Alabama R's tried to make all abortion a felony to force a SCOTUS decision

[AsGryffynn]

What on earth is an "equal rights false positive".

Essentially, the right of a woman to shirk motherhood. It's unintended, but an undeniable side effect of being able to "cancel" your pregnancy no questions asked instead of because there might be health risks involved.

[Crissi]

Essentially, the right of a woman to shirk motherhood. It's unintended, but an undeniable side effect of being able to "cancel" your pregnancy no questions asked instead of because there might be health risks involved.

I mean, no woman should be forced to be a mother. We also already allow such shirking through giving the kid up for adoption. Forced motherhood is how you get shitty parents.

[AsGryffynn]

I mean, no woman should be forced to be a mother. We also already allow such shirking through giving the kid up for adoption. Forced motherhood is how you get shitty parents.

Tell that to the other party involved who might have to pay for rights he has no intention or way of claiming.

[s_bushido]

Essentially, the right of a woman to shirk motherhood. It's unintended, but an undeniable side effect of being able to "cancel" your pregnancy no questions asked instead of because there might be health risks involved.

...what? You think the act of becoming pregnant obligates a woman to take up the mantle of "motherhood." Why? Why would you want people to become mothers because of something as simple as biology, rather than because they want to become mothers?

Tell that to the other party involved who might have to pay for rights he has no intention or way of claiming.

Oh, nevermind. I guess you already answered the question: Vindictiveness. Shocking.

[Crissi]

Tell that to the other party involved who might have to pay for rights he has no intention or way of claiming.

when men are able to have uterus and get pregnant, then they may have the same decision making.

I d, however, support being able to abdicate fatherhood up until 1-2 weeks before a foetus becomes viable. TO give enough time for the mother to decide if she wants to continue on or not.

[JohnBrown1917]

...what? You think the act of becoming pregnant obligates a woman to take up the mantle of "motherhood." Why? Why would you want people to become mothers because of something as simple as biology, rather than because they want to become mothers?



Oh, nevermind. I guess you already answered the question: Vindictiveness. Shocking.

Been a while since I saw a MRA on here.

[Elegiac]

Essentially, the right of a woman to shirk motherhood. It's unintended, but an undeniable side effect of being able to "cancel" your pregnancy no questions asked instead of because there might be health risks involved.

Zzzzzzz.

Having to pay child support is not an abrogation of your bodily rights. Calm down.

[Captain N]

I d, however, support being able to abdicate fatherhood up until 1-2 weeks before a foetus becomes viable. TO give enough time for the mother to decide if she wants to continue on or not.

I'll second this on the grounds that the abdication is fully implemented. None of this nonsense where a man refuses to be a father at the moment his partner becomes pregnant but decides a few years down the road he wants to be part of the kid's life. That includes any type of financial gain from the child -- including tax credits.

[Rasulis]

Tell that to the other party involved who might have to pay for rights he has no intention or way of claiming.

With proper sex education, easy & affordable access to contraceptives, especially use and forget types, and morning after pills, unwanted pregnancy should not be an issue.

[Felya]

Tell that to the other party involved who might have to pay for rights he has no intention or way of claiming.

Finally!!!

This law means you cannot convince her to give it up. There is no longer a chance... a busted condom is now a baby. This makes pregnant = child support. Instead of ‘but, I want to keep it’, it’s now against the law.

[SirBeef]

I have my doubts that these laws will get to the Supreme Court. Most likely they will be struck down at the state level and the Supreme Court will refuse to take these cases.

It is obvious that these laws that restrict access to abortion are not an effective way to end or greatly reduce the number of abortions because people will continue to have abortions regardless of the law.

The Bad Old Days: Abortion in America Before Roe v. Wade




Based on the available data, we know how to reduce the number of abortions - by being honest about how and when people have sex and giving people the information they need to have sex responsibly. Yet most who favor these highly restrictive laws do not seem terribly interested in pursuing policies that would do any of these things. Every state that has passed a restrictive law around abortion in recent weeks requires that sex education “stress” abstinence. Neither Alabama nor Missouri mandates sex education, though when it is taught, both states require that it emphasize the importance of “sex only within marriage.” Georgia, which does mandate sex education, does not require that information about contraception be included.

These people are not interested in preventing abortions, they are instead interested in enforcing their own reactionary views with regard to women and sex. They are using abortion policy as a covert means by which to dictate the sexual behavior of another person. If laws like those recently passed in Alabama and Georgia succeed, they will not bring an end to abortion. Instead, they will punish the most marginalized and the most vulnerable.

Yup, proper sex education, the ready availability of birth control, and proper mrdical care are proven ways to lower unwanted pregnancies and lower abortion rates. It is also cheaper.

- - - Updated - - -

when men are able to have uterus and get pregnant, then they may have the same decision making.

I d, however, support being able to abdicate fatherhood up until 1-2 weeks before a foetus becomes viable. TO give enough time for the mother to decide if she wants to continue on or not.

You know if men could get pregnant, there would be dive up abortion clinics on every corner.

[gobio]

Why must a whole country with different people, different background they all must have the same rules / morality as you?
There are conservative state that ban abortion, and then there are liberal state that has more abortion then successful birth for a specific community.

I thought moving around to stay in what you feel comfortable is an American thing? You feel strong against abortion you can stay in conservative states, and if you want freedom of your body you can live next to Brian Sims. What is the problem? Why must you be 100% right and must force everyone else to obey? This obviously apply to both sides.

[Crissi]

Why must a whole country with different people, different background they all must have the same rules / morality as you?
There are conservative state that ban abortion, and then there are liberal state that has more abortion then successful birth for a specific community.

I thought moving around to stay in what you feel comfortable is an American thing? You feel strong against abortion you can stay in conservative states, and if you want freedom of your body you can live next to Brian Sims. What is the problem? Why must you be 100% right and must force everyone else to obey? This obviously apply to both sides.

We had a war over that. Turned out, the federals won because sometimes, you need to force backwardness to stop.

[Masark]

With proper sex education, easy & affordable access to contraceptives, especially use and forget types, and morning after pills, unwanted pregnancy should not be an issue.

Those would make it less of an issue, but it will still be one, because our contraceptives are imperfect and you have a lot of people.

There are approximately 62 million women of child-bearing age (18-50) in the USA.

The National Survey of Sexual Health and Behaviour says about 75% of those have had vaginal sex at least once within the past year, so that's 46.5 million women who could become pregnant.

Assuming they all use implants for contraception, which are the surest means currently available, that's a 0.05% failure rate per year.

That comes to about 23,000 unintended pregnancies per year, with everyone using the absolute best contraceptives we've got.

Or assume they use copper IUDs as they have some issue with hormonal contraceptives. That increases the number to about 372,000.

[Endus]

Why must a whole country with different people, different background they all must have the same rules / morality as you?
There are conservative state that ban abortion, and then there are liberal state that has more abortion then successful birth for a specific community.

Ironically, it's the conservative States passing these bullshit laws that are trying to force everyone to obey their personal religious "morality".

The rest of us want to leave it up to the individual to decide. We're not talking about forcing anyone to take any particular moral stance on this issue. Just to shut the fuck up and stop inserting yourselves into other people's personal lives.

[AsGryffynn]

...what? You think the act of becoming pregnant obligates a woman to take up the mantle of "motherhood." Why? Why would you want people to become mothers because of something as simple as biology, rather than because they want to become mothers?



Oh, nevermind. I guess you already answered the question: Vindictiveness. Shocking.

Not the case. The law must however take potential misuse into account. Whether that was the intention, purpose or spirit, OR NOT, no gender can have more rights than the other, DESPITE THEIR ANATOMICAL DIFFERENCES.

I'm not saying I'm against free abortion, but if women can abandon motherhood post-coitus, men must be accorded this same right, regardless of whether they can get pregnant or not.

Until then, I will support the side that spouses "equality of outcome" for both genders. I didn't just study law to preach hypocritical principles, but to ensure equality is the paramount goal, even above "the needs of society", because I'd take a meh but truly equal society over an unequal yet prosperous one.

If only a few are equal, nobody is.

Been a while since I saw a MRA on here.

At least I use sound logic and would happily allow abortion with zero restrictions if the men could sign a waiver saying he wants to stay a bachelor... or allowing it under any necessary circumstances but not at the woman's discretion.

You know you've gone too far when the UK and Italy's abortion laws are considered "restrictive".

Argue against me from a gender neutral POV if you believe your cause just.

Zzzzzzz.

Having to pay child support is not an abrogation of your bodily rights. Calm down.

Those bodily rights create a legal loophole needing to be closed. Besides, you can't be held liable to pay for something that gives you no rights.

I'll second this on the grounds that the abdication is fully implemented. None of this nonsense where a man refuses to be a father at the moment his partner becomes pregnant but decides a few years down the road he wants to be part of the kid's life. That includes any type of financial gain from the child -- including tax credits.

I agree and fully second your notion. Even abortion on demand has restrictions, so it's only fair "Juridisk Abort" (this has been going through a back and forth in Denmark since 2010) has similar restrictions to prevent the same "legal gray area" Roe vs Wade style abortion currently causes.

With proper sex education, easy & affordable access to contraceptives, especially use and forget types, and morning after pills, unwanted pregnancy should not be an issue.

The law doesn't give a rat's bum if abortions for the last 100 years stood at zero. The loophole exists and must be closed at any cost.

Finally!!!

This law means you cannot convince her to give it up. There is no longer a chance... a busted condom is now a baby. This makes pregnant = child support. Instead of ‘but, I want to keep it’, it’s now against the law.

Ideally, any unilateral decision would only create obligations to the party in agreement.

To be honest, scrapping the "men and women are equal" clauses pertaining to this would close the loophole, as it's essentially a notice to men that their reproductive rights are considered secondary, whether by design, anatomical differences or societal interest, and thus by having intercourse they agree to potential obligations to a child at the woman's discretion.

Hard to "read you your rights" when something as elementary as the anatomy of men and women is not even tangentially discussed.

Yup, proper sex education, the ready availability of birth control, and proper mrdical care are proven ways to lower unwanted pregnancies and lower abortion rates. It is also cheaper.

You know if men could get pregnant, there would be dive up abortion clinics on every corner.

Neither here nor there in my argument, as I'm all for those (and UHC in the US).

[Felya]

Ideally, any unilateral decision would only create obligations to the party in agreement.

Is all procreation now between the man, woman and government? I’m assuming those are the parties involved.

To be honest, scrapping the "men and women are equal" clauses pertaining to this would close the loophole, as it's essentially a notice to men that their reproductive rights are considered secondary, whether by design, anatomical differences or societal interest, and thus by having intercourse they agree to potential obligations to a child at the woman's discretion.

It’s not secondary now... it’s completely irrelevant. You went from secondary, to irrelevant, and see no problem with it. You both, complain about not having a choice, to celebrating even your opinion being worthless. You have issues with child support, but celebrate a law that will force more child support.

It’s why I’ve been asking for an MRA representative throughout this thread. You are happy that the government can now both, force a child delivery and make you pay child support. It’s fucking hilarious... it’s a catch 22 for you guys... either way you go with it, it makes the whole MRA concept into a joke.

Hard to "read you your rights" when something as elementary as the anatomy of men and women is not even tangentially discussed.

Unfortunately for you guys... an abortion used to be part anatomy, but now it’s against the law. lol

[Endus]

Not the case. The law must however take potential misuse into account. Whether that was the intention, purpose or spirit, OR NOT, no gender can have more rights than the other, DESPITE THEIR ANATOMICAL DIFFERENCES.

That's the current status quo. Both genders have equal rights. You're arguing against that. That men should have a super-special, completely-unique "right" all to themselves. Just for being men.

I'm not saying I'm against free abortion, but if women can abandon motherhood post-coitus, men must be accorded this same right, regardless of whether they can get pregnant or not.

Well, they can't. There isn't any "motherhood" to abandon, at that point. Lying about basic shit like this is not an argument.

[Felya]

That's the current status quo. Both genders have equal rights. You're arguing against that.

Well, they can't. There isn't any "motherhood" to abandon, at that point. Lying about basic shit like this is not an argument.

Have you heard of negative rights? /s

[AsGryffynn]

Is all procreation now between the man, woman and government? I’m assuming those are the parties involved.



It’s not secondary now... it’s completely irrelevant. You went from secondary, to irrelevant, and see no problem with it. You both, complain about not having a choice, to celebrating even your opinion being worthless. You have issues with child support, but celebrate a law that will force more child support.

It’s why I’ve been asking for an MRA representative throughout this thread. You are happy that the government can now both, force a child delivery and make you pay child support. It’s fucking hilarious... it’s a catch 22 for you guys... either way you go with it, it makes the whole MRA concept into a joke.



Unfortunately for you guys... an abortion used to be part anatomy, but now it’s against the law. lol

You're implying I'm happy with this arrangement, even though Criss' mentioned arrangement has been the one I've favored all along.

This is just going the other way and closing a legal loophole by replacing it with an actual restriction, which to me sounds somehow more tolerable, but also worse. My hope is this brings all sides to the negotiating table so we can either get paper abortions + free abortions, abortion for needs but not on request or a disposition admitting women are able to relinquish parental responsibilities after conception and men cannot and thus they are not equal in reproductive law.

That's the current status quo. Both genders have equal rights. You're arguing against that. That men should have a super-special, completely-unique "right" all to themselves. Just for being men.

Women have this right. Abortion means no financial responsibilities towards a child because one isn't born. But it also means no responsibilities towards a child because a woman chooses to avert them. Men must be able to trigger this same effect for true equality.

Women have, essentially, a super-special right solely for having an uterus.

Arguably, your problem, which is also my own, is that the law doesn't even mention this AT ALL!

Well, they can't. There isn't any "motherhood" to abandon, at that point. Lying about basic shit like this is not an argument.

There's the other hood that they can't shake off you dolt. If Hood A can be relinquished, Hood B must be able to be abandoned.