|
| Tanko Member since: Aug 15, 2019
Threads: 0
Posts: 2470 | Quote: Gandler Remember how badly certain people care about crime. And, these are the same ones that oppose abortion.
Your opinion. Not true. Quote: Then remember how abortion reduced crime.
Not true. Violent crime continued to surge after RvW was decided win 1973, and supposedly peaked in 1991, according to the FBI. No one truly knows what the real crime rate is, because the FBI stats are incomplete. FBI data shows US crime plummeted in 2023 but experts warn report is incompleteThe FBI's new crime report is in, but it's incompleteQuote: It will be interesting evaluating crime stats in States as they tighten abortion regulations.
Be more concerned about the borders. When the Federal government allows two to four million people to cross the border illegally every year, you're going to see a surge in crime rates across the nation. |
|
| rxwine Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 217
Posts: 22933 | Quote: Tanko He never said it is adequate. Where did you get that?
He said 'If the mother is under general anesthesia, many of the anesthetics will cross to the fetus via the umbilical cord'. That does not mean it is adequate to protect the fetus against pain.
If it was adequate, Utah would not have a fetal pain law.
It's politicians practicing medicine again. "Trumpsplain (def.) explaining absolute nonsense said by TRUMP. |
|
| DRich Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 57
Posts: 5896 | Quote: rxwine It's politicians practicing medicine again.
Worse than that, this is morons on a forum practicing medicine. At my age a Life In Prison sentence is not much of a deterrent. |
|
| ams288 Member since: Apr 21, 2016
Threads: 29
Posts: 13466 | Quote: DRich Worse than that, this is morons on a forum practicing medicine.
I would happily let SOOPOO anesthetize me if required. “A straight man will not go for kids.” - AZDuffman |
|
| DRich Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 57
Posts: 5896 | Quote: ams288 I would happily let SOOPOO anesthetize me if required.
Clearly Soopoo is not one of the morons I was referring to. At my age a Life In Prison sentence is not much of a deterrent. |
|
| terapined Member since: Aug 6, 2014
Threads: 76
Posts: 12501 |  Sometimes we live no particular way but our own - Grateful Dead "Eyes of the World" |
|
| SOOPOO Member since: Feb 19, 2014
Threads: 25
Posts: 5730 | Quote: ams288 I would happily let SOOPOO anesthetize me if required.
Thank you. I have been retired FIVE years now! I’m sure I could still do it if I had to, but I wouldn’t choose me anymore! |
|
| DRich Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 57
Posts: 5896 | Quote: SOOPOO Thank you. I have been retired FIVE years now! I’m sure I could still do it if I had to, but I wouldn’t choose me anymore!
That can't be right. The way I remember it it was less than two years ago. I guess it could be Alzheimer's setting in. At my age a Life In Prison sentence is not much of a deterrent. |
|
| Gandler Member since: Aug 15, 2019
Threads: 30
Posts: 5253 | Quote: Tanko Your opinion. Not true. Not true. Violent crime continued to surge after RvW was decided win 1973, and supposedly peaked in 1991, according to the FBI. No one truly knows what the real crime rate is, because the FBI stats are incomplete. FBI data shows US crime plummeted in 2023 but experts warn report is incompleteThe FBI's new crime report is in, but it's incompleteBe more concerned about the borders. When the Federal government allows two to four million people to cross the border illegally every year, you're going to see a surge in crime rates across the nation.
Very much not accurate. https://law.stanford.edu/publications/the-impact-of-legalized-abortion-on-crime-over-the-last-two-decades/"We estimate that overall crime fell 17.5% from 1998 to 2014 due to legalized abortion— a decline of 1% per year. From 1991 to 2014, the violent and property crime rates each fell by 50%. Legalized abortion is estimated to have reduced violent crime by 47% and property crime by 33% over this period, and thus can explain most of the observed crime decline." We have been waiting for this crime surge every year for the last 10 years..... It does not happen, I will stick to the established data that abortions reduce crime for obvious reasons. That being said, strict border security is good, but it is not an end all, and will effect crime less than simply keeping abortions regularly available would. |
|
| rxwine Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 217
Posts: 22933 | Here's something I haven't seen addressed anywhere. Seems it's likely going to be an issue again at some point. Quote: Expectant fathers might oppose a pregnant mother's decision to terminate a pregnancy. Conversely, a father may not wish to assume the responsibilities of fatherhood and oppose carrying a pregnancy to term.
While courts have largely treated fathers' rights in abortion decisions as secondary to women's rights, there are other ways for fathers to influence a pregnant woman's decision. These ways happen primarily through private agreements.
Fathers' Rights and Abortion: Consent
If a father's pregnant partner seeks to abort an unborn child, having the father's consent isn't a legal obligation. The person carrying the child may terminate a pregnancy against the father's objections.
The legal reasoning for this is twofold. It is based on a woman's right to privacy in their medical decisions. It's also based on the fact that the mother is more affected by pregnancy. In both considerations, observance of the pregnant party's reproductive rights has been key.
The Supreme Court found laws requiring a spouse's consent for an abortion to be unconstitutional. In Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, the Court reasoned that a husband's refusal to consent would veto a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy. Danforth also addressed parental consent and restrictions on minors consenting to abortions.
The main issues in Danforth were overbreadth and vagueness. Danforth was not overturned but was superseded by the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health: Overturning Abortion Rights
In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, overturning the 50-year-old decision in Roe v. Wade, and allowing states to set their own abortion laws. Seven states now have a complete ban on abortion, and ten others are attempting to enforce such bans or have had their bans enjoined by the court.
However, Dobbs did not explicitly address paternal rights or the father's role in abortion decisions.
Fathers' Rights and Abortion: Notice Requirements
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court found unconstitutional a Pennsylvania statute requiring a married woman to inform the biological father of a planned abortion. This created the “undue burden" prong of the key judgment in Casey. Paternal notification was unconstitutional if it placed an undue burden on the woman seeking an abortion. The Court reasoned that a woman in an abusive relationship or having an affair could not tell the father without putting herself at risk.
The Court's decision in Dobbs overturned the key judgment in Casey but did not specifically address the issue of undue burden or paternal notification. Parental rights were not an issue during the Dobbs arguments. Since Dobbs allows states to make their own abortion laws, these legal rights are evolving.
Opting Out of Fatherhood or "Financial Abortions"
After birth, the father will be responsible for child support payments. This is true despite any objections to carrying the pregnancy to term by the father. This has led some fathers' rights advocates to oppose what they see as a double standard in fathers' rights for family planning.
Advocates for fathers' rights argue that a father should be able to decide, after conception, that they don't want to be a father. Some scholars have argued that fathers should have the right to "financial abortions."
A financial abortion right would require a woman to notify a prospective father during pregnancy. The father could then refuse financial or legal responsibility for the baby. Should the child be born despite this, the biological father would not be responsible for it.
Currently, there is no right to a financial abortion or to opt out of fatherhood. In one well-publicized case, a father in Michigan objected to child support payments when his ex-partner gave birth after knowing he did not want children. The Court rejected his argument that, since a woman may avoid motherhood through abortion, the man had a right to disclaim responsibility for a child born against his wishes.
The Court did not see the question as one of the father's interests versus the mother's interests. Instead, they viewed it through the lens of the child's right to parental support. Once a child is born, the parents are responsible for the child's support and education.
Private Agreements for Child Support
Each state has child custody laws. Child custody and child support are separate in most places. Fathers who want to keep their babies and prevent an abortion may be able to reach private agreements with the mother. They can pay the costs of the pregnancy and post-natal care and obtain full custody following the birth.
Parents cannot waive child support by private agreement. No family court will honor a prenuptial agreement setting a dollar amount for child support. The courts base support on the parents' income at the time of separation.
In the same way, no state allows a parent to avoid child support payments by voluntary surrender of parental rights. Termination of parental rights requires a finding of parental unfitness or the presence of another person, such as a grandparent or stepparent, to adopt the child.
"Trumpsplain (def.) explaining absolute nonsense said by TRUMP. |
