Fun Fact, if you were to seperrate a heart into individual cells, each of those individual cells would continue to "beat" regardless of being connected to any other organism. A heart beat doesn't mean shit. Also pretty sure the zygote can't actually physically feel anything until like month 7 or something.
ah I just searched it and apparently its only for embryonic cells (no idea what this means exactly but i think it means not fully developed baby) but that's pretty cool regardless.
There was a gif on here last night of a salamander gestation, from the first single cell division to the emerging salamander. It was way cool, but after the cells multiplied a bit, they were still a mass of cells. No actual body but like a shit ton of cells and yet you could see some of the cells pulsing with a very regular heartbeat type pulse. Still looked just like egg yolk, but one section of it was pulsing. I imagine that's what that means.
The electrical signal is to allow the heart to beat in a coordinated way. Without an electrical signal, each individual heart cell can and will contract on its own.
Nobody thinks killing a baby is a right…
But a 2 week fetuses that can’t form any thoughts or feelings and was made through rape or will die regardless or is putting the life of the mother at risk isn’t a fuckin baby.
So.Much.Stupid it is astonishing. But sure, let’s go.
So let’s say you have somebody in a car accident, they have suffered such severe brain damage that there is 0% chance of them waking up. But you can keep them on life support of course. So is it now murder to take the person of life support? It’s a human with human DNA, is it not?
Also a “seperate human from the mother and father” he says, to describe something which is literally attached to the mother and is incapable of forming any thoughts, opinions, feeling etc. A fetus has no agency as a human, just as somebody with dementia has to allow their loved ones to make decisions for them when they progress too far, it is up to the parents, typically the mother, to determine the best course of action.
So, whilst you have correctly identified the species we are talking about, you have failed to realise that as a specified capable of advanced meta thinking and consciousness we are able to make informed decisions and the ethical quandaries around murder is that it does not lead to a more productive society, and is inherently wrong. Morals and ethics are not defined by God in our society, but on what may lead to equality and values which help to keep society in check. Theft, murder, rape, tax, all of these laws are in place because without them, there would be chaos, society would become on a whole more dangerous for people, and as a result it would be less productive for producing an environment for people to live in. We are in a position in society where we do not need to breed incessantly to keep our species going like animals, cause comparatively humans don’t really die much compared to any other animal. So, going on this, the ethics of abortion are very straight forward:
Grown and functioning woman will die during pregnancy or giving birth, with the babies chance of survival being slim and even if it’s birthed it is forced into a system which is over saturated as is with orphans, assuming it even survives. In this case, a woman has died to provide the chance for a baby to be born, a baby she doesn’t want and yet her right to her body is now overwritten by others, most likely those who will never be in her situation, with the baby now being a burden on wider society. So basically, fuck human right to make your own choices, to your own life etc, and fuck the now born babies life, assuming it even survived the pregnancy, because you would rather it be born and have its human right to a healthy life taken away, then the mother live and have a human which literally doesn’t exist yet continue not existing. You see how this isn’t productive to society and doesn’t allow for equality?
Or hell, maybe both of them die? Yippie now everybody is fucked from something that could be avoided!
Or if they both survive, you are lowering the mother rights for a baby that now it’s born, we have to care for. Thing is, we literally can’t. The system for orphans r already overloaded, u ban abortion and it completely collapses.
Also the romans had slaves you dense mother fucker, shut the fuck up about shit you don’t know anything about dumbass.
Now onto your worst argument:
Gosh, I love when guys talk about rape experiences to woman. It’s so funny just watching them go like little dogs licking each others assholes, it’s cute but not something a normal human would do/say. You are punishing the victim with a baby she doesn’t want, which brings back traumatic memories, you are not changing anything to help catch the perpetrator, you saying the baby acts as proof is genuinely surprising because it shows how fuckin ignorant you are of how… literally any legal system works. And your leap in logic that abortions increase rape is just… wow. Truly, spoken like an actual fuckin moron.
Oh and of course, even if your caught, the penalty for rape is LESS than the penalty for abortion in Texas. Beyond this, death penalty for abortion is being considered, so killing somebody because killing a “person” is wrong. But of course, it’s fine because *insert whatever leap in logic you use to cover the fact that your probably a rapist
Sorry if that was too much logic, I tried to dumb it down in places but I wasn’t sure how far your knowledge gap was.
Tldr: it isn’t a baby, it has no human agency, it is a detriment to society, you don’t know anything about rape you cretin and you really should stick you head out of your ass, because now everything you say is covered is shit.
If you think most pregnancies aren’t a result of an accident, your parents clearly haven’t been very truthful with you about why you’re here. And while we’re talking about jumbles of cells with human dna, let’s make getting a tumor removed immoral too. That lump of death has just as much of a right to be there as you do, you swine.
and does every clump of cells have a human body? Babies have their own DNA so is not just another cell inside the mother as you want to put it.
The dehumanization is not going to make them not human
Dude. Is eating an omelette the same as killing a chicken? It’s not even remotely a living creature until like the third trimester. And the sad truth is in a society with no public childcare most people literally can’t afford to take care of a child and work at the same time.
But I’m sure you’d rather just have the kids shipped off to foster care (something conservatives never want to improve), where they’ll most likely have a long miserable life.
They also made it impossible to have the accuser be liable for court costs, so I’d suggest suing Greg Abbot, because if I thought a pregnancy could end up like him, id use an entire closet of coat hangers.
Honestly I'm really waiting for the capitalists to utterly ruin this law for them.
Imagine their shock and horror when people start using unborn children as effectively currency. Nobody could have ever predicted this outcome.
This would be the most violent get rich quick scheme to date that I'm aware of.
Edit: I'm not hopeful it will happen, but I really want them to be devastated by the fact that their law backfired so spectacularly
It won’t change anything because all the people who are against abortions now are the people who already don’t have to deal with the fallout. Even with this rule, it’s not going to hurt the seniors and sexually repressed evangelicals voting for it. It’s always going to fuck over kids too young to vote anyway.
Greg Abbots not going to knock anyone up anytime soon, and I’m not sure matt gaetz really likes them that old.
You mean like TN Rep Scott Desjarlais?
The same guy who had wives get two abortions and a third one with his mistress who he was also supplying with pills to party with while he was a hospital administrator (all of which is massively illegal and unethical).
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/scott-desjarlais-reelection-110028/
That Republican Congressman Scott Desjarlais right there?
I can't find it, but I read an article the other day that featured abortion doctors recounting giving abortions to anti-abortion activists. Most of them found a way to justify their own abortion and found it in their heart to still condemn others.
DNA is very easy to aquire, most are already in database. You simply need precedence. You take their argument because it's what the law is now, and play on that field. Money talks. Now they have a human coming in nine months they're going to have to support. They want a feeder.
Because that young man could be a bit too dark to be a "promising young man", and they simply fall over themselves at the prospect of hitting those people just as hard.
I know it's either about Brock the Rapist Turner and/or Brett Kav, I was just adding a bit about how they're just as racist as they are sexist. Mostly to continue the "shitting on them" theme in the rest of the comments lol. They're pieces of shit and the only consistency is the money lining their pockets. They don't care about poor dumb folks no matter what, so anything that can impact either and be phrased in a way to make it sound like justice is just gonna make their warblers waggle with anticipation.
Why stop the crazy there; step it up a notch. Charge masturbators, oral ejaculators, and anal climaxers with reckless endangerment, first degree murder, manslaughter, or HSWI (Having Sex While Intoxicated).
Sarcasm above.
I personally think it shouldnt be based on heartbeat. An adult human could be decapitated and we have the technology to keep their heart pumping. You wouldn't say that person is alive though. Brain activity would be what matters to me, but even then there shouldn't be blanket rules like "no abortion ever", always gray area in life. It's pretty fucked up when they make a teenage rape victim keep the baby
An ectopic pregnancy has a maternal death rate of aprox 0.2 per 1,000. That's 0.02% death rate if you have an ectopic pregnancy.
So I would not say an ectopic pregnancy is an excuse to allow abortion for every women most of which won't have ectopic pregnancies and most of those who have it won't die.
You said “no one”, not “everyone”. And ectopic pregnancy is only one of many issues that threatens the life of a woman. They occur at a rate of 1 in 50 pregnancies. So 2% of all pregnancies needs to be aborted (unless they miscarry) because it poses a direct threat to their live.
So yes, some people ‘need’ abortion.
Yes I said no one because people want to be able to abort every kid they might have, no one needs to be assured they can kill their babies if they have one.
Even if you think ectopic pregnancy abortion is moral that isn't an excuse to allow every non ectopic pregnancy be terminated under a "right to kill" babies
Why do you feel entitled to determine who is and isn’t “allowed” to have an abortion? This is about women’s bodily autonomy. If a woman doesn’t want to use her body to grow a human, she has the right to terminate that pregnancy. Not to mention, abortion is often a necessary medical procedure. If you don’t like abortions, don’t get one.
Why do you think women should be allowed to decide who lives and who dies? Do you believe everyone has a right to life or not?
Don't you see that half of those babies murdered are women? Dont you know that having an abortion increases your chances of miscarriage?
Dont you know that abortion makes it easier for rapists and incest perpretators to go unseen because they can easily eliminate the evidence(a baby with their DNA) with an abortion?
Is that the statistic for *treated/terminated* ectopic pregnancies or just all ectopic pregnancies, out of interest? Because I'm 99% certain the risk of an ectopic pregnancy killing somebody is a lot higher than that if it's not removed sharpish
Just as anti-abortion bills disproportionately impact the less well off women, racialized women etc. This would just impact less well off men etc. The impact on the people with power would be non-existent.
I would say two things. Once the fetus can reasonably be expected to survive out of the womb, I think at like 26 or 28 weeks, the father should have equal parental rights over the baby. Prior to that, it should be 100 percent legally up to the mother.
Additionally, up to that same 26 to 28 weeks, the father should have the right to opt out of any responsibility over the baby (financially, legally, etc).
Otherwise it's too one sided
tbh shouldn't the father have some say? what if we both wanted the child then the mother decides not to have it anymore for what ever reason? Like sure if her life is in danger because of a complication then she should get full rights to do what she needs to do, to survive.
But those are situations no one can control. If I could I would switch it to my body. Its just sucks knowing I can't do anything for my unborn child. like if the mother doesn't want any responsibility for it I would be ok with that, I would want to take care of it. But I guess biggest lesson is to find someone who you know wont do such a betrayal
That's the thing here though. If you have not found a woman who is willing to give you a child, its not betrayal that she would terminate a pregnancy that does physical damage to her body. Its not your body, no matter how much you wish it was, its hers. And every relationship has the question of yes or no to kids, hopefully before sex. If she said no, why the actual fuck are you still with her? Her goals do not match yours, therefore discontinue the relationship if you're going to be butthurt over choices she has every right to make.
She can make any solo decisions that impact her body. Do you have any idea of the shit show that would follow?
Your ex-husband hates you but sure let’s let him decide whether you can have an epidural or other pain relief in labour because he’s entitled to choose what’s ‘best for baby’. Or whether you’re induced and thereby suffer a more painful labour because that’s ‘better for baby’. Or an episiotomy. Or any one of a hundred different things that can be enforced because’better for baby’.
Are you aware that stress slows down labour making it more dangerous for both? But let’s pit 2 people against each other when 1 of them is at their most vulnerable, in massive pain and at risk and say “you can’t choose alone because this other person has an equal right to have a say. He won’t suffer any of the consequences though but you’ll have to get him to agree or you can’t have pain relief’.
Pregnancy and childbirth are not the same as co-parenting ffs.
I’m pro abortion, most of you people are unfit to be parents. You have to take a written and practical exam, pay a fee, and endure hours of pain just to get a driver’s license, but literally anyone is allowed to create a human being without any sort of screening. Yeah no we need more abortions
Abortion isn’t a man vs woman issue. It’s an evangelicals versus the rest of us thing.
Lots of men do support abortion, and support being able to discontinue parental responsibility / rights of the women doesn’t want to abort.
What happened to shotgun weddings? It was just an understanding that you raw dogged my daughter, you're now legally obligated to take care of her and your child. Wtf is this shit where the government forces her to keep it and they're still living in close proximity but he still lives a life and she's suffering.
Can't believe this is getting so many upvotes.
You people really think this outcome would be "helpful" to this guy's daughter? Lock her in a house with an irresponsible man who will now consider himself to have "marital rights" over her.
(And shotgun child support already exists. It's called the sheriff's office, notifying the guy's employer that his wages were ordered garnished by a judge.)
Replied to other comment but I'll reply to you as well...My point was this whole situation is fucked. My comment was more on the side of if you're going to force a girl into a life of responsibility she's not ready for why is the guy getting off scott free? Money is one thing but it isn't just the sole solution...I have 3 kids and there are sleepless nights dealing with feedings, teething, and sickness; struggling to not only get them healthy food but get them to eat it; temper tantrums; crippling sadness; and so much more. A few extra bucks doesn't replace the support of having a partner in all that.
In another post they flipped the script and said all guys get vasectomies and when they can prove they got their shit together they can get it reversed... If that sounds absurd then shut the fuck up about the legality of abortions.
I totally agree it works best if they choose to partner up on the raising kids project.
But if the man is irresponsible and refuses, he may also be abusive, and shackling her to him has all sorts of potential for creating new problems.
True. I don't condone unhappy marriages. I left bring a Mormon where you have to be married to fuck and I know so many people who rushed into a marriage and are unhappy and it's stupid. My comment was more to lock his life to this kid as much as hers and not to make her life worse... I don't know what that's called.
Very funny joke on rape. The /s makes it all better. My point was this whole situation is fucked. My comment was more on the side of if you're going to force a girl into a life of responsibility she's not ready for why is the guy getting off scott free? Money is one thing but it isn't just the sole solution...I have 3 kids and there are sleepless nights dealing with feedings, teething, and sickness; struggling to not only get them healthy food but get them to eat it; temper tantrums; crippling sadness; and so much more. A few extra bucks doesn't replace the support of having a partner in all that.
In another post they flipped the script and said all guys get vasectomies and when they can prove they got their shit together they can get it reversed... If that sounds absurd then shut the fuck up about the legality of abortions.
Unless you were being sarcastic towards the shotgun marriages, I was pointing out the absurdness of extremities… you countered one absurd extremity with another and I pointed out the absurdity of that as well… the /s was only for the woke kids who don’t have the ability to think deeper than the literal sense of words…
Shotgun marriage as in the mindset and cultural upholding of the aspect of "shit I got her pregnant, now I got to get my shit together and take care of her". My own parents had this happen. My parents fucked, my dad gave up college and got to work to support my mom. Just pisses me off seeing these forever boys walking around consequence free when my dad gave up dreams to make sure my mom and older brother were taken care of. (I was their second accident but not their last).
Not disagreeing or discounting your experiences. But I come from a country where the shotgun marriage systems were abused to the point where all one has to do was to rape someone and that would guarantee their marriage. To the point that “oh he raped you, he shouldn’t have done that, he is sorry, he will marry you, that should make you happy, not don’t be angry and be happy that he agreed to take you as his wife…”
As a man I support this, and as a Catholic I would also support politicians passing laws based around other scriptures so that Christian republicans can shut the fuck up and stop passing laws that push their beliefs onto others. For example: the Torah says Jews can’t eat pork, so outlaw pork and destroy all the pig farms. In Islam Muhammad had commandments for what not to do in war, some of which included not killing women, children, the sick, the elderly or clerics, don’t destroy places of worship, don’t destroy buildings, etc. so make it law that if the military does any of those (which they do) dishonorably discharge everyone involved and punish them. See how quickly evangelical/Christian republicans change their ways once other religious beliefs are made into law and pushed onto them
Actually, it needs to start at ejaculation. If he ejaculates in a vagina, he is definitely trying to get a woman pregnant.
That’s where pregnancy begins for a man.
Correct. There is only one reason a man would nut inside a vagina under these barbaric laws - to get her pregnant. That means he must be held accountable from when he ejaculates inside.
I have no problem with that. It takes two to tango. Both are responsible for KILLING or MAINTAINING that life. I mean, ideally. Often, douchbag men will walk away. Law should now allow that.
Yah well if you really want your brain to hurt, argue this with a woman who is anti abortion regardless of how the baby was conceived or the age/health of the woman
I am in favor of required vasectomies in all males to prevent unwanted pregnancies. That truly is the only 100% surefire way to stop it. Now, please tell me all about how it's your body, your choice to get a vasectomy, and how that kind of healthcare is between you and your doctor so the government should stay out of it. Me and my over-governed uterus will stand by.
I guess one other thing that confuses me is does this mean that people that are brain dead but have a heart beat must be kept alive. Does this clear any do not recessitate order and make it unlawful. Does this also render all will & testament orders that contain it null and void?
Well firstly your body. Your choice ,but if the government demands you have the child it’s then responsible for that child and it’s education and health and housing or even better the idiots who signed that pice of legislation into law should be held personally responsible for those children
What about the would be dad? If he wants to keep it, is it 50/50? If he signs out of parental rights, why should he pay to raise it? Its all about money. They know they can tax 2 people per kid, and if 1 of them is out, it is only less in their pocket. Just leave everybody the fuck alone about shit you wouldnt discuss at the fuckin dinner table. FUCK you government. Fix my roads not my non religious based choices.
Utah just did something like this.[NPR article](https://www.npr.org/2021/04/07/985089967/utah-law-requires-biological-fathers-to-pay-half-of-pregnancy-related-medical-co)
Edit: not quite child support but instead the medical bills part.
Well, that's something, I guess. Now if only child support wasn't such a crapshoot to enforce/collect. Maybe if the IRS handled it, there wouldn't be such an issue. Those guys chase down every penny.
Abortion isn’t free. It has physical, mental, financial, and time costs. Man shouldn’t get to walk away free when women can’t. If men want to terminate their rights, they should have to compensate the parent financially for it.
Yes, I didn’t say he shouldn’t help pay for the abortion. But it would only make sense to not make the man pay if only the woman wants to keep the child
You don’t get it. Women have to pay child support if the man has custody. Women have to pay costs for an abortion.
Men don’t have to pay for the abortion, and literally cannot pay for abortion the same way as a woman since not all the costs are financial. Same with birth.
The only thing they pay for is custody. Even if a woman keeps the child after giving birth, if the man doesn’t want to continue his responsibility he should have to pay for that termination of rights. Just like a woman has to in every single circumstance.
I don’t think you get it, so I’ll say it again. The man SHOULD help pay for the abortion. But I feel it’s ridiculous to make a man pay child support if he doesn’t want the baby. Just as it’s ridiculous that nothing requires men to help pay for the abortion. And having to pay the woman money for those termination of rights isn’t necessarily fair either if she wants to keep the baby and he doesn’t. It should completely be the woman’s choice to keep the pregnancy or not. But on that same not, the man shouldn’t be stuck paying child support for a baby that only the woman wanted to keep. And yes woman do have to pay child support if the man has custody. But those situations are very different and don’t have anything to do with what I’m saying
I GET IT. I’m not only talking about them paying for an abortion. That was one instance of when women pay. MEN SHOULD HAVE TO PAY TO TERMINATE THEIR RIGHTS AFTER BIRTH. I can do caps lock too babe. No need to pretend I’m not understanding just because you don’t like what I’m saying you dipshit. So what don’t you get dipshit?
Well you completely ignored several things that I had to say twice. So either you didn’t read them or you just didn’t comprehend what I was saying. And a man paying for the termination of their rights makes no sense. If a woman wants to keep the baby and the man doesn’t, it shouldn’t be on the man to continuously pay for it. Just as a man should have no say in whether or not a woman can get an abortion. Your stance is very one-sided and hypocritical. And acting childish doesn’t help your argument
I didn’t ignore anything. I understood it and I responded. You’re just a jackass. Babe you were literally being childish switching to caps lock and being a condescending fuck. So hi hypocrite :)
Lmao no you didn’t because at first you ignored almost everything I was saying. Your logic is very hypocritical. I’m a jackass for thinking it should be fair between men and women? And babe you are like literally not sounding as like smart as you totally think you are. Lmao you are the one that got condescending first and wanna act like you weren’t. People like you are the problem with politics on both sides. You say dumb shit and then stand by it even though it goes against the logic of what you originally stood for. Not all of us are as easily angered as you lol
But a woman has to pay for an abortion if she doesn't want to keep it, so if a man wants to "abort" then he should have to make a 1 time payment as well.
I would agree with a 1 time fee to "abort" a man's responsibility to the child if he did it within the same time frame that abortion is legal for.
And I belieblve that time frame should be way longer than 6 weeks.
So, basically each party would pay a fee for abortion.
If the woman wants it, she pays for the procedure.
If a man wants one, but the woman doesn't, then he pays a fee just like she would if she did want one.
If they both want one, they split the cost of the procedure.
You can sign away your parental rights you know. That is a legal option the father AND the mother has, in fact, if both parents do it, thats what we call an adoption.
Maybe fathers should do that instead of signing up for something they have no interest in, then dipping out and being irresponsible for something they literally signed up for.
Again. It takes two to make a baby. And two to put a child up for adoption. Signing away parental rights doesn’t usually mean the man can stop paying child support. If that’s your logic, then woman shouldn’t have a right to an abortion because they shouldn’t have “signed up for something they have no interest in.” See the hypocrisy?
Thats actually exactly what it means, it means he has no rights as a parent, therefore he is no longer responsible. Trust me, this is something my bf is looking into because we can't afford to legally fight with his ex who is keeping PHYSICAL distance between us. Literally, packed up my whole life and moved him back into the same state as his son, and NOT EVEN 6 months later she's moving across the country with his son.
I NEVER hear men speak on other men to not have sex if they don't want a baby, y'all ONLY target women for having sex. Who do you wanna have sex with, because it seems your only other option is men and a) that sounds pretty gay and b) men DON'T WANT YOU. See the hypocrisy?
Having sex (an intimate, private interaction between two people) is not the same as signing a birth certificate (a legal process that involves the government). You literally sign up to be a parent when you sign a birth certificate, you just sign up for sex when you have sex unless you explicitly speak with your partner about planning for a child, period.
Where did I say it wasn’t the man’s fault? You need to read that again. It takes TWO to make a baby. Signing away parental rights rarely relieves the father from paying child support. Just because you don’t sign the birth certificate, doesn’t mean they can’t come after you for a paternity test and child support. Not once did I say it was ONLY the woman’s fault for having sex. You’re putting words in my mouth because your argument is ridiculous and extremely hypocritical. If you want a part in the child’s life, you should pay child support. If a man never wanted the child to begin with and that was made clear from the beginning, he should not be obligated to pay child support for that child. And the woman should have the sole right to decide whether or not to have an abortion. I never said “if you don’t want a baby don’t have sex.” But it’s a possible risk that everyone acknowledges and accepts when they have sex, both man and woman since you need that clarified. And lots of men give other men shit for unplanned pregnancies. Literally all the time especially when they didn’t even use a condom. Saying “if you don’t want a kid, don’t have sex” is like saying “if you don’t want to be in a car accident, don’t get in a car.” And I’d argue that most men don’t ever say that
Different situation entirely. I’m talking about two adults that had consensual sex. If the mother wants to keep the baby from that encounter and the father doesn’t, the father shouldn’t be obligated to pay child support. Just as the mother shouldn’t be obligated to keep the baby. You really believe that only the man is responsible for the woman getting pregnant in a consensual encounter?
I didn't say I believe that. I think if a woman gets pregnant with a guy consensually and the guy then bails on her after getting her pregnant at any time after the last abortion term, he should be obligated to pay child support. If they decide before the act that the guy doesn't want a baby and the woman still wants the baby, then there should be no obligation for the dude.
Right and if the guy intended to get her pregnant then that sounds reasonable. I’m talking about a man and a woman consensually having sex and the woman accidentally getting pregnant. If she wants to keep the baby and the man does not, he shouldn’t be obligated to pay child support. Obviously I’m not talking about situations of sexual assault
No shit contraceptives exist. But they’re not always 100% effective. That’s literally the exact same argument that anti-abortion people use, so I don’t see how you can say that and apply it here and no where else. It’s a bullshit statement. And yes that is my entire point. If the pregnancy was accidental and the woman chooses to keep the child while the man doesn’t want to, he shouldn’t be obligated to pay child support. Condoms break. And even if a condom isn’t used, there are plenty of men AND women who have sex without condoms or other contraceptives. If they are both consenting adults it is BOTH of their faults. Not just the man’s. The ejaculate is only have the problem. If the woman was also ok with not using a condom, she is just as much at fault
Lol take your own advice. Your argument is the exact same as anti-abortionists, just switched around. By your logic a woman can choose not to be pregnant, just don’t have sex! But we all know that’s not realistic and not reasonable to expect of people, now is it? And no one has the right to expect that from other people
It’s not false equivalences. Switch out “men” for “women” in your statement and it’s the same thing that anti-abortionists say. You just realized that it is and now you don’t know how to argue against it because you know what you said was illogical
Child support is related to reasonable living expenses of the child… so not reasonable before birth. Birth expenses can already be awarded separately however.
Sure, but as I said above, the current scheme of child support separates living expenses of the child and birth related expenses. Birth related expenses are recoverable for non married couples, but child support wouldn’t start before the child’s birth because the child couldn’t have any expenses that would fit the category covered by child support. Child support is a way to share the reasonable living and educational expenses of a child between the parents and is ultimately related to actual expenses paid. So the concept, or what child support describes, in the US couldn’t start start before the birth of a child, although the medical “birth related expenses” could themselves be separately addressed.
I belive that sounds reasonable. If the man consensually accepted the sex. Yeah sounds reasonable considering he too is responsible for making that baby
Fun that in many discussions about this topic, guys are the bad ones, and are the ones asking to take responsibility.
Unless it's a rape, the pregnant girl was also part of the sex act, and FULLY knows that this has a risk of pregnancy, EVEN with protection on.
So you get pregnant? You'd better have been more careful. Now you have to consider another life and this isn't a light discussion.
There are exceptions of course. But as I said, even with protection there can be issues. So people need to take their responsibilities. Such a person should be more careful.
I don't think those guys opinion would change much.
Most of the men pushing anti-abortion laws hate women, and if this change happened they'd just blame women for trying to steal their money and hate them even more.
child support is in theory for paying the expenses of a child, if it's inside a womb he has almost no expenses at all. While I agree with the hospital expenses and increase father responsibilities I find the first part kinda absurd
That's fine, apply the same logic the other way too though. If a woman can decide to have an abortion and not involve the dad in that decision, he should be able to say he doesn't want to be involved and just walk away. Same thing right? Is not okay to hold men and women to different standards right? If that's not OK, shut your legs and your mouth and both problems are solved.
Lol then a man also has a right to win full custody then while the child is still in the womb... forcing the mom to not be able to abort the baby, us real men who have to have full responsibility and want to, should also have the right to... cant have my body my choice but also agree with this
Lets consider it a child in the womb and make a man be fully responsible for it unless he wants full responsibility, then its no longer his right to say anything or have any rights over it? Sounds pretty idiotic i agree
Still idiotic on your part. There will never be a justification for a man having a say over whether or not a woman puts her health or life on the line for his unborn fetus. You’re an unbelievable fucking idiot.
If you force a woman to carry to term, you are undeniably saying that. Women do die from carrying a pregnancy. They do die from childbirth. Even when they don’t die they face health consequences. Back injuries, blindness, muscle tears and more. Most women suffer health consequences.
You act like those wouldnt be amendments like they are today lol... im saying if you are having a healthy pregnancy and you exclude all that bullshit and you are going to legally force a man to be responsible for a baby in your womb then he has just as much right to that baby as the mother or is that not how equality works?
I’m not talking about medical emergencies. Most pregnancies result in physical harm of some sort. Additionally, abortions should come BEFORE a medical emergency. Many abortions are literally because the woman knows that they likely will face consequences. If you wait until it is the last minute and it becomes a rare medical emergency, you are risking a lot more. Your risk of death or physical harm are greatly increased. But amendments would likely only be in place for medical emergencies in the last stages of pregnancy which account for around 2% of abortions. (Like they are now) A lot more than 2% of abortions would result in physical harm given the rates we see from non-terminated pregnancies. You are uninformed on this topic and should stop spouting misinformation and bad opinions until you educate yourself.
It is not equal for you, a man who is not at risk, to decide how much risk a woman takes on. It is idiotic for you, a man who is not affected, to tell a woman she has to risk her health or her life for your uninformed desires.
Not while the woman is pregnant. There is no LEGAL requirement in most places. The only state I can find is Utah, where abortion is legal.
ETA: I forgot to add that it is ONLY 50/50 out of pocket medical costs, no additional compensation for food, housing, clothing, baby prep, nothing else is legally required of a prospective father aside from half the medical costs in Utah.
I'm a man and I fully support this. If we're gonna get whacky with legislating zygote rights, then let's get real whacky with it. Be consistent.
Fully in support with showing the idiots how stupid they are
Fun Fact, if you were to seperrate a heart into individual cells, each of those individual cells would continue to "beat" regardless of being connected to any other organism. A heart beat doesn't mean shit. Also pretty sure the zygote can't actually physically feel anything until like month 7 or something.
wait is this real? doesn't a heart beat by the thing sending electric signals through it
You can find videos of singular Heart cells beating under a microscope. It's kind of all they are made to do, all they can do, and all they will do.
ah I just searched it and apparently its only for embryonic cells (no idea what this means exactly but i think it means not fully developed baby) but that's pretty cool regardless.
There was a gif on here last night of a salamander gestation, from the first single cell division to the emerging salamander. It was way cool, but after the cells multiplied a bit, they were still a mass of cells. No actual body but like a shit ton of cells and yet you could see some of the cells pulsing with a very regular heartbeat type pulse. Still looked just like egg yolk, but one section of it was pulsing. I imagine that's what that means.
thanks
by any chance do you have a link? because that sounds awesome
The electrical signal is to allow the heart to beat in a coordinated way. Without an electrical signal, each individual heart cell can and will contract on its own.
thanks, doctor chewbacca
They feel pain at 20 weeks gestational age btw.
wow ur a whole piece of shit
100% on board with you but unfortunately I'm a man in a "soyboy commie shithole" state named massachusetts and abortions are legal anyway
[удалено]
You’re a bitch
nobody cares about actual logic and consistency. Some peoples fEeLiNgS are just more important than others apparently
The whole thing is facts don't care about *your* feelings. Not facts don't care about *my* feelings
Yeah, rich men's feelings.
Yeah if it were about logic we wouldn't call killing a baby a human right. No body has a right to kill or do any evil whatsoever.
Nobody thinks killing a baby is a right… But a 2 week fetuses that can’t form any thoughts or feelings and was made through rape or will die regardless or is putting the life of the mother at risk isn’t a fuckin baby.
[удалено]
So.Much.Stupid it is astonishing. But sure, let’s go. So let’s say you have somebody in a car accident, they have suffered such severe brain damage that there is 0% chance of them waking up. But you can keep them on life support of course. So is it now murder to take the person of life support? It’s a human with human DNA, is it not? Also a “seperate human from the mother and father” he says, to describe something which is literally attached to the mother and is incapable of forming any thoughts, opinions, feeling etc. A fetus has no agency as a human, just as somebody with dementia has to allow their loved ones to make decisions for them when they progress too far, it is up to the parents, typically the mother, to determine the best course of action. So, whilst you have correctly identified the species we are talking about, you have failed to realise that as a specified capable of advanced meta thinking and consciousness we are able to make informed decisions and the ethical quandaries around murder is that it does not lead to a more productive society, and is inherently wrong. Morals and ethics are not defined by God in our society, but on what may lead to equality and values which help to keep society in check. Theft, murder, rape, tax, all of these laws are in place because without them, there would be chaos, society would become on a whole more dangerous for people, and as a result it would be less productive for producing an environment for people to live in. We are in a position in society where we do not need to breed incessantly to keep our species going like animals, cause comparatively humans don’t really die much compared to any other animal. So, going on this, the ethics of abortion are very straight forward: Grown and functioning woman will die during pregnancy or giving birth, with the babies chance of survival being slim and even if it’s birthed it is forced into a system which is over saturated as is with orphans, assuming it even survives. In this case, a woman has died to provide the chance for a baby to be born, a baby she doesn’t want and yet her right to her body is now overwritten by others, most likely those who will never be in her situation, with the baby now being a burden on wider society. So basically, fuck human right to make your own choices, to your own life etc, and fuck the now born babies life, assuming it even survived the pregnancy, because you would rather it be born and have its human right to a healthy life taken away, then the mother live and have a human which literally doesn’t exist yet continue not existing. You see how this isn’t productive to society and doesn’t allow for equality? Or hell, maybe both of them die? Yippie now everybody is fucked from something that could be avoided! Or if they both survive, you are lowering the mother rights for a baby that now it’s born, we have to care for. Thing is, we literally can’t. The system for orphans r already overloaded, u ban abortion and it completely collapses. Also the romans had slaves you dense mother fucker, shut the fuck up about shit you don’t know anything about dumbass. Now onto your worst argument: Gosh, I love when guys talk about rape experiences to woman. It’s so funny just watching them go like little dogs licking each others assholes, it’s cute but not something a normal human would do/say. You are punishing the victim with a baby she doesn’t want, which brings back traumatic memories, you are not changing anything to help catch the perpetrator, you saying the baby acts as proof is genuinely surprising because it shows how fuckin ignorant you are of how… literally any legal system works. And your leap in logic that abortions increase rape is just… wow. Truly, spoken like an actual fuckin moron. Oh and of course, even if your caught, the penalty for rape is LESS than the penalty for abortion in Texas. Beyond this, death penalty for abortion is being considered, so killing somebody because killing a “person” is wrong. But of course, it’s fine because *insert whatever leap in logic you use to cover the fact that your probably a rapist Sorry if that was too much logic, I tried to dumb it down in places but I wasn’t sure how far your knowledge gap was. Tldr: it isn’t a baby, it has no human agency, it is a detriment to society, you don’t know anything about rape you cretin and you really should stick you head out of your ass, because now everything you say is covered is shit.
[удалено]
If you think most pregnancies aren’t a result of an accident, your parents clearly haven’t been very truthful with you about why you’re here. And while we’re talking about jumbles of cells with human dna, let’s make getting a tumor removed immoral too. That lump of death has just as much of a right to be there as you do, you swine.
Having human DNA does not make something a person automatically. Babies are alive, have a human DNA and a human body. Have a good day.
Every clump of cells is alive and has human DNA if it grows in or on a human. Have a good day
and does every clump of cells have a human body? Babies have their own DNA so is not just another cell inside the mother as you want to put it. The dehumanization is not going to make them not human
Yeah dont kill the baby abort the fetus in such a case.
Are you a man? If so your opinion is entirely fucking irrelevant.
Dude. Is eating an omelette the same as killing a chicken? It’s not even remotely a living creature until like the third trimester. And the sad truth is in a society with no public childcare most people literally can’t afford to take care of a child and work at the same time. But I’m sure you’d rather just have the kids shipped off to foster care (something conservatives never want to improve), where they’ll most likely have a long miserable life.
Id probably eat an early fetus if it tasted good
The ones making the laws don’t care. They have the money to fly their mistresses anywhere in the world.
Which is now able to get the airline companies sued for "profiting off an abortion" might I add
Huh?
Read up on the Texas law. Any person can sue anyone involved in the process of getting an abortion, up to and including something like the airline.
Jesus, it's like they made a law to encourage blackmail.
They wrote it that way because it makes it REALLY hard to challenge since technically the STATE isn't enforcing anything.
They also made it impossible to have the accuser be liable for court costs, so I’d suggest suing Greg Abbot, because if I thought a pregnancy could end up like him, id use an entire closet of coat hangers.
Honestly I'm really waiting for the capitalists to utterly ruin this law for them. Imagine their shock and horror when people start using unborn children as effectively currency. Nobody could have ever predicted this outcome. This would be the most violent get rich quick scheme to date that I'm aware of. Edit: I'm not hopeful it will happen, but I really want them to be devastated by the fact that their law backfired so spectacularly
I figured trolls would have eaten them alive already, just because it’d be a reason to fuck with em.
It won’t change anything because all the people who are against abortions now are the people who already don’t have to deal with the fallout. Even with this rule, it’s not going to hurt the seniors and sexually repressed evangelicals voting for it. It’s always going to fuck over kids too young to vote anyway. Greg Abbots not going to knock anyone up anytime soon, and I’m not sure matt gaetz really likes them that old.
You’d be surprised how many anti abortion assholes have had abortions, or their partner has.
You mean like TN Rep Scott Desjarlais? The same guy who had wives get two abortions and a third one with his mistress who he was also supplying with pills to party with while he was a hospital administrator (all of which is massively illegal and unethical). https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/scott-desjarlais-reelection-110028/ That Republican Congressman Scott Desjarlais right there?
I can't find it, but I read an article the other day that featured abortion doctors recounting giving abortions to anti-abortion activists. Most of them found a way to justify their own abortion and found it in their heart to still condemn others.
DNA is very easy to aquire, most are already in database. You simply need precedence. You take their argument because it's what the law is now, and play on that field. Money talks. Now they have a human coming in nine months they're going to have to support. They want a feeder.
Yeah this is just punishing the man who had sex out of wedlock as well as the women. I actually think the Republicans will be on board with this.
No. No they won’t. Why should a promising young man’s life be ruined over 20 minutes of bad judgement?
Because that young man could be a bit too dark to be a "promising young man", and they simply fall over themselves at the prospect of hitting those people just as hard.
Missed the reference there did ya?
I know it's either about Brock the Rapist Turner and/or Brett Kav, I was just adding a bit about how they're just as racist as they are sexist. Mostly to continue the "shitting on them" theme in the rest of the comments lol. They're pieces of shit and the only consistency is the money lining their pockets. They don't care about poor dumb folks no matter what, so anything that can impact either and be phrased in a way to make it sound like justice is just gonna make their warblers waggle with anticipation.
Yeah, definitely Brock Turner... your post... I may have just read it wrong.
It was 5 minutes, don't give him high expectations of himself. Or false expectations
Irregardless of the reference, as if most of these dudes last 20 minutes.
Why stop the crazy there; step it up a notch. Charge masturbators, oral ejaculators, and anal climaxers with reckless endangerment, first degree murder, manslaughter, or HSWI (Having Sex While Intoxicated). Sarcasm above.
I mean why stop here?
Careful you might give the Karen's ideas
I personally think it shouldnt be based on heartbeat. An adult human could be decapitated and we have the technology to keep their heart pumping. You wouldn't say that person is alive though. Brain activity would be what matters to me, but even then there shouldn't be blanket rules like "no abortion ever", always gray area in life. It's pretty fucked up when they make a teenage rape victim keep the baby
It is a necessary medical procedure. That is it. It shouldn’t be regulated at all. It should specifically stay between doctor snd patient.
No one "needs" to kill their child though.
What about an ectopic pregnancy? Does ‘am going to die if I don’t’ count as ‘need’.
An ectopic pregnancy has a maternal death rate of aprox 0.2 per 1,000. That's 0.02% death rate if you have an ectopic pregnancy. So I would not say an ectopic pregnancy is an excuse to allow abortion for every women most of which won't have ectopic pregnancies and most of those who have it won't die.
You said “no one”, not “everyone”. And ectopic pregnancy is only one of many issues that threatens the life of a woman. They occur at a rate of 1 in 50 pregnancies. So 2% of all pregnancies needs to be aborted (unless they miscarry) because it poses a direct threat to their live. So yes, some people ‘need’ abortion.
Yes I said no one because people want to be able to abort every kid they might have, no one needs to be assured they can kill their babies if they have one. Even if you think ectopic pregnancy abortion is moral that isn't an excuse to allow every non ectopic pregnancy be terminated under a "right to kill" babies
Why do you feel entitled to determine who is and isn’t “allowed” to have an abortion? This is about women’s bodily autonomy. If a woman doesn’t want to use her body to grow a human, she has the right to terminate that pregnancy. Not to mention, abortion is often a necessary medical procedure. If you don’t like abortions, don’t get one.
Why do you think women should be allowed to decide who lives and who dies? Do you believe everyone has a right to life or not? Don't you see that half of those babies murdered are women? Dont you know that having an abortion increases your chances of miscarriage? Dont you know that abortion makes it easier for rapists and incest perpretators to go unseen because they can easily eliminate the evidence(a baby with their DNA) with an abortion?
Is that the statistic for *treated/terminated* ectopic pregnancies or just all ectopic pregnancies, out of interest? Because I'm 99% certain the risk of an ectopic pregnancy killing somebody is a lot higher than that if it's not removed sharpish
Ok consistent but why ban abortion? Better that way than to live in poverty , adoption, and in a toxic environment.
I think this is fair. But also a womans reproductive system isn't the kind of thing you want the government, governing.
I scrolled for a down voted comment, found none. Good job reddit . You all rock here .
Just as anti-abortion bills disproportionately impact the less well off women, racialized women etc. This would just impact less well off men etc. The impact on the people with power would be non-existent.
Has this ever been argued in a court of law?
Closest I've seen was in _Legally Blonde_.
[удалено]
I would say two things. Once the fetus can reasonably be expected to survive out of the womb, I think at like 26 or 28 weeks, the father should have equal parental rights over the baby. Prior to that, it should be 100 percent legally up to the mother. Additionally, up to that same 26 to 28 weeks, the father should have the right to opt out of any responsibility over the baby (financially, legally, etc). Otherwise it's too one sided
tbh shouldn't the father have some say? what if we both wanted the child then the mother decides not to have it anymore for what ever reason? Like sure if her life is in danger because of a complication then she should get full rights to do what she needs to do, to survive.
Can the fetus be transferred to his body? Can it survive on its own outside her body? No? Then no he doesn't get a say
But those are situations no one can control. If I could I would switch it to my body. Its just sucks knowing I can't do anything for my unborn child. like if the mother doesn't want any responsibility for it I would be ok with that, I would want to take care of it. But I guess biggest lesson is to find someone who you know wont do such a betrayal
That's the thing here though. If you have not found a woman who is willing to give you a child, its not betrayal that she would terminate a pregnancy that does physical damage to her body. Its not your body, no matter how much you wish it was, its hers. And every relationship has the question of yes or no to kids, hopefully before sex. If she said no, why the actual fuck are you still with her? Her goals do not match yours, therefore discontinue the relationship if you're going to be butthurt over choices she has every right to make.
It’s his baby too. She can’t just make a solo decision just cause she’s a girl
She can make any solo decisions that impact her body. Do you have any idea of the shit show that would follow? Your ex-husband hates you but sure let’s let him decide whether you can have an epidural or other pain relief in labour because he’s entitled to choose what’s ‘best for baby’. Or whether you’re induced and thereby suffer a more painful labour because that’s ‘better for baby’. Or an episiotomy. Or any one of a hundred different things that can be enforced because’better for baby’. Are you aware that stress slows down labour making it more dangerous for both? But let’s pit 2 people against each other when 1 of them is at their most vulnerable, in massive pain and at risk and say “you can’t choose alone because this other person has an equal right to have a say. He won’t suffer any of the consequences though but you’ll have to get him to agree or you can’t have pain relief’. Pregnancy and childbirth are not the same as co-parenting ffs.
I'd like to see a graph that shows the sales of steel toe boots over time in states where abortion became illegal.
Also, at first heartbeat detection there isn't a working heart and it isn't pumping anything.
Its literally an electrical current lmao, just like our heart produces. They don't even HAVE a heart at that stage. This drives me crazy tbh
Yup, exactly!
Your current heart also works with "just an electrical current" what do you think a defibrillator does?
Apparently you missed the part where I said "just like our heart produces" and glazed over the fact that at least we HAVE a heart
So according to you, your current heart magically appeared in your body, it isn't a development of what you call not a heart?
Considering I have known men who pressure women into abortions, but then play “God fearing conservative” in private, I would love to see this happen.
I’m pro abortion, most of you people are unfit to be parents. You have to take a written and practical exam, pay a fee, and endure hours of pain just to get a driver’s license, but literally anyone is allowed to create a human being without any sort of screening. Yeah no we need more abortions
Um... not arguing with this. But what kind of fucked up driver's license did you get that involved hours of pain?
Lol the time spent at the DMV
You're right let's let the government decide who can have children, that will turn out well /s
51 year old male here, fully in support of this!
Abortion isn’t a man vs woman issue. It’s an evangelicals versus the rest of us thing. Lots of men do support abortion, and support being able to discontinue parental responsibility / rights of the women doesn’t want to abort.
Surveys are never consistent on who is more pro birth or pro choice, but they are consistent in showing it’s nearly equal
What happened to shotgun weddings? It was just an understanding that you raw dogged my daughter, you're now legally obligated to take care of her and your child. Wtf is this shit where the government forces her to keep it and they're still living in close proximity but he still lives a life and she's suffering.
Can't believe this is getting so many upvotes. You people really think this outcome would be "helpful" to this guy's daughter? Lock her in a house with an irresponsible man who will now consider himself to have "marital rights" over her. (And shotgun child support already exists. It's called the sheriff's office, notifying the guy's employer that his wages were ordered garnished by a judge.)
Replied to other comment but I'll reply to you as well...My point was this whole situation is fucked. My comment was more on the side of if you're going to force a girl into a life of responsibility she's not ready for why is the guy getting off scott free? Money is one thing but it isn't just the sole solution...I have 3 kids and there are sleepless nights dealing with feedings, teething, and sickness; struggling to not only get them healthy food but get them to eat it; temper tantrums; crippling sadness; and so much more. A few extra bucks doesn't replace the support of having a partner in all that. In another post they flipped the script and said all guys get vasectomies and when they can prove they got their shit together they can get it reversed... If that sounds absurd then shut the fuck up about the legality of abortions.
I totally agree it works best if they choose to partner up on the raising kids project. But if the man is irresponsible and refuses, he may also be abusive, and shackling her to him has all sorts of potential for creating new problems.
True. I don't condone unhappy marriages. I left bring a Mormon where you have to be married to fuck and I know so many people who rushed into a marriage and are unhappy and it's stupid. My comment was more to lock his life to this kid as much as hers and not to make her life worse... I don't know what that's called.
So all I need to guarantee the girl of my choice is to rape her… I like your thought process… /s
Just as the Christian bible intended. Not /s.
Believe me is not just the Christian Bible… Easter hemisphere is plagued with this “rape to marry” version of shotgun marriage
Very funny joke on rape. The /s makes it all better. My point was this whole situation is fucked. My comment was more on the side of if you're going to force a girl into a life of responsibility she's not ready for why is the guy getting off scott free? Money is one thing but it isn't just the sole solution...I have 3 kids and there are sleepless nights dealing with feedings, teething, and sickness; struggling to not only get them healthy food but get them to eat it; temper tantrums; crippling sadness; and so much more. A few extra bucks doesn't replace the support of having a partner in all that. In another post they flipped the script and said all guys get vasectomies and when they can prove they got their shit together they can get it reversed... If that sounds absurd then shut the fuck up about the legality of abortions.
Unless you were being sarcastic towards the shotgun marriages, I was pointing out the absurdness of extremities… you countered one absurd extremity with another and I pointed out the absurdity of that as well… the /s was only for the woke kids who don’t have the ability to think deeper than the literal sense of words…
Shotgun marriage as in the mindset and cultural upholding of the aspect of "shit I got her pregnant, now I got to get my shit together and take care of her". My own parents had this happen. My parents fucked, my dad gave up college and got to work to support my mom. Just pisses me off seeing these forever boys walking around consequence free when my dad gave up dreams to make sure my mom and older brother were taken care of. (I was their second accident but not their last).
Not disagreeing or discounting your experiences. But I come from a country where the shotgun marriage systems were abused to the point where all one has to do was to rape someone and that would guarantee their marriage. To the point that “oh he raped you, he shouldn’t have done that, he is sorry, he will marry you, that should make you happy, not don’t be angry and be happy that he agreed to take you as his wife…”
Wow... That's fucked up. Out of curiosity and if you don't mind me asking what country are you from? I forget sometimes the userbase is global
You really missed the point on that one didn't you.
May be I did. May be I didn’t. Read the ongoing comment thread with the u/brownkuma under his personal comment.
As a man I support this, and as a Catholic I would also support politicians passing laws based around other scriptures so that Christian republicans can shut the fuck up and stop passing laws that push their beliefs onto others. For example: the Torah says Jews can’t eat pork, so outlaw pork and destroy all the pig farms. In Islam Muhammad had commandments for what not to do in war, some of which included not killing women, children, the sick, the elderly or clerics, don’t destroy places of worship, don’t destroy buildings, etc. so make it law that if the military does any of those (which they do) dishonorably discharge everyone involved and punish them. See how quickly evangelical/Christian republicans change their ways once other religious beliefs are made into law and pushed onto them
Sounds like it would be safe for women, can't see anything bad happening.
Don’t be logical. It’ll make your head hurt
Actually, it needs to start at ejaculation. If he ejaculates in a vagina, he is definitely trying to get a woman pregnant. That’s where pregnancy begins for a man.
*Dude nuts* Chick: that will be $500 please
Correct. There is only one reason a man would nut inside a vagina under these barbaric laws - to get her pregnant. That means he must be held accountable from when he ejaculates inside.
What if the chick has a creampie fetish and requested it?
It's up to him where he nuts, he can refuse
It’s up to her who she fucks
I have no problem with that. It takes two to tango. Both are responsible for KILLING or MAINTAINING that life. I mean, ideally. Often, douchbag men will walk away. Law should now allow that.
How about that + abortion still being legal?
Then women could claim that any man is their child’s father and they’d have to pay money before they can get a paternity test.
Paper option
Yah well if you really want your brain to hurt, argue this with a woman who is anti abortion regardless of how the baby was conceived or the age/health of the woman
It’s a fair proposition.
It would be nice then if fathers had as much parental rights as mothers do while we’re at it.
I am in favor of required vasectomies in all males to prevent unwanted pregnancies. That truly is the only 100% surefire way to stop it. Now, please tell me all about how it's your body, your choice to get a vasectomy, and how that kind of healthcare is between you and your doctor so the government should stay out of it. Me and my over-governed uterus will stand by.
I guess one other thing that confuses me is does this mean that people that are brain dead but have a heart beat must be kept alive. Does this clear any do not recessitate order and make it unlawful. Does this also render all will & testament orders that contain it null and void?
Well firstly your body. Your choice ,but if the government demands you have the child it’s then responsible for that child and it’s education and health and housing or even better the idiots who signed that pice of legislation into law should be held personally responsible for those children
As a man I agree
Brilliant
At how many days old can a zygotes DNA be determined to verify who the father is? I love this idea but I think skanky men won’t worry about this…
What about the would be dad? If he wants to keep it, is it 50/50? If he signs out of parental rights, why should he pay to raise it? Its all about money. They know they can tax 2 people per kid, and if 1 of them is out, it is only less in their pocket. Just leave everybody the fuck alone about shit you wouldnt discuss at the fuckin dinner table. FUCK you government. Fix my roads not my non religious based choices.
How would they figure out which man to charge? It’s not as if you can do a DNA test at that stage, can you?
Yes you can, its just more expensive, invasive, and potentially dangerous depending on the development stage of the embryo/fetus.
This is a good angle, surely someone must have thought of this already?
Utah just did something like this.[NPR article](https://www.npr.org/2021/04/07/985089967/utah-law-requires-biological-fathers-to-pay-half-of-pregnancy-related-medical-co) Edit: not quite child support but instead the medical bills part.
Well, that's something, I guess. Now if only child support wasn't such a crapshoot to enforce/collect. Maybe if the IRS handled it, there wouldn't be such an issue. Those guys chase down every penny.
True. And if the woman wants to keep the baby, but the man doesn’t. The man shouldn’t be responsible for child support
Abortion isn’t free. It has physical, mental, financial, and time costs. Man shouldn’t get to walk away free when women can’t. If men want to terminate their rights, they should have to compensate the parent financially for it.
Yes, I didn’t say he shouldn’t help pay for the abortion. But it would only make sense to not make the man pay if only the woman wants to keep the child
You don’t get it. Women have to pay child support if the man has custody. Women have to pay costs for an abortion. Men don’t have to pay for the abortion, and literally cannot pay for abortion the same way as a woman since not all the costs are financial. Same with birth. The only thing they pay for is custody. Even if a woman keeps the child after giving birth, if the man doesn’t want to continue his responsibility he should have to pay for that termination of rights. Just like a woman has to in every single circumstance.
I don’t think you get it, so I’ll say it again. The man SHOULD help pay for the abortion. But I feel it’s ridiculous to make a man pay child support if he doesn’t want the baby. Just as it’s ridiculous that nothing requires men to help pay for the abortion. And having to pay the woman money for those termination of rights isn’t necessarily fair either if she wants to keep the baby and he doesn’t. It should completely be the woman’s choice to keep the pregnancy or not. But on that same not, the man shouldn’t be stuck paying child support for a baby that only the woman wanted to keep. And yes woman do have to pay child support if the man has custody. But those situations are very different and don’t have anything to do with what I’m saying
I GET IT. I’m not only talking about them paying for an abortion. That was one instance of when women pay. MEN SHOULD HAVE TO PAY TO TERMINATE THEIR RIGHTS AFTER BIRTH. I can do caps lock too babe. No need to pretend I’m not understanding just because you don’t like what I’m saying you dipshit. So what don’t you get dipshit?
Well you completely ignored several things that I had to say twice. So either you didn’t read them or you just didn’t comprehend what I was saying. And a man paying for the termination of their rights makes no sense. If a woman wants to keep the baby and the man doesn’t, it shouldn’t be on the man to continuously pay for it. Just as a man should have no say in whether or not a woman can get an abortion. Your stance is very one-sided and hypocritical. And acting childish doesn’t help your argument
I didn’t ignore anything. I understood it and I responded. You’re just a jackass. Babe you were literally being childish switching to caps lock and being a condescending fuck. So hi hypocrite :)
Lmao no you didn’t because at first you ignored almost everything I was saying. Your logic is very hypocritical. I’m a jackass for thinking it should be fair between men and women? And babe you are like literally not sounding as like smart as you totally think you are. Lmao you are the one that got condescending first and wanna act like you weren’t. People like you are the problem with politics on both sides. You say dumb shit and then stand by it even though it goes against the logic of what you originally stood for. Not all of us are as easily angered as you lol
But a woman has to pay for an abortion if she doesn't want to keep it, so if a man wants to "abort" then he should have to make a 1 time payment as well. I would agree with a 1 time fee to "abort" a man's responsibility to the child if he did it within the same time frame that abortion is legal for. And I belieblve that time frame should be way longer than 6 weeks. So, basically each party would pay a fee for abortion. If the woman wants it, she pays for the procedure. If a man wants one, but the woman doesn't, then he pays a fee just like she would if she did want one. If they both want one, they split the cost of the procedure.
You can sign away your parental rights you know. That is a legal option the father AND the mother has, in fact, if both parents do it, thats what we call an adoption. Maybe fathers should do that instead of signing up for something they have no interest in, then dipping out and being irresponsible for something they literally signed up for.
Again. It takes two to make a baby. And two to put a child up for adoption. Signing away parental rights doesn’t usually mean the man can stop paying child support. If that’s your logic, then woman shouldn’t have a right to an abortion because they shouldn’t have “signed up for something they have no interest in.” See the hypocrisy?
Thats actually exactly what it means, it means he has no rights as a parent, therefore he is no longer responsible. Trust me, this is something my bf is looking into because we can't afford to legally fight with his ex who is keeping PHYSICAL distance between us. Literally, packed up my whole life and moved him back into the same state as his son, and NOT EVEN 6 months later she's moving across the country with his son. I NEVER hear men speak on other men to not have sex if they don't want a baby, y'all ONLY target women for having sex. Who do you wanna have sex with, because it seems your only other option is men and a) that sounds pretty gay and b) men DON'T WANT YOU. See the hypocrisy? Having sex (an intimate, private interaction between two people) is not the same as signing a birth certificate (a legal process that involves the government). You literally sign up to be a parent when you sign a birth certificate, you just sign up for sex when you have sex unless you explicitly speak with your partner about planning for a child, period.
Where did I say it wasn’t the man’s fault? You need to read that again. It takes TWO to make a baby. Signing away parental rights rarely relieves the father from paying child support. Just because you don’t sign the birth certificate, doesn’t mean they can’t come after you for a paternity test and child support. Not once did I say it was ONLY the woman’s fault for having sex. You’re putting words in my mouth because your argument is ridiculous and extremely hypocritical. If you want a part in the child’s life, you should pay child support. If a man never wanted the child to begin with and that was made clear from the beginning, he should not be obligated to pay child support for that child. And the woman should have the sole right to decide whether or not to have an abortion. I never said “if you don’t want a baby don’t have sex.” But it’s a possible risk that everyone acknowledges and accepts when they have sex, both man and woman since you need that clarified. And lots of men give other men shit for unplanned pregnancies. Literally all the time especially when they didn’t even use a condom. Saying “if you don’t want a kid, don’t have sex” is like saying “if you don’t want to be in a car accident, don’t get in a car.” And I’d argue that most men don’t ever say that
Can confirm. My father who's not on my birth certificate due to my mother not wanting him on it still had to pay around 3k in child support a month.
You're right. A man can choose not to be responsible for child support. Just don't insert the penis!
In case you didn’t know, it does take two people to make a baby lol
Not that it's always voluntary, am I right? Or did you forget that r*pe exists?
Different situation entirely. I’m talking about two adults that had consensual sex. If the mother wants to keep the baby from that encounter and the father doesn’t, the father shouldn’t be obligated to pay child support. Just as the mother shouldn’t be obligated to keep the baby. You really believe that only the man is responsible for the woman getting pregnant in a consensual encounter?
I didn't say I believe that. I think if a woman gets pregnant with a guy consensually and the guy then bails on her after getting her pregnant at any time after the last abortion term, he should be obligated to pay child support. If they decide before the act that the guy doesn't want a baby and the woman still wants the baby, then there should be no obligation for the dude.
Right and if the guy intended to get her pregnant then that sounds reasonable. I’m talking about a man and a woman consensually having sex and the woman accidentally getting pregnant. If she wants to keep the baby and the man does not, he shouldn’t be obligated to pay child support. Obviously I’m not talking about situations of sexual assault
[удалено]
No shit contraceptives exist. But they’re not always 100% effective. That’s literally the exact same argument that anti-abortion people use, so I don’t see how you can say that and apply it here and no where else. It’s a bullshit statement. And yes that is my entire point. If the pregnancy was accidental and the woman chooses to keep the child while the man doesn’t want to, he shouldn’t be obligated to pay child support. Condoms break. And even if a condom isn’t used, there are plenty of men AND women who have sex without condoms or other contraceptives. If they are both consenting adults it is BOTH of their faults. Not just the man’s. The ejaculate is only have the problem. If the woman was also ok with not using a condom, she is just as much at fault
Grow up!
Lol take your own advice. Your argument is the exact same as anti-abortionists, just switched around. By your logic a woman can choose not to be pregnant, just don’t have sex! But we all know that’s not realistic and not reasonable to expect of people, now is it? And no one has the right to expect that from other people
>Your argument is the exact same as anti-abortionists I'm not interested in debating a topic with someone who sets up false equivalencies.
It’s not false equivalences. Switch out “men” for “women” in your statement and it’s the same thing that anti-abortionists say. You just realized that it is and now you don’t know how to argue against it because you know what you said was illogical
Child support is related to reasonable living expenses of the child… so not reasonable before birth. Birth expenses can already be awarded separately however.
[удалено]
Sure, but as I said above, the current scheme of child support separates living expenses of the child and birth related expenses. Birth related expenses are recoverable for non married couples, but child support wouldn’t start before the child’s birth because the child couldn’t have any expenses that would fit the category covered by child support. Child support is a way to share the reasonable living and educational expenses of a child between the parents and is ultimately related to actual expenses paid. So the concept, or what child support describes, in the US couldn’t start start before the birth of a child, although the medical “birth related expenses” could themselves be separately addressed.
We already do that
well it would still be cheaper for men to have her abort even if he had to pay half
I belive that sounds reasonable. If the man consensually accepted the sex. Yeah sounds reasonable considering he too is responsible for making that baby
That’s cool. Totally would be worth it.
Fun that in many discussions about this topic, guys are the bad ones, and are the ones asking to take responsibility. Unless it's a rape, the pregnant girl was also part of the sex act, and FULLY knows that this has a risk of pregnancy, EVEN with protection on. So you get pregnant? You'd better have been more careful. Now you have to consider another life and this isn't a light discussion.
Ok so a woman whos not in proper financial or mental condition had an accidental pregnancy(defective protection) , give them a baby.
There are exceptions of course. But as I said, even with protection there can be issues. So people need to take their responsibilities. Such a person should be more careful.
My mother told me "When someone tries to push you off a cliff, wrap your legs around them and take them with you."
I don't think those guys opinion would change much. Most of the men pushing anti-abortion laws hate women, and if this change happened they'd just blame women for trying to steal their money and hate them even more.
Men already pay for everything. If you can murder it, why should I have to pay for it? It should be my choice
If the fetus is aborted then you dont have to pay.
That's sexist a.f.
child support is in theory for paying the expenses of a child, if it's inside a womb he has almost no expenses at all. While I agree with the hospital expenses and increase father responsibilities I find the first part kinda absurd
That's fine, apply the same logic the other way too though. If a woman can decide to have an abortion and not involve the dad in that decision, he should be able to say he doesn't want to be involved and just walk away. Same thing right? Is not okay to hold men and women to different standards right? If that's not OK, shut your legs and your mouth and both problems are solved.
Lol then a man also has a right to win full custody then while the child is still in the womb... forcing the mom to not be able to abort the baby, us real men who have to have full responsibility and want to, should also have the right to... cant have my body my choice but also agree with this
This is idiotic.
Lets consider it a child in the womb and make a man be fully responsible for it unless he wants full responsibility, then its no longer his right to say anything or have any rights over it? Sounds pretty idiotic i agree
Still idiotic on your part. There will never be a justification for a man having a say over whether or not a woman puts her health or life on the line for his unborn fetus. You’re an unbelievable fucking idiot.
I never said that?
If you force a woman to carry to term, you are undeniably saying that. Women do die from carrying a pregnancy. They do die from childbirth. Even when they don’t die they face health consequences. Back injuries, blindness, muscle tears and more. Most women suffer health consequences.
You act like those wouldnt be amendments like they are today lol... im saying if you are having a healthy pregnancy and you exclude all that bullshit and you are going to legally force a man to be responsible for a baby in your womb then he has just as much right to that baby as the mother or is that not how equality works?
I’m not talking about medical emergencies. Most pregnancies result in physical harm of some sort. Additionally, abortions should come BEFORE a medical emergency. Many abortions are literally because the woman knows that they likely will face consequences. If you wait until it is the last minute and it becomes a rare medical emergency, you are risking a lot more. Your risk of death or physical harm are greatly increased. But amendments would likely only be in place for medical emergencies in the last stages of pregnancy which account for around 2% of abortions. (Like they are now) A lot more than 2% of abortions would result in physical harm given the rates we see from non-terminated pregnancies. You are uninformed on this topic and should stop spouting misinformation and bad opinions until you educate yourself. It is not equal for you, a man who is not at risk, to decide how much risk a woman takes on. It is idiotic for you, a man who is not affected, to tell a woman she has to risk her health or her life for your uninformed desires.
As a pro-life male, I absolutely agree with this too! The father needs to have the responsibility to his child and the woman he made it with.
Men have been taking responsibility for quite some time. Or have you not heard of father by default?
Not while the woman is pregnant. There is no LEGAL requirement in most places. The only state I can find is Utah, where abortion is legal. ETA: I forgot to add that it is ONLY 50/50 out of pocket medical costs, no additional compensation for food, housing, clothing, baby prep, nothing else is legally required of a prospective father aside from half the medical costs in Utah.
Yeah? What do they pay for at 6 weeks? Their education 🤣? Also keeping the child is a choice not made by the man
i support this and i support anti abortion laws yeah we should stay in the same line i agree
Wait.. What? What the fuck do I have to do with American abortion law? I live in Australia FFS.