Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

It's not about your body, dumbass, it's about the other one living inside it. We protect children who cannot protect themselves. The right to life is constitutionally protected.

It isn’t another life until it can live outside of mine. It really isn’t that hard. Also I have to agree to the terms to grow it since it’s my body. Feel free to have your own.

That argument is scary. No child could survive without assistance until years after birth. And, shocker!, some freaks actually make the argument that post birth abortion should be legal using this very argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another? No one would countenance a law that said a person who is a bone marrow or organ match is legally obligated to donate to another. There may be a moral imperative (if the person’s life and health would not be impacted), but we do not override an individual’s bodily integrity against his or her will even for noble purposes. We generally do not punish bystanders who refuse to come to the rescue of others in distress, especially when there is any risk to themselves.

Sotomayor asks how anti-abortion argument is ‘anything but a religious view’
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the Mississippi solicitor general during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Dec. 1. (The Washington Post)
The motives behind the antiabortion movement become clear when one recognizes that even though abortion is legal, the incidence of abortion has dropped dramatically. Hence, permissive laws do not mean the procedure happens more often. If we want to reduce abortions, we arguably should be doing precisely what we have been doing over the past few decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/01/fundamental-deception-behind-pro-life-movement/

"In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another?"

VACCINE MANDATES

I mean that's just ridiculous.

A. You don't get arrested if you don't take the vaccine, you just have to find another job
B. A vaccine is not an entity that uses you to sustain itself, it's the instructions to help your body fight off a disease
C. Are you seriously equating getting a couple of shots to pregnancy and childbirth? That is hilarious. Thanks for a great start to my weekend!

Anonymous wrote:So now conservatives are such weak individuals that getting vaccines and wearing masks is as challenging and all encompassing as pregnancy and birth? My god. Totally freaking unreal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another? No one would countenance a law that said a person who is a bone marrow or organ match is legally obligated to donate to another. There may be a moral imperative (if the person’s life and health would not be impacted), but we do not override an individual’s bodily integrity against his or her will even for noble purposes. We generally do not punish bystanders who refuse to come to the rescue of others in distress, especially when there is any risk to themselves.

Sotomayor asks how anti-abortion argument is ‘anything but a religious view’
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the Mississippi solicitor general during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Dec. 1. (The Washington Post)
The motives behind the antiabortion movement become clear when one recognizes that even though abortion is legal, the incidence of abortion has dropped dramatically. Hence, permissive laws do not mean the procedure happens more often. If we want to reduce abortions, we arguably should be doing precisely what we have been doing over the past few decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/01/fundamental-deception-behind-pro-life-movement/

"In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another?"

VACCINE MANDATES

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Laws vary by state, but, in most states, fathers are responsible for financial support during pregnancy and including birth. The OBLIGATION exists back to the moment of conception even if the ENFORCEMENT of the obligation doesn’t begin until post birth. In some states, like Colorado, paternity can be established pre birth and pregnancy expenses can be enforced against the father of the unborn child prior to birth.

You’re lying. Hell, I’ll be generous. You’re twisting words to try and make it look like you have a point: https://www.colorado-family-law.com/parenting-custody/paternity-unmarried-parents

Fatherhood of the children of an unwed mother is established AT BIRTH. Like in every state, unless you have proof otherwise. The father is only responsible for paying for part of the birth if the state of Colorado’s social services paid for them.

Insurance, little things like carpooling, all this stuff is predicated on BIRTH. That time when the products of concept becomes it’s own person, breathing its own air, able to take in nutrition from something other than the nutrients sucked from its mother’s body. You forced birthers are such freaks who have spent so much time in your little misogyny bubbles that you’ve lost touch with reality.

Try again. You’re running a lazy Google search instead of actually reading the law.

CRS 19-4-105.5.3 explicitly permits the filing of a paternity action prior to the birth of a child.

CRS 19-4-116(3)(c) explicitly states that bills for pregnancy and childbirth expenses are recoverable in a paternity action. No requirement that costs be incurred by governmental entities.

Once you read the code for yourself, please do come back and admit you were wrong (although an apology would be nice).

https://leg.colorado.gov/agencies/office-legislative-legal-services/colorado-revised-statutes

....but such payments are "recoverable" after birth. If life begins at conception, why is the mother having to "recover" anything? She should be paid by the alleged father in real-time.

Interesting that the law treats birth as the qualifying event upon which recovery can be premised.

I don’t think that is the correct interpretation.

19-4-105.5.3 permits the institution of legal paternity determinations prior to birth.

19-4-116(c)(3) provides they PREGNANCY, child birth and other costs may be rolled in to child support.

Elsewhere (sorry, I’m too lazy to find an exact cite), the code permits the court to award child support at any time after paternity has been established.

Read it all together, and in Colorado, a father is legally OBLIGATED for pregnancy expenses prior to birth to be paid by the father prior to birth. From a practical standpoint, legal enforcement may not happen against deadbeats until after birth, but that’s a different issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Laws vary by state, but, in most states, fathers are responsible for financial support during pregnancy and including birth. The OBLIGATION exists back to the moment of conception even if the ENFORCEMENT of the obligation doesn’t begin until post birth. In some states, like Colorado, paternity can be established pre birth and pregnancy expenses can be enforced against the father of the unborn child prior to birth.

You’re lying. Hell, I’ll be generous. You’re twisting words to try and make it look like you have a point: https://www.colorado-family-law.com/parenting-custody/paternity-unmarried-parents

Fatherhood of the children of an unwed mother is established AT BIRTH. Like in every state, unless you have proof otherwise. The father is only responsible for paying for part of the birth if the state of Colorado’s social services paid for them.

Insurance, little things like carpooling, all this stuff is predicated on BIRTH. That time when the products of concept becomes it’s own person, breathing its own air, able to take in nutrition from something other than the nutrients sucked from its mother’s body. You forced birthers are such freaks who have spent so much time in your little misogyny bubbles that you’ve lost touch with reality.

Try again. You’re running a lazy Google search instead of actually reading the law.

CRS 19-4-105.5.3 explicitly permits the filing of a paternity action prior to the birth of a child.

CRS 19-4-116(3)(c) explicitly states that bills for pregnancy and childbirth expenses are recoverable in a paternity action. No requirement that costs be incurred by governmental entities.

Once you read the code for yourself, please do come back and admit you were wrong (although an apology would be nice).

https://leg.colorado.gov/agencies/office-legislative-legal-services/colorado-revised-statutes

....but such payments are "recoverable" after birth. If life begins at conception, why is the mother having to "recover" anything? She should be paid by the alleged father in real-time.

Interesting that the law treats birth as the qualifying event upon which recovery can be premised.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another? No one would countenance a law that said a person who is a bone marrow or organ match is legally obligated to donate to another. There may be a moral imperative (if the person’s life and health would not be impacted), but we do not override an individual’s bodily integrity against his or her will even for noble purposes. We generally do not punish bystanders who refuse to come to the rescue of others in distress, especially when there is any risk to themselves.

Sotomayor asks how anti-abortion argument is ‘anything but a religious view’
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the Mississippi solicitor general during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Dec. 1. (The Washington Post)
The motives behind the antiabortion movement become clear when one recognizes that even though abortion is legal, the incidence of abortion has dropped dramatically. Hence, permissive laws do not mean the procedure happens more often. If we want to reduce abortions, we arguably should be doing precisely what we have been doing over the past few decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/01/fundamental-deception-behind-pro-life-movement/

"In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another?"

VACCINE MANDATES

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Laws vary by state, but, in most states, fathers are responsible for financial support during pregnancy and including birth. The OBLIGATION exists back to the moment of conception even if the ENFORCEMENT of the obligation doesn’t begin until post birth. In some states, like Colorado, paternity can be established pre birth and pregnancy expenses can be enforced against the father of the unborn child prior to birth.

You’re lying. Hell, I’ll be generous. You’re twisting words to try and make it look like you have a point: https://www.colorado-family-law.com/parenting-custody/paternity-unmarried-parents

Fatherhood of the children of an unwed mother is established AT BIRTH. Like in every state, unless you have proof otherwise. The father is only responsible for paying for part of the birth if the state of Colorado’s social services paid for them.

Insurance, little things like carpooling, all this stuff is predicated on BIRTH. That time when the products of concept becomes it’s own person, breathing its own air, able to take in nutrition from something other than the nutrients sucked from its mother’s body. You forced birthers are such freaks who have spent so much time in your little misogyny bubbles that you’ve lost touch with reality.

Try again. You’re running a lazy Google search instead of actually reading the law.

CRS 19-4-105.5.3 explicitly permits the filing of a paternity action prior to the birth of a child.

CRS 19-4-116(3)(c) explicitly states that bills for pregnancy and childbirth expenses are recoverable in a paternity action. No requirement that costs be incurred by governmental entities.

Once you read the code for yourself, please do come back and admit you were wrong (although an apology would be nice).

https://leg.colorado.gov/agencies/office-legislative-legal-services/colorado-revised-statutes

Anonymous wrote:

In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another? No one would countenance a law that said a person who is a bone marrow or organ match is legally obligated to donate to another. There may be a moral imperative (if the person’s life and health would not be impacted), but we do not override an individual’s bodily integrity against his or her will even for noble purposes. We generally do not punish bystanders who refuse to come to the rescue of others in distress, especially when there is any risk to themselves.

Sotomayor asks how anti-abortion argument is ‘anything but a religious view’
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the Mississippi solicitor general during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Dec. 1. (The Washington Post)
The motives behind the antiabortion movement become clear when one recognizes that even though abortion is legal, the incidence of abortion has dropped dramatically. Hence, permissive laws do not mean the procedure happens more often. If we want to reduce abortions, we arguably should be doing precisely what we have been doing over the past few decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/01/fundamental-deception-behind-pro-life-movement/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Laws vary by state, but, in most states, fathers are responsible for financial support during pregnancy and including birth. The OBLIGATION exists back to the moment of conception even if the ENFORCEMENT of the obligation doesn’t begin until post birth. In some states, like Colorado, paternity can be established pre birth and pregnancy expenses can be enforced against the father of the unborn child prior to birth.

You’re lying. Hell, I’ll be generous. You’re twisting words to try and make it look like you have a point: https://www.colorado-family-law.com/parenting-custody/paternity-unmarried-parents

Fatherhood of the children of an unwed mother is established AT BIRTH. Like in every state, unless you have proof otherwise. The father is only responsible for paying for part of the birth if the state of Colorado’s social services paid for them.

Insurance, little things like carpooling, all this stuff is predicated on BIRTH. That time when the products of concept becomes it’s own person, breathing its own air, able to take in nutrition from something other than the nutrients sucked from its mother’s body. You forced birthers are such freaks who have spent so much time in your little misogyny bubbles that you’ve lost touch with reality.

Anonymous wrote:
Laws vary by state, but, in most states, fathers are responsible for financial support during pregnancy and including birth. The OBLIGATION exists back to the moment of conception even if the ENFORCEMENT of the obligation doesn’t begin until post birth. In some states, like Colorado, paternity can be established pre birth and pregnancy expenses can be enforced against the father of the unborn child prior to birth.

In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another? No one would countenance a law that said a person who is a bone marrow or organ match is legally obligated to donate to another. There may be a moral imperative (if the person’s life and health would not be impacted), but we do not override an individual’s bodily integrity against his or her will even for noble purposes. We generally do not punish bystanders who refuse to come to the rescue of others in distress, especially when there is any risk to themselves.

Sotomayor asks how anti-abortion argument is ‘anything but a religious view’
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the Mississippi solicitor general during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Dec. 1. (The Washington Post)
The motives behind the antiabortion movement become clear when one recognizes that even though abortion is legal, the incidence of abortion has dropped dramatically. Hence, permissive laws do not mean the procedure happens more often. If we want to reduce abortions, we arguably should be doing precisely what we have been doing over the past few decades.