Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I would suggest otherwise. First it has not passed, though you state that it has. Second it does not kick in upon a finding of not guilty, not in any way, shape or form, though you suggest it has. In actuality the accused then becomes the accuser and has to sustain an equally high burden in a wholly separate action which, as a criminal action, would have to pass muster by the Prosecutor who would bring the charge . (Prosecutors rarely turn on crime victims, especially when it may be Prosecutorial error or ineffectiveness which lead to a not guilty verdict) That is not a difference of semantics or interpretation, but a massive difference. Lastly, the attorneys fees are not automatic, but rather still a matter of discretion to the judge, again a massive difference.
None of these points make my original post especially inaccurate. You stated that I implied that the bill passed; I wrote “Alabama is passing”- the state House already approved it and in the state senate the majority of senators are in favor and the governor is in favor. So it’s reasonable to assume it’s going to pass.
Seriously. There was like this whole famous SCOTUS ruling already. I don't understand the law and how states can do this. So yes, there will be legal challenges but it has already been settled so WTH? Can they reinstate slavery next?
It's a great way to get businesses and people to leave or stop doing business in the state.
I will leave it for others to judge as to whether I missed your point or as to whether you misrepresented matters as it is clear that you and I will not reach consensus. I do like how you move the goal post, as you always do. Your original statement was not merely that it would be difficult to enforce, it was "According to the law if a woman charges a guy with rape, but the guy is found not guilty, the accuser has to pay for 100% of his legal fees." Not guilty = has to pay. Not ambiguous and provably false as well as misleading. You would do better with me if you simply stated I was precipitous, wrong, incautious, and I will strive to learn. Instead you try to defend the indefensible by sidling away, as is so predictable that I actually made that prediction to another who posts here while you took 40 minutes to think of your first reply and your eventual, tired, tack.
That would take a constitutional amendment. This is merely long standing but somewhat contentious precedence. The principle to which you refer is stare decisis. It lends strength to precedence, but hardly makes it inviolate.
Lol it didn’t take me 40 minutes. I know people think I’m always here but I’m not.
The more you post the more your credibility takes a hit and the more your intelligence comes into question. As you know, when we are composing a reply, our name at the bottom of the thread goes to italics. I saw yours do so, became bemused, and actually PM'd another to point it out as well as predicting your next several posts. Claim what you will but here you were wrong, very wrong, proved wrong, and still you persist. Keep it up. It is amusing, if nothing else.
Really? That’s your evidence?
You’re right.
I mostly agree with this. I've long thought both sides should come together with a long term plan to greatly reduce abortions, but as long as the red states want to play this game, I think the other side should hit back with stringent, unambiguous child support laws and harsh, mandatory jail time for dead beat dads.
Why do you think this is "hitting back?" Do you think that pro-lifers are opposed to child support?
I think most people that are opposed to abortions would probably jump to support child support laws and jail time for dead beat dads. Not getting this “play”?
Dems better hope they win the Senate too, if they want to nominate a S.Ct. justice.
I know this isn't directed towards me but the vast majority of pro-lifers are republicans. The GOP likes to preach "pull yourself up by the boot straps" & "you shouldn't have so many kids if you don't support them". Oh yeah, if you want a better life all you have to do is work harder. They also like to use the "welfare queen" boogie man. They constantly complain about people getting "free" stuff. So I would say yes, they are opposed to child support.
So it would be fair to say based on most known results and studies that increased funding in education and birth control is more effective in fighting abortion that laws restricting abortion?
Significant others (men and women) of hardcore liberal women everywhere are crying on the inside right now...and probably adding the Tinder app to their phone.
The only ones opposed to child support are the scum bags that don’t live up to their obligation to provide it to their children.
Well he may have been off base on that but the reality an awful lot of alleged prolifers are against common sense things that would reduce abortions like expanded sex ed, more availability of contraception, universal day care, WIC, CHiP, programs to help teen moms finish school, the list goes on. For too many it's a fetus fetish and they dont give a tinker's damn about the actual child or mom.
Well is it the parties? I don't know anyone who's prochoice that doesn't want to see us reduce the number of abortions. But not by criminalizing women. But I see very few prolifers willing to even consider the things I mentioned or support politicians that would.
The goals have to be realistic and compromise has to be an option though. For those on the no choice side those seem to be major stumbling blocks.
It should have never been left to Roe v Wade. Congress should've stepped up and done their job. Made a law. Set in place a framework. The Democrats had the votes more than once they just didn't have the guts.
For the record, I'll concede that you're right about this one to some degree. There is a large chunk of Catholic pro-lifers who are also opposed to birth control, and a lot of evangelical pro-lifers who are opposed to realistic sex ed. I disagree with those folks on both of these topics.
I’d like to believe you but there’s certainly a reason the Democratic platform eliminated the rare part of Safe, Legal, and Rare.
No one wants more abortions. I have never ever met a prochoice person who said "you know there just aren't enough abortions". Everyone I've ever met or heard speak on the subject prefers to prevent pregnancy over terminate pregnancy. Allow access? Yes. But promote them like a 2 for 1 special? No.
No, we passed and ratified constitutional amendment about slavery.
Not elected officials. As I previously posted I used to listen to political radio all day prior to Trump and these were alway things that were brought up by the hosts, Limbaugh, Ingraham, etc.IvanKaramazov said:
In general or their own?IvanKaramazov said:
It is. And I get that you disagree, but that doesn't make my perspective a "talking point."
You may believe the talking point, sure, but it is one of those that makes the rounds fairly readily. There has to be some reasonable point at which the child has rights, and I hope it gets set way, way earlier than when they're left on the birthing table struggling to live pending a "consultation" like our erstwhile Virginia governor proposed.
There is. When it's a child. And if you can't accept that the other side has a valid viewpoint instead of just a talking point, you shouldn't be surprised when people ignore you instead of discussing with you.
There's not much of a discussion. You seem to be dictating the definition of a child and what is women's rights.
Am I? What definition of "child" did I dictate? For that matter what definition of women's rights did I dictate? In my opinion logic dictates that a right that can be granted or removed coincidentally only from a woman is a women's right. But I didn't force that on him. I said that I understand he disagrees with my perspective but that the disagreement doesn't mean I'm using a talking point.
Makes sense. Carlin had a bit about that like 20 years ago. Creating people>taking care of people, once we've made sure you are created, you are on your own.
