Florida House passes 6-week abortion ban, expected to be signed by governor

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, TKDfella said:

I am pro-life (and not religious) but with conditionals you mention. How often does one see a comment about Thai people not taking responsibility for their actions? Yet when it comes one's own country, the principle seems to get lost. If a person doesn't want children then they shouldn't play 'Russian roulette' with their body.

How about instead of educating by punishment how about educating by education. Florida's latest legislation will make teaching sex ed in schools dangerous to a teacher's employment. And by trying to cut off funding to the largest contraceptive provider in the state, it's setting itself up for more unwanted pregnancies. The supposed reason for anti-abortion legislation is to protect children, not to punish women. But we can see by Florida's refusal to accept the expansion of Medicaid which would provide health care to children who are actually born, that Florida's laws are about being punitive. Concern for children clearly doesn't enter into it.

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, 2009 said:

Exactly!

 

They say father's shouldn't have any say whatsoever, yet they seem to expect men to support abortion. Lol

 

Why would we care, if it's none of our business?

Her body, her choice, her business. 

 

 I ain't voting for it.

 

Give fathers a say, and I'll think about it.

"Give fathers a say, and I'll think about it."

 

If it were possible to transfer the fetus to the fathers and let them carry it to term and beyond I might agree with you.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, placeholder said:

So, to make them think about it, they get to be saddled with an unwanted pregnancy to take through to completion? What punitive SOBs the anti-abortionists are. 

you ignore why they have an unwanted pregnancy. If they don't want to get pregnant, they can use birth control, or insist on him using a condom.

If neither of the above are applicable for some strange reason, they could always insist on oral only or shock horror, don't have unprotected intercourse during their fertile period.

 

Seems that some women don't want to be responsible when having sex, and prefer to just kill an unwanted foetus.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, placeholder said:

Really? Maybe that would happen if the Beaver's and Wally's parents separated. Bur for single mother familes the father generally pays child support.? 

Only 1 in 4 Single-Mother Families Receive Child Support

Accord­ing to 2019–2021 data in the KIDS COUNT® Data Cen­ter, just 24% of U.S. female-head­ed fam­i­lies report­ed receiv­ing any amount of child sup­port dur­ing the pre­vi­ous year. Female-head­ed fam­i­lies refer to unmar­ried women liv­ing with one or more of their own chil­dren under age 18, which may include stepchil­dren and adopt­ed children.

One in three kids — near­ly 24 mil­lion — lives with sin­gle par­ents, most­ly sin­gle moms. In fact, accord­ing to 2022 Cen­sus Bureau data, of the 10.9 mil­lion one-par­ent fam­i­lies with chil­dren under age 18, 80% were head­ed by a moth­er. 

https://www.aecf.org/blog/only-1-in-4-single-mother-families-receive-child-support

Perhaps rather than making it easy to kill a foetus the state should impose such draconian financial penalties on the fathers of children that don't live with them ( not referring to child payments after divorce, but casual sex with unwanted consequences ) that no man will ever have casual sex without ensuring no unwanted consequence happens.

I do support providing free condoms from machines so shy guys don't have to buy them where they can be seen doing so.

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

you ignore why they have an unwanted pregnancy. If they don't want to get pregnant, they can use birth control, or insist on him using a condom.

If neither of the above are applicable for some strange reason, they could always insist on oral only or shock horror, don't have unprotected intercourse during their fertile period.

 

Seems that some women don't want to be responsible when having sex, and prefer to just kill an unwanted foetus.

Taking away women's rights and also blaming them for any consequences if they don't follow every known method to avoid an unwanted pregnancy in other words right?

 

How about taking it to the ultimate. After all, women cannot get pregnant in normal circumstances without a very willing man. How about the man take some responsibility. Ensure he doubles up on condoms, heck why not ensure he checks that the woman is taking adequate prevention measures. After the act that same man then needs to ensure that a pregnancy test was carried out within the 6 week period, you know, just in case the period is late or irregular. 

 

Then perhaps he should be the one who has obtained the abortion pill so he can hand a couple over to the woman, again all within this 6 week period, oh wait, they're trying to ban that too!

 

Seems that some men want it all their own way and just don't care for the consequences that the woman could be left with.

[thaibeachlovers]

23 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Taking away women's rights and also blaming them for any consequences if they don't follow every known method to avoid an unwanted pregnancy in other words right?

Avoiding the obvious comment about the rights of the foetus, they have the "right" to an abortion- that hasn't been removed, so perhaps get that right. All that's changed is how long they have to make up their mind about having one.

 

26 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Seems that some men want it all their own way and just don't care for the consequences that the woman could be left with.

Did you miss my follow up post in your haste to attack me?

In case you did I said

 

"Perhaps rather than making it easy to kill a foetus the state should impose such draconian financial penalties on the fathers of children that don't live with them ( not referring to child payments after divorce, but casual sex with unwanted consequences ) that no man will ever have casual sex without ensuring no unwanted consequence happens"

[Skipalongcassidy]

19 hours ago, bamnutsak said:

Recent polling finds the six-week abortion ban is not popular among Florida residents of either political party. A University of North Florida poll in March found 75% of 1,452 respondents said they either somewhat or strongly opposed the six-week ban. That included 61% of Republicans.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/floridas-legislature-passes-6-week-abortion-ban-rcna78988

You do know that the UNF is in Jacksonville... right

[2009]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

"Give fathers a say, and I'll think about it."

 

If it were possible to transfer the fetus to the fathers and let them carry it to term and beyond I might agree with you.

Why would you take an interest in something that they are saying is none of your business??!

 

But if course, it's your business when child support is sought after.

[vandeventer]

20 hours ago, 2009 said:

Good.

Very Good!

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

you ignore why they have an unwanted pregnancy. If they don't want to get pregnant, they can use birth control, or insist on him using a condom.

If neither of the above are applicable for some strange reason, they could always insist on oral only or shock horror, don't have unprotected intercourse during their fertile period.

 

Seems that some women don't want to be responsible when having sex, and prefer to just kill an unwanted foetus.

Maybe instead of using punishment as a way to discourage abortions, Florida could try promoting sex education. And instead of attempting to defund the largest provider of contraceptives in the state, it could increase funding for contraception. And as I have pointed out, Florida refuses to expand Medicaid which has been proven to improve the health of children already born. So how sincere are legislators and a governor who oppose this?

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, vandeventer said:

Very Good!

Better than "Very Good!". Downright excellent for the political prospects of Democrats in the 2024 election. Just the ticket to bring out younger voters who vote overwhelmingly Democratic while the elderly, white, pro-Republican electorate is dying off.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, 2009 said:

Why would you take an interest in something that they are saying is none of your business??!

 

But if course, it's your business when child support is sought after.

Unless you believe that the man should have the final say, what's your point?

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

You do know that the UNF is in Jacksonville... right

And the Gallup Poll HQ is located in Washington, D.C.  Does that mean they're restricted to only polling people who live in Washington D.C.?

Is UNF restricted only to polling folks who live in Jacksonville?

Maybe you're trying to make some other point?

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Did you miss my follow up post in your haste to attack me?

In case you did I said

 

"Perhaps rather than making it easy to kill a foetus the state should impose such draconian financial penalties on the fathers of children that don't live with them ( not referring to child payments after divorce, but casual sex with unwanted consequences ) that no man will ever have casual sex without ensuring no unwanted consequence happens"

I was replying to this post not any other and it was not an attack, it was clearly an example of the ridiculous notion that women are expected to take all the precautions and men just blame them if they don't. Got it?

[TKDfella]

9 hours ago, placeholder said:

How about instead of educating by punishment how about educating by education. Florida's latest legislation will make teaching sex ed in schools dangerous to a teacher's employment. And by trying to cut off funding to the largest contraceptive provider in the state, it's setting itself up for more unwanted pregnancies. The supposed reason for anti-abortion legislation is to protect children, not to punish women. But we can see by Florida's refusal to accept the expansion of Medicaid which would provide health care to children who are actually born, that Florida's laws are about being punitive. Concern for children clearly doesn't enter into it.

How do you define 'unwanted pregnancies'?

[Bkk Brian]

2 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

You do know that the UNF is in Jacksonville... right

You do know that the poll was of Florida residents state wide of both parties...........

 

Here's the results again:

 

"75% of 1,452 respondents said they either somewhat or strongly opposed the six-week ban. That included 61% of Republicans."

 

https://www.unf.edu/coas/porl/_files/polls/statewide/certified.rf.UNF-Mar-Statewide-2023.pdf

[Bkk Brian]

This was just before the new 6 week ban came into effect and still effects those women carrying a pregnancy after the 15 week cut of for abortions that endanger the mother. 

 

Two friends were denied care after Florida banned abortion. One almost died.

The medical exceptions to protect the life of the mother that are included in abortion bans are often described in vague language that does not appear to cover pre-viability PPROM, doctors said. That’s because the risks of the condition are often less clear-cut than other medical emergencies, such as an ectopic pregnancy, in which a fertilized egg grows outside of the uterus, dooming the fetus and posing an immediate danger to the mother’s life.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/10/pprom-florida-abortion-ban/

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

How do you define 'unwanted pregnancies'?

I suspect you're preparing some sort of rhetorical nonsense since the meaning is obvious. But to gratify you, here it is: a pregnancy unwanted by a pregnant woman.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, vandeventer said:

Very Good!

From a political standpoint, it looks like Ron DeSantis disagrees with you:

 

DeSantis skipped talking about his 6-week abortion ban to an anti-abortion audience

On Thursday night, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law a six-week abortion ban inside his state.

On Friday morning, he barely mentioned it during an address at the preeminent religious conservative school in the country...

During DeSantis’ 20-minute speech at the evangelical university he only had this to say about abortion: “We have elevated the importance of family and promoted the culture of life.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/14/desantis-signed-floridas-abortion-ban-but-avoids-talking-about-it-00092101

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

You do know that the UNF is in Jacksonville... right

So?

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, 2009 said:

Why would you take an interest in something that they are saying is none of your business??!

 

But if course, it's your business when child support is sought after.

Who is saying it is none of my business?

 

No one  is seeking child support from me.  Where do you get your strange assumptions?

[2009]

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

Unless you believe that the man should have the final say, what's your point?

I think if a father is present he should have equal say (health issues aside, of course)

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, 2009 said:

I think if a father is present he should have equal say (health issues aside, of course)

Really? Because the burden of pregnancy's is equally shared. And another glaring fault in your argument is that what to do in the case of a deadlock? You do understand that given that 2 people are involved,  a deadlock is a distinct possibility.

[2009]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Who is saying it is none of my business?

Women say abortion none of men's business.

 

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

 

No one  is seeking child support from me.  Where do you get your strange assumptions?

Here are the definitions of the word, "you"

 

1.

used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing.

"are you listening?"

2.

used to refer to any person in general.

"after a while, you get used to it"

 

Which way do you think it was it used in my sentence? (Hint: I wasn't talking about you specifically, obviously)

[2009]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Really? Because the burden of pregnancy's is equally shared. And another glaring fault in your argument is that what to do in the case of a deadlock? You do understand that given that 2 people are involved,  a deadlock is a distinct possibility.

 

Unless she's at high risk of health complications, where's the burden of pregnancy?

 

Having a big belly? Having a large belly for a few months? Is that it?

 

By deadlock, you mean there's one parent who wants the child?

 

That's easy: the child is born and the parent who wants the child, raises the child.

 

The other parent pays child support, obviously, in an ideal world.

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, 2009 said:

Women say abortion none of men's business.

 

Here are the definitions of the word, "you"

 

1.

used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing.

"are you listening?"

2.

used to refer to any person in general.

"after a while, you get used to it"

 

Which way do you think it was it used in my sentence? (Hint: I wasn't talking about you specifically, obviously)

"You" can be used as a substitute for one if no one specific person is being replied to. But you were engaged in a 2 way colloquy with BruceH. So, its use is inadvisable.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, 2009 said:

 

Unless she's at high risk of health complications, where's the burden of pregnancy?

 

Having a big belly? Having a large belly for a few months?

 

By deadlock, you mean there's one parent who wants the child?

 

That's easy: the child is born and the parent who wants the child, raises the child.

 

The other parent pays child support, obviously, in an ideal world.

I guess you haven't spent much, if any,  time with pregnant women if you think it's just about having a big belly.

 

[2009]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

"You" can be used as a substitute for one if no one specific person is being replied to. But you were engaged in a 2 way colloquy with BruceH. So, it's use is inadvisable.

This is what I said:

 

"But if course, it's your business when child support is sought after.'

 

If someone doesn't understand this, they're either not a native speaker, or just pretending to not understand.

 

Absolutely nothing wrong with this usage. It's amazing the lengths people will go to in a discussion, lol

[2009]

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I guess you haven't spent much, if any,  time with pregnant women if you think it's just about having a big belly.

 

I have, in fact.

 

I get that there's morning sickness, weird cravings, waddling around with a big belly.

 

Really not much different from being a fat guy with a bit of a hangover.

 

But look, if you have sex and get pregnant it's a natural consequence. And there's nothing wrong with it.

 

Also, I am sure you know many women get abortions because they don't wants to be mothers at that time, not because they don't want to be pregnant for a few months.

 

And there's nothing wrong with an abortion if there's no father willing to raise the child present to object, or if she's a high risk for complications, obviously.

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, 2009 said:

I have, in fact.

 

I get that there's morning sickness, weird cravings, waddling around with a big belly.

 

Really not much different from being a fat guy with a bit of a hangover.

 

But look, if you have sex and get pregnant it's a natural consequence. And there's nothing wrong with it.

 

Also, I am sure you know many women get abortions because they don't wants to be mothers at that time, not because they don't want to be pregnant for a few months.

 

And there's nothing wrong with an abortion if there's no father willing to raise the child present to object, or if she's a high risk for complications, obviously.

Well, women most likely to be prevented from getting an abortion by abortion laws in places like florida will be single and poor.