Beto O'Rourke says women should be able to choose abortion even the day before birth

[yuna628 9,527]

4 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I think that is what the topic of this thread is all about.  Mr. O'Rourke is advocating abortion up to birth, the governor of Virginia says even if a baby survives abortion, they can sort of let it die.  Good old Bernie wants to employ forced abortions in the 3rd world (not sure how he would do this other than to entice foreign governments to do this in order to get US monetary aid) to fight climate change.  The thread has morphed into a discussion as to if the man has a say, and this has already been answered, the man only has a say if the woman gives him that say.  Regardless, I will go back to my earlier question, if the Dems are now advocating abortion to the point of birth, why stop there, why not give women the right to kill their baby after birth, or even after a period of time if for instance they show signs of Downs, or other congenital defect that was not detected during the pregnancy?

I don't support Bernie nor do I support the majority of his ideas, which are increasingly ridiculous. Democrats do not fit under one label, and there are many that do not have the same ideas that a person like Beto does. I do not really take statements like his and a few others seriously. They aren't helpful statements and shows they don't understand much about the subject any more than rabid pro-life lobbyists that were bombing clinics, threatening to kill people, and now using legislation to regulate decisions that should be between a couple and their doctor.

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

56 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Again I ask... how can the government buy BACK guns it never even sold?  

 

Also, with all the mental instability I see from so many elected officials, I don't see it as a good idea to put so many guns in their hands.

 

And last but not least, I'd like to remind ANYONE who supports giving our guns to the government what these three gentlemen accomplished when it happened under their control...

 

   Strict firearm regulations were imposed on Germany by the treaty of Versailles. The USA was one of the countries who contributed to those terms. There was essentially a complete ban in place after WW1. Hitler actually loosened gun control restrictions over time in Germany, culminating with the German Weapons Act of 1938, which deregulated the acquisition of firearms and ammunition in Germany, and lowered the legal age to 18.

 

   The Nazi's did pass restrictive weapons laws that prevented the Jewish population (and any other group that they persecuted) from owning weapons, so the meme is partly right. All mass murderers probably want their victims to be unarmed. However in general, Nazi Germany was relatively pro-gun. 

[Dashinka 23,199]

10 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

I don't support Bernie nor do I support the majority of his ideas, which are increasingly ridiculous. Democrats do not fit under one label, and there are many that do not have the same ideas that a person like Beto does. I do not really take statements like his and a few others seriously. They aren't helpful statements and shows they don't understand much about the subject any more than rabid pro-life lobbyists that were bombing clinics, threatening to kill people, and now using legislation to regulate decisions that should be between a couple and their doctor.

 

Whether you support them or not, that is what this thread is about, and quite honestly, what I am seeing from the Dems is a bunch of one-ups-man/womanship when it comes to topics like this.

 

11 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Strict firearm regulations were imposed on Germany by the treaty of Versailles. The USA was one of the countries who contributed to those terms. There was essentially a complete ban in place after WW1. Hitler actually loosened gun control restrictions over time in Germany, culminating with the German Weapons Act of 1938, which deregulated the acquisition of firearms and ammunition in Germany, and lowered the legal age to 18.

 

   The Nazi's did pass restrictive weapons laws that prevented the Jewish population (and any other group that they persecuted) from owning weapons, so the meme is partly right. All mass murderers probably want their victims to be unarmed. However in general, Nazi Germany was relatively pro-gun. 

So confiscation good, loose laws and you're a Nazi?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

39 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Whether you support them or not, that is what this thread is about, and quite honestly, what I am seeing from the Dems is a bunch of one-ups-man/womanship when it comes to topics like this.

 

So confiscation good, loose laws and you're a Nazi?

 

  Ouch.  Swing that hard and miss and it's gotta hurt.

 

  What it's says there is no valid correlation between Hitler and firearm restriction that is applicable to the USA. Hitler encouraged the German citizenry to own firearms. They actually passed a law that exempted NSDAP members from being subject to any firearms restrictions.

 

  The more general point was that we should stop trying to make every meme fit an argument just to make it look catchy, especially when it it not a historically accurate fit.  

[Dashinka 23,199]

7 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Ouch.  Swing that hard and miss and it's gotta hurt.

 

  What it's says there is no valid correlation between Hitler and firearm restriction that is applicable to the USA. Hitler encouraged the German citizenry to own firearms. They actually passed a law that exempted NSDAP members from being subject to any firearms restrictions.

 

  The more general point was that we should stop trying to make every meme fit an argument just to make it look catchy, especially when it it not a historically accurate fit.  

Ha ha, So the Meme is 2/3rds correct unless you have something there that says Stalin and Mao were pro-gun rights for their comrades.  To me considering how much socialism leads to totalitarians we are very lucky to maintain the 2nd Amendment and the Electoral College..

[Steeleballz 7,550]

8 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Ha ha, So the Meme is 2/3rds correct unless you have something there that says Stalin and Mao were pro-gun rights for their comrades.  To me considering how much socialism leads to totalitarians we are very lucky to maintain the 2nd Amendment and the Electoral College..

 

  The meme is 2/3 correct and thus 1/3 wrong. German citizens could own guns. The country was a democratic republic. They had a president and a parliament. They had free elections. They ended up being ruled by a right wing totalitarian regime anyway. 

 

  

[Dashinka 23,199]

Instead of creating another R.F. O’Rourke thread, I thought I would add this little gem to this one.  I Bet the electorate of Texas are happy they dodged that bullet.

 

Beto O’Rourke claims ‘living close to work’ is a ‘right’

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/beto-orourke-claims-living-close-to-work-is-a-right

[TBoneTX 43,018]

[dumb bum dumb bum]

[laylalex 7,245]

On 9/7/2019 at 10:44 PM, Boris Farage said:

So the man gets to have an opinion, but not a meaningful opinion.

 

I was in Washington DC some months ago. Their license plates read "Taxation without representation." Because while Washington DC residents still must pay income tax to the government, they do not have a voice in congress. You want the same thing from men. And if I understand American history correctly, you're on the wrong side of that argument.

 

To get back to topic...

 

So what IS your solution to this then? I mean, should a man be able to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term just because he wants her to, even if she doesn't? Let's say she was open with him, and said, I'm pregnant but I can't bring this to term because of physical health/mental health/school/work/money, whatever. Why should she be forced to upend her life -- and she would bear the real physical risks here, don't forget that pregnancy has a higher mortality rate than abortion -- and deal with having to give up a child, or be forced to raise a child, just because a person NOT HERSELF says he wants to be a dad?

 

I know where my fiance stands on this -- he would defer to my decision. I know he likes the idea of having a child with me, but I am not 100% sure motherhood is for me. I used to think it was, because I had been told it was by society and my parents and my partner, but I can't figure it out. Should I get pregnant again (I have had a couple of miscarriages in the past), I don't really know how I'll feel. But I do know I have a partner who will support what I want to do with my body.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

To get back to topic...

 

So what IS your solution to this then? I mean, should a man be able to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term just because he wants her to, even if she doesn't? Let's say she was open with him, and said, I'm pregnant but I can't bring this to term because of physical health/mental health/school/work/money, whatever. Why should she be forced to upend her life -- and she would bear the real physical risks here, don't forget that pregnancy has a higher mortality rate than abortion -- and deal with having to give up a child, or be forced to raise a child, just because a person NOT HERSELF says he wants to be a dad?

 

I know where my fiance stands on this -- he would defer to my decision. I know he likes the idea of having a child with me, but I am not 100% sure motherhood is for me. I used to think it was, because I had been told it was by society and my parents and my partner, but I can't figure it out. Should I get pregnant again (I have had a couple of miscarriages in the past), I don't really know how I'll feel. But I do know I have a partner who will support what I want to do with my body.

I know you were not addressing me, but I'll pipe up...

 

If there is a risk to a women's health,  I'll always vote for abortion (if I HAD a vote, that is).  Especially if it is early on.  A life in the hand is worth more than a (maybe) life in the womb, if you will.

 

And this case may be as rare, perhaps more rare, than rape victim abortions, but what about the couple who get pregnant, though unexpected.  Woman says no way, I don't want it.  Her body, her right, korek?  But the guy wants a kid in a bad way. Offers to pay for everything up to birth, then take the child as his own after it is born.  Promises not to saddle her with the unwanted baby.

 

So she aborts against his wishes.  Crushes him.  Saw him crying about it more than once.  He ends up divorcing her.

 

What are your thoughts on this?  Who is wrong?  Is anyone?

[Boris Farage 353]

2 hours ago, laylalex said:

To get back to topic...

 

So what IS your solution to this then? I mean, should a man be able to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term just because he wants her to, even if she doesn't? Let's say she was open with him, and said, I'm pregnant but I can't bring this to term because of physical health/mental health/school/work/money, whatever. Why should she be forced to upend her life -- and she would bear the real physical risks here, don't forget that pregnancy has a higher mortality rate than abortion -- and deal with having to give up a child, or be forced to raise a child, just because a person NOT HERSELF says he wants to be a dad?

 

I know where my fiance stands on this -- he would defer to my decision. I know he likes the idea of having a child with me, but I am not 100% sure motherhood is for me. I used to think it was, because I had been told it was by society and my parents and my partner, but I can't figure it out. Should I get pregnant again (I have had a couple of miscarriages in the past), I don't really know how I'll feel. But I do know I have a partner who will support what I want to do with my body.

Let us go back to the general rule: if for whatever reason you cannot endure or follow through with a pregnancy, then do not get pregnant. It's the twenty first century, unwanted pregnancies should (if women would follow this rule) be extremely rare in this country now. You should never have to discuss an abortion with your fiance or husband or boyfriend or whatever, because pregnancy should not happen unless you want it to.

 

I don't usually share this much detail of my own life, but I believe it apropos to the topic. Without going into too much detail, my ex had an abortion without my knowledge. Given what eventually came to light regarding her behavior, I do not know if the child was mine. But I ruminate over it frequently. I might very well have been a father. I might very well BE a father... to a murdered child. It haunts me, if I'm being honest. So to the women who say "my body, my rules," you have either not thought this through, or you are completely dishonest and selfish. The life may live within you, but it is not yours to do with as you please.

 

@laylalex if you are unsure about motherhood, then you already have your answer already in that certainty. Have the surgery, be done with it.

[laylalex 7,245]

36 minutes ago, Boris Farage said:

Let us go back to the general rule: if for whatever reason you cannot endure or follow through with a pregnancy, then do not get pregnant. It's the twenty first century, unwanted pregnancies should (if women would follow this rule) be extremely rare in this country now. You should never have to discuss an abortion with your fiance or husband or boyfriend or whatever, because pregnancy should not happen unless you want it to.

 

I don't usually share this much detail of my own life, but I believe it apropos to the topic. Without going into too much detail, my ex had an abortion without my knowledge. Given what eventually came to light regarding her behavior, I do not know if the child was mine. But I ruminate over it frequently. I might very well have been a father. I might very well BE a father... to a murdered child. It haunts me, if I'm being honest. So to the women who say "my body, my rules," you have either not thought this through, or you are completely dishonest and selfish. The life may live within you, but it is not yours to do with as you please.

 

@laylalex if you are unsure about motherhood, then you already have your answer already in that certainty. Have the surgery, be done with it.

Why should I be the one to have surgery when I am uncertain? I mean, there's no turning back from that. It could be that I didn't have the right partner before. 

 

As for whether unwanted pregnancies should be rare, it's not so very rare. Things happen, pills are mistimed, a condom slips, or an antibiotic interferes with hormones. It happens. I know it happens.

 

I am sorry to hear about your story. It must be extremely upsetting to know not only that she didn't open up to you about being pregnant, but also not knowing if you were the father, particularly if you were in a committed relationship at the time (you don't say whether it was during or before you were married). You've said before how much you want to be a father, and it's brave of you to be so open about such a vulnerable thing. But if she was unsure of the paternity of the child, she may have thought she was saving YOU from the embarrassment of having to raise another man's child. I'm not saying it's a very mature act, but how would you have reacted if she had been honest -- completely honest -- with you? What if she brought that child to term because YOU wanted her to, even knowing it might be another man's, and it turned out it was not yours? Would you accept that child?

[Boris Farage 353]

19 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Why should I be the one to have surgery when I am uncertain? I mean, there's no turning back from that. It could be that I didn't have the right partner before.

As I have said before, it's the women who have abortions. Not men. If you cannot be 100% certain that you'll be up to a lifetime task, best to remove all possibility of it happening.

 

19 minutes ago, laylalex said:

As for whether unwanted pregnancies should be rare, it's not so very rare. Things happen, pills are mistimed, a condom slips, or an antibiotic interferes with hormones. It happens. I know it happens.

My point being that unwanted pregnancies happen FAR more often than they should. If society could get that under control, then yes, we could start thinking about the odd condom breaking or irresponsible pill-takers.

 

21 minutes ago, laylalex said:

she may have thought she was saving YOU from the embarrassment of having to raise another man's child. I'm not saying it's a very mature act, but how would you have reacted if she had been honest -- completely honest -- with you?

No need to psychoanalyze her. She was a selfish, self-indulgent child. That's all you really need to know.

 

23 minutes ago, laylalex said:

What if she brought that child to term because YOU wanted her to, even knowing it might be another man's, and it turned out it was not yours? Would you accept that child?

Absolutely no, I would not have raised another man's child. And you can be assured I'll be having DNA tests done on any future alleged progeny.

[laylalex 7,245]

8 minutes ago, Boris Farage said:

As I have said before, it's the women who have abortions. Not men. If you cannot be 100% certain that you'll be up to a lifetime task, best to remove all possibility of it happening.

 

My point being that unwanted pregnancies happen FAR more often than they should. If society could get that under control, then yes, we could start thinking about the odd condom breaking or irresponsible pill-takers.

 

No need to psychoanalyze her. She was a selfish, self-indulgent child. That's all you really need to know.

 

Absolutely no, I would not have raised another man's child. And you can be assured I'll be having DNA tests done on any future alleged progeny.

Well, you will have to live with knowing that I will not be going under the knife. I find it interesting that you don't address what I think is a valid question to you, as someone who feels so strongly about this -- what if she said to you, Boris, I'm pregnant and I know how you feel about abortion, but I can't say for certain it's yours? Would you abandon her if there was a chance it WAS yours? Or would you make her go through the pregnancy just to get to the end to be proven right or wrong -- just to please you?

 

I wonder how your future wife will feel about the DNA testing. That's a pretty hard line to take. I know personally I would not have accepted it.

[Boris Farage 353]

Just now, laylalex said:

Well, you will have to live with knowing that I will not be going under the knife. I find it interesting that you don't address what I think is a valid question to you, as someone who feels so strongly about this -- what if she said to you, Boris, I'm pregnant and I know how you feel about abortion, but I can't say for certain it's yours? Would you abandon her if there was a chance it WAS yours? Or would you make her go through the pregnancy just to get to the end to be proven right or wrong -- just to please you?

If the child turned out to be mine (you can absolutely bet there would be a DNA exam) I would of course ensure the child was cared for.

 

 

Just now, laylalex said:

I wonder how your future wife will feel about the DNA testing. That's a pretty hard line to take. I know personally I would not have accepted it.

Pre-nup. And you say you wouldn't accept it, but I have found that everyone has their price.