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

[Candiman]

For a man to be able to abdicate his responsibilities to a child is not equality. In the case of an abortion there is no longer a financial burden on either parent but if a father just abdicates his responsibilities there is still a child at the end of 9 months and the financial burden falls solely on one parent. That is not equality. Until foetuses can be taken from a women and transplanted into a man so that if a woman doesn't want the child but a man does there can be no equality.

[Mayhem]

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!

If the woman aborts then the man in question also has no financial responsibilities towards a child because one isn't born. - Equality

If a child is born and only the mother has to pay and care. - Inequality

[Endus]

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!

The law doesn't mention it, because your entire argument is complete horseshit.

Women have no "right" to end parental obligations in utero. None. That "right" does not exist, and every time you claim it does, you're lying.

Abortion does not end parental obligations. At all. There aren't any. For either parent. And if the abortion doesn't take, and the child's born anyway, parental obligations still exist at birth. Because abortion does not do anything with regards to parental obligations.

And men have the exact same right as women; if you get pregnant, you can get an abortion, too. And let's be clear, a man can get pregnant, so this is not some wild hypothetical; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Beatie

Not being able to act on a right because the circumstances rarely come up is not the same as not having that right. You might never have a cop try and unlawfully search you or your property, but you've still got that right.

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.

You mean "fatherhood"?

The point is that "motherhood" can't be "shaken off", as you claim. That's a lie. The only way to "shake off" parental obligations is adoption, where both parents get a say (if they both share custody, at least).

[Jastall]

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.

Only if the mother also consents to let the father abdicates his rights and responsibilities. Otherwise that just means said father unilaterally leaves the child to only have a single supporter, which is not equality in my mind.

[Endus]

Only if the mother also consents to let the father abdicates his rights and responsibilities. Otherwise that just means said father unilaterally leaves the child to only have a single supporter, which is not equality in my mind.

I used to support something similar to Crissi (and you can probably dig up posts from a few years back, here, where I said such), but I've turned around on it. I don't think it's consistent.

The current state of parental duties is focused on ensuring the child is supported, financially at least. If we take that obligation away from parents completely, and give it to the State, where all parents get a check for child support from the government every month before their kid turns 18, in that circumstance I could see ending parenthood in-utero, because what's being ended is parental rights, not obligations. Dad can walk away, and if he does, he never, ever gets to change his mind. But dad is also never going to pay child support, no matter how he chooses, in that hypothetical world.

I've got no problem letting people unilaterally give up their own rights. I do have a problem with letting anyone give up their legal obligations and duties, just for not wanting to have them. There's no reason men should have that unique "right".

[Crissi]

Only if the mother also consents to let the father abdicates his rights and responsibilities. Otherwise that just means said father unilaterally leaves the child to only have a single supporter, which is not equality in my mind.

That's why I said 1-2 weeks before viability hit, so that the mother can decide if she still wants to go forward with the pregnancy or not. The mother still has the decision on if she wants to be a mother or not based on all available info in this case. If she wnats to be a single mother, fine. If she doesnt and wants to abort or give up for adoption, also fine.. The mother having a say over if a father stays or not isnt equal.

[Endus]

The mother having a say over if a father stays or not isnt equal.

The mother-to-be doesn't get any such say. Really not sure where you're getting that.

[Crissi]

The mother-to-be doesn't get any such say. Really not sure where you're getting that.

Was responding to the dude that says "only if the mother consents to the man abdictating", which implied if she doesnt consent, he cant abdictate.

Although prob should have replaced the word "stays" with "pays" I suppose. I still fundamentally disagree with the mother forcing a man to pay unless the man decides he doesnt want to pay AFTER the point of viability (or before, but it's too late to get an abortion before viability hits).

The kind of guy that'll jet and just pay isnt the kind of guy a woman should have to deal with for 18 years anyways.

[Endus]

Was responding to the dude that says "only if the mother consents to the man abdictating", which implied if she doesnt consent, he cant abdictate.

Although prob should have replaced the word "stays" with "pays" I suppose.

My point is that the status quo is already equal. Both parents have equal rights when it comes to adoption, which is how you deal with giving up parental obligations. Any person (regardless of biological sex) who gets pregnant can opt for abortion, which has nothing to do with parental obligations in the first place and has no business being brought up in such discussions; they're entirely separate issues.

I still fundamentally disagree with the mother forcing a man to pay unless the man decides he doesnt want to pay AFTER the point of viability (or before, but it's too late to get an abortion before viability hits).

I mean, it's the government forcing it. And they're also forcing the mother to care for the kid. That's what "parental obligations and duties" means.

The kind of guy that'll jet and just pay isnt the kind of guy a woman should have to deal with for 18 years anyways.

Hence my point earlier about the State becoming the source of child support, not parents. Which isn't a position I expect to get much traction, even if it solves the supposed issue.

[Crissi]

My point is that the status quo is already equal. Both parents have equal rights when it comes to adoption, which is how you deal with giving up parental obligations. Any person (regardless of biological sex) who gets pregnant can opt for abortion, which has nothing to do with parental obligations in the first place and has no business being brought up in such discussions; they're entirely separate issues.

I basically agree in that because only women can get pregnant, only they should have a say on whether they want an abortion or not. Someone just replied to me yesterday bitching about 'but what about blasaaaah", and that's my stance on that.

The problem being both seemed to be tied together, at least by those two oppose abortion because "its not faaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiir". I'm happy to drop it

Im just glad that as stupid as my state can be, and least we have R's that recognize the level of stupidity and stop it.

[draynay]

Hence my point earlier about the State becoming the source of child support, not parents. Which isn't a position I expect to get much traction, even if it solves the supposed issue.

Enter state-sponsored eugenics and compulsory sterilization for "at risk" populations.

[Endus]

Enter state-sponsored eugenics and compulsory sterilization for "at risk" populations.

Really not sure where you draw the line between "government gives parents a check every month for child support" and either of those things.

[draynay]

Really not sure where you draw the line between "government gives parents a check every month for child support" and either of those things.

Government saves money by preventing future child support.

[Endus]

Government saves money by preventing future child support.

By that non-argument, any support for welfare or other social support programs will lead to people eating the poor.

[Rasulis]

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.

I would think 23,000 unintended pregnancies per year would be much more preferable than the current 2.8 - 3M unintended pregnancies per year and associated 600,000 abortions per year.

[Flarelaine]

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.

Very interesting. Would you like to tell us more about this "specific community"? With numbers and sources, perhaps?

[Felya]

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

I don’t think you know what implying means, since I was very overt. Nor are you disagreeing with my assertion, since favoring one thing, doesn’t negate support for another. As you proceed to show support in the following paragraph.

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.

lol!!! A vagina being a loop hole, is a new one. Fuck hole I’ve heard, but loop hole is fresh. It’s like something being more tolerable, but also worse. Also, be clear here, men are only bound financially within a jurisdiction. Women are bound by the actual trauma of an abortion. It’s like your paper abortion, what are you expecting? Getting a paper that tells government to kidnap women and perform surgery against their will? For you it’s just paper...

- - - Updated - - -

Government saves money by preventing future child support.

I am just getting a kick out of trusting government for everything*, by people who just spend 8 years screaming about smaller government.

*excluding anything negative about Trump.

[draynay]

By that non-argument, any support for welfare or other social support programs will lead to people eating the poor.

Has that happened before? Because the government sterilizing people has happened.

[Masark]

I would think 23,000 unintended pregnancies per year would be much more preferable than the current 2.8 - 3M unintended pregnancies per year and associated 600,000 abortions per year.

Definitely. I'm just saying that currently available measures won't allow us to completely eliminate the problem.

[Benggaul]

So, this is becoming a thing:

Missouri Governor Signs Ban On Abortion After 8 Weeks Of Pregnancy

Florida Rep. Mike Hill says God spoke to him to sign off on near-total ban abortion bill too

This isn't some coincidence. The GOP are now fully invested in their war against women's rights.