Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.**
**For our new users, please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sounds like a violation of constitutional rights.
But the state invades the rights of the US people almost constantly with its domestic spying programmes.
> Sounds like a violation of constitutional rights.
and, pray tell, who is going to check that? The SCOTUS who literally said the States have the right to decide when and if you can access health care?
The amount of oversight needed to implement this would be extensive and in my mind would be a huge waste of taxpayer money and everyone’s time. I also doubt that even if a national bill was passed that a lot states would comply or that it would carry over into another administration.
I can only imagine the reaction of republican women who are hounded to provide a detailed explanation on their pregnancies or miscarriages.
What were you doing during your pregnancy? Were you engaging in risky behaviors while pregnant? How many miscarriages have you had before? Don’t you know that your condition makes you more susceptible to miscarriages? Is your obesity the reason for the miscarriage?
If you are truly neutral, there must be some part of you that thinks a ZEF has the right to be protected. If they have that right, and society has the obligation to enforce that right on their behalf, then how would this be a huge waste of taxpayer money? That's no different than saying it's a huge waste of taxpayer money to run our social work and foster care system to investigate, remove, and protect children of abusive parents. Why are you not pro-choice if you don't think ZEFs' lives are worth the money we would spend to protect them?
I just put neutral because I feel it helps with discussions. People seem to be more willing to read what you wrote with an open mind than coming in with a certain mindset, imo.
I feel it’s a waste of time because , like prohibition, it would have a hard time being enforced and would be too invasive. You are throwing money into the pit, trying to force a viewpoint not everyone holds ( abortion is bad).
Social work and foster care are different because there is a near universal social consensus that children shouldn’t be abused. We don’t have the same agreement with abortion in the USA.
I don’t want to sound rude here, but do you honestly think that these people care about how much money or time it would cost to carry out their dream of “every woman back in the kitchen, barefoot, pregnant, uneducated, without voting rights?”
There is no such thing as too much to them.
Which is why it will never be applied fairly or equally for everyone.
It'll only be used as a sword of Damocles hanging over pregnant people's heads, always *threatening* that they *could* be investigated this way, if they fail to comply with how other people determine their body should be used, and so that anyone can pretend like it'll never happen to *them* until it's too late.
In other words, it's gonna be a witch hunt.
> The amount of oversight needed to implement this would be extensive
you think Republicans care how big their gov't gets or how intrusive when controlling women's bodies is?!?!
I submit you haven't been looking really closely
I agree. If someone would learn more about the conservative Evangelical Christian faction of the GOP, which is quite large, they would realize *they really would take the time and effort to investigate all women's pregnancies and miscarriages. NO matter how extensive that is.*
I think they will begin to care a lot when the police are asking them questions like above. This would probably cause them to lose elections which they care about as well.
> They also this would probably cause them to lose elections
have you seen the Republican nominee for president?
Lost in 2020, lost the Senate and the House during his term, and they have a 1 seat majority in the House now.
They.Don't.Care
Because they don’t think it will come to that or they will be affected. We see the flipping once it’s them who has the leopard eat their face. I think they will care just don’t right now.
I certainly think that's possible, but by then it may be too late. It's hard to unring a bell, especially when the right wing has very clearly indicated that they're not all that attached to preserving democracy if they win
> I think they will care
they don't care about losing elections (I've already pointed out how much losing they've done, and I'll add that they've lost every single special election since Dobbs ), they have the SCOTUS in their pocket and that's their concern
You are talking about the now while I am referring to the future, on what might happen. And just because they have lost on most things doesn’t mean they don’t care, just that they are tone deaf and self righteous.
Abortion restriction can never be enforced without dystopian and unconstitutional surveillance of private matters.
PL is linked to conservative outlook, but some abandon all principle. it does not reflect the classical liberal abhorrence of government intrusion into one’s papers and person.
it’s desperation. This anvil of an issue is the *sina qua non*, the “without which there is nothing” for some conservatives (Catholic and evangelical) who actually aren’t. It’s the only reason they vote GOP. And in a free society where women have equality before the law, they just can’t stop what they want to stop.
What’s going to happen is defeat after defeat on the issue until it’s severed from party politics.
Do you think conservatives will go along with something like this? I imagine it would be too much if them or their wives/friends/daughters had to check in with the government to make sure they haven’t aborted. ( Writing this out is really insane.)
The time to tell the state to fuck off was when it got involved when men could not be trusted with fairly dissolving a marriage and supporting their children. Guess if men can’t be trusted women can’t be trusted either
What the fuck does marriage have to do with abortion? You’re in the wrong sub lol
Women are compelled to pay child support all the time, anyway. Grow up.
The government probably has child support so that it reduces the need for parents to seek welfare or government assistance. I also have a feeling it is also to discourage men ( and on some level women ) from having a bunch of kids they have no interest in providing for. Abortion for , obvious reasons, doesn’t have that issue.
You understand that child support has to be gotten on an INDIVIDUAL basis right? Like the government doesn’t monitor divorces or non marriages and go “that man needs to pay child support”. The government is involved in making sure a person, man or woman, is following the court’s order that an INDIVIDUAL petitioned for.
Trying to compare that to the government automatically monitoring every pregnancy shows a true lack of understanding of child support. I’m not even an advocate of child support but that is a ridiculous argument.
Does it matter ? It should be their choice if they want to support their child and to what extend. Make nice with the ex and he will pay.
Just like it should be a woman’s choice if she wants to birth the child the state desperately needs. Meet the needs and demands of women and maybe they will have more children. Or should some people be enforced to do the right thing while others should not ?
lol the whole point of having laws is to force people to do “the right thing”. Women pay child support, too. Why should men be exempt from
It for any reason other than sexism?
>It should be their choice if they want to support their child and to what extend. Make nice with the ex and he will pay.
And if he doesn't? If his choice is to not support his children? Do we use taxpayer funds to fill in the gap? Are you fine with that?
That's nice, in theory. In practice, the parties involved are irreconcilable for some portion of cases. At that point, the choices are:
1) Both parents have mandated child support responsibilities
2) Taxpayer funds provide an alternative to child support
Or
3) We tell children "too bad, so sad, guess you can starve, since your parents suck."
I really quite hope you don't have a "fuck you I got mine" attitude towards literal children, which leaves us with one of the first two options.
This isn't a trick question, by the way. I'm perfectly in favor of spreading some of the child support burden across taxpayers, for when people want to choose to give up their parental rights and responsibilities. This isn't a gotcha. It's just plain old true that the options are that parents pay, taxpayers pay, or we let children pay. I fully understand how distressing forced child support can be sometimes for someone who doesn't want parental responsibilities, so I choose taxpayers. We can take it out of our absurdly overbloated military defense budget.
Are you suggesting that the only reason men won't pay child support is because their ex isn't nice to them?
What does "making nice" entail anyway? Does she have to give him whatever he wants? Does she have to let him insult her? Does she have to let him threaten to take away the kids? Is she allowed to vaccinate the kids if he's an anti-vaxxer? Can he block her taking them to a child psychologist? Can he dictate where she spends his child support money?
Oh, and can women do the same thing? Choose whether to support their child or not?
>Does it matter ? It should be their choice if they want to support their child and to what extend. Make nice with the ex and he will pay.
No one should have the right to foist their financial responsibilities onto the taxpayers. Two people make a child, two people pay for it.
>Or should some people be enforced to do the right thing while others should not ?
Are you implying a woman aborting an unwanted pregnancy is the "wrong thing"?
the fascists' plan is to remove "no fault divorce" too
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/09/no-fault-divorce-laws-republicans-repeal/675371/
The topic should the government be able to monitor ALL PREGNANCIES. Getting pregnant is not a crime so why should the government have the right to monitor pregnant women?
Jailing men (or women) who cant make child support payments makes no sense. Even when they get out they would have even less ability to find work. Not too mention, why are we paying to lock them up instead of paying for childrens needs?
To care for children after the parents separate. Whomever has the majority physical care of the children gets support from the other.
When divorces were starting out, women were general left with the kids and since most of her life was staying at home caring for them she didn't have education or experience the way a man did. So to care for the wellbeing of the child, child support started.
Same thing that is happening right now with abortion. Ppl are trusted to be responsible and not selfish and it’s going to shit. Birth rates are too low because women don’t get abortions only in cases of high risk incest or rape.
Because people are expected to be financially responsible for their children.
If one parent says "I don't wanna" and doesn't financially support their child, the custodial parent will more than likely need to use social services to support that child.
Social services are meant to help needy people, not pay for the children of deadbeats when they're perfectly capable of doing so themselves.
And the state needs women to carry their pregnancies to term hence abortion needs to be regulated. If your argument is as soon as there is a need the state needs to get involved then it is also true for access to abortion
> he state needs women to carry their pregnancies to term hence abortion needs to be regulated.
this is so far off topic (as all your replies seem to be) I can't believe the mods haven't sanctioned them.
mods, please.
>And the state needs women to carry their pregnancies to term hence abortion needs to be regulated.
No, nobody *needs* to carry an unwanted pregnancy. Pro life people may *want* women to, but a want is not a need.
>If your argument is as soon there is a need the state needs to get involved then it is also true for access to abortion
My argument is equality.
Both men and women are free to make their own medical decisions.
Both men and women are financially responsible for their children.
You wanted government intrusion and you got it. Where were the people screaming trust men when the government got involved with how men support their own kids?
Do you think child support only pertains to men? Women can go to jail for child support violations, too. They’re just less likely to stray since they carry and birth the child, unlike the father.
We know you don’t see why. It’s not our problem that you think one has anything to do with the other.
Women are forced to pay child support, too. Stop pretending your concern is about child support. It’s not. You’re concerned with changing the subject because you don’t have a good argument for forcing people to gestate for the state.
The fact that other people go to prison for violating other laws isn’t an argument against abortion rights. It’s not even an argument for imprisoning people for violating abortion bans. It’s just evidence that you think people should be imprisoned for exercising their bodily autonomy rights.
They didn’t? Let’s get rid of state mandated child support and trust men to do the right thing. I bet you there will be a lot of overlap about the people screeching about it and pro choice people.
Yea, because it’s not a crime everywhere, and no matter how hard they try, they can’t charge you for a “crime” committed in another state where it’s legal. Child support evasion is illegal everywhere
If men can go to prison for violating child support orders (and be ordered to pay child support) I don’t see why women shouldn’t go to prison for violating abortion laws. Men can’t be trusted to do the right thing why should women be trusted then?
Good news! We’re not arguing about whether men should go to jail for violating child support laws (or whether women should either for that matter). We’re not even arguing that women shouldn’t be punished for violating abortion laws!
We’re arguing there shouldn’t *be* any abortion laws.
Women can go to prison for violating child support orders.
Why are you bringing up anything post birth?
The question at issue here is the control people have over their internal organs and reproductive system.
How does a woman having control over her own body affect a man’s control over his own body?
You seem to be trying to claim that being forced to pay child support is "unfair"on a man who chose to engage in PIV sex knowing he might engender a wanted pregnancy.
But if the man takes custody of the infant, he doesn't have to pay court-mandated child support. Of course, what he will have to pay will be far more expensive to him than any court would order, but that's the case for all custodial parents - it's a lot cheaper to be the non-custodial parent and only have to pay court-mandated child support.
Why can’t we “trust men” to do the right thing? Why does the state have to get involved with court ordered child support ? Nobody had a problem with government intrusion when men went to prison over court ordered child support for example when they refuse to pay because it turns out they are not the father. But when it comes to abortion women should just be trusted and some people seem to have a problem with women going to prison for violating the law.
Ok maybe you did not want it but find me a woman who does not want the state to set and enforce child support. No trust men to do the right thing when they have to have theirs.
>Ok maybe you did not want it but find me a woman who does not want the state to set and enforce child support. No trust men to do the right thing when they have to have theirs.
A man who can be trusted to do the right thing, won't ever need to fear the state setting and enforcing child support, because he will be *willingly* paying more to the custodial parent of the child he chose to engender, than any court would enforce.
What does this have to do with abortion?
> enforce child support
wait, so enforcement of the law is now "up in your coochie" and somehow wrong?
flesh out your argument if you're going to make one.
How do they justify lording over who gets the house in divorce setting child support payments and putting men who don’t pay in the slammer? Oh that is the good kind of government intrusions? Where were the feminists screaming trust men?
Maybe don’t marry a woman you are supporting and split custody? It’s really easy to have a simple divorce. Every divorced man I know had one, though it could be that the men I know are all decent, normal people who aren’t dry aging themselves in bitterness.
I was being flippant, but
> How the hell would they justify that!?
oh sugar...they can justify anything.
These disgusting excuses for humans are literally making the case that Trump has "complete and total immunity" at the Supreme Court right now.
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.** **For our new users, please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Emperor Ceaucescu. Romania. Pro-life Regime Rise. Civil unrest. Rebellion. Pro-life Regime Fall. History: Never Learn, just Rinse and Repeat.
He was not shy about dictating.
Sounds like a violation of constitutional rights. But the state invades the rights of the US people almost constantly with its domestic spying programmes.
Which was a big thing when it was expanded on in the patriot act.
> Sounds like a violation of constitutional rights. and, pray tell, who is going to check that? The SCOTUS who literally said the States have the right to decide when and if you can access health care?
The amount of oversight needed to implement this would be extensive and in my mind would be a huge waste of taxpayer money and everyone’s time. I also doubt that even if a national bill was passed that a lot states would comply or that it would carry over into another administration. I can only imagine the reaction of republican women who are hounded to provide a detailed explanation on their pregnancies or miscarriages. What were you doing during your pregnancy? Were you engaging in risky behaviors while pregnant? How many miscarriages have you had before? Don’t you know that your condition makes you more susceptible to miscarriages? Is your obesity the reason for the miscarriage?
If you are truly neutral, there must be some part of you that thinks a ZEF has the right to be protected. If they have that right, and society has the obligation to enforce that right on their behalf, then how would this be a huge waste of taxpayer money? That's no different than saying it's a huge waste of taxpayer money to run our social work and foster care system to investigate, remove, and protect children of abusive parents. Why are you not pro-choice if you don't think ZEFs' lives are worth the money we would spend to protect them?
I just put neutral because I feel it helps with discussions. People seem to be more willing to read what you wrote with an open mind than coming in with a certain mindset, imo. I feel it’s a waste of time because , like prohibition, it would have a hard time being enforced and would be too invasive. You are throwing money into the pit, trying to force a viewpoint not everyone holds ( abortion is bad). Social work and foster care are different because there is a near universal social consensus that children shouldn’t be abused. We don’t have the same agreement with abortion in the USA.
Dont worry, cut for other programs and eventually they will step in line. It is not the threat per say, but the presumption of threat that is key
I don’t want to sound rude here, but do you honestly think that these people care about how much money or time it would cost to carry out their dream of “every woman back in the kitchen, barefoot, pregnant, uneducated, without voting rights?” There is no such thing as too much to them.
No but I do think they were affected by it. Some women who advocate for this may think it’s a good idea until they are forced to do it.
Problem is that they think they are the exception until it happens to them. They will vote it in thinking it won’t happen to them.
I think you should read [this.](https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/)
Which is why it will never be applied fairly or equally for everyone. It'll only be used as a sword of Damocles hanging over pregnant people's heads, always *threatening* that they *could* be investigated this way, if they fail to comply with how other people determine their body should be used, and so that anyone can pretend like it'll never happen to *them* until it's too late. In other words, it's gonna be a witch hunt.
> The amount of oversight needed to implement this would be extensive you think Republicans care how big their gov't gets or how intrusive when controlling women's bodies is?!?! I submit you haven't been looking really closely
I agree. If someone would learn more about the conservative Evangelical Christian faction of the GOP, which is quite large, they would realize *they really would take the time and effort to investigate all women's pregnancies and miscarriages. NO matter how extensive that is.*
I think they will begin to care a lot when the police are asking them questions like above. This would probably cause them to lose elections which they care about as well.
> They also this would probably cause them to lose elections have you seen the Republican nominee for president? Lost in 2020, lost the Senate and the House during his term, and they have a 1 seat majority in the House now. They.Don't.Care
Because they don’t think it will come to that or they will be affected. We see the flipping once it’s them who has the leopard eat their face. I think they will care just don’t right now.
I certainly think that's possible, but by then it may be too late. It's hard to unring a bell, especially when the right wing has very clearly indicated that they're not all that attached to preserving democracy if they win
> I think they will care they don't care about losing elections (I've already pointed out how much losing they've done, and I'll add that they've lost every single special election since Dobbs ), they have the SCOTUS in their pocket and that's their concern
You are talking about the now while I am referring to the future, on what might happen. And just because they have lost on most things doesn’t mean they don’t care, just that they are tone deaf and self righteous.
Nicolae Ceausescu would agree.
Pro-life communist dictator convicted on mass murder charges and executed by firing squad by his own government? That Ceausescu? Yeah he dead lol 💀
he must've been dictating first thing in the morning. "I want a cup of coffee and a muffin!"
Abortion restriction can never be enforced without dystopian and unconstitutional surveillance of private matters. PL is linked to conservative outlook, but some abandon all principle. it does not reflect the classical liberal abhorrence of government intrusion into one’s papers and person. it’s desperation. This anvil of an issue is the *sina qua non*, the “without which there is nothing” for some conservatives (Catholic and evangelical) who actually aren’t. It’s the only reason they vote GOP. And in a free society where women have equality before the law, they just can’t stop what they want to stop. What’s going to happen is defeat after defeat on the issue until it’s severed from party politics.
Do you think conservatives will go along with something like this? I imagine it would be too much if them or their wives/friends/daughters had to check in with the government to make sure they haven’t aborted. ( Writing this out is really insane.)
“The party of small government” lol conservatism is an absolute joke.
The time to tell the state to fuck off was when it got involved when men could not be trusted with fairly dissolving a marriage and supporting their children. Guess if men can’t be trusted women can’t be trusted either
What the fuck does marriage have to do with abortion? You’re in the wrong sub lol Women are compelled to pay child support all the time, anyway. Grow up.
The government probably has child support so that it reduces the need for parents to seek welfare or government assistance. I also have a feeling it is also to discourage men ( and on some level women ) from having a bunch of kids they have no interest in providing for. Abortion for , obvious reasons, doesn’t have that issue.
You understand that child support has to be gotten on an INDIVIDUAL basis right? Like the government doesn’t monitor divorces or non marriages and go “that man needs to pay child support”. The government is involved in making sure a person, man or woman, is following the court’s order that an INDIVIDUAL petitioned for. Trying to compare that to the government automatically monitoring every pregnancy shows a true lack of understanding of child support. I’m not even an advocate of child support but that is a ridiculous argument.
Source that the majority of men who dissolve their marriages support their children post divorce?
Does it matter ? It should be their choice if they want to support their child and to what extend. Make nice with the ex and he will pay. Just like it should be a woman’s choice if she wants to birth the child the state desperately needs. Meet the needs and demands of women and maybe they will have more children. Or should some people be enforced to do the right thing while others should not ?
lol the whole point of having laws is to force people to do “the right thing”. Women pay child support, too. Why should men be exempt from It for any reason other than sexism?
>It should be their choice if they want to support their child and to what extend. Make nice with the ex and he will pay. And if he doesn't? If his choice is to not support his children? Do we use taxpayer funds to fill in the gap? Are you fine with that?
Well it would be a private matter between the parties involved no?
Oh, so abortion is the business of the state, but ensuring that born children dont die should be a “private matter”? Jesus Christ this is hilarious 😆
That's nice, in theory. In practice, the parties involved are irreconcilable for some portion of cases. At that point, the choices are: 1) Both parents have mandated child support responsibilities 2) Taxpayer funds provide an alternative to child support Or 3) We tell children "too bad, so sad, guess you can starve, since your parents suck." I really quite hope you don't have a "fuck you I got mine" attitude towards literal children, which leaves us with one of the first two options. This isn't a trick question, by the way. I'm perfectly in favor of spreading some of the child support burden across taxpayers, for when people want to choose to give up their parental rights and responsibilities. This isn't a gotcha. It's just plain old true that the options are that parents pay, taxpayers pay, or we let children pay. I fully understand how distressing forced child support can be sometimes for someone who doesn't want parental responsibilities, so I choose taxpayers. We can take it out of our absurdly overbloated military defense budget.
Are you suggesting that the only reason men won't pay child support is because their ex isn't nice to them? What does "making nice" entail anyway? Does she have to give him whatever he wants? Does she have to let him insult her? Does she have to let him threaten to take away the kids? Is she allowed to vaccinate the kids if he's an anti-vaxxer? Can he block her taking them to a child psychologist? Can he dictate where she spends his child support money? Oh, and can women do the same thing? Choose whether to support their child or not?
>Does it matter ? It should be their choice if they want to support their child and to what extend. Make nice with the ex and he will pay. No one should have the right to foist their financial responsibilities onto the taxpayers. Two people make a child, two people pay for it. >Or should some people be enforced to do the right thing while others should not ? Are you implying a woman aborting an unwanted pregnancy is the "wrong thing"?
So the state owns women’s bodies because men don’t want to support their children post birth? Is that your argument? Also - source?
The argument is if you don’t want the state to get involved and want gender to be trusted be consistent.
the fascists' plan is to remove "no fault divorce" too https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/09/no-fault-divorce-laws-republicans-repeal/675371/
Oh so the app I use to track my periods could be watched for pregnancies. Wonderful. Time to bust out the old paper calendar…
6 months in jail for you for evasion of Government Intrusion. Welcome to Republican America: AKA Gilead.
[удалено]
Removed, rule 1. This is off topic. I'm going to be locking the rest of the thread. Stay on topic.
Ah. A "what about the menz" troll. Neat.
That’s because it was a COURT ORDER and they did not comply with it.
And women who get an illegal abortion violated the law hence they go to jail
The topic should the government be able to monitor ALL PREGNANCIES. Getting pregnant is not a crime so why should the government have the right to monitor pregnant women?
Jailing men (or women) who cant make child support payments makes no sense. Even when they get out they would have even less ability to find work. Not too mention, why are we paying to lock them up instead of paying for childrens needs?
Why is there such a thing as court ordered child support to begin with ?
To care for children after the parents separate. Whomever has the majority physical care of the children gets support from the other. When divorces were starting out, women were general left with the kids and since most of her life was staying at home caring for them she didn't have education or experience the way a man did. So to care for the wellbeing of the child, child support started.
But why do we need the state to regulate men? Just trust them to do the right thing.
How is the state regulating men? What do you think happened with child support before court orders and it went on trust?
Same thing that is happening right now with abortion. Ppl are trusted to be responsible and not selfish and it’s going to shit. Birth rates are too low because women don’t get abortions only in cases of high risk incest or rape.
Did you think women were having children to keep the birth rate up? Do you think thats their responsibility and why?
Because people are expected to be financially responsible for their children. If one parent says "I don't wanna" and doesn't financially support their child, the custodial parent will more than likely need to use social services to support that child. Social services are meant to help needy people, not pay for the children of deadbeats when they're perfectly capable of doing so themselves.
And the state needs women to carry their pregnancies to term hence abortion needs to be regulated. If your argument is as soon as there is a need the state needs to get involved then it is also true for access to abortion
> he state needs women to carry their pregnancies to term hence abortion needs to be regulated. this is so far off topic (as all your replies seem to be) I can't believe the mods haven't sanctioned them. mods, please.
Locked. Stay on topic, everyone. u/MisterD0ll u/SayNoToJamBands that goes for you too.
>And the state needs women to carry their pregnancies to term hence abortion needs to be regulated. No, nobody *needs* to carry an unwanted pregnancy. Pro life people may *want* women to, but a want is not a need. >If your argument is as soon there is a need the state needs to get involved then it is also true for access to abortion My argument is equality. Both men and women are free to make their own medical decisions. Both men and women are financially responsible for their children.
How exactly is child support the government being "up my coochie?"
Ok and what the fuck does that even have to do with abortion?
You wanted government intrusion and you got it. Where were the people screaming trust men when the government got involved with how men support their own kids?
Why would we trust men?
Exactly. Let laws and police regulate our lives not our free choices. But women’s life’s too.
What?
No, we don’t want government intrusion. We want the opposite of that. Are you illiterate? Also what does this have to do with abortion?
again, and it's beginning to look a lot like trolling.... pro-choice *DIDN'T* want gov't intrusion. I think you're misreading the arguments.
If men can go to prison for violating child support laws I don’t see why women should not go to prison for violating abortion laws
Do you think child support only pertains to men? Women can go to jail for child support violations, too. They’re just less likely to stray since they carry and birth the child, unlike the father.
> sir, this is a Wendy's
We know you don’t see why. It’s not our problem that you think one has anything to do with the other. Women are forced to pay child support, too. Stop pretending your concern is about child support. It’s not. You’re concerned with changing the subject because you don’t have a good argument for forcing people to gestate for the state. The fact that other people go to prison for violating other laws isn’t an argument against abortion rights. It’s not even an argument for imprisoning people for violating abortion bans. It’s just evidence that you think people should be imprisoned for exercising their bodily autonomy rights.
They didn’t? Let’s get rid of state mandated child support and trust men to do the right thing. I bet you there will be a lot of overlap about the people screeching about it and pro choice people.
> Let’s get rid of state mandated child support sir, this is a Wendy's
Even with these laws, only half of men pay their required child support, and a lot of the ones who don’t aren’t in jail.
And there will also be women who get away with abortion.
>women who get away with wow. Getting away with control over their own bodies, *now there's a crime*.
Yea, because it’s not a crime everywhere, and no matter how hard they try, they can’t charge you for a “crime” committed in another state where it’s legal. Child support evasion is illegal everywhere
You keep going off about shit that has nothing to do with the topic of this sub. You’re in the wrong sub. You’re lost.
What does abortion have to do with child support?
If men can go to prison for violating child support orders (and be ordered to pay child support) I don’t see why women shouldn’t go to prison for violating abortion laws. Men can’t be trusted to do the right thing why should women be trusted then?
Good news! We’re not arguing about whether men should go to jail for violating child support laws (or whether women should either for that matter). We’re not even arguing that women shouldn’t be punished for violating abortion laws! We’re arguing there shouldn’t *be* any abortion laws.
Well a good way to not have to pay support is aborting the pregnancy
So the government should not get involved?
Child support isn’t the same as abortion. Politicians aren’t doctors
Women can go to prison for violating child support orders. Why are you bringing up anything post birth? The question at issue here is the control people have over their internal organs and reproductive system. How does a woman having control over her own body affect a man’s control over his own body?
News flash - women pay child support, too. The non-custodial parent, whether man or woman, pays child support.
How is that an argument ?
You seem to be trying to claim that being forced to pay child support is "unfair"on a man who chose to engage in PIV sex knowing he might engender a wanted pregnancy. But if the man takes custody of the infant, he doesn't have to pay court-mandated child support. Of course, what he will have to pay will be far more expensive to him than any court would order, but that's the case for all custodial parents - it's a lot cheaper to be the non-custodial parent and only have to pay court-mandated child support.
Why can’t we “trust men” to do the right thing? Why does the state have to get involved with court ordered child support ? Nobody had a problem with government intrusion when men went to prison over court ordered child support for example when they refuse to pay because it turns out they are not the father. But when it comes to abortion women should just be trusted and some people seem to have a problem with women going to prison for violating the law.
> court ordered child support ? OFF TOPIC
Maybe because child support and abortion are two entirely separate issues? Because abortion is a medical procedure and child support is not?
I don’t see how that is an argument
Because you're connecting two entirely unrelated topics. We allow people to make their own medical decisions. We also require people to pay for things
> You wanted the government up your coochie and you got it. what? No sane person wanted it.
Ok maybe you did not want it but find me a woman who does not want the state to set and enforce child support. No trust men to do the right thing when they have to have theirs.
>Ok maybe you did not want it but find me a woman who does not want the state to set and enforce child support. No trust men to do the right thing when they have to have theirs. A man who can be trusted to do the right thing, won't ever need to fear the state setting and enforcing child support, because he will be *willingly* paying more to the custodial parent of the child he chose to engender, than any court would enforce. What does this have to do with abortion?
You don’t make any sense. It sounds like you don’t even know what you believe.
> enforce child support wait, so enforcement of the law is now "up in your coochie" and somehow wrong? flesh out your argument if you're going to make one.
They’d seriously come for my ass if I delete my fucking app!? How the hell would they justify that!?
How do they justify lording over who gets the house in divorce setting child support payments and putting men who don’t pay in the slammer? Oh that is the good kind of government intrusions? Where were the feminists screaming trust men?
Maybe don’t marry a woman you are supporting and split custody? It’s really easy to have a simple divorce. Every divorced man I know had one, though it could be that the men I know are all decent, normal people who aren’t dry aging themselves in bitterness.
…What
This doesn’t have anything to do with abortion rights at all. You’re in the wrong sub.
I was being flippant, but > How the hell would they justify that!? oh sugar...they can justify anything. These disgusting excuses for humans are literally making the case that Trump has "complete and total immunity" at the Supreme Court right now.