The Democrat Thread

[DukeNukeEm]

Record speed you two! Both sarcastic one-liners too.

 

If a woman can choose not to have a child a man should be able to make the same choice. Right? Equality is something you guys still like, correct?

 

Either that or you ban abortions. Then it'll make sense because both people have their hands tied.

 

I prefer the let people abort option personally, less kids = happier Duke.

[StrangeSox]

Record speed you two! Both sarcastic one-liners too.

 

If a woman can choose not to have a child a man should be able to make the same choice. Right? Equality is something you guys still like, correct?

 

Either that or you ban abortions. Then it'll make sense because both people have their hands tied.

 

I prefer the let people abort option personally, less kids = happier Duke.

 

This still makes literally zero sense in the context of planned, wanted children conceived in a committed relationship, in this case a marriage. They both wanted kids, and then later they got divorced.

 

I mean even in the context where the argument is at least applicable it's still terrible and misses the whole point, but it's just not relevant here.

[StrangeSox]

Related to abortion, though, the SC declined to review the Arizona abortion case that ruled their 20-week ban as unconstitutional.

 

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/supreme-court-d...s-abortion-case

[southsider2k5]

This still makes literally zero sense in the context of planned, wanted children conceived in a committed relationship, in this case a marriage. They both wanted kids, and then later they got divorced.

 

I mean even in the context where the argument is at least applicable it's still terrible and misses the whole point, but it's just not relevant here.

 

Knowing Duke he is making the case for aborting your 13 year old.

[Soxbadger]

Record speed you two! Both sarcastic one-liners too.

 

If a woman can choose not to have a child a man should be able to make the same choice. Right? Equality is something you guys still like, correct?

 

Either that or you ban abortions. Then it'll make sense because both people have their hands tied.

 

I prefer the let people abort option personally, less kids = happier Duke.

 

I actually agree.

 

But if you choose to have the child, you then cant retroactively assert your "abortion right".

 

IE

 

A man within 90 days of learning he has a child may use his "abortion" option. He will have no responsibilities to the child, nor any rights to the child.

 

Seems fair.

[DukeNukeEm]

This still makes literally zero sense in the context of planned, wanted children conceived in a committed relationship, in this case a marriage. They both wanted kids, and then later they got divorced.

 

I mean even in the context where the argument is at least applicable it's still terrible and misses the whole point, but it's just not relevant here.

Well this is obviously a case of rich dude paying for laws that benefit him. Sounds like every law in this country (begging the obvious question....).

 

But hey, explain to me why in the context of an "accident" the man has to be stuck with the woman's decision. If you want to ban abortions, fine that works because its consistent. You also can't appeal to pregnancy, 9 months of suck does not entitle one to 18 years of someone else's money. Both parents decide, its the only fair option.

 

(As a man not supporting this is like being black and supporting Jim Crow)

[DukeNukeEm]

I actually agree.

 

But if you choose to have the child, you then cant retroactively assert your "abortion right".

 

IE

 

A man within 90 days of learning he has a child may use his "abortion" option. He will have no responsibilities to the child, nor any rights to the child.

 

Seems fair.

100% agree. Totally reasonable, especially with all the crappy state laws that give women like 10 hours to decide whether or not to abort.

[StrangeSox]

100% agree. Totally reasonable, especially with all the crappy state laws that give women like 10 hours to decide whether or not to abort.

Wait, how is that reasonable in states where women have really restrictive abortion options or where abortions are de facto illegal or unobtainable? The woman doesn't have the "opt out" ability in that circumstance, but a man would. It only becomes arguably reasonable if women have at least as long as men to decide and widespread, affordable and easily accessible access to abortion.

[Soxbadger]

100% agree. Totally reasonable, especially with all the crappy state laws that give women like 10 hours to decide whether or not to abort.

 

Itll never happen. Conservatives wont let any law pass that could possibly increase abortion rates. Theyd rather worry that Im going to hell, than fix the problem of having to many mouths to feed.

 

I dont get it.

[Soxbadger]

Wait, how is that reasonable in states where women have really restrictive abortion options or where abortions are de facto illegal or unobtainable? The woman doesn't have the "opt out" ability in that circumstance, but a man would. It only becomes arguably reasonable if women have at least as long as men to decide and widespread, affordable and easily accessible access to abortion.

 

I picked 90 days because most reasonable people can be okay with abortions in the first trimester, so the point of the system was to give a man/woman the exact same time to decide whether they wanted to be personally responsible for another life.

 

[DukeNukeEm]

Wait, how is that reasonable in states where women have really restrictive abortion options or where abortions are de facto illegal or unobtainable? The woman doesn't have the "opt out" ability in that circumstance, but a man would. It only becomes arguably reasonable if women have at least as long as men to decide and widespread, affordable and easily accessible access to abortion.

I hate the fundies as much as you do, FYI.

[StrangeSox]

I hate the fundies as much as you do, FYI.

 

I didn't think you were arguing for abortion restrictions, but I see a pretty huge logical disconnect in your statement there. It's reasonable to give men an "opt out" especially because women are often restricted from the same choice? That's the part that doesn't make any sense to me.

[Soxbadger]

I didn't think you were arguing for abortion restrictions, but I see a pretty huge logical disconnect in your statement there. It's reasonable to give men an "opt out" especially because women are often restricted from the same choice? That's the part that doesn't make any sense to me.

 

I think hes saying that women should be given the same choice...

[Jake]

I actually agree.

 

But if you choose to have the child, you then cant retroactively assert your "abortion right".

 

IE

 

A man within 90 days of learning he has a child may use his "abortion" option. He will have no responsibilities to the child, nor any rights to the child.

 

Seems fair.

 

That would be worth some thought, so long as (like others have said) we make sure that women have the same option. That also means that either the abortion needs to be free for the woman or the man needs to give up the same kind of money she would if she were opting for that procedure. That doesn't really make things equal, since there are all kinds of other physical and emotional risks and costs to an actual abortion, but it is at least a decent gesture. Since the man "opting out" could cause the woman to feel like she needs to abort, that would also play a role in such a rule/law.

[farmteam]

Wait, how is that reasonable in states where women have really restrictive abortion options or where abortions are de facto illegal or unobtainable? The woman doesn't have the "opt out" ability in that circumstance, but a man would. It only becomes arguably reasonable if women have at least as long as men to decide and widespread, affordable and easily accessible access to abortion.

To be fair to Duke, he called women's abortion laws "crappy state laws" so presumably he would want women to have a term as reasonable as the 90-day male term.

[cabiness42]

I think I'm going to sound extremely conservative yet fairly liberal at the same time here, but whatever.

 

I don't think abortion should be legal for any reason other than the endangerment of the mother's life after 12 weeks.

 

I also think that there should not be any "opt-out" period for men. You stick it in there, you are responsible for the result, whatever the woman chooses.

 

I also think that states are far too lax in enforcing child support payments. Don't even bother making the man (or woman in the extreme minority of cases) responsible for sending payments. It should come out of your paycheck, just like FICA and taxes. Massive fines for employers who knowingly skirt the rules.

[Y2HH]

I think I'm going to sound extremely conservative yet fairly liberal at the same time here, but whatever.

 

I don't think abortion should be legal for any reason other than the endangerment of the mother's life after 12 weeks.

 

I also think that there should not be any "opt-out" period for men. You stick it in there, you are responsible for the result, whatever the woman chooses.

 

I also think that states are far too lax in enforcing child support payments. Don't even bother making the man (or woman in the extreme minority of cases) responsible for sending payments. It should come out of your paycheck, just like FICA and taxes. Massive fines for employers who knowingly skirt the rules.

 

A lot of them don't have jobs, so exactly what paycheck are you talking about? And how do you fine a person with no money? I mean, you can fine them, or even jail them, but that doesn't solve the issue, and the payments still don't materialize.

[cabiness42]

A lot of them don't have jobs, so exactly what paycheck are you talking about? And how do you fine a person with no money? I mean, you can fine them, or even jail them, but that doesn't solve the issue, and the payments still don't materialize.

 

I'm not talking about those without money. I'm talking about those making really good money and just simply refusing to send payments. States, at least in Indiana's case, don't do enough to take care of this.

 

EDIT: Child support is by no means just a "ghetto" issue. Men of all income brackets are gaming the system to skip out on payments. In a lot of ways, it's a bigger problem at the higher incomes because the amounts being dodged are higher.

Edited January 14, 2014 by HickoryHuskers

[Balta1701]

Despite his public statements in defiance of the idea that he might feel some guilt over the blood spilled worldwide from the weapon he designed, in a private letter to a church leader, Mikhail Kalashnikov (designer of the AK-47) wrote that he was being tormented by guilt over the deaths.

"My spiritual pain is unbearable. I keep asking the same insoluble question. If my rifle deprived people of life then can it be that I … a Christian and an orthodox believer, was to blame for their deaths?" he wondered.

The church official wrote back providing him some absolution on the grounds that he designed the weapon to protect the fatherland.

 

A totally different perspective on the man from that which he presented in public.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm not talking about those without money. I'm talking about those making really good money and just simply refusing to send payments. States, at least in Indiana's case, don't do enough to take care of this.

 

EDIT: Child support is by no means just a "ghetto" issue. Men of all income brackets are gaming the system to skip out on payments. In a lot of ways, it's a bigger problem at the higher incomes because the amounts being dodged are higher.

 

I'm not sure this is as big of a deal as you're making it out to be. Any woman in this situation can go to an attorney and get the situation resolved. You can garnish wages, place liens on property, etc. to get the money that is owed.

 

[cabiness42]

I'm not sure this is as big of a deal as you're making it out to be. Any woman in this situation can go to an attorney and get the situation resolved. You can garnish wages, place liens on property, etc. to get the money that is owed.

 

You must not know many women who are continually getting stiffed on child support. It's not that simple.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

You must not know many women who are continually getting stiffed on child support. It's not that simple.

 

Admittedly I don't, I just know what is available under the law. I'm sure there are cases out there where Judges are too lenient on guys that are habitual about being late and/or not paying, but at some point the end result is either they pay (if they can) or they go to jail.

[cabiness42]

Admittedly I don't, I just know what is available under the law. I'm sure there are cases out there where Judges are too lenient on guys that are habitual about being late and/or not paying, but at some point the end result is either they pay (if they can) or they go to jail.

 

Part of the problem, at least in Indiana, is that in order to take a guy to court for failure to pay child support, you have to file in the father's county of residence. Guys have become experts at living out of hotels and getting mail from PO Boxes in order to not be found. My wife has a friend who owes 12 years worth of support for two kids. She has spent thousands on lawyers and private investigators to try and track him down.

 

If you just mandated from the start that the payments are automatically withheld from paychecks, it would be much more difficult (though of course still not impossible) to game the system.

[southsider2k5]

Part of the problem, at least in Indiana, is that in order to take a guy to court for failure to pay child support, you have to file in the father's county of residence. Guys have become experts at living out of hotels and getting mail from PO Boxes in order to not be found. My wife has a friend who owes 12 years worth of support for two kids. She has spent thousands on lawyers and private investigators to try and track him down.

 

If you just mandated from the start that the payments are automatically withheld from paychecks, it would be much more difficult (though of course still not impossible) to game the system.

 

Agreed. In Indiana, if you want to be a deadbeat dad, it is pretty hard to stop you.

[StrangeSox]

US District Court Judge strikes down Oklahoma's gay marriage ban

 

unlike Utah, though, OK's AG office isn't incompetent/understaffed and filed the right paperwork to get a stay on issuing marriage licenses in place.