Oklahoma : Women who want an abortion face needing the father’s written consent

[starlord]

I think its more of an attack on women's rights.

yes. "womens liberation" is what led to sex outside of marriage being acceptable in society.
christian lawmakers like these have been trying for years to demonize single mothers and make life hell for them and their children to enforce their religious views of "sin."

[bledgor]

I realize its a long and glorious tradition around these parts to derail any thread on abortion into a defense of deadbeatism, but the simple fact of the matter is that a pregnancy carried to term produces a human being who has material needs that require provisioning, while a pregnancy that is terminated does not. The question then, as it pertains to the former case, is "Who makes those provisions for the child?" The most efficient answer is its biological parents.

"Hey, I was down for fuckin' but I didn't want to have a kid with that bitch" has up to the present moment been an entirely unpersuasive argument against this answer, by virtue of the fact that no society on the planet has enshrined it into law, but hey keep pushing that boulder up hill it if it makes you feel better.

By that same token though you can look at the mother and say "Hey you were down for fuckin but you didn't want the natural result of sex which is a child" has to be equally fucked up. It isn't like sex has another purpose like extending your life, the purpose of sex is to reproduce, so being shocked when it happens always amuses me. I can agree that women should have the final say in aborting/having the child, but at the same token I believe it is 100% fair that a man before to far into the pregnancy should have the right to fiscally remove himself (at the cost of not being allowed into that child's life).

Just as people have said men should know if a woman is willing/wanting to have a kid and thus avoid them aborting a child they want, women should have to be equally responsible for knowing that the man they sleep with are those men unwilling to support a child and will be abandoning responsibility if/when they get pregnant.

[starlord]

By that same token though you can look at the mother and say "Hey you were down for fuckin but you didn't want the natural result of sex which is a child" has to be equally fucked up. It isn't like sex has another purpose like extending your life, the purpose of sex is to reproduce, so being shocked when it happens always amuses me. I can agree that women should have the final say in aborting/having the child, but at the same token I believe it is 100% fair that a man before to far into the pregnancy should have the right to fiscally remove himself (at the cost of not being allowed into that child's life).

Just as people have said men should know if a woman is willing/wanting to have a kid and thus avoid them aborting a child they want, women should have to be equally responsible for knowing that the man they sleep with are those men unwilling to support a child and will be abandoning responsibility if/when they get pregnant.

and what if they lied? then it doesnt really matter who said what. it still comes down to the woman's body being at risk. and if a child is born, the child still requires support. that will come out of the parents paychecks or the state's.

[Slybak]

By that same token though you can look at the mother and say "Hey you were down for fuckin but you didn't want the natural result of sex which is a child" has to be equally fucked up. It isn't like sex has another purpose like extending your life, the purpose of sex is to reproduce, so being shocked when it happens always amuses me. I can agree that women should have the final say in aborting/having the child, but at the same token I believe it is 100% fair that a man before to far into the pregnancy should have the right to fiscally remove himself (at the cost of not being allowed into that child's life).

"The kid has to grow up with a reduction of resources that it otherwise would have had, but hey its mom was a fucking slut so why should I care?"

Also not a particularly convincing argument. As I said, finding a rationale for deadbeatism that isn't a moral nightmare is a Sisyphean task.

[Fudal]

In fairness, an absent mother is required to pay child support in most cases. The supposed bias isn't in who pays but who gets custody more often.

That isn't my quote that you have attributed to me.

But, in answer to your position this is absolutely false. There are very few cases in which a mother is required to provide financial support. Those cases are generally limited to ones in which it able to be demonstrated that the father was the primary care giver and the mother was the primary financial provider by a large margin ( Think Hollywood Actress vs Fitness trainer level of disparity).

[Slybak]

But, in answer to your position this is absolutely false. There are very few cases in which a mother is required to provide financial support. Those cases are generally limited to ones in which it able to be demonstrated that the father was the primary care giver and the mother was the primary financial provider by a large margin ( Think Hollywood Actress vs Fitness trainer level of disparity).

You know, this would be a pretty opportune moment for people who people make the legalize deadbeatism argument to announce their full-throated advocacy for professional/pay equity between genders in order to ameliorate the gendered disparity in custody and child support....


HAHAHAHA JUST KIDDING WE KNOW THAT WON'T HAPPEN

[bledgor]

and what if they lied? then it doesnt really matter who said what. it still comes down to the woman's body being at risk. and if a child is born, the child still requires support. that will come out of the parents paychecks or the state's.

What if the women didn't get pregnant from the man but self-reproduced and had the 2nd coming of Jesus? What if the man was held accountable for a child that wasn't his own because the woman had sex with another man and lied that the first was the father? Yes the woman's body is at risk, but so is the mans financial life (and thus in a very real way his way of life/living).

I just don't get how people like you think it is fair that a women gets all the choices but a man must share the responsibility/result. Would it make the dad a deadbeat scum? Sure, but I still believe he should have the choice (just like A LOT of people say the most retarded shit I have ever heard, like any anti-vaxxer, but I still support their right to say it even if I am firmly against every word that comes out of their mouth).

- - - Updated - - -

"The kid has to grow up with a reduction of resources that it otherwise would have had, but hey its mom was a fucking slut so why should I care?"

Also not a particularly convincing argument. As I said, finding a rationale for deadbeatism that isn't a moral nightmare is a Sisyphean task.

I don't support deadbeastism, but I also don't support shackling a man to a commitment they didn't want when a woman in that same situation has 100% of the power. Shit I am even okay with when a man asks to be absolved of all financial support for a child they get it in return for getting a vasectomy so they can't be a deadbeat dad again, but I believe they should be treated a bit more fairly in the birth of a child.

[Deleted]

Oh, you mean all the adoption centers are finally empty?! Praise the su-.

Of newborn children yes.

- - - Updated - - -

Those parts that should, but aren't, are not really in my power to change. I would if I could. The last part; no debate on how to do it without opening it up to abuse, aka, free ticket to have fun as long as one wants, always with no consequence = We keep current system. Show me a way that has a motivator for the man to actually be responsible in avoiding unwanted pregnancies, and you can have my vote for it.

What abuse?
Is a woman entitled to support if she makes a decision by mere virtue of womanhood?
If the woman wants the kid, but would be unable to support it alone, the solution is abortion or adoption, even if she want to keep it, not forcing an unwilling party to subsidize her choice.

- - - Updated - - -

There are issues with adoption that make a less ideal situation for the child than having a biological parent raise them.I can think of two studies off the top of my head that explored these options in the McLanahan/Sandefur study on living environments of children and Dr. Stolley's report for the US Census, iirc.

Not a single one that defeats a two parent household however.

With most evidence pointing to children raised in step-families having about the same level of risks as single parent households when geography and economic factors are accounted.

A step family is not analogous to an adoption.

Children are not guaranteed to be better off as an adopted child vis-a-vis the uncertainty of adoption and strain on adoption systems. Which are largely funded by the tax payer in the US.

you conflate the entire adoption system with solely newborns.

- - - Updated - - -

So a rapists concent is needed for an abortion?

Yes.
That's the way it is currently in the whole wide world.
Yet somehow when it dawns on you what i mean, you will somehow not care.

- - - Updated - - -

Because it's a ridiculous deflection.

it isn't.

Societal coherence and macroeconomics clearly spell out that welfare in and of itself is a really good investment, even for the rich who are paying for it. You know, not being lynched in the street is a favorable outcome over the alternative.

So we should get rid of child support completely?
Because that's the only way this meshes with this topic.

[starlord]

What if the women didn't get pregnant from the man but self-reproduced and had the 2nd coming of Jesus? What if the man was held accountable for a child that wasn't his own because the woman had sex with another man and lied that the first was the father? Yes the woman's body is at risk, but so is the mans financial life (and thus in a very real way his way of life/living).

I just don't get how people like you think it is fair that a women gets all the choices but a man must share the responsibility/result. Would it make the dad a deadbeat scum? Sure, but I still believe he should have the choice (just like A LOT of people say the most retarded shit I have ever heard, like any anti-vaxxer, but I still support their right to say it even if I am firmly against every word that comes out of their mouth).

so you dont really have an argument then. people lie all the time about wanting a child or not.
that is why it doesnt make any sense to make that a stipulation, unless theres a formalized legal document that is signed before sex.
which would be intrusive as hell into people's privacy rights. women get "all the choices" because their bodies bear "all the risk." the man does not risk literally dying from a pregnancy.

[Slybak]

What if the women didn't get pregnant from the man but self-reproduced and had the 2nd coming of Jesus?

What if the man was held accountable for a child that wasn't his own because the woman had sex with another man and lied that the first was the father? Yes the woman's body is at risk, but so is the mans financial life (and thus in a very real way his way of life/living).

Men are as likely to develop breast cancer as they are to being suckered into parenthood. As our medical institutions haven't made annual mammograms for men into a matter of such core concern that the entire practice of medical diagonoses and treatment needs to be overthrown, I do not think our legal institutions need to do likewise for an equivalently minuscule occurrence. That is something that the court system is more than able to handle retroactively, and, luckily, paternity testing is readily available.

I just don't get how people like you think it is fair that a women gets all the choices but a man must share the responsibility/result. Would it make the dad a deadbeat scum? Sure, but I still believe he should have the choice (just like A LOT of people say the most retarded shit I have ever heard, like any anti-vaxxer, but I still support their right to say it even if I am firmly against every word that comes out of their mouth).

A private citizen accountable only to themselves offering a personal opinion is not the same as denying an actual human being in need of resources. A better analogy would be "I disagree vehemently with anti-vaxxers, but I'm perfectly fine with anti-vaxxers being certified pediatricians and giving dangerous advice to otherwise ignorant parents because hey you aren't really free unless some toddlers die from measles."

I don't support deadbeastism, but I also don't support shackling a man to a commitment they didn't want when a woman in that same situation has 100% of the power. Shit I am even okay with when a man asks to be absolved of all financial support for a child they get it in return for getting a vasectomy so they can't be a deadbeat dad again, but I believe they should be treated a bit more fairly in the birth of a child.

Yes, you do support deadbeatism. Your entire argument is centered on allowing individuals of means to, unilaterally, abandon their offspring.

[Deleted]

Yes.
That's the way it is currently in the whole wide world.
Yet somehow when it dawns on you what i mean, you will somehow not care.

is this meant to be some kind of joke?

[bledgor]

Men are as likely to develop breast cancer as they are to being suckered into parenthood. As our medical institutions haven't made annual mammograms for men into a matter of such core concern that the entire practice of medical diagonoses and treatment needs to be overthrown, I do not think our legal institutions need to do likewise for an equivalently minuscule occurrence. That is something that the court system is more than able to handle retroactively, and, luckily, paternity testing is readily available.

That was literally a reply to the other poster about him saying men could lie about child/their opinion on having them, but nice cherry picking.

A private citizen accountable only to themselves offering a personal opinion is not the same as denying an actual human being in need of resources. A better analogy would be "I disagree vehemently with anti-vaxxers, but I'm perfectly fine with anti-vaxxers being certified pediatricians and giving dangerous advice to otherwise ignorant parents."

Well considering not vaxxing can literally lead to the death of the children and other children whose parents couldn't vaccinate and got sick because a parent thought there is some magical government/medical conspiracy to mind control their children through drugs vs a child not potentially (because here you are being sexist and assuming every woman can support a child on their own)having the resources they need. Is it shitty? Yeah to a degree, but short of forces abstinence this isn't an issue that will go away with or without my view. If you take my view on it at least a man has some choice in a child's life and at the same time will have to face physical changes to their body via vasectomy if they want to abort and the mother doesn't.

Yes, you do support deadbeatism. Your entire argument is centered on allowing individuals of means to, unilaterally, abandon their offspring.

No I don't support it, but I allow it, much like I don't support anti-vaxxars that literally cause the death of their own children and other peoples children due to herd immunity but it is their life so I don't believe it is my right to deny them that choice.

[Deleted]

is this meant to be some kind of joke?

See the purpose of my post was to get across that women rape men too.
And then no one seems to care about it.

[Kyriani]

Regardless of what the law says, a woman is never obligated to bring a child to term. I would fight and kill to preserve my right to determine what happens in my body. Anyone who has a mind to try and take that right away better be willing to do the same. Cause if they're not... they'll be dead and I'll go on deciding what happens in my body. NO ONE but me has the right to determine what happens in my body. Anyone else's opinion can piss off.

[Zeth Hawkins]

I am very late to this thread, and have only read the first page.

I fully support this bill. It is pleasant to see fathers being treated with respect, and it is always a happy occasion when fewer humans are being killed.

[Deleted]

Regardless of what the law says, a woman is never obligated to bring a child to term. I would fight and kill to preserve my right to determine what happens in my body. Anyone who has a mind to try and take that right away better be willing to do the same. Cause if they're not... they'll be dead and I'll go on deciding what happens in my body. NO ONE be me has the right to determine what happens in my body. Anyone else's opinion can piss off.

You are aware that term limits are a thing?

[Deleted]

See the purpose of my post was to get across that women rape men too.
And then no one seems to care about it.

Your point was very, very poorly implied. Not my fault you're shit at getting a point across.

[Halyon]

Of newborn children yes.

I don't care one bit about forcing more newborns into adoption when there are plenty kids that need loving homes, but not getting them because either the access to adoption is ridiculous, or the people wanting to adopt are wanting a blank slate they can lie to about being their biological child.

Of course there are people out there who genuinly cares and adopt kids, maybe with different ethnicity to themselves, maybe they even have disabilities, but they are fucking heroes, and I have massive respect for those people. I have nothing but contempt for others who only want to play pretend...as if it was only about themselves, and not actually giving a child a deserved home...

[Deleted]

What the fuck is wrong with Republicans and why do they hate women so much? Women are not property.

It's about power over people. Control a woman's body, control her reproduction and you control her.

A woman living under such laws must then make some very hard choices when faced with the overwhelming evolutionary urge to procreate namely; 1 - find "alternative" solutions to avert/prevent pregnancy/fertilization - something that may be dangerous in a legal and physical sense (back alley abortionists, dangerous chemicals etc), 2 - abide by the laws of the land and avoid sexual contact all together thus attempting to challenge 600 million years of evolution (look how well that worked for the catholic church) or 3 - have sex, get pregnant, push the kid out, drop it off somewhere and continue as before.

All ideologies that attempt to control female reproduction are in fact totalitarian in that they want to control half the population through laws and the other half by proxy.

The republicans have officially taken the step into christian talibanism. Congratulations America, you are well on your way.

[Ahovv]

What the fuck is wrong with Republicans and why do they hate women so much? Women are not property.

You know, if you want to make a point, probably shouldn't do it in the form of a loaded question.