It makes zero sense because women are also anti-abortion and at the forefront of the pro-life movement and themselves have been elected officials who voted for anti-abortion policies and anti-abortion judges etc, Republican females are Republican for a reason, most are anti-abortion..
Attacking anti-abortion males and doing so as a parody 1) shows the pro-life side that the pro-choice side views the issue of killing an embryo/fetus/unborn as a joke and 2) ignores the reality that women (including a minority of Democrats, Independents, etc) are also anti-abortion and 3) fails to understand that two sides representing two totally different issues (issues that are themselves compromised of endless issues) are pushing for a one-size-fits-all solution.
Pushing legislation to protect abortion and shore up loop-holes that Republicans are exploiting to obstruct abortion is what Democratic legislators need to be doing across the entire country, not wasting time and money on parody legislation targeting males.
Punishing males in parody to get even with punishing females in reality is shallow and deliberately ignorant and unprofessional.
And also, for the record, I'm hardcore anti-abortion, female, consider abortion after 16 weeks murder regardless of the reason, support the general body of abortion laws on the books, and oppose the rapidly accelerated steps Republicans are taking to legally shut down abortion.
reply
share
Superduper (111)
6 years ago
So male or female, why should anyone have a say what another person does with their body?
It doesn't effect you so you should have no say. Period.
I thought the US was the land of the free. Should a woman not be free to choose what happens to her body?
reply
share
[deleted]
6 years ago
Abortion affects everybody and everybody should have a say. Period. Half the nation votes against Democrats in no small part because of the abortion issue.
Americans have a legal right to exercise his/her say on abortion as well as anything related to what a person does with his/her body. Entire bodies of law already exist regulating what a person can and cannot due with his/her body and to his/her body. Abortion is not an exception to that.
All the reproductive rights and women's healthcare organizations are under direct attack right now because of the abortion issue (which if sustained will have a direct impact on Americans seeking any of the services provided by those agencies and organizations), people overseas are already directly impacted by the loss of access to reproductive/prenatal/neonatal/women's healthcare services resulting from cancelled funding by the anti-abortion Trump Administration, cuts to America's "welfare" programmes are in large part predicated upon the belief that "no handout" coupled with "no abortion access" means females magically stop having sex.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/world/how-a-change-in-us-abortion-policy-reverberated-around-the-globe/?utm_term=.4941662767f8
A legislator pushing parody legislation attacking males, attacking vasectomies, attacking viagra, attacking males on the child support issue, demonstrates a shallow understanding of the issue, is a waste of time, a waste of a voter's vote, doesn't offer realistic policy solutions ameliorating the current erosion of the legality and accessibility of women's healthcare services, and badly mischaracterizes the viewpoints and actual policy positions of both sides which only serves to validate the pro-life side.
reply
share
Superduper (111)
6 years ago
It doesn't effect everyone, it effects the mother. Everyone else should mind their own business.
The same people who vote against abortion rights are the same people who vote against universal healthcare and government subsidized education. So they want to force other people to have children and then not help support those very same children.
It's easy, the rest of the developed world has figured it out. If a woman doesn't want a child she should have the option of abortion.
reply
share
[deleted]
6 years ago
I think you make a valid point about anti-abortionists voting against protecting people financially. However, the idea is that life has an inherent value; or life is valuable, but then other people don't then owe them money for whatever reason. It is a little conflicting, but certainly not contradictory or inconsistent.
reply
share
Superduper (111)
6 years ago
Well if life is so valuable to these individuals why not nurture the potential value (through social programs) instead of allowing them to wallow in abject poverty?
Because life isn't really all that important to them. Controling women is what's important to them.
reply
share
[deleted]
6 years ago
Personally I am not anti-abortion, so I agree with you to a large extent.
But it could be argued that only the individual, or family when the individual is young, is responsible for their own "potential". The difference being, protect the inherent value/life, then fend for your self when it comes to potential value.
As I said, I find it conflicting, but I don't think it is contradictory.
reply
share
NormaAndNorman (3900)
6 years ago
Superduper, you said:
"So male or female, why should anyone have a say what another person does with their body?
It doesn't effect you so you should have no say. Period.
I thought the US was the land of the free. Should a woman not be free to choose what happens to her body?"
** ** ** **
This argument about "the woman's body" holds no water. It's not HER body, it's THE BABY's body! Since the baby can't speak for him/herself, the mother has no right to destroy him/her.
In most cases, the mother made a choice to have sex, knowing full well it could result in a pregnancy.
reply
share
Superduper (111)
6 years ago
It's not a baby, it's a fetus.
And men have sex knowing full well it could result in a pregnancy but don't have to deal with the consequences of these archaic regulations.
reply
share
[deleted]
6 years ago
A fetus that will potentially develop into a baby. Super, your point above about caring for potential runs both ways. Aborting a fetus disregards the potential at an earlier stage of the process.
In this sense anti-abortionists are concerned about protecting potential value.
If you think there is an obligation to financially support people with welfare and education, why should they not be supported at this earlier stage. If they are not, then there will be no education etc.
reply
share
NormaAndNorman (3900)
6 years ago
It IS a baby. 🙄
Well, they should too! And how many of these men even know that their own flesh and blood are being slaughtered without their knowledge and/or agreement? Why isn't this ever discussed or considered? It's equally their baby too.
reply
share
[deleted]
6 years ago
I agree, any father should get a say.
In a more immediate sense, their body is not involved. As in their life is not at risk and they do not have to carry a baby for roughly nine months.
I don't like putting it in order, but if it were in order, the father is the least involved!
reply
share