posted on February 25, 2006 10:49:26 AM new
Well it seems like SD is going to be the test for Roe v Wade in that they are planning on banning abortion unless it threatens the life of the mother, regardless of how the child came to be.
This will be an interesting fight to watch as it most likely will go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Ron
posted on February 25, 2006 11:39:51 AM new
I've always thought it was a great idea to force a woman who doesn't want a child, to keep it. It's good for the children.
posted on February 25, 2006 11:43:04 AM new
However, since a man is automatically responsible for any child that carries his DNA, then the man should have to sign off on an abortion. How is it that a woman can decide to keep a child with or without any input from the father, yet, if she keeps it, he has to pay child support. Double standard.
posted on February 25, 2006 12:03:02 PM new
"However, since a man is automatically responsible for any child that carries his DNA, then the man should have to sign off on an abortion. How is it that a woman can decide to keep a child with or without any input from the father, yet, if she keeps it, he has to pay child support. Double standard."
You finally understand something.
There's still hope for you.
For some reason, I don't think this will ever be a problem for you.
Amen,
Reverend Colin http://www.reverendcolin.com
posted on February 25, 2006 12:41:49 PM new
Agree...this will be VERY interesting. It will probably take a few years to get all the way to the USSC though. By that time this President may have appointed ANOTHER USSC justice.
But the USSC has just agreed to take the 'partial birth abortion ban' under consideration.
Twice under the clinton admin. our Congress passed two bills calling for a ban on the procedure. Twice he vetoed it.
Then under this administration it was passed again...and this President signed it into law. BUT three states put it 'on hold'....while they took it to a higher court.
Where that stands now is that all three courts decided it was 'unconstitutional'.
Now...we're see how the USSC see's the issue.
It wouldn't surprise me IF they decide they're BOTH a 'states issue' and let their positions stand.
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 25, 2006 12:52 PM ]
posted on February 25, 2006 12:46:42 PM new
"However, since a man is automatically responsible for any child that carries his DNA, then the man should have to sign off on an abortion. How is it that a woman can decide to keep a child with or without any input from the father, yet, if she keeps it, he has to pay child support. Double standard."
---------------
I agree.
Plus I'd also like to see more fairness for men in the area of 'custody' and child visitation.
I don't feel it's at all fair/equal that when a divorce occurs that the man has his 'right' to visit his own children limited to every other weekend and Weds. Why should HE lose a big part of HIS time with his own children? Imo, he shouldn't.
More joint custody should be awarded to fathers who are paying child support for their children...and who WANT to spend more time with them.
posted on February 25, 2006 04:30:06 PM newHowever, since a man is automatically responsible for any child that carries his DNA, then the man should have to sign off on an abortion. How is it that a woman can decide to keep a child with or without any input from the father, yet, if she keeps it, he has to pay child support. Double standard.
I agree completely even though I favor abortion based mostly on your sarcastic post about keeping the child, but I would like to see something come about that the man is not held responsible if the woman decides to keep the child or the man has to take custody of the child if he doesn't want the woman to have an abortion.
It is a horrible double standard that women seem to ignore in thier quest for equality.
posted on February 27, 2006 12:18:20 PM new
Linda says, "Plus I'd also like to see more fairness for men in the area of 'custody' and child visitation.
I don't feel it's at all fair/equal that when a divorce occurs that the man has his 'right' to visit his own children limited to every other weekend and Weds. Why should HE lose a big part of HIS time with his own children? Imo, he shouldn't.
More joint custody should be awarded to fathers who are paying child support for their children...and who WANT to spend more time with them."
Well, I would actually agree with that statement if it was so simple as neocon Linda wants to make it, however, reality is something Linda oftens seems to forget about.
There are many things that affect child support and visitation other than what she offers us in her shallow assessment.
Most of the time, both parents are fully capable of raising a child alone, and should be awarded joint custody, but that may not always be the best scenario for the child especially if both parents live in different areas. Why should a child suffer being shuffled back and forth to and from each parents home if it disrupts the child's education and/or other structures in their daily lives? Sometimes what seems best for both parents is not what is best for the child. Structure is one of the most important things in a child's development.
Second, why should a father or mother have custody if their behaviors may endanger a child? Case in point... An alcoholic, a drug addict, criminal, etc.? It is easy to say a parent should have a right to visit their child, but in reality many things can affect this decision. If the neocons like LInda had their way, they would nix every last means of Social Services to protect children. It is the neocon mantra to force babies on mothers, yet where are those very same neocons when it comes to supporting a child as they progress through life? It is the child's fault they may have irresponsible parents, or may have health problems that their parents cannot afford?
And, one other point that conveniently was missed was parents paying child support. Too many parents are slipping through the cracks and not paying for their responsibilities. Child support should be enforced with an iron fist. Zero tolerance for non-payment or avoidance. One strike and your butt lands in jail.
I've worked first hand as a children's advocate, supervising parental visitations with their children, and working to enforce child support. I've seen the tradegies first hand to know that there isn't a clear and rosy picture as has been painted in the postings above.
posted on February 28, 2006 12:09:17 AM new...Child support should be enforced with an iron fist. Zero tolerance for non-payment or avoidance. One strike and your butt lands in jail.
What state are you in? It IS enforced with an iron fist in Michigan. People who are delinquent in child support here cannot renew ANY license (driver's included), or passport, and are arrested and thrown in jail. Any tax refunds they get are seized and their wages are garnished. On top of that, there is legislation that calls for liens to be placed on any property owned by the person.
If the parent doesn't own property, drive a car or have a job, then what could the State expect to get anyway? Locking them up certainly doesn't increase their ability to pay.
posted on February 28, 2006 06:15:29 AM new
Maybe there nerfball, but here in the NW it seems to be if they can find (not that they look) you have to pay. Nothing strict. I have known women that have had no child support for years and when I asked them why, they said that they couldn't find the father and only way the court would handle it was with a know address.
Some of the women though just didn't want to bother as they didn't want the father back into the children's life.
posted on February 28, 2006 06:26:04 AM new
On the law however... so what if SD signs the bill into law. The next day it's going to have an injunction filed against it it will go thru the courts systems and end up in the Supreme Court in five, six years and unless someone else dies in the next two and Bush gets a great deal more political pull than he has now, Roe v Wade is not going to be overturned.
Good to hear that SD has all of that extra money laying around though to fund this court battle because at the end of the day, the only thing they are signning into law is big paychecks for a lot of lawyers that are going to have to fight to try to make it an ENFORCABLE law.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on February 28, 2006 07:51:08 AM new
You've hit the nail on the head with that post, fenix!
"One strike and your butt lands in jail."
Jail in such cases is counterproductive. What exactly is accomplished by jailing a deadbeat parent and causing that parent to lose income and possibly a job. In addition to those possibilities, jailing also encourages evasive tactics by the non-paying parent such as moving outside the jurisdiction.
posted on February 28, 2006 07:37:17 PM new
Jail is often the best deterrant. There is no such thing as the perfect punishment for non-compliance with child support. Most people prefer to remain out of jail, and those who would rather spend the time in jail obviously need greater persuasion than time behind bars.
As for Michigan, the laws that are mentioned are obviously only for those who live in Michigan and are avoiding payments. Case in point, my father moved to Texas and tried to avoid child support the entire time we all were minors living in Michigan. Michigan did jack sh!t to enforce anything. If the feds stepped in and made it a federal offense, then perhaps things would change. But the neocons don't want the feds to do anything, because most of them don't want to be responsible for anything other than themselves.
If someone goes to jail for non-payment of child support then the state should take over and then withold earnings once the person is released. The notion that enforcement will only reach so far is simply unacceptable and it shouldn't be the children who suffer because of poor parental decisions.
On the SD law....it strickly was done to force the issue to the USSC. That's why they wrote it they way they did - with NO exceptions except the mother's life. They mean to challenge the USSC decision that it can't ONLY be in cases of the mother's life but rather HAS to include her 'health'.
They're betting that a the two new USSC justices will approve it the way they wrote it.
THIS time...when it COULD be a 5-4 decision in the opposite direction than it was before.
But then, as you mentioned there's always the chance that before it makes it to the USSC...they may have one or TWO new conservatives sitting there also.
A private millionaire gave the state the money to pay the lawyers.
That's changing something else too. A time when the pro-abortion group could almost count on the states NOT having the money to take it through the court system.
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 28, 2006 09:00 PM ]
posted on March 1, 2006 09:19:38 AM new
Bush has appointed 2 Supreme Court Judges its their job to decide Abortion issue now.
Those Bush appointments FREE up Millions of Voters to vote for different issues starting in the 2006 elections.
BTW Ron, did you see my post about Santorum? Looks like TRICKY RICKY SANTORUM (R) Sen.Santorum here in Pa is just another Republican pig at the troth. Very UNCHRISTIAN LIKE don't ya think.
BECAUSE OF SEVERAL (QUOIT) CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS LIKE SANTORUM ITS BEEN THE BEST LAWS AND GOVERNMENT MONEY CAN BUY.
PHONY CHRISTIAN LAWMAKERS PRAISE THE LORD LOUDLY and pass the money quietly.
posted on March 1, 2006 03:09:48 PM new
About 15 years after abortion is criminalized again, you'll see another puzzling spike in crime nationwide. Betcha.
____________________________________________
posted on March 1, 2006 07:51:23 PM new
Hey Ron,
AGAIN I'LL ASK. BTW Ron, did you see my post about Santorum? Looks like TRICKY RICKY SANTORUM (R) Sen.Santorum here in Pa is just another Republican pig at the troth. Very UNCHRISTIAN LIKE don't ya think.
WHAT'S THE MATTER RON CAN'T FACE THE TRUTH ABOUT ANOTHER CON-SERVATIVE PIGGY AT THE TROTH.
posted on March 1, 2006 09:17:30 PM new
What exactly is the point other than making points for the politicians that sponsor the bill? They obviously are all going to be held up by injunctions.
Wouldn't it be nice if politicians would stop trying to make names for themselves and start trying to actually accomplish things? Somehow I think there are real issues that these states are facing that could be addressed and that thheir legal efforts and dollars could better be filtered into.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on March 2, 2006 10:05:00 AM new
Is god really anti-abortion?
I don't know who else has actually read the bible, but I have, and there are numerous instances where god commands the complete destruction of an entire group of people and spells out that the women & children should be slaughtered as well, so that the people may never repopulate the earth.
So, if god is for the slaughter of children, why would he be against abortion?
posted on March 2, 2006 12:05:55 PM new
"I don't know who else has actually read the bible, but I have, and there are numerous instances where god commands the complete destruction of an entire group of people and spells out that the women & children should be slaughtered as well, so that the people may never repopulate the earth."
