Roe v Wade is on deck

[Elixir]

To all these religious assholes trying to insert their superstitious beliefs into the medical care curriculum of other people:
FUCK YOU.

Take all your attempts at moral equivocation and pronouncements of the “personhood” of non-sentient blobs of protoplasm, and shove it all up your ass.

Doctors should be allowed to do their jobs without religio-political interference.

PERIOD.

Asked to provide reason why it should be otherwise, these asswipes revert to calling things “children” that they themselves would not recognize as such, EVEN if it appeared on their kitchen table.

The deafening noise they make is pure religious belief, and should have no place in legislation.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Texas man seeks to have ex-partner investigated for out-of-state abortion

Collin Davis asks court to green light investigation as experts call case a ‘coordinated fear campaign’

www.theguardian.com

As soon as the US supreme court overturned Roe v Wade two years ago, anti-abortion activists started debating if and how they could limit Americans’ ability to cross state lines for legal abortions. Now, a Texas man has asked a court to greenlight an investigation into the abortion his former partner allegedly received in a state where the procedure remains legal.
The man, Collin Davis, said in court records that when he learned his former partner planned to get an abortion in February 2024, he hired an attorney who would “pursue wrongful-death claims against anyone involved in the killing of his unborn child”. According to the records, the woman proceeded to get an abortion in Colorado, a state that has become an abortion haven as laws banning the procedure have taken effect across much of the US midwest and south.

Davis’s petition, filed in March and first reported by the Washington Post last week, seeks to use a Texas law that allows people to request legal depositions before potentially filing a lawsuit, in order to ascertain who may have “aided or abetted” the woman’s abortion. Davis argues that, if the investigation uncovers wrongdoing, he can sue under Texas’s wrongful-death statute or under a state law that permits private individuals to sue one another on suspicion of “aiding or abetting” an abortion past six weeks of pregnancy.

If men want the law to support them in this fashion, then I believe the law should also hold them responsible in all pregnancy situations. They might want to be careful opening up this Pandora's box, though I'm sure they'll feel safe with current patriarchal legal thought.

 

[TomC]

If men want the law to support them in this fashion, then I believe the law should also hold them responsible in all pregnancy situations.

That doesn't make sense.

If women can choose fertile sex, then decide that they don't want the responsibility, why is it wrong when men do it?

Why is a male parent held responsible for the outcome of his decision, but female parents are not?

Looks like a serious double standard to me.
If the father is responsible for more than the cost of an abortion, regardless of his willingness, why aren't women?
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

If men want the law to support them in this fashion, then I believe the law should also hold them responsible in all pregnancy situations.

That doesn't make sense.

If women can choose fertile sex, then decide that they don't want the responsibility, why is it wrong when men do it?

Why is a male parent held responsible for the outcome of his decision, but female parents are not?

Looks like a serious double standard to me.
If the father is responsible for more than the cost of an abortion, regardless of his willingness, why aren't women?
Tom

More often than not, men can simply walk away from any pregnancy they help create with very little if any legal repercussions. I think that once men accept the legal responsibilities to their actions then they may have a leg to stand on for more parental rights. Rights without responsibilities is not the right way to go here.

Until men can carry the pregnancies there will always be an unequal burden here, so I don't see it as some kind of unfair double standard.

What is the scenario you are imagining that is so unfair? A couple have sex and the women gets pregnant and doesn't want the baby but the father does? Should he be able to force her to carry to term so that he can take care of the baby after it is born?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If men want the law to support them in this fashion, then I believe the law should also hold them responsible in all pregnancy situations.

That doesn't make sense.

Are you aware of the situation they are referring to?

If women can choose fertile sex, then decide that they don't want the responsibility, why is it wrong when men do it?

Responsibility of a woman during pregnancy is a tad bit more hands on, than a man's responsibility during pregnancy.

Why is a male parent held responsible for the outcome of his decision, but female parents are not?

Looks like a serious double standard to me.
If the father is responsible for more than the cost of an abortion, regardless of his willingness, why aren't women?

Why aren't women what?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Meanwhile in the real world...

Louisiana could become the first state in the country to categorize mifepristone and misoprostol — the drugs used to induce an abortion — as controlled dangerous substances, threatening incarceration and fines if an individual possesses the pills without a valid prescription or outside of professional practice.

Legislators in Baton Rouge added the provision as a last-minute amendment to a Senate bill that would criminalize an abortion if someone gives a pregnant woman the pills without her consent, a scenario of “coerced criminal abortion” that nearly occurred with one senator’s sister.

A pregnant woman obtaining the two drugs “for her own consumption” would not be at risk of prosecution. But, with the exception of a health-care practitioner, a person helping her get the pills would be.

Man, they are milking this facilitation loophole. A woman is allowed to do whatever with her body she wants... but anyone that helps her (from driving, acquiring, talking (?), prescribing) will be put in jail.

 

[TomC]

More often than not, men can simply walk away from any pregnancy they help create with very little if any legal repercussions.

I understand that.
Do you agree that both parents are responsible for the outcome of the choice to have fertile sex and taking care of the human they sometimes create?

Or do you think it's okay for the female parent to decide and the male parent is just on the hook paying for the female parents decision?

That's the double standard I'm talking about. They both choose the sex, but then one can choose anything they want afterwards, but one is responsible for 18 years of child support should the other decide that they want it.

Why is a father of a six weeks old fetus responsible for more than the cost of an abortion?
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

More often than not, men can simply walk away from any pregnancy they help create with very little if any legal repercussions.

I understand that.
Do you agree that both parents are responsible for the outcome of the choice to have fertile sex and taking care of the human they sometimes create?

Or do you think it's okay for the female parent to decide and the male parent is just on the hook paying for the female parents decision?

That's the double standard I'm talking about. They both choose the sex, but then one can choose anything they want afterwards, but one is responsible for 18 years of child support should the other decide that they want it.

Why is a father of a six weeks old fetus responsible for more than the cost of an abortion?

You are complaining asymmetry, when the problem is wholly asymmetric. Only a woman can have a child (and if someone derails this on that statement, I'm dropping an anvil on them). Men don't have babies.

So if we have a pregnant woman, we ask ourselves this:

Is it moral for a woman to have to have an abortion because she can't afford the child?

You can whine on about responsibility, but the question doesn't evaporate with your magic word "responsibility". Is it moral for a woman to have to abort a child simply because she can't afford to have one. Is it fair to the male in the equation? It is muddled at best, but there is no work around, is there?

And as far as I've seen with my own efforts in raising a kid, the money is a small part of the investment. And if someone gets away with just paying a check, it ain't the best deal, but it isn't exactly as hard (or invasive) as being forced to being an actual father.

 

[laughing dog]

If Lion ITC thinks his elective terminology improves his arguments let him continue to shoot himself in the foot.

 

[Lion IRC]

To all these religious assholes trying to insert their superstitious beliefs into the medical care curriculum of other people:
FUCK YOU.

PHEW.
So glad I didn't use any religious pro life arguments.

Doctors should be allowed to do their jobs without religio-political interference.

Wouldnt those doctors need The State to defend and protect their actions?
If the government stays out of this space I would think anarchy is going to start trending. And some people get pretty aggressive when it comes to the abortion issue.

Asked to provide reason why it should be otherwise, these asswipes revert to calling things “children” that they themselves would not recognize as such, EVEN if it appeared on their kitchen table.

You think pregnant women should be prevented from referring to their own unborn baby as...a baby?

Gee. That's pretty harsh.

The deafening noise they make is pure religious belief, and should have no place in legislation.

Well, I think the best arguments against abortion are the secular arguments.

But just out of interest, why can't voters in a democracy let their atheism or their theism guide their moral decision making?

 

[Lion IRC]

If Lion ITC thinks his elective terminology improves his arguments let him continue to shoot himself in the foot.

The word elective is important because you're wanting to decide whether or not an abortion is medically unavoidable to save the life of the mother.

 

[laughing dog]

If Lion ITC thinks his elective terminology improves his arguments let him continue to shoot himself in the foot.

The word elective is important because you're wanting to decide whether or not an abortion is medically unavoidable to save the life of the mother.

Thank you for proving my point - if you wish to distinguish between medically avoidable and unavoidable abortions , use those terms instead of the disingenuous “elective ”. After all, in each case avoidable or unavoidable. Someone ends up electing an option.

 

[Lion IRC]

The abortion-on-demand lobby dislike the word elective because it lays bare the reality of what's actually going on.

...arguing for the legalized elective homicide of babies like 21 week gestational age Curtis who, luckily, made it out of the womb and magically acquired a "right to life" which babies inside the womb apparently don't have.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The abortion-on-demand lobby dislike the word elective because it lays bare the reality of what's actually going on.

Yeah, here we go again. Why don't you post a position against women, instead of a lobby? I mean it looks a bit more awful if you actually create an argument against women and how you think their rights are effectively non-existent... when you can attack a strawman called the "abortion-on-demand lobby".

...arguing for the legalized elective homicide of babies like 21 week gestational age Curtis who, luckily, made it out of the womb and magically acquired a "right to life" which babies inside the womb apparently don't have.

Yeah, there are plenty of women that lose their pregnancies at late stages, that didn't want to lose their future child, but life sometimes doesn't cooperate. But let's let Lion IRC again try to reframe reality with a lens that makes it seem that a woman being able to manage a failed pregnancy into some sort of demonic actions because Lion IRC has nothing else to defend their repugnant position.

And please, don't go with the "oh, but I support a woman who's pregnancy isn't viable" bullshit. Because we are seeing women being targeted in such cases, and you aren't particularly displeased with those outcomes.

 

[Lion IRC]

Yeah, here we go again. Why don't you post a position against women, instead of a lobby? I mean it looks a bit more awful if you actually create an argument against women and how you think their rights are effectively non-existent... when you can attack a strawman called the "abortion-on-demand lobby".

You say that as if men don't want abortion on demand.

I think men (deadbeat dads) are even more in favor of abortion on demand than most women.

I think rapists and pedophiles are also big supporters. Abortion is a great way to cover up your transgressions.

 

[starwater]

If women were not treated as four class citizens (behind men, corporations, and fetuses), with affordable pre-natal care, paid time off from work, and child support services, IMO there would be a lot less abortions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, here we go again. Why don't you post a position against women, instead of a lobby? I mean it looks a bit more awful if you actually create an argument against women and how you think their rights are effectively non-existent... when you can attack a strawman called the "abortion-on-demand lobby".

You say that as if men don't want abortion on demand.

I think men (deadbeat dads) are even more in favor of abortion on demand than most women.

I think rapists and pedophiles are also big supporters. Abortion is a great way to cover up your transgressions.

Nice try to deflect. Also you forgot terrorists.

Let's try again without having to resort to criminals and lobbies.

 

[TomC]

The abortion-on-demand lobby dislike the word elective because it lays bare the reality of what's actually going on.

My Mom had an elective abortion in the mid 50s.
She and Dad wanted a big Catholic family.

But their second pregnancy was ectopic. The only available treatment was surgical abortion, removing both the baby and her fallopian tube. It was quite a disaster. For them,
for me it was a huge gift.
They started adopting, starting with me. As a result of their abortion, I lived a great childhood. Excellent parents, who seriously wanted children. Willing and able, it was their calling if you will.

When people say "He is a man, he can't have babies.", it kinda makes me want to yell "Yes! Men can have babies."
My Dad had babies. He wanted them and he got them. He had to jump through hoops and write checks, but he wanted babies and he got them. He couldn't get them the simple way, but he got it done.
Men can have babies.
Tom

ETA ~ My Mom's abortion was elective. She could have refused it. She elected to have it. Luckily for me she didn't elect against it because I would not have had her as a mom. ~

 

[bilby]

I think rapists and pedophiles are also big supporters. Abortion is a great way to cover up your transgressions.

In your fantasyland it might be; But real abortions, as actually performed by legal medical practicioners, are an almost sure-fire way for rapists and paedophiles to get caught.

If you succeeded in making abortions illegal, then they would become a useful way to cover up for sexual criminals, because they would be secretive and shady events that nobody involved talked about.

But while they are legal and readily available, unlawful and unlicenced abortionists are vanishingly rare, and that cover-up isn't achievable.

As usual, your imagined consequences are the reverse of the actual consequences, and you have failed to think through your fantasies before presenting them as though they were plausible arguments for your position.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My Dad had babies. He wanted them and he got them.

*drops anvil*

Hopefully that'll teach others the difference between I got a baby (acquired) and I had a baby (carried to term and gave birth to).

Also my condolances to Emily Lake's family as her head will likely explode after she reads the quoted text.