Transgender, convicted felon, illegal but can STAY here

Takes two to tango?

....but he's not responsible because he has a freedom of choice, to support the baby or reject it, just like she can bring it to term, or get an abortion, or put up for adoption. Fair play demands he has the same rights as she does too. What's good for the goose should be the same for the gander.

You suffer the consequences of another persons decisions.

When 2 parties make the (right or wrong) decision...they each suffer the consequences of the other persons action. She suffers for 9 months and takes care of the baby until the age of majority...and HE pays.

She keeps the baby, he doesn't want the baby, made to pay support? I hope he enjoyed it...no sympathy here.

Fair play demands he has the same rights as she does too

You want him to have the same "rights"?

Fair play demands that HE has (gives birth to) the baby.

Another example

2 people commit an armed robbery. One person drives the getaway car and the other person kills someone....Both guilty of murder.

Man and woman find 'themselves' to be pregnant...

Rule 1 - She and he get married, have and keep and raise the baby together......forever.

Rule 2 - She wants to give it up for adoption and he agrees but the USA say that HE has to also give permission for that and sign off or the adoption would be illegal.

Rule 3 - She wants to give it up for adoption, but he wants to keep it, even if alone. He has to go to court to get an order stipulating parenthood and responsibility.

Rule 4 - Same as Rule 3, but she has to pay child support to him.

Rule 5 - HE wants to give it up for adoption, but the roles for Rule 3 are reversed and still pertain.

Rule 6 - Same as Rule 5, but now he has to pay child support to her.

Rule 7 - One or the other just walks away and never looks back with both making their own decision regarding their personal lives. There are still ramifications regarding child support for the father down the road with IRS/Child Support Services if the mother has kept the child. That pertains to the 'Dead Beat Father' laws. What they agree to now means nothing if she changes her mind later or files for welfare at some point.

Rule 8 - She wants to have an abortion and he agrees...enter PP.

Rule 9 - She wants an abortion, he doesn't agree and wants to keep and raise the baby himself..........SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE HIS PERMISSION TO KILL IT AND GOES TO PP.

Rule 10 - Same as Rule 9 but he tries to get a restraining order from the court to force her to have the baby and hand it over.........DOESN'T HAPPEN, and you know why? BECAUSE IT'S THE WOMAN'S BODY AND SHE CAN DO WHAT SHE WANTS.

Rule 11 - THE FATHER HAS NO RIGHTS EXCEPT UNDER RULE 1 and even that one is questionable if a divorce happens and he wants custody since 99.9% of the time, the mother gets custody automatically by the courts here.

Which Rule works for you?

James wants fair rules....

RE: Which Rule works for you?

The one where the child comes out ahead of the game(wins). IF one or both parents also come out ahead of the game as a result...that's a bonus.

You seem more concerned about the 2 participants than the product.

Do you have any comment on MY post to your "PP has NO birth 'advice' "?

...you told a damn lie! Have you twisted things around so much that you've come full circle and forgotten the whole point is to STOP ABORTIONS!???

YOU'RE the one that said

Fair play demands he has the same rights as she does too. What's good for the goose should be the same for the gander.

Aren't you saying you want "fair play"?

is free birth control and factual sex education. Abstinence only doesn't work - ask Bristol Palin.

If I had one wish, it is that every child conceived would be loved and wanted and cared for by both parents. It doesn't matter if it is a man and a woman, two women or two men.

Don't blame abstinence by pointing at those who failed to practice it. As for conception, you seem confused on what pair is able to conceive a child. Two men alone and two women alone can't. Time for sex education out in your neck of the woods?

is free birth control and accurate sex education.

Just making it illegal will not stop them. There were many abortions before it was legal nationwide. With these the woman's like was at risk as well.

...women knowing they were putting their lives at risk to seek an abortion was actually a life saver, because many chose NOT to accept that risk and more lives were born into the world than lost by botched abortions, so the end score on that was a win for life.

Does that mean the child gets to be born or do you think being aborted can count as a win for that child?

Unfortunately.....the CORRECT answer to that isn't clear UNTIL they've been born and lived their life.

I can predict the past...not the future.

That's why I leave THOSE decisions up to the people that are directly affected by THEIR decisions.

In case your next question is

"Do I think someone should be charged with killing someone with a gun"?

The answer is Yes, BUT not IF the victim helped the killer put the bullets in the gun.

because you said "UNTIL" and not UNLESS. There can be no "UNTIL" unless they've been permitted to live and make that determination themselves.

The next time you hear someone remark (and it could be about their pet they just put down), "I couldn't bear to watch it suffer", consider that their real concern was for their own mental state and not that of the deceased.

Not what I want, but pointing out what it would be if Liberal concepts were applied equally. Aren't Liberals supposed to be about "choice" and "equality"? Surely say it's not hypocrisy they actually crave after?!

What I want is for both of them to be responsible as every couple who has conceived should be toward the child and bring to term.

All hospitals that do abortions do this. The difference is that hospitals charge more than PP.

Everyone that has seen the whole video agrees that there was nothing that PP did wrong and the editing was slanted to their agenda.

It's goulish at best and horrifying at worse.

I've seen the entire videos, and even liberal Dems are finally outraged over what they never wanted to see before....that PP veers more women toward abortion rather than 'planned parenthood' options because not only are they making millions for abortions, but they are making just as much, if not more, by selling off the parts they abort. Even PP admits they have no facilities to advise women toward their other options such as adoption or raising the baby. They have done over 50 million abortions since Roe v Wade.

Dems talk about how they need to have so many illegals in this country for the economy but think about how much our economy would have been better off with those 50 million lives.....many of whom would be in their prime working years right now. Women's 'health' is a fig leaf argument for what is actually UNDER that fig leaf and a total lie that liberals keep repeating often enough that so many believed it until now.......

There are more women's health clinics in the USA than what PP has combined, and none of them get a half billion from the Federal Government even though they can and do offer the same, if not better, services that PP does. If they can stay open, why are Dems so reluctant to stop funding PP and let them make their own way of 'succeeding' or failing like any other 'business'? Because they hide behind women's 'health' rather than actually admit that they believe the same way that the PP founder, Sanger, did.........The poor and 'other than white' are inferior 'races/classes' and should be eliminated (unless you can keep getting their vote). But answer me this.....IF no government funds are actually paying for those abortions, how are the 'poor' coming up with their own money to pay for it? If they can come up with that kind of cash, they can afford BIRTH CONTROL in the first place, which is a helluva lot cheaper.

steers toward abortion rather than any other options.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/jerry39/2011/03/07/planned-parenthood-a-history-of-frauds-and-felonies-in-the-service-of-ideology/

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-boland/planned-parenthood-did-1-adoption-referral-149-abortions

And the 'gag rule' is back up and running for monetary reasons alone.

http://thebelltowers.com/2013/09/09/planned-parenthoods-adoption-gag-rule/

You said they didn't.

you provided from the PP website? If so, what do you THINK they would say there, when many other sources are available showing they steer away from other options on a scale of 149 to 1 because adoptions or keeping the baby isn't profitable to them.

Do YOU believe that organization should be funded by the Federal Government when other women's healthcare providers are not? Do YOU believe they should be investigated for illegal practices?

ALL the things YOU claim they aren't providing.

YOU claimed they didn't provide info...I showed they did.

Was that link you provided from the PP website?

Is your mouse broken or the finger you use to click the mouse broken?

to your post since I don't care to look for it...I knew you would respond, but as usual you defend their position (for them to post anything other than THEIR position and bull is like Iran doing their own inspections). When there is obvious proof from other sources that they lie or, at the very least, do the bare minimum regarding offering options to abortions, their 'position/propaganda' is dubious since their position is actually 149 to 1 that abortion advice is their main mission.

So you don't want to know what they say...you just want to complain about what they don't say. Even though you don't read what they say.

IF that works for you...

about what they really do in order to keep getting those federal funds....what makes you think I would believe anything they put up on their own website since it is all self-serving?

And, yes, that works for me.....I prefer other sources for the proof....why doesn't that work for you?

steers toward abortion rather than any other options.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/jerry39/2011/03/07/planned-parenthood-a-history-of-frauds-and-felonies-in-the-service-of-ideology/

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-boland/planned-parenthood-did-1-adoption-referral-149-abortions

And the 'gag rule' is back up and running for monetary reasons alone.

http://thebelltowers.com/2013/09/09/planned-parenthoods-adoption-gag-rule/

GOOD...I'm making some progress with you...It's NOW "more often than not", previously it was "NO advice".

a nationwide set of branches....unless each one is investigated to know which ones even suggest options, the advice is a resounding "NO". Do you condone an average of 149 FOR an abortion vs 1 AGAINST?

The only 'progress' being made is that BO and HC would both veto any bill defunding an illegal operation because it doesn't fit their agenda and talking points.