How many men have no clue

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Wow... one idiotic reply after another. You're enjoying this, aren't you?

TheRedneck

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

If you think your comparison of the 1600's to my support of the Constitution and modern laws is equal that's on you.

It's not comparing "your support of the constitution and modern laws".
It is comparing your frame of mind to theirs. You have the exact same thought process as those who wrote the law I quoted from the 1600's.
The thought that premeditated killing of another human being is OK because you think they are "less than" and/or property.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: TheRedneck

For sure this is a difficult moral problem for humanity as is taking away a woman's rights to have dominion over her own body.

But that isn't what happened at all. The SCOTUS just ruled that the COTUS doesn't provide for abortion as a right. It's a situation the individual states have to decide on. Now if you wish to discuss a specific state that plans to eliminate the ability for chest feeders/birthing people to kill a baby on demand, that would be much closer to reality.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: TheRedneck

As I stated previously, those that want to force the issue need to provide supports for the woman and child all along the way and you can bet your bottom tax dollar that most, not all, women will not have that abortion. But that won't happen because it appears that nobody really cares about the lessened quality of life that the woman and child will end up with if the woman can't afford childcare to work, can't afford childcare and transportation and tuition to get that quality of life.

link to programs for single pregnant mothers

a reply to: network dude

I just watched an interview with a Governor from a Red state and when asked what programs were available to pregnant women he said one that he knew of and that was a post-natal visit by a nurse, that was all. Then he added that she can always give the baby up for adoption. End of interview.

BTW, the Governor's coldness when he stated that was unbelievable.

a reply to: network dude

But poor women and families are targeted by this ruling because they can't afford the transportation costs, so it's the same thing because their ability (freedom) has been taken away.

a reply to: network dude

Those are fine and good, but you notice "may be eligible". Not always so easy. I know one mom who's husband took off on her. She was getting no child support, found a job making 11 dollars an hour. 3 kids, her rent was 950.00. They provided her no assistance because her " housing was too expensive" but, how was she supposed to save first/ last/security to move? Also all the rentals in her city were that price. So, she basically would have had to move to Detroit to have a lower rent, which would have also put her children in that public school system. Believe me, getting assistance is not always the easy thing you think, especially when employed, even if you are not being paid a substantial amount.

a reply to: frogs453

Indeed, I'd like to read comments/experiences from women who have actually tried to access these programs and what resulted.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Wow... one idiotic reply after another. You're enjoying this, aren't you?

I neither enjoy nor not enjoy your idiotic replies, I have become inured to them. I would ask you for your legal evidence but you seem to think Venn diagrams somehow constitute that.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: network dude

But poor women and families are targeted by this ruling because they can't afford the transportation costs, so it's the same thing because their ability (freedom) has been taken away.

what exactly do you think the "ruling" was about?

originally posted by: Quadrivium
It is comparing your frame of mind to theirs.

My frame of mind is based on current laws and the United States Constitution.

originally posted by: quintessentone
I just watched an interview with a Governor from a Red state and when asked what programs were available to pregnant women he said one that he knew of and that was a post-natal visit by a nurse, that was all. Then he added that she can always give the baby up for adoption. End of interview.

BTW, the Governor's coldness when he stated that was unbelievable.

That was South Carolina, one of the brokest of the broke ass states in the country. They're going to force people to give birth and create an even large welfare state which they will continue to ignore like their current one which is a drain on the state or fund it via taxpayers which is a drain on the state.

That's the 'small government conservative' in action. They are neither for small government nor conservative.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: network dude

Those are fine and good, but you notice "may be eligible". Not always so easy. I know one mom who's husband took off on her. She was getting no child support, found a job making 11 dollars an hour. 3 kids, her rent was 950.00. They provided her no assistance because her " housing was too expensive" but, how was she supposed to save first/ last/security to move? Also all the rentals in her city were that price. So, she basically would have had to move to Detroit to have a lower rent, which would have also put her children in that public school system. Believe me, getting assistance is not always the easy thing you think, especially when employed, even if you are not being paid a substantial amount.

what have you done to help with those programs? Have you appealed to their rules? Have you tried to help any of these women? The Catholic church (for all of it's problems) does provide assistance for pregnant women. Point is, there are programs out there to help, so saying there aren't any is a lie and wrong. If you don't like them, you can say that. But don't lie.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: frogs453

Indeed, I'd like to read comments/experiences from women who have actually tried to access these programs and what resulted.

and that would serve you much better than stating there aren't any programs available for women. If you do find some are lacking, maybe you could invest a little time to try to steer them in the right direction.

Or you could just appeal to the state legislators to let kids be chopped up and sold to Pharma, whichever is most cost effective.

a reply to: quintessentone

Freedom does not equate to prosperity, nor does prosperity equate to freedom. By that logic, anyone who cannot afford a gun must be given one so they can exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

Also, might I remind you that is entirely possible to use the same political persuasions that work on the Federal government on state governments? Even moreso, since there are more representatives per capita in state elections.

It's like people forget there are state elections they get to vote in...

TheRedneck

a reply to: network dude

It amounts to the same thing; if the programs can't be accessed because of restrictions then to the women trying to access them, there aren't any programs that can help them.

There has to be a better way to persuade women to not abort with programs that don't keep them in poverty but help them and their children get a leg up.

a reply to: frogs453

You know, that's the problem with government-sponsored charity. People fall through the cracks and there's nowhere else to turn. Situations like that used to be handled by the community and the churches, but of course that is sooooo terrible a solution, letting people actually help others without government control.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You will see that this ruling will only affect poor minority women already struggling in poverty, so let's hear their side of it.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I gave that a thought too, wow, just wow.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I neither enjoy nor not enjoy your idiotic replies, I have become inured to them. I would ask you for your legal evidence but you seem to think Venn diagrams somehow constitute that.

Cute.

Move over Perry Mason!

TheRedneck