are individual persons, even unto their ability to reproduce. The ability to bear a child is a function of the woman's person hood, not the embryo's.

Timothy Griffy said...

No insult was intended. Please believe me that I find it just as revolting to go down that road, even for the sake of argument, as you find it insulting. I do it because I find it is a useful tool for anticipating and responding to challenges. So even if I don't *have* to think this through, I did think it through because I realize that some fucking idiot will come to the this conclusion.


Since I'm now going to introduce some facts not in evidence (in the linked article), I can hopefully remove the personal implications by now discussing a more generic situation. So, our generic girlfriend buys and insists on condoms being used for sex. Evil boyfriend tampers with the condom without her knowledge. Generic girlfriend gives evil boyfriend the condom to use, which, to all appearances, he does properly. Proper condom use includes checking for damage. Cruel "pro-lifer" declares her failure to exercise diligence means she is responsible for her pregnancy and therefore may not abort.


How might we respond? There is the obvious, emotionally satisfying but non-explanatory response: "You're a fucking idiot."


Better yet, let's breathe a sigh of relief as we leave cruel "pro-lifer's" head and get inside generic girlfriend's. First, and most importantly, even if it is admitted that she should have exercised more diligence, that does not negate the fact that a fraud was committed and that she deserves to be returned to the status quo ante.


Second, she had no reason to suspect the tampering had occurred. In our real-life case, the woman did not learn of the fraud until after she had become pregnant. So there is no reason to suppose generic girlfriend should have been suspicious.


Finally, if cruel "pro-lifer" wants to press the point that she should have been checking anyway, we would respond that doing that is no way to build a relationship that is supposed to be based on mutual respect and trust. Anyone who has had to deal with a jealous lover constantly accusing them of sleeping around knows what I mean. In fact, the betrayal of that trust was an essential element of the fraud.

Timothy Griffy said...

Second the motion, but amend the proposal to read "all anti-abortion advocate's houses."

TheDingus said...

The only reason I ever switch to the bodily autonomy argument is because I am forced to by the constant, illogical, circular argument-from-the-conclusion proclamations of the anti-choice crowd that a developing embryo is an individual person, because some day it might become one.

I don't believe that, and I will indeed debate that point, over and over again. But anti-choicers consistently behave as if them SAYING the pre-nate is an individual person MAKES the pre-nate an individual person. Having asserted that, the argument (to them, not to me) becomes that "individual persons have rights." Heck yeah: so, individual women have rights, too. Among them is the right to determine the functioning of their own bodies, which is fundamental to liberty.

We're just responding to the argument YOU make, however.

TheDingus said...

^ This, right there.

conversate said...

Just wait 'til you read the 'zygotes are inherently rational' argument

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg

Vita said...

The developing unborn child is alive at every stage of development and at every stage of development that child is a unique individual with his or her own unique genome.


Every abortion ends a unique human life.


You are correct that an unborn child relies on his/her mother for survival. After birth, children rely on their parents to provide care for them, care that is necessary for the survival of that child.


Parents have responsibilities to their children that they do not have to anyone else. They have a duty to care for their children, if they fail to meet these standards they are guilty of negligence. A parent becomes a parent when their child's life begins. Biologically that life begins at fertilization.


The claim that because a child's brain has not yet developed to a certain point allows us to deny his or her right to life is discrimination against a human being based on his or her age, and stage of development.


No one wishes to take away choices, women (and men) have the right to make all choices that do not end someone else's life. This includes the decision on whether adoption or raising the child is desired by his/her parent(s).

conversate said...

Aw, so you block the uterine artery and there are no working blood vessels for the embryo to attach to...

conversate said...

Vita, please explain to us why a brain is irrelevant.

Timothy Griffy said...

This is approval, right?

Timothy Griffy said...

"A parent becomes a parent when their child's life begins. Biologically that life begins at fertilization."


No, it does not. Parenthood begins when a parent voluntarily assumes the rights and responsibilities incumbent to that status, whether implicitly or explicitly. While usually this is concurrent with fertilization (more technically, upon learning fertilization has occurred), this is not always true, as in the case of adoptive parents. Until the status is voluntarily accepted, the woman is just an egg donor, and the man is just a sperm donor.

lady_black said...

Cruel pro-lifer insists that ANY failure of birth control is the woman's responsibility and she may not abort. That's irrelevant. Of course the girlfriend had no reason to suspect that her boyfriend was tampering with her condoms. That doesn't change ANYTHING about the fact that she WAS being responsible. I don't know HOW she found out, I'm assuming the idiot admitted what he did. If I was in a trusting relationship, I would have just assumed that the condom failed. That does happen. To actually *test* a condom would involve unrolling it, and once unrolled, it's impossible to roll it back up again to stretch it over a penis. the tested condom has basically become unusable. So nobody does that. The factory does random tests, but those condoms tested are not packaged and sold, they are wasted.

JamieHaman said...

This was an excellent article, thanks for posting it. Very interesting how the word 'invasive' is used as well.

JamieHaman said...

Seeking help is not the same as finding help. And in the state of Texas, help can come 3 months too late to actually be help. Also, Texas has continued to save taxpayers money, by reducing social services, and increasing the requirements for those services.

JamieHaman said...

No they don't. http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/02/health/aclu-catholic-bishops-lawsuit/ Here is another article about the same lady. http://www.medicaldaily.com/catholic-hospital-refuses-treat-miscarrying-woman-aclu-sues-catholic-bishops-over-reproductive
Catholic hospitals have a list of rules they must follow from the Catholic Bishops, and when the bishops feel those rules aren't being taken seriously, they will drop the hospital. Huston Tx lost a hospital a few years ago, however I don't know if it has been reopened.
Have you heard of the conscience clause? This is a law that has been passed in a few states, where in dr, and pharmacists can refuse service, due to their own conscience. This puts women at risk, because both can and do refuse to prescribe birth control, or do an abortion to save a mother's life. It's a major fail of humanity.

JamieHaman said...

Yep, it was in Ireland, but it was not ONE dr who screwed up, it was all of them. On top of that a dr in Ireland can lose his license to practice, and be thrown in jail if he performs what the church got that the church considers an unnecessary abortion. clearly, they much prefer to let a woman die rather than take a chance. After all, it wasn't their wife, daughter, mother, or sister who was dying.

JamieHaman said...

Nope. same as above. Don't want anyone that willfully ignorant raising children.

JamieHaman said...

lol, No can do! I would be terrified to know that people so unwilling to face actual facts would be raising another generation of people also unwilling to face actual facts, and then have the nerve to call it "caring." Nope. Nuh-uh. No way, and not happening.

myintx said...

Before he died, Dr. Bernard Nathanson was an elder.... who admitted that the pro-abort movement LIED about the number of women who were hurt in illegal abortions. He admitted the pro-abort movement lied about lots of things.

myintx said...

Re-read my post... yes, I do know why the 14th amendment was written.

Every human being should have EQUAL rights. Just like a newborn and his or her mother. A woman cannot decide one day to leave her newborn home alone to go party because she thinks she has the right to the pursuit of happiness. Her right to pursue happiness should NOT cost another innocent human being his or her life. She at least has to (gasp) DO THE RIGHT THING and bring her newborn to the fire station - even if that means she is late for the party (boo freakin hoo!). And, yes, pregnancy is longer and more involved than a trip to the fire station, but parents HAVE to take care of their offspring. That responsibility should start when their offspring are created - at fertilization.

Thomas Beatie. Pregnant man. Any law protecting unborn children from being killed should apply to men that could get pregnant too. Equality.

lady_black said...

Nathanson did an awful lot of lying, and he perpetrated a terrible medical fraud in the form of "The Silent Scream." I wouldn't believe a word he said, if his tongue came notarized.

Timothy Griffy said...

You're going to find Bob Altemeyer's *The Authoritarians* quite useful for understanding the psychology behind this phenomenon, then. http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

JamieHaman said...

Thank you. I'm going to stea...umm borrow this legal forced donation theory. I like it a lot.

myintx said...

So, you're only OK with killing embryos then?

Timothy Griffy said...

Good point.

myintx said...

Yea, he did an awful lot of lying when he was a pro-abort.

myintx said...

So, someone who hugs a tree and won't let go until a developer agrees not to cut the tree down only cares about trees and not herself? It is possible to care about others AND yourself too.

myintx said...

Abortion is a major fail of humanity.

myintx said...

There are plenty of places that can help pregnant women. I haven't heard stories of hundreds of thousands of women being turned away from adoption agencies or places like Catholic Charities. Probably because at the first sign of distress, a pro-abort pats the woman on the back and says, "don't worry, it's just an invasive clump of cells, Planned Parenthood can help you out".

JamieHaman said...

Did you even bother to follow either of the links? Because you certainly haven't bother to respond to any of the points raised.

JamieHaman said...

lol, go look up social services in Texas. Look up numbers for people getting help. Look up the differences in years past, so you have something of a comprehensive view of the situation. Adoption agencies have not proved to be very honest. Remember the preacher who was arrested for child trafficking some 30 odd kids from Haiti? Plus, to pay for more than medical care, or in other words, rent, groceries, utilities, for a woman who is going to give up her child for adoption, to the payer of same is illegal in the state of Texas, and most other states as well.

Timothy Griffy said...

Set aside the argument then. I need to clarify a fact. Are you saying that it is impossible to tell whether a condom has been tampered with in the rolled state?

myintx said...

I guess we'd have more ice bucket challenges if we had more people with diseases or defects. Want to make killing a born child OK if it is born with a defect that wasn't caught on the ultrasound?




You didn't answer my other question either.

JamieHaman said...

So far, funny and fascinating. Thanks for sharing this!

fiona64 said...

Yep, that was my first clue-in as to why she was such a bitter hag. Further comments on her part revealed my initial assessment as accurate.

Timothy Griffy said...

Okay. Thanks for the information.

"For the record, abusive men have been tampering with women's birth control for a long time. Contraceptive sabotage is a "thing."

I know. I first heard of the concept only a couple years ago when there was a lot of Facebook buzz about a man surreptitiously removing a woman's diaphragm (I think, maybe it was a cervical cap). I was pretty outraged about it. I will admit that I've had occasional thoughts that having a child might have saved my marriage, but I never came close to even considering tampering with my ex-wife's birth control.

Sad to say, I was naive enough to believe that case was just the action of one particularly heinous prick. Then this last week, a friend sent me a couple links that showed me just how widespread contraceptive sabotage is. I was shocked, but perhaps I should have known better.

Ann Morgan said...

Regarding your question, myintx, you are trying to pretend that time and developement don't exist. Here's the deal - a drug such as you proposed that causes the arms and legs of an embryo to atrophy, resulting in a limbless baby, is in fact a crime against that baby, since you eventually do have a (limbless) baby present. An abortion is different, when an abortion is done, there IS no baby afterwords. You cannot commit a crime against someone who merely 'potentially' exists, if they do not, in fact, ever actually come into existence. The fact that a baby 'potentially' exists does not give it any rights, including the right to actually be born based on that 'potential'. And you cannot commit a 'crime' against the embryo by having an abortion, because an embryo does not have rights.

Ann Morgan said...

**I guess we'd have more ice bucket challenges if we had more people with diseases or defects.**


Yes, I'm sure that would go a real long way towards solving the problem of having 75% of all humans with such severe defects that they required lifelong care. Do you really think there would be enough money left over after caring for all those people to fund icebucket challenges?


You really are disconnected from reality, aren't you?

conversate said...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/20/8-year-old-endured-horrific-abuse-before-mom-and-boyfriend-beat-him-to-death-witnesses/

Arab225 said...

Timothy, the very definition of lifestyle based child support is about increasing the custodial parent's standard of living so that it will trickle down to the child. Child support is not supposed to be about maintaining a child's opulent standard of living; it's about providing for the reasonable needs of the child. Once those needs are being met, the child is not being punished.

Look at it this way, if the child's parents remained married, nothing would be stopping them from downsizing from a mansion to a normal home. They could do this at anytime, and I bet no one would ever accuse them of punishing their child. So mandating a non-custodial parent to pay for things that were once discretionary, is the equivalent of infringing upon that parent's fundamental right to direct the lifestyle of their child, and is an unjust division of their estate. The idea of ordering a non-custodial parent to pay exorbitant amounts of money in "child" support to insulate the child from a drop in lifestyle after divorce, is a flawed one. Many judges have came to the very same conclusion.

Arab225 said...

I'm sorry, but your entire argument is seriously flawed. First off, extravagant spending is by definition discretionary. For example, say there was no mother in the picture and the wealthy father had sole custody. He could decide at any time to jettison a lifestyle of extravagance and have his kids live a normal lifestyle. Would child protective services barge into his home and demand that he continue to have his children live the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed to?

This illustrates the point I was trying to make. Divorce notwithstanding, it really isn't anyone's place to tell a parent how to bring up their child. All a court should be able to ask of a wealthy non-custodial parent is for them to pay for the reasonable needs of the child.


Let me make this clear, no child is entitled to a jet-setting lifestyle. To say that a child would be living a certain lifestyle if the wealthy parent had custody, is a fallacious argument in and of itself. This is because said lifestyle was entirely discretionary in the first place and liable to revocation at any time.



Once a child's reasonable needs are being met, a parent IS taking responsibility.

myintx said...

We're not discussing reality. We're discussing a hypothetical....


Want to make killing a born child OK if it is born with a defect that wasn't caught on the ultrasound?

myintx said...

Sure slave owners used to say they could do anything they wanted because their slaves didn't have full rights... never made it right. Unborn children should have a basic right to life. They are not potential human beings, they are human beings with potential.

TheDingus said...

Actually, it's your argument that is seriously flawed.

First, you fail to define "extravagant." What is "extravagant" to a middle class man is not necessarily so to a wealthy man. I'm going to venture to say that for someone who earns $32,000,000 A DAY, there is no such thing as "extravagant." The person who has that kind of money has an extravagant income, to start with.

You're correct that just because a father is wealthy, that doesn't mean he must provide a wealthy life style to his children. But if he does or did provide a wealthy lifestyle when he is or was the custodial parent, he doesn't get to deny it because he got a divorce. His children didn't get a divorce.

That's the biggest flaw in your argument, saying he can decide AFTER the divorce to change his children's circumstances, without also taking custody. Those circumstances would be at his discretion IF he were the custodial parent. In which case, if he lives in a mansion, so will they; by the same token, If he lives in a
modest home, etc., so will they. If he's not the custodial parent, however, his role is to provide financial support to his children, not to direct their upbringing.

Would you also argue that a man of modest but comfortable means has the discretion of rendering his children poverty-stricken, if he feels like it? Beans and rice, tap water, and a tarp are "food and shelter," aren't they? So what if HE lives in a 4,000 foot square foot house and eats a variety of healthful foods every day? He wants to teach his kids something. (Mainly that he's a selfish dickwad.)

Sure, he may decide to be a dickwad; but he doesn't get to decide that after the divorce. After the divorce
he can decide to either do the actual work (the horror!) of raising his
children, or pay for their support: the same support he would provide them if he wasn't divorced, according to his means.

TheDingus said...

No, it isn't. Is a man masturbating into a tissue instead of siring offspring "a major fail of humanity?" Why not?

You know what is a major fail of humanity? Not creating the circumstances in which children's welfare is the highest priority... and I don't mean "unborn children," I mean CHILDREN. Living, breathing, feeling, hungry, needy, curious, intelligent children.

Instead, in this world, the egos and power of men is the highest priority. Look how much money we spend to make sure men are powerful, from the meanest third world dictator to the wealthiest American oligarch. Literally tens of thousands of born, sentient children die every day on this planet, many who could be saved with not very much money. But that's not a priority, is it? That's because the circumstances of their mothers isn't a priority, either.

In this world, pretending to care about some theoretical fetus you don't even know exists is idiocy. You want to do something about the lives of children? Do something about the circumstances of the women who have them. Yet, the only thing you want to do about those circumstances is make sure women have no way to get out of them.

TheDingus said...

Someone who hugs a tree until their body is sliced open by a chainsaw is not caring about themselves, are they? That's extreme isn't it? Well, many a laboring woman has her body sliced open by a scalpel, which you will pretend either never happens, or, if it does, is no big deal.

Teaching a child that she has to care about others (who don't even exist yet) BEFORE she cares about herself is child abuse, in my book. Teach her that she is important, first. Not as a uterus on legs; as a person.

You know, there's a girl in our town who is being raised by a Catholic grandmother who thinks just like you do. When this girl was 13, she was raped. (I know because I talked to her.) She became pregnant. The grandmother is anti-abortion, so she dragged her grandchild around town where many a person (including doctors and nurses) looked at her age and was horrified she was continuing with the pregnancy. See, we were thinking about a 13 year old rape victim giving birth (what must she think about sex?)

Now a 14 year old, she has a child she had NO SAY in creating. The rapist daddy is nowhere to be found, of course.

I saw this "happy" little family at a picnic we all attended. The child (that is, the rape victim mommy) was doing her best by her baby (since she'd been taught that's her role in life), but throughout the event, Grandma did nothing but criticize her poor parenting skills. "That's not how you do it, dear." "Oh, here, let me do that" (because the traumatized 14 year old was doing something wrong, of course). The conflicted, nasty atmosphere between grandmother and granddaughter was so thick, you could cut it with a knife.

I don't expect you to care a wit about the 14 year old, because of course you don't. But the infant was soaking all that up, as infants do. Even at six months old, you could see the confusion and wariness in the baby's eyes.



Care about others? You don't give a tinker's damn about others.

TheDingus said...

Excellent point. Scratch that. Let's just make sure women aren't required by law to have babies they don't want.

TheDingus said...

This is a familiar tale, to me. My mother (who was not the shining beacon of selflessness anti-abortion advocates always imagine) told me when I was 18 that I was conceived because my father was poking holes in his condoms. He wanted a girl; she didn't want any more children. (The Pill had not yet been invented and abortion was illegal; condoms was it.) Guess who won? And guess who lost? The usual people: the woman, and her unwanted child. (After 17 1/2 years of being under my mother's care, it didn't come as news that she didn't want me, that's for sure.)

TheDingus said...

Yes, we know that any person SHOULD have equal rights.

Right off the bat, we have to determine if what we're discussing IS a person. So far, we've learned that you grasp that members of other species aren't; that sperm and ova aren't (despite being alive, human and capable of becoming babies). But you believe that the instant sperm and ovum mix, we have a "person." (Unless we don't; such as in gestational trophoblastic diseases. Then, somehow, the self-same fertilized ovum magically stops being a person.)

Why the mix of sperm and ovum is a "person" despite the overwhelming evidence that most will never be born, is not clear to most of us. The criteria "it might be born" just doesn't cut it. Not because we're wicked and selfish, but because the woman has already been born, no "might" about it.

For the sake of argument, let's pretend a fertilized ovum is a person, because we "err" on the side of "caution" (for fertilized ovum, but not for living women.)

Nevertheless, that "person" cannot live without the functioning of another person's body. Again, that's not us being mean and nasty and hating babies, that's just a fact. Pregnancy is a circumstance in which both the mother and the embryo CAN'T have equal rights. To grant the embryo rights, you have to first strip the woman of hers. I've explained how; others have explained how; the Supreme Court explained how in Roe v. Wade and in Casey. Continuing to pretend you don't know these things is just flagrantly dishonest.

You believe it's morally and legally acceptable to do strip women of their rights at conception. Therefore, either you do NOT believe ANY person should have equal rights, or, you do not believe women are persons. Which is it?

BTW: you seriously need to quit arguing that a newborn and an embryo are the same thing. I'm astonished you can't tell the difference, frankly. But I'm just amused that you think if you keep it up, I'll suddenly lose my ability to grasp reality. (I think I know how Galileo felt about the a**hats in the church...)

Um, Thomas (née Tracy) Beatie was born a woman.
He is a transgendered man, who has a uterus, and no sperm. His "penis" is actually his clitoris.

Try again, honey.

myintx said...

Of course you don't care about others - that is why you are pro-abortion. DUH.


To kill because you don't want to go through childbirth is SELFISH. It's wrong. If a woman is so PARANOID about getting herself cut open during childbirth, she should have her uterus removed before she ever has consensual sex or seek counselling for her disorder. No one should be able to kill an unborn child because of fear of childbirth. what a lame excuse to kill.

TheDingus said...

Define "innocent."

Arab225 said...

No sir, I disagree. My argument is logically consistent whereas yours is not.

Why should a parent loose the ability to direct the lifestyle of their child simply because they do not live with them? That argument would only make sense if the custodial parent was wealthy and chose to spoil their children. In that case, the non-custodial parent couldn't contest what the custodial parent was doing simply because it's not their money that is being spent on the children. However, what you're advocating for is the non-custodial parent being forced to subsidize the lifestyle choices of the other parent, and that is infringing upon their rights.

Just look at what the North Carolina Court of Appeals had to say in the child support case of Brind’Amour v Brind’Amour, after the divorce of the parents:

An amount awarded in excess of the amount awarded as child support, below, would essentially result in Father providing support to Mother and/or result in subsidizing Mother’s choices regarding the children’s standard of living.”

It is unreasonable for Father to be required to pay more child support than the amount set forth herein because the Mother’s expenses related to the children are excessive. Requiring Father to pay more than the amount set forth herein would involuntarily transfer the power of discretionary spending on the children to Mother and would result in a windfall to her that would benefit her, and her choices, more than it would serve to benefit the children.”



It seems to me that the issue of divorce is clouding your judgment and making you come to irrational conclusions. During the marriage, a child's extravagant lifestyle was a gift, so why should it become an entitlement after divorce?

TheDingus said...

First, ending reproduction is not killing. It's deciding not to reproduce; not to give life. You cannot "kill" what is not spontaneously alive. You can only decide to give life, or not. You understand that perfectly well, since you have both your kidneys, still.



So why do you have to be so disingenuous? I talk about embryos because that's what is aborted (a word you should look up for your own edification) the majority of the time.



A woman may end the process of reproduction at any point, if it is necessary for her to do so. That may or may not end the gestation of a fetus. At a certain point, it would result in premature birth, not abortion.



None of that is the same act as killing a born infant. Capiche?

TheDingus said...

WHY and HOW is a developing zygote, embryo or fetus alive? Also, where?

Zygote: alive because the living sperm penetrated the living ovum, and the ovum contains the nutrients it needs to remain alive. Or possibly not, in which case it will be "alive" for a couple of weeks, if that. Where? In the woman's fallopian tubes or uterus.

The ovum and fallopian tubes belong to the woman.

Embryos and fetuses are alive because they get nutrition, oxygen and hormones supplied via the woman's uterus. The nutrition comes from the woman; the oxygen comes from the woman; many of the hormones come from the woman. The uterus belongs to the woman; the lungs and circulatory system belong to the woman; the stomach and other organs necessary to derive nutrtion belong to the woman; the endrocine system that produces the hormones belong to the woman. Where? The uterus, which likewise belongs to the woman.

Parents do have responsibilities. A woman who does not give birth to a live infant is not a parent. She can choose not to become a parent by choosing not to perform her role in reproduction; precisely as men can.

Children MAY rely on their parents for care and support; biologically, they don't HAVE to. Z/E/Fs have to rely on the biological functioning of one person. That person has rights.

This really isn't rocket science, all your "sad feelies," as Ann so succinctly puts it, aside.

Timothy Griffy said...

You're missing the point. The noncustodial parent did exercise discretion during the marriage, and could still exercise that discretion by taking custody of the child. The requirement to maintain the child is saying that the divorce itself cannot be used to stop doing what you had already been doing for the child, particularly in an effort to "punish" the ex-spouse.

myintx said...

LOL. Saying I'm disingenuous right after you say abortion is not killing. WOW.

TheDingus said...

If I take two pills and have my period, I am not committing an act of violence. I'm just bringing on my period.

I've recently been re-watching the great BBC show "Sherlock." There's a couple of scenes that are both shocking and funny; one in which Sherlock is beating the stuffing out of a corpse with a riding crop because he wants to see how bruising develops postmortem; another is him entering his flat, covered in blood, holding a harpoon: he's spent the morning sticking dead pigs to learn about wounds. What's my point? How much suffering did the corpse or the dead pigs do as a result of his violence? Why, none whatsoever. What rights were removed from them by his acts of violence? None, whatsoever.

So say I miss the window for a medication abortion and instead have a D & C or a suction abortion... what suffering have I caused? Why, none. The embryo has
no capacity to feel anything, or to know anything. I suppose to make you all feel better, we could do major abdominal surgery on women and very carefully remove developing embryos from their uteri, or better yet, remove women's uteri with the embryo intact, but I assure you the developing embryo would be just as dead, and still not feel a
thing. However, the woman would be put at greater risk and feel quite a lot, particularly if she lost her future fertility and was thrown into early menopause.

TheDingus said...

Yup. :-)

TheDingus said...

I don't even want to know the tortured "logic" that arrived at that conclusion. But I'll bet dollars to donuts it was from someone who doesn't give a rat's fat behind about women being rational; all they need to be is pregnant.

conversate said...

zygotes are rational, they merely have not 'expressed' this rationality yet


also, anencephalic babies are rational, they are merely prevented from expressing their rationality by outside forces


and a zygote is rational, because it's HUMAN


A biologist told me that chickens have genes for teeth. Are chickens really tootthed creatures that are simply prevented from expressing their full dental glory?

Timothy Griffy said...

"Timothy, the very definition of lifestyle based child support is about
increasing the custodial parent's standard of living so that it will
trickle down to the child"

No, the definition of lifestyle based child support is about maintaining the standard of living the child received during the marriage. In no case is child support based on the custodial parent's standard of living. If the custodial parent benefits from the child support, that is a trickle up effect.

"Child support is not supposed to be about maintaining a child's opulent standard of living; it's about providing for the reasonable needs of the child. Once those needs are being met, the child is not being punished."

The reasonable needs of the child include being maintained in a state that obtained while the parents were together.

"Look at it this way, if the child's parents remained married, nothing would be stopping them from downsizing from a mansion to a normal home. They could do this at anytime, and I bet no one would ever accuse them of punishing their child. So mandating a non-custodial parent to pay for things that were once discretionary, is the equivalent of infringing upon that parent's fundamental right to direct the lifestyle of their child, and is an unjust division of their estate. The idea of ordering a non-custodial parent to pay exorbitant amounts of money in "child" support to insulate the child from a drop in lifestyle after divorce, is a flawed one. Many judges have came to the very same conclusion."


Then those judges are wrong. Again, the child has a reasonable expectation to be maintained in the lifestyle which obtained before the parents split. The question is not what the parent *could* have done, but what the parents *were* doing. The non-custodial parent had already exercised their discretion in conjunction with the custodial parent. Refusing to maintain the child's lifestyle *because* of the divorce not only infringes on the custodial parents fundamental right to direct the lifestyle of the child, it breaks an pre-existing agreement to provide said lifestyle.

Timothy Griffy said...

You dropped something out of your quote and distorted the entire context.

Here is the actual quote:

“An amount awarded in excess of the amount awarded as child support, below, would essentially result in Father providing support to Mother and/or result in subsidizing Mother’s choices regarding the children’s standard of living – choices that Father has historically not supported and inconsistent with his own lifestyle and the choices he has made for the minor children.”

Notice how everything after the dash causes your whole argument to fall apart. Even some of the things you quoted correctly don't support your position.

I maintained that child support is about the child, not the parent. The court affirmed that. I asserted that lifestyle support was about maintaining what was being provided before the divorce. And the court affirmed that as well.

Did you really think that no one would check the facts? Just how stupid do you think we are?

Ann Morgan said...

Sorry, comparing apples and oranges again here, myintx. The fact that the law once said that blacks were not human beings, and was incorrect in that assessment does not equate to the fact that because the law now says that embryos are not human beings, the law is necessarily incorrect in that assessment as well, any more than the fact that the law says that squirrels and ants are not human beings means that they really are human beings.

Black people have brains. They can talk and feel pain. Can you show me a month old embryo with a functioning brain that can talk and feel pain, so that it can be validly compared to black people? Or is all you have to show me things like your buzzwords and sad feelies.

**Unborn children should have a basic right to life.**



First of all, an embryo doesn't have rights. Secondly, a 'right to life' does not equate to a blank check to be handed resources against the will of the owner of those resources. Thirdly, given that it's increasingly obvious that you do not actuallly assign anything like a real 'right to life' to ANY human beings or embryos, and you only want a 'right to life' assigned to embryos and feral toddlers in order to increase their value as a hostage in your assorted extortion and control schemes, I really have a hard time taking that statement seriously from you.

Ann Morgan said...

**We're not discussing reality. We're discussing a hypothetical....**

More evasion.

**Want to make killing a born child OK if it is born with a defect that wasn't caught on the ultrasound?**



There have been lawsuits on the subject of ultrasound and genetic tests being reported incorrectly (they showed a genetic defect but someone screwed up and told the parents there was no defect). Generally, what happens is the institution that screwed up gets sued for a lot of $$$$, which pretty much means that they, not the parents, have assumed financial responsibility for that child. Given that you've indicated that you are not willing to assume responsibility for other people's disabled children, you are not in any position to tell them not to get an abortion.

Arab225 said...

No actually Timothy, everything after the dash buttressed my own argument. I simply truncated that part of the quote because it reiterated the point that I've been making all along. Which is that forcing a non-custodial parent to subsidize the lifestyle choices of the other parent is indeed a violation of their rights.

The father did not support how the mother was spending HIS money on the children which resulted in a lifestyle that was contrary to his own AFTER the divorce--notice they said "inconsistent with his own lifestyle" denoting that they are speaking in the present tense. No where in that quote did the court ever say that child support is about maintaining the lifestyle of the children prior to the end of the marriage. What they did say was that mother's expenses related to the children were excessive, and that forcing the father to pay for more than the reasonable needs of the child would transfer discretionary spending to her. What the court affirmed by its ruling was that a non-custodial parent maintains the right to direct the lifestyle of their child after divorce.

I've been telling you the facts all along; you are simply seeing what you want to see.

Timothy Griffy said...

"The father did not support how the mother was spending HIS money on the
children which resulted in a lifestyle that was contrary to his own AFTER the divorce--notice they said "inconsistent with his own lifestyle", denoting that they are speaking in the present tense."

Your still quoting out of context. Let's go with the whole after the dash again:

"choices that Father has historically not supported and inconsistent with his own lifestyle and the choices he has made for the minor children.”


It isn't *just* that it is inconsistent with his own lifestyle that makes or breaks the case. It is *also* that "Father has not historically supported" such a lifestyle that the mother now wished to have subsidized. This is hardly a case where the court held the noncustodial parent could cut back on maintaining the lifestyle he had once provided. It just means the noncustodial parent does not have to go any further than they already have.

Arab225 said...

Since you admitted that such spending was discretionary during the marriage, are you now saying that a non-custodial parent should be forced to subsidize the spending of the other parent, simply because they got divorced and did not retain custody? Because that is what your entire argument amounts to.


Why should the fact that a parent got divorced, then mandate them to maintain spending that was once optional? I'm sorry, but that's just completely ridiculous. Keep in mind that If the parents were still married, there would be no law preventing them from downsizing even though it would result in a decline in the children's accustomed life-style. Given this fact, why should a decline in lifestyle matter after divorce? If in the former they are not entitled to their accustomed lifestyle, why are they then entitled to it in the latter? That doesn't sound like a strong argument.

Timothy Griffy said...

I buttressed it in a later comment.

Arab225 said...

Well, I was specifically talking about in the case where the parents were never married or never lived together. In that instance, lifestyle based child support is about propping up the custodial parent's lifestyle so that it is commensurate to the non-custodial's income-- and that is wrong! However in the case where the parents divorced, many judges have came to the conclusion that the children were never entitled to that lifestyle in the first place.


The fact that a parent provides a child with a certain standard of living does not preclude them from taking it away. Pre-existing agreements are not cast in stone. This is consistent with the right that a parent would have had during the marriage; and is a right that should remain after the marriage is dissolved. A parent's right to direct the child's lifestyle trumps its expectations. Also, this does not infringe upon the custodial parent's right to direct the child's lifestyle, because they are free to provide the child with whatever lifestyle they choose, provided that they foot the bill. Bar the reasonable needs of the child, a custodial parent does not have a right to the non-custodial parent's money.

Arab225 said...

No, you have misconstrued what they were saying. Back to the quote:

"choices that Father has historically not supported and inconsistent with his own lifestyle and the choices he has made for the minor children.”

What the father historically does not support is the way that the mother has been spending the child support on the children. They make a clear reference to those choices here: "It is unreasonable for Father to be required to pay more child support than the amount set forth herein because the Mother’s expenses related to the children are excessive." They make no reference to lifestyle during the marriage. This quote "and the choices he has made for the minor children", leads me to believe that the court is talking about the choices the father made in regards to the children independent of the mother. At best it is talking about how the father spends his money on the children when they are with him.

myintx said...

So, you support abortion bans after viability then?


A right to life for a newborn sure does mean his or her parent has to ensure his or her safety - even if that means a parent misses a party to bring his or her newborn to the fire station. Even if that is done against the parents will - boo hoo. Yes, pregnancy is longer than a trip to the fire station, but if it is expected that a parent of a newborn take CARE of his or her child then a parent should take CARE of his or her unborn child too.

You sure like to fight for the right not to care. sad.

myintx said...

More evasion from you. You didn't answer the question. What if the parents couldn't afford an ultrasound? Or didn't know the woman was pregnant? and the baby came out defective - can they kill it?

And, somehow you're trying to stretch this scenario out to cover all abortions. Quite the stretch. Parents are responsible for taking care of their offspring. That responsibility should start when their offspring are created - at fertilization.

TheDingus said...

Not the question I asked. I asked if it is caring for yourself to allow yourself to be harmed. Well, of course it isn't. Immediately you hyperbolically explain how it's a terrible crime to care about yourself.

As I said, you're teaching your daughter to care about everything but HERSELF.

To care about others means to care about THEM, their wants and needs, their feelings, their health, their future, and how they are treated. You just care if one form of life continues to exist, irregardless of wants, needs, feelings, health, the future, or how they are treated.

Do you have car
insurance? Why? Isn't that just you being "paranoid" that you might be
involved in an accident, or have your car stolen? If you're that PARANOID, you shouldn't have a car, at all.

I suggest you get rid of your car immediately. Surely that's the ONLY way to ensure you're never harmed in it, right?

There's no such thing as "pro abortion." There's pro-choice. No one is advocating that women get abortions for the sake of abortion. We aren't "side walk counseling" pregnant women to encourage them to end their pregnancies, nor stalking and shooting their doctors for making childbirth possible, or blowing up OB/Gyn clinics. We don't send pregnant women to re-education centers where we show them videos of the worst possible outcomes of pregnancy we can find, and tell them how hard and expensive child rearing is. You won't find one post on this site that says "women should all get abortions!"

That's unlike the anti-abortion side, which advocates that women have babies just for the sake of having babies, and all the rest of it.

Women are not capable only of reproduction, nor are they here just to make you feel morally superior.

myintx said...

No, I'm teaching my daughter to care about EVERYONE.

If she puts herself in a situation where she creates another human being, she has a RESPONSIBILITY to take care of her offspring. She should not be able to be selfish and whine and say, "oh no... labor is gonna hurt, boo hoo... I'm gonna kill my own unborn son or daughter to get out of that pain... cause it's all about me, me, me, me, me, oh, and me!".

TheDingus said...

You know, it's one thing when you're theoretically talking about strangers you will never meet, but now we're discussing your own offspring. You know, the one you're meant to protect and care for?

You are teaching your daughter to care about everyone BUT HERSELF. You're teaching her that she comes last. She comes in so far last, a rapist's sperm is more important than she is. So what if she was pinned down a virgin, she was violently violated, she's traumatized and terrified? I know: let's MAKE her also give birth to her attacker's child! So Grandma can feel all holy, and everything. (Bonus: after putting her through that, you can lecture her about what a bad mother she is, just like the Grandmother I was describing, above.)

She comes in so far last, her own fertilized ovum is more important than she is, even though it cannot exist without her. She comes in so far last, her own mother can't see that it takes months of gestation to create a baby, gestation made possible by her daughter's body. Nope: you're sticking to it - men create babies and women, including your daughter, are incubators.

She comes in so far last, it doesn't matter what she thinks, feels, wants, or needs; her liberty and her future don't matter; her fear and her pain don't matter.

It's selfish of her to expect pain medicine, too, isn't it? The pain of labor and birth, those are nothing in the grand scheme of things, and they cost money, too. Child birth is natural, isn't it? How about if we teach her the lesson that caring about her own pain is selfish by withholding pain medicine during child birth, too? (They might interfere
with the precious baby, after all.)

She comes in so far last that in the end, her very life doesn't matter.

I hope she, and you, don't have to learn how wrong you are the hard way. Because someone seems to have taught you that lesson - that you come last - and now you're passing it on. Well, you being committed to "selflessness" is fine for yourself. It's a tragedy for you to raise your daughter to think she doesn't have a self, either - she just has a uterus.

Ann Morgan said...

**So, you support abortion bans after viability then?**


My position is that there should be some restrictions on abortion after brain function starts. Right now, that is at the beginning of the 6th month, based on what we know about brains. There are other reasons I support that particular point, including that the fetus is viable (with expensive care) at that point, and that even women with very irregular periods will probably know they are pregnant by then.

If going to the fire station means that I am going to be seriously hurt and possibly die, then the infant does not have a 'right' to go to the fire station. Boo hoo hoo.



Freedom means the right NOT to care. Demanding that people be 'forced' to care, is, in fact, the antithesis of compassion, as well.

Arab225 said...

No sir you did not. In said comment, I clearly rebutted your argument by stating the fact that children are not entitled to an opulent lifestyle and that a parent has a right to revoke it at any time. The fact that a child may see a decline in an over-the-top lifestyle because of divorce is inconsequential, due to the fact that they were not entitled to it in the first place. My view is consistent with what several judges have said when this issue was brought before them.

conversate said...

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/when-the-rich-split-its-skys-the-limit-for-child-support

myintx said...

Not sure how you jump to the conclusion that I'm thin-skinned either. You sure like making up carp about people. Typical of the pro-abort movement. When they lose an argument they start with the personal attacks.

Timothy Griffy said...

I have not misconstrued what they were saying. They were citing the relevant points leading to the court's decision. The court upheld the trial court's ruling, saying, "Defendant essentially argues that, given plaintiff's income, the trial court's order deprives the children of advantages and luxuries they otherwise would have received.   However, the trial court carefully considered the advantages and luxuries the children received-such as private school-and ensured the children were able to continue to have the advantages." See the full ruling at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nc-court-of-appeals/1197320.html.

The court's decision had everything to do with maintaining the lifestyle the children had before the divorce dissolved. It only ruled the noncustodial parent have overreached that lifestyle in making her claim, and that is what violated the custodial parent's rights.

Timothy Griffy said...

"Well, I was specifically talking about in the case where the parents were never married or never lived together. In that instance, lifestyle
based child support is about propping up the custodial parent's
lifestyle so that it is commensurate to the non-custodial's income-- and that is wrong!"

Well, if you were specifically talking about cases where the parent never married or lived together, you should have kept your focus on that. In those cases, I am inclined to agree that child support should be limited to the reasonable needs of the child.

"However in the case where the parents divorced, many judges have came to the conclusion that the children were never entitled to that lifestyle in the first place."

I don't think anyone is arguing the child was entitle to a lavish lifestyle in the first place. What we are discussing is what happens once the child has already been given said lifestyle.

"The fact that a parent provides a child with a certain standard of living does not preclude them from taking it away. Pre-existing agreements are not cast in stone. This is consistent with the right that a parent would have had during the marriage; and is a right that should remain after the marriage is dissolved. A parent's right to direct the child's lifestyle trumps its expectations."

A pre-existing agreement is not cast in stone, but a divorce does not in itself change that agreement. One parent could not unilaterally alter the agreement during the marriage, and therefore cannot do so just because the couple is now divorced. Again, if the noncustodial parent want to cut back on the child's privileges, they can gain custody of the child and do so, just as the custodial parent can choose to extend more privileges with their own money.

Arab225 said...

Timothy, with all due respect, you have misconstrued the court's ruling yet again.

Take this excerpt from the link that you just provided:

"With the exception of the expenses related to the former marital residence, which has been for sale almost since its completion more than 5 years ago, Plaintiff's living expenses for himself and the minor children when they are in his care are substantially lower than those of the Defendant and the minor children when they are in her care.

Contrary to what you have said, this clearly shows that the court's ruling was based entirely on how the father spent his money on the children while they were with him. It had nothing to do with the lifestyle that the parents provided for the children during the marriage.

Arab225 said...

Well, yeah, I wasn't really sure if you guys were talking about child support following a divorce or just child support in general. In the case of the latter, I am pleased that you agree that it should be based on the reasonable needs of the child.

"A pre-existing agreement is not cast in stone, but a divorce does not in itself change that agreement. One parent could not unilaterally alter the agreement during the marriage, and therefore cannot do so just because the couple is now divorced. Again, if the noncustodial parent want to cut back on the child's privileges, they can gain custody of the child and do so, just as the custodial parent can choose to extend more privileges with their own money."



That's incorrect. In the case where one spouse is entirely dependent on the other, the one bringing home the bacon usually has all the say when it comes to modulating the family's lifestyle. In the same vein, if the marriage dissolves and the dependent spouse retains custody, the bread winner still has a right to direct the lifestyle of the children when it comes to his money-- and many courts have said just that. To do otherwise would infringe upon their rights and force them to finance the custodial parent's unilateral decisions in regards to the children. The non-custodial parent can maintain the children's lifestyle anyway they want, provided that they use their own money.


Child support should be for the reasonable needs of the child, (food, clothes, education, health insurance, extracurricular activities etc) but when it comes to lifestyle, a non-custodial parent still retains the right to direct the children's lifestyle as they please.

Timothy Griffy said...

Bullshit. What part of "the trial court carefully considered the advantages and
luxuries the children received-such as private school-and ensured the
children were able to continue to have the advantages" do you not understand? The trial judge assessed the advantages and luxuries the children received, and the appeals court approved that. The trial judge ensured they would continue to have such advantages and luxuries, and the appeals court approved that. Unless you are saying something like the noncustodial parent is withdrawing them from private school and sending them to public school, you have no case for saying *only* the present situation is being considered.

Timothy Griffy said...

"That's incorrect. In the case where one spouse is entirely dependent on
the other, the one bringing home the bacon usually has all the say when
it comes to modulating the family's lifestyle. In the same vein, if the
marriage dissolves and the dependent spouse retains custody, the bread
winner still has a right to direct the lifestyle of the children when it
comes to their money-- and many courts have said just that. To do
otherwise would infringe upon their rights and force them to finance the
custodial parent's unilateral decisions in regards to the children."


Even in such cases there is an agreement. In real life, the breadwinner tends to default to the stay-at-home parent who makes the decisions on how to run the household. If the breadwinner has objections, they can be made and the situation can be worked. (In a community property state, the objections may be moot, but I'm not certain of that.)

Arab225 said...

Sir, you really do have a knack for misconstruing things. Paying for a child's education is perfectly reasonable and isn't what I was contesting in the first place.


Those kinds of luxuries & advantages wasn't what the father had a problem with. What this whole case was about, is a child support order so high, that it exceeded the reasonable needs of the child and acted as a financial windfall for the mother. What the court affirmed was that transferring discretionary spending power to her under the guise of child support, was indeed inappropriate and an infringement on his rights.

Arab225 said...

No, in my experience, the bread winner is the one who is in control because they're the one's earning the money; the stay-at-home spouse usually just goes along with whatever they decide.


Community property laws are typically only applicable upon the initiation of divorce to see how assets are split when both parties go their separate ways--though this does not apply if there was a prenuptial agreement.

Timothy Griffy said...

Exactly. But the principle that whatever advantages and luxuries the child had before should be maintained was also upheld. The father wasn't trying cut back on that. Had he been doing so, the decision would have gone a different way.

Arab225 said...

The only advantages and luxuries that the court ordered to be maintained were: education, health insurances, and I think they mentioned extracurricular activities as well. However, if the father didn't want to pay for those things, I can't see why that would be seen as unreasonable. While private school is good, the father should still retain the right to stop paying for the tuition and send them to public school if he wants. After all, he's paying his taxes like everyone else.

Timothy Griffy said...

Then he can custody of the children and do that.

Arab225 said...

Or the mother could foot the bill herself. Why is that so inconceivable to you?

Timothy Griffy said...

Because I believe in justice.

Arab225 said...

So you believe "justice" is someone being forced against their will to pay for the arbitrary choices of another?

Timothy Griffy said...

I believe justice includes keeping one's agreements.

Arab225 said...

No, it sounds to me like you're biased against men. Also, no child is entitled to gifts from a parent. They have the right to take it away anytime they want.

Timothy Griffy said...

Oh, I try to keep a pretty even keel. That's why I support both abortion and opting out of paternity. And I already agreed with you on child support in non-marital relationships. It's just that there are other factors involved when it comes to marriage and divorce. It's the details that make the difference.

Arab225 said...

So you support financial abortion for men? Unless I misunderstood what you wrote, that's one thing me & you can agree on. As for marital relationships and the different factors involved, we already hashed that out in full.

Timothy Griffy said...

Basically, yes, I would support "financial abortion for men." Terms and conditions apply. For most marital relationships, it can be safely assumed the father has voluntarily undertaken the obligations of parenting and therefore can be held to it.

Arab225 said...

Yes I agree with the only exception being paternity fraud. No man should be forced to support another man's child.

Timothy Griffy said...

Define "paternity fraud."

Arab225 said...

The wife goes off and becomes pregnant by another man. In good faith, the husband believes that he is father and is completely oblivious to the fact that he has been duped. Say he takes a DNA test, finds out the kid isn't his, and divorces the mother because of it. Under no circumstances should he be forced by the state to pay child support for his wife's love child.

Timothy Griffy said...

That seems reasonable enough. However, if the same man had damn good reason to believe the child wasn't his and took it in anyway, he would still be on the hook for child support in the case of divorce.

Timothy Griffy said...

I didn't say anything about proving that he knew. I said having good reason to believe. Take a look at the first paragraph of this story: http://www.salon.com/2013/11/02/make_fatherhood_a_mans_choice_partner/. Here, the putative father had excellent reasons to believe the author was not his child, and went along anyway. That would be a situation where I think he'd still be on the hook for child support (and in this case the putative father obviously agreed).

Arab225 said...

Well in that case the man was cognizant about what was going on and didn't protest the child support payments. It was basically like he had adopted the child. However, if he didn't know, under no circumstances should he be forced to pay.

Timothy Griffy said...

I think the circumstances count. I the man could or should have reasonably known the child wasn't his but still took it in, then he is the fathers, as if he had adopted the child. It's not like he was totally bamboozled in such cases.

Arab225 said...

Well since you can't prove that he knew, the mother should be held solely responsible for the child that she brought into the world.


Now, if the man accepts the child of his own volition after the dissolution of the marriage, I am perfectly fine with that.


In that case he can pay child support or fight for custody because he wants to remain apart of the child's life.

Timothy Griffy said...

Are we still talking about the same thing? Children conceived, born, and raised during marriage? If so ...

"Well since you can't prove that he knew, the mother should be held
solely responsible for the child that she brought into the world."

Again, the standard isn't only that he knew. It is that he knew *or could have reasonably known* but still took the child in.

Lindsey Leigh Phillips said...

Totally makes sense now...all of the blathering this teat does to excuse rape and rapists...I missed her babydaddy story. Now it's all so clear. She's not just an ignorant sow, she is a rapist, as well. I knew there was a reason she makes me sick more than the average antichoice pissweasel.

Plum Dumpling said...

God is a proabort.
Hosea 13:16.
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.

Plum Dumpling said...

Wild applause! Thank you.

myintx said...

Guess in your twisted mind since God kills born people every day from natural causes it must be OK to kill a born child or elderly person who is deemed inconvenient or unwanted...

Jennifer Starr said...

Tacky and neurotic is what Mathilde specializes in.

Plum Dumpling said...

That is her name? Pretty name for an ugly person.

myintx said...

"they will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground"... If you're using your interpretation of Hosea 13:16 to justify abortion, I guess you approve of people killing their born children too.

Plum Dumpling said...

How stupid are you? It is BIBLE GATEWAY.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea%2013:16

Plum Dumpling said...

YOU WANT TO FORCE SELFISH WOMEN TO HAVE CHILDREN. Do you dislike children?

myintx said...

So? If you think God is a pro-abort and that's why you approve of abortion, then by the same interpretation of that bible quote, God is for killing children and you are too...

Plum Dumpling said...

How many times are you going to say the same dumb thing to me? This is #3.

There is this psalm. A prayer to god the babykiller evidently. Jehovah is a proabort and a child killer.

Psalm 137 King James Version (KJV)

By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.
For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion.
How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.
If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.
Remember, O Lord, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.
O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

myintx said...

If a woman doesn't want her child, she can give him up for adoption. At least that way he or she gets a chance at a full and productive life.


It's your side that dislikes children. Wanting to kill them before they even have a chance.


p.s. your Caps lock is on.

Plum Dumpling said...

No thank you. I would never give a born child to a stranger and hope for the best. That is truly irresponsible. Someone like you might get the child. Better to abort when it is only a clot.

myintx said...

What a whacked out sense of logic you have... Kill the unborn child because he or she MIGHT not have the best life with an adoptive couple... Guess you'd be too selfish to arrange an open adoption where you could keep in contact with the child and/or the family and notify authorities if something doesn't seem right. Most adoptions work out. ALL abortions end in death.


An unborn child is never 'only a clot' - he or she is always a human being, starting at fertilization.

Jennifer Starr said...

Bob McDonnell in my state was recently proven guilty. I'm happy.

Plum Dumpling said...

What a whacked out sense of logic you have...

...........

Logic? You have yet to answer these questions below logically. There is nothing logical about the way I feel about my born children. I am a tiger Mother. I will hurt you if you come near them in real life to enforce your agenda. I will not give birth to children if I cannot care for them and/or I do not want to be pregnant.


I believe I have covered the entire universe of choices. Pick one or suggest an alternative that is logical. Do not waste my time using 'own' to answer me. So many of you whackjobs choose that silly out. The word 'belong' had meanings other than to own.

My body and its contents belongs to (pick one):
1. You.
2. the State.
3. Me and my family.
My children belong with and to:
1. You.
2. the State.
3. Me and my family.

Plum Dumpling said...

And he is the same kind of sanctimonious biotch mytinx is.

Jennifer Starr said...

Oh yes. Ex-Governor Ultrasound was even willing to throw his supposedly beloved wife under the bus to try and save his sorry ass.

Plum Dumpling said...

Because it could not be him who is wrong. He has always been so perfect.

myintx said...

If "its contents" includes another human being than that human being should be protected from being killed simply because he or she is inconvenient or unwanted.


It would suck to be an unborn child inside your womb.

Plum Dumpling said...

I was right. You are incapable of rational discussion. You need to be an anus. Poor thing. I bet folks hide or run when they see you coming.

myintx said...

You got that b s from Crazy Crawford, lol.

myintx said...

I speak the truth.

Plum Dumpling said...

You are a drunk. All drunks speak the truth. Only God is The Truth.
You made me remember you. You reskeeved me. Buzz off.

Plum Dumpling said...

I learned from Crawford. The genotype is the plan for an organism. The phenotype is "the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment."
See the words 'observe' and 'individual?' The acorn is not the oak.
THIS IS THE LAST TIME I AM GOING TO RESPOND TO YOU.
YOU MADE ME REMEMBER YOU. I REMEMBER THAT YOU SKEEVE ME.
eWWWWWW. Ewwwwwww. Ewww.

myintx said...

Of the 2 of us, I'm pretty sure I'm not the drunk. You'll agree when you re-read your posts when you are sober.

myintx said...

It's CRAZY Crawford. The wacko who says preventing women from having abortions kills born children. That wacko. lol


People run over newborn oak trees all the time. Doesn't make killing newborns right. Your acorn/oak analogy doesn't hold water.

Arab225 said...

Nope. I'd be still be against child support in that case as well. The only exception is if he legally adopted the child.

Timothy Griffy said...

I'm basing my standard on already established tort law. Fraud requires both deceitfulness and reasonable reliance on the statement. A person claiming fraud must show both. And when it comes to reasonable reliance, the victim at a minimum must have made at least a cursory examination of the facts and must not have overlooked obvious clues that the statement was a lie. I see no particular reason to make an exception for allegations of paternity fraud.

Arab225 said...

I do. The man is not the father of the child. The only ones who should be forced to maintain the child are men who happen to share a genetic relationship to the child and want to be a part of its life. Child support should not be an imposition.

Erwin said...

Re: 'comment deleted' on Not-So-Friendly/One-sided Atheist Blog Site.

ref Matthew 13:19, 1John 4:1-6.

Need more proof God is real? What are they afraid of?

Obviously The Truth, lest 'The Truth shall set you free." John 8:32.

Erwin said...

Say again?
Like that makes any sense at all. So much for logic and critical thinking!
Not!

Much better,
'The needs of the many ( unborn ) outweigh the needs of the few ( or

the one ).' [ who seek their demise.] Even Mr. Spock and Capt Kirk could see that, as 'logic dictates'.

ref Luke 17:1-3, 13:3,5.

Timothy Griffy said...

Um, you're complaining to the wrong person on the deleted comments. I will point out, however, I've quoted and cited the Bible quite frequently in that thread without having my comments deleted, so that doesn't appear to be the explanation for why your posts were.

Your questions about needing more proof that God is real is also misdirected because I do believe God exists.

Timothy Griffy said...

Since you failed to say exactly what it was you didn't understand, it is impossible for me to try to explain it better. Since you also made not attempt to point out where my logic and critical thinking went wrong, I can't answer for that either.

You are aware, of course that Kirk and Spock were not discussing either rights or ethics in the conversation you are citing, right?

And as usual, your biblical citations are irrelevant.

Timothy Griffy said...

Then we've reached the point where we part company.

Timothy Griffy said...

Back atcha.

Erwin said...

Re 'Back atcha', ie 'I know you are but what am I?':

"When I was a child , I spake..., understood..., thought as a child: but

when I became a man, ( and, as a new man in Christ ) I put away childish things." 1Corinthians 16:11.

Time to grow up, ( and learn ) you think?

"His ( Apostle Paul's ) letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable

( like childish thinking ) people distort, as they do the other
Scriptures, to their own ( and others, like say, the unborn ) destruction." 3Peter 3:16.

"...And such were some of you..." 1Corinthians 6:11.
"... But God..." Ephesians 2:4.

There's still hope for you yet!

"And now these three remain; faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

"...God is love."
ref John 3:16; 1John 4:8; Philippians 4:8.

Timothy Griffy said...

"Re 'Back atcha', ie 'I know you are but what am I?':"


No. I.e., you're the actual target of the verses. It is you who are saying "Lord, Lord" without doing the will of the Father. It is you that denies women their rights and makes them into slaves, therefore doing the same to Jesus.


It is also you that needs to grow up and learn.

Erwin said...

Finally, the truth comes out!

"By their fruits you shall know them." (the false prophets and antichrist

and children of this world -the 'devil's playground'- of which you obviously are one, verified by your

outspoken stance on abortion and other topics you have expressed ).
Matthew 7:15-20; 2Timothy 3:1-7.
1John 4:1-6.

Timothy Griffy said...

Except that one's stance on abortion is not defined as one of the fruits of false prophets, etc. Not in the passages you cited, not anywhere else in the Bible. All the quoting out of context isn't going to make it so.

BTW, I'm still waiting for the book, chapter, and verse prohibiting abortion.

Erwin said...

Re 'that is exaxtly what 'YOU right to life' people want to give the prenate':

How about YOU 'promoters of death' people give them, the conceived unborn, the unalienable

'right to life', and enable them to live, in this world, as both you and I were enabled to do so, and not , literally,

'cut their lives short or into short pieces'. Shame on you!

Our bodies are not our own, much less are those of the unborn ours either, but both belong to God and are

entrusted to us by God, to Whom we are all accountable.
ref 1Corinthians 6:19-20.

"The Lord said,
( and will say to all of you also )

'What have you done?
( or condoned others to do )

Listen! Your brothers
( 'the least of these My brethren' )

blood cries to Me from the ground.'" Genesis 4:10.

Erwin said...

Re 'Scriptures about abortion'; Leviticus 18:20, 20:2-3; Jeremiah 19:5,32:35;

ref James 3:15,17; Ephesians 6:12; Matthew 4:4, 'Do you likewise!'

secularprolife.org said...

Leviticus 18:21--"You shall not give any of your offspring to sacrifice them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord." Nope. Doesn't mention abortion, let alone prohibit it.

Leviticus 20:2-3--"Say further to the people of Israel: Any of the people of Israel, or of the aliens who reside in Israel, who give any of their offspring to Molech shall be put to death; the people of the land shall stone them to death. I myself will set my face against them, and will cut them off from the people, because they have given of their offspring to Molech, defiling my sanctuary and profaning my holy name." Nope. Doesn't mention abortion, let alone prohibit it.

Jeremiah 19:4-5--"Because the people have forsaken me, and have profaned this place by making offerings in it to other gods whom neither they nor their ancestors nor the kings of Judah have known, and because they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent, and gone on building the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it enter my mind." Nope. Doesn't mention abortion, let alone prohibit it.

Jeremiah 32:35--"They built the high places of Baal in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter my mind that they should do this abomination, causing Judah to sin." Nope. Doesn't mention abortion, let alone prohibit it.

2 Timothy 3:3--"inhuman, implacable, slanders, profligates, brutes, haters of good." Nope. Doesn't mention abortion, let alone prohibit it.

Matthew 24:12--"And because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold." Nope. Doesn't mention abortion, let alone prohibit it.

Exodus 20:13--"You shall not murder." Abortion is not murder, so this verse doesn't apply.

Genesis:4:9-10--"Then the Lord said to Cain, 'Where is your brother Abel?' He said, 'I do not know; am I my borther's keeper?' And the Lord said, 'What have you done? Listen; your brother's blood is crying out to me from the ground!'" Nope. Doesn't mention abortion, let alone prohibit it.

James 3: 15, 17--"Such wisdom does not come down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, devilish. . . . But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy." Nope. Doesn't mention abortion, let alone prohibit it.

Ephesians 6:12--"For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places." Nope. Doesn't mention abortion, let alone prohibit it.

Jeremiah 17:9--"The heart is devious above all else; it is perverse--who can understand it?" Nope. Doesn't mention abortion, let alone prohibit it.

Matthew 4:4--"But he answered, 'It is written, "One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God."'" Nope. Doesn't mention abortion, let alone prohibit it.

John 8:32--"and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." Nope. Doesn't mention abortion, let alone prohibit it.

Care to try again?

secularprolife.org said...

ref, again, Jeremiah 5:21; Isaiah 6:10
'...they see not,... they hear not.'

"Lord, do not Your eyes look for truth? You struck them but they felt no pain; You crushed them buy they

refused correction. They made their faces harder than stone and refused to repent...;

they are foolish, for they do not know the way of the Lord, the requirements of their God...

But with one accord they too had broken off the yoke and torn off the bonds. Therefore a lion from the

forest will attack them
( ref 1Peter4:8: 'Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion seeking whom he MAY devour.' )

a wolf from the desert will ravage them
( ref, Matthew 7:15: '..who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are revenous wolves.')...

For their rebellion is great and their backslidings many... They have lied about the Lord;...

Hear this, you foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see ( the light of the Truth ) ,

who have ears but do not hear (understand, much less obey the Truth ): Should you not fear Me,

declares the Lord? Should you not tremble in My presence? ... But these people have stubborn and

rebellious hearts; they have turned aside and gone away...; your sins have deprived you of good. Among

My people are the wicked who lie in wait like men who snare birds and like those who set traps to snare

people. Like cages full of birds, their houses are full of deceit; Their evil deeds have no limit. They do not

seek justice. They do not promote the case of the fatherless;' Should I not punish them for this?', declares the Lord...

A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land:...,
( as also today, in our land and in our world re abortion!)

and My people love it this way.
But what will you do in the end?
Jeremiah 5:3-31.

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous
( the unrepentive/unforgiven haughty and proud, lovers of sin and haters of God and His righteousness)

will not inherit the kingdom of God?
( beginning now, in this life, continuing on into eternity in the next life )

Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor theived, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

And such WERE some of you.

But you are washed,...,sanctified, ... justified by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ , and by the Spirit of our God." 1Corinthians 6:9-11.

( If you believe and repent, 'lest you likewise perish', in this world and the next, for eternity.) ref Luke 13:3,5.

"...Among them we too all formerly lived in the lust of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh,

and of the mind, and were by nature, children of wrath, even as the rest.

BUT GOD..." Ephesians 2:1-10.

May the same be said also of you and all who read this post, someday

, the sooner the better, I do sincerely pray, Amen!
May it be so, Selah!

secularprolife.org said...

All that sound and fury, and yet you still cannot provide a single verse from the Bible that mentions abortion, let alone prohibits it.

Okay, let's work with Jeremiah 5:3-31 a bit. Let's concentrate on verses 4 and 5:

"Then I said, 'These are only the poor, they have no sense; for they do not know the way of the Lord, the law of their God. Let me go to the rich and speak to them; surely they know the way of the Lord, the law of their God.'"

The indictment that follows mentions a lot of things: idolatry (v.7-9), speaking falsely of the Lord (v. 12), stubbornness (v. 23), treachery (v. 27), trampling the rights of the orphan and the needy (v. 28), and so on. Yet, amazingly for a God you say abhors abortion, abortion isn't mentioned at all. (Nor is it mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, for that matter.)

Anyway, the poor might be excused because they could hardly be blamed for not knowing the law (after all, many of them couldn't read anyway). But the rich. Ah, the rich. What is their excuse? It's not like they needed someone to go into heaven or cross the sea in order to figure out God's law. It was there for them to consult the whole time (see Deuteronomy 30:11-14).

And that brings us to one of your favorite ad hominems, Jeremiah 5:21. "Hear this, O foolish and senseless people, who have eyes, but do not see, who have ears, but do not hear." The context of this verse is that the law is already there, spelling out for the people what God wants of them.

And where is abortion so much as mentioned in this law? Nowhere. It is impossible to break a law that simply does. not. exist.

And you. You have to put words in God's mouth in order to get there. Are you claiming to have ascended heaven to get a law prohibiting abortion? Are you claiming to have crossed the sea and brought it back? If so, why should we listen to you? And if not, why can't you simply provide the book, chapter and verse prohibiting abortion?

secularprolife.org said...

"How about YOU 'promoters of death' people give them, the conceived unborn, the unalienable 'right to life', and enable them to live, in this world, as both you and I were enabled to do so, and not , literally,'cut their lives short or into short little pieces, or the like.' Shame on you!"

The right to life does not include a claim on anyone else's body. "I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me" (Matthew 25:35-36). Funny, I don't see anything like, "I was a parasite and you let me leech your nutrients and bones, dump my wastes into your body, and inject mind-altering and addictive substances into it."

1 Corinthians 6:19-20 doesn't so much as mention the unborn and is cited completely out of context. Genesis 4:10,
Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, and Luke 17:2 all have reference to those who have been born. Matthew and Luke only have 28 and 24 chapters respectively. Matthew 29:4 and Luke 28:6 don't exist.

secularprolife.org said...

Again, one last time:

"If you have done it ( or done it not ) to the least of these 'My brethren',

you have done it ( or done it not ) to Me ( Jesus Christ )."

[ ref 'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you ( My brethren to
be ) before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.' Jeremiah 1:5 ]
Matthew 25:40,45.

"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."
Matthew 25:46.

Which are you, pray tell?
"You cannot serve two masters (God and mammon, much less yourself and your fallen sinful nature) ..."
ref Matthew 6:24.

"For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
Matthew 25:21.

"Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts.
And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead in the way everlasting." Psalm 139:23-24.

secularprolife.org said...

Much like Christ, for Whom there was no room found in the Inn, likewise in todays

'modern/heartless' age there is found no room in the womb, much less nurishment;

'I was hungry and thirsty and naked, but you gave Me nothing' but instead tossed Me out and aborted/killed Me instead.'

"If you did it, or not to the least of these My brethren, you did it, or not unto Me, Jesus Christ."

secularprolife.org said...

Still putting words in God's mouth. We were warned against that. "You must neither add anything to what I command you nor take away anything from it, but keep the commandments of the Lord your God with which I am charging you" (Deuteronomy 4:2, cf. 12:32). "You must therefore be careful to do as the Lord your God has commanded you; you shall not turn to the right or to the left" (Deuteronomy 5:32, cf. 28:14).

secularprolife.org said...

"Again, one last time:"

One can only hope.

"Matthew 25:40,45" Asked and answered. The context doesn't get you any where. What do the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick, and the prisoner of verses 35-39 all have in common? They were all BORN. Not a prenate in sight in these verses.

But at least you get an E for effort in trying to include the unborn with your citation of Jeremiah 1:5. But if that verse is a prooftext for anything, it is either about divine foreknowledge (most common view) or the antemortal existence of human souls (minority view, but that does include my tradition). And, again, abortion is not so much as mentioned here, let alone prohibited.

You're not even trying to relate the other cited passages to abortion, so I think I am safe in just skipping them. If you really, truly want to know about my relationship to mammon, my answer is that I am a Socialist. 'Nuff said there.

And this will bring us to Psalm 9:9-20. It is a relatively long passage, so I can see one reason why you didn't simply quote it. The other, of course, is that the passage doesn't mention the unborn. At all. It is about the fate of the afflicted and their oppressors. Full stop.

You're straining at a gnat and expecting us to swallow a camel (cf. Matthew 23:24). Seriously, if God had meant to prohibit abortion, he could have just said something like, "You shall not have an abortion." If you accept Moses as the author of the Torah, it's not like abortion wasn't practiced in his time. For Pete's sake, he grew up in Egypt, where abortion was practiced for a good three hundred years before he was born (at least)! Various legal, philosophical, and religious texts of the surrounding cultures, including those who had conquered ancient Palestine have things to say about abortion, either for or against. And yet the Bible is absolutely silent on the subject. This is astounding, especially for God that supposedly hates abortion so much.

So, where is that book, chapter, and verse prohibiting abortion?

secularprolife.org said...

Re the immoral, their immorality and Scripture:

"But among you there must not be a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed because these are improper for God's holy people...

For of this you can be sure: no immoral, impure or greedy person (who is unrepentive thus unforgiven )

- such a person is an idolator ('lovers of pleasure and of self more than lovers of God' - 2Timothy 3:2-5)

has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for

because of such things God's wrath comes upon those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them...

Have nothing to do with the fruitless (as in unproductive/unedifying/barren/
abortively minded ) deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

It is shameful to mention what the

secularprolife.org said...

Re the immoral and scripture:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth ( scripture ) in unrighteousness...

so that they are without excuse...
Professing themselves to be wise they becsme fools...

Wherefore God also gave them up to the uncleanliness through the lust of their own hearts, to dishonour their

own bodies between themselves:...
for this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women

did change the natural use into that which against nature ( 'without natural affection' - like the natural affection of a woman for a man, or of her love for her unborn child ) :

and likewise, also the men, leaving the natural use ( and affection ) of the woman, burned in lust one

toward another; men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves the recompence of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind,

( making their hearts even harder, as He did Pharoah's heart in Egypt )
to do those things that are not convenient;

being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication,wickedness... haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters,...

without understanding...and natural affection,...unmerciful ( as in aborting the unborn).

Who knowing the judgement of God, that they which commit such things (unrepentively therefore without forgiveness ) are worthy of death

(spiritually now and physical eternal death at the resurrection of the dead on the last day, at the last trump - ref
John 5:28,28; 1Corinthians 15:52; 1Thesalonians 4:13-18)

not only DO THE SAME but HAVE PLEASURE in them that do them."
Romans 1:18-32.

'Lovers of pleasure
( 'the world/the lust of the eyes, the flesh/the lust of the flesh and the devil/ the pride of life' - ref 1John 2:16 )

more than lovers of God." 2Timothy3:4
( and of the unborn, 'created in His image'- ref Genesis 1:26; Psalm 139:13-20; Jeremiah 1:5 ).

secularprolife.org said...

"If I ( Jesus Christ ) have not come and spoken to them, they would not

be guilty of sin; but now they ( as you also ) have no excuse for their sin. ( or you for your )
Whoever hates
Me hates My Father also."
John 15:22-23.

Re ' faith and judgement': ref John 12:47-48,18-50.

secularprolife.org said...

Re 'hope': ref 1John 3:2-3, 1-6.

secularprolife.org said...

Okay, that one obviously flew over your head.

secularprolife.org said...

You're "a dog that returns to its vomit" (Proverbs 26:11).

Paul was quite capable of saying what he meant, and he was writing in a society where abortion was both accepted and legal. And given the vice catalogue of sins enumerated in Romans 1:29-31, if abortion was part of his indictment, he could have said so. He doesn't need you to put words in his mouth.

The same applies to your citation of 2 Timothy 3:4, which again is part of a vice catalogue beginning in verse 2 and continuing into verse 5. Notably, this vice catalogue also does not include abortion.

"You must neither add anything to what I command you nor take away
anything from it, but keep the commandments of the Lord your God with
which I am charging you" (Deuteronomy 4:2, cf. 12:32).

"You must
therefore be careful to do as the Lord your God has commanded you; you
shall not turn to the right or to the left" (Deuteronomy 5:32, cf.
28:14).

"Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or else he will rebuke you, and you will be found a liar" (Proverbs 30:5-6).

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book" (Revelation 22:18).

secularprolife.org said...

Still flying over your head. Think about it for awhile. I'm sure it will come to you eventually.

secularprolife.org said...

Is this supposed to be a serious response to my previous comment? If so, you've failed to do anything that remotely links your response to it.

I'm still waiting for the book, chapter, and verse prohibiting abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

And such are some of you, still in need of washing, sanctifying and justifying.

"...But God, Who is rich in mercy withwhich He loved us..." Ephesians 2:1-10.

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have life everlasting."
John 3:16.

Go, and Do thou likewise!
Showing mercy on the unborn, for whom Christ died also!
ref Luke 10:27-29,36-37.

secularprolife.org said...

ref Luke 20:25-29 , and quit trying to justify abortion, much less saying God does so! Anathema!

secularprolife.org said...

Quit putting words in God's mouth in your attempts to condemn abortion! If God is so much against abortion, provide the book, chapter, and verse condemning it!

Luke 20:25-29--"He said to them, 'Then give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's.' And they were not able in the presence of the people to trap him by what he said; and being amazed by his answer, they became silent.

"Some Sadducees, those who say there is no resurrection, came to him and asked him a question, 'Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies, leaving a wife but no children, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. Now there were seven brothers, the first married, and died childless." Are you just picking passages out at random now?

John 8:44--"You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies." You would see women die via forced gestation, and try to accuse me of being a liar and a murderer?

Matthew 16:23--"But he turned and said to Peter, 'Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things." Said in response to Peter contradicting God's revelation. Are you saying God gave you a revelation prohibiting abortion?



Matthew 25:41--"Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." Asked and answered. Twice if I remember correctly.


Zechariah 3:1-10--"Then he showed me the high priest Joshua standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the Lord said to Satan, 'The Lord rebuke you, O Satan! The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this man a brand plucked from the fire?' Now Joshua was dressed with filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. The angel said to those who were standing before him, 'Take off his filthy clothes.' And to him he said, 'See, I have taken your guilt away from you, and I will clothe you with festal apparel.' And I said, 'Let them put a clean turban on his head.' So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with the apparel; and the angel of the Lord was standing by.


"Then the angel of the Lord assured Joshua, saying, 'Thus says the Lord of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my requirements, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here. Now listen, Joshua, high priest, you and your colleagues who sit before you! For they are an omen of things to come: I am going to bring my servant the Branch. For on the stone that I have set before Joshua, on a single stone with seven facts, I will engrave its inscription, says the Lord of hosts, and I will remove the guilt of this land in a single day. On that day, says the Lord of hosts, you shall invite each other to come under your vine and fig tree.'" Another passage picked at random.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, go and do likewise, imitating Jesus by defending women against parasites.

secularprolife.org said...

1. Your argument is one from silence, assumption, and the false logic of a reprobate mind. ref Romans 1:28; John 8;44-45;

2. Re 'Scripture references':
'If the shoe fits, where it', ie, and such are some of you, still, so do

thou likewise, and repent, lest ye likewise perish, quickly and without warning or time to, at the time of your end. ref Luke 13:2-5; Jeremiah 5:31; Hebrews 9:27; Matthew 3:7-12.

secularprolife.org said...

ref Isaiah 5:20-30.

secularprolife.org said...

Isaiah 3:15.

secularprolife.org said...

1. Your argument is one from silence, false assumption, and the false logic of a reprobate mind.
----

When it comes to the Bible and abortion, any argument is one from silence. Nulla poena sine lege is the general rule in such cases.

But at least I'm not putting words in God's mouth in direct violation of the commandment. Deuteronomy 4:2
====

2. Re 'Scripture references': 'If the shoe fits, where it', ie, and such are some of you, still, so do thou likewise, and repent,' lest ye likewise perish', quickly and without warning or having any time left to repent,at the time of your end!
----

What shoe? You have yet to provide the book, chapter, and verse prohibiting abortion. All your attempted indictments are worthless without that.

secularprolife.org said...

Isaiah 3:8-11
"...; their words and deeds are against the Lord, defying His glorious presence.

The look on their faces ( as on yours) testifies against them. They parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it ( ref Ephesians 5:11-13 ).

Woe to them ! ( and to you also!)
They brought disaster upon themselves...

Woe to the wicked! Disaster is upon them! They will be paid back for what they have done. "

"Now this was the sin of Sodom: she and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy ( as say, the defenseless unborn!)

They were haughty and did detestable things before Me, therefore I did away with them.

You not only followed their ways and copied their detestable practices, but in all your ways you soon became more depraved than they."
( ref Romans 1:32 ; Genesis 19:1-29)
Ezekiel 16:46-52.

secularprolife.org said...

Re 'what shoe ' that will 'give you the boot', ref Ezekiel 16:50; Romans 12:9.

secularprolife.org said...

Ezekiel 16:50--"They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it."

This and the other cited passages are yet more worthless attempts at an indictment unless it could be shown that abortion is indeed an abomination to God. So, where is that book, chapter and verse I keep asking for?

secularprolife.org said...

Matthew 7:1-5. How dare you judge the look of my face without ever having seen me? How dare you pronounce my guilt when you can't even provide the book, chapter, and verse prohibiting abortion? Are you God?

Ezekiel 16:49--This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy." Full stop. You keep putting words in God's mouth, but it is clear that God is far more concerned about the born and already living than he is about the unborn.

secularprolife.org said...

"You strain at the gnat ( of verses specifically mentioning abortion ) and swallow the camel." Matthew 23:24,23
(whole, of verses speaking of eternal damnation for those haters of God and of men , born and unborn, made in His image. ref Matthew 22:36-40;
Deuteronomy 30:6-20.

"... And such were some of you (also)... But God " ( by His grace ) saved(s) us: washes,sanctifies,justifies.
ref 1Corinthians 6:9-11; Ephesians 2:1-10.

secularprolife.org said...

Nulla poena sine lege. If I'm straining at a gnat by asking for the book, chapter, and verse prohibiting abortion, that is a hell of a big gnat I'm looking for, especially if we are talking about eternal damnation.

So take your reference to Matthew 7:23. The context includes verse 21, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my father in heaven." If it is the will of the Father not to have an abortion, you would think he would have prohibited it somewhere. But he didn't. Nulla poena sine lege.

Or again your reference to Matthew 25:41, "Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." But in verses 42-43, the Son of Man says *exactly* why they are being punished: "for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'" Not "I was a fetus and you aborted me." This marks at lest the third time this has been asked and answered. Nulla poena sine lege.

And then there is the vice catalogue of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, which doesn't mention abortion at all.

When are you going to stop putting words in God's mouth in violation of explicit directives to the contrary? Deuteronomy 4:2, cf. 12:32; Deuteronomy 5:32, cf. 28:14; Proverbs 30:5-6; Revelation 22:18.

secularprolife.org said...

Whatever helps you sleep at night; Not!

ref "...hath God said ( or in your case, not said, ie, an 'argument from silence' fallacy )..." Genesis 3:1;

also John 8:44 ,Genesis 3:15 and 2Timothy 2:16,

"...And such WERE some of you..."
1Cor 6:9-11,
"...But God, Who is rich in mercy..,"
Ephesians 2:1-10.

secularprolife.org said...

ref Genesis 3:1, "...hath God said...?"
----
Don't forget the sequel, wherein Eve added to God's command, "nor shall you touch it" (Genesis 3:2).
====

or in your case, not said, ie, an 'argument from silence' fallacy or 'big gnat' as you call it
----
You realize, that is kind of the point. When it comes to the Bible, *anything* said about abortion is an argument from silence. It just so happens that the Bible's silence on the topic is particularly astounding and its depiction of God's treatment toward prenates isn't exactly consistent with the "pro-life" position.
====

PS,
do you need a 'bible verse' to tell you not to jump off a cliff,
or will 'God-given' natural common sense and will to live, suffice?
----
Well now, you aren't exactly threatening people who would jump of a cliff with damnation and hellfire, are you? Nulla poena sine lege literally means "no punishment without law." No then, you want to call me the child of the devil or threaten me with hell, then provide the book, chapter, and verse prohibiting abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

It's hilarious that you're calling someone else out on a fallacy, considering you continue to repeat the same one ad nauseam.

secularprolife.org said...

"I would make an exception if the very existence of our nation depended on raising a fighting force quickly, and in that circumstance ALL citizens should be considered for the draft, not just young men."

Why, though? After all, couldn't some people end up being better off (specifically being alive and not disabled) if they were not drafted and ended up being/living under foreign occupation as opposed to if they were drafted and got killed or became disabled afterwards? Also, as for considering all citizens for the draft, this still appears to be discrimination since healthy, physically fit individuals (who are capable of effectively fighting) will be at a disadvantage to other individuals (who are incapable of effectively fighting, such as 100+ year olds). In addition, using your own rationale, if one allows the government to control people's bodies in this case, why exactly can't someone else state that the government should be able to control people's bodies in certain other cases as well?

secularprolife.org said...

Never? I might need to do some research on that claim.

secularprolife.org said...

*Can* there theoretically be such a thing? If so, then what I said here appears to be valid.

secularprolife.org said...

"The vast majority of anti-choicers are anti-GLBT as well. And a significant, vocal subset are anti-contraception."

Unfortunately, you are correct in regards to this. :( I *do* seriously hope that this will gradually change, though.

"Your honesty is refreshing amongst your ilk, I will give you that. You come right out and say women should be punished for terminating unwanted pregnancies; the rest of you dance around it."

Again, I was politically ambivalent on the abortion issue, rather than politically anti-abortion, when I wrote that message. Likewise, I am still politically ambivalent on the abortion issue today (I backed away from the politically anti-abortion position several months ago or so).

However, Yes, if I looked at this from a politically anti-abortion perspective, then it does appear that people who get illegal abortions should be punished in some way (perhaps with jail time, or perhaps some sort of fine would be a better and more practical option).

secularprolife.org said...

I am unsure as to exactly which old post of mine you are referring to here, but, for reference, I *did* back away from the politically anti-abortion position and became politically ambivalent on the abortion issue several months ago.

«Oldest ‹Older   1201 – 1389 of 1389   Newer› Newest»