• New Arkansas Law Lets Men Block Wives’ Abortions
    63 replies, posted
[QUOTE]WASHINGTON― A new law in Arkansas bans most second trimester abortions and allows a woman’s husband to sue the doctor for civil damages or “injunctive relief,” which would [URL="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/02/new-law-lets-dads-veto-abortions.html"]block the woman from[/URL] having the procedure. The [URL="http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2017/2017R/Bills/HB1032.pdf"]“Unborn Child Protection From Dismemberment Abortion Act,”[/URL] signed into law last week by Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R), bans dilation and evacuation procedures, in which the physician removes the fetus from the womb with surgical tools. D&E procedures are the safest and most common way women can end their pregnancies after 14 weeks of gestation, according to the American Medical Association. A clause buried in the legislation states that the husband of a woman seeking an abortion, if he is the baby’s father, can file a civil lawsuit against the physician for monetary damages or injunctive relief ― a court order that would prevent the doctor from going ahead with the procedure. The woman’s parents or legal guardians can also sue, if she is a minor. The law states that the husband cannot sue the doctor for money in cases of “criminal conduct” against his wife ― namely, spousal rape ― but he could still sue to block her from having the abortion. [/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/arkansas-anti-abortion-law_us_58939063e4b09bd304ba41ff[/URL] [url]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/02/new-law-lets-dads-veto-abortions.html[/url] no exceptions for rape... makes you think
Ah, good, Arkansas is bringing us back to good ol' times of women (and their children) being men's property.
And they say patriarchy doesn't exist in this country
sounds like a law designed purely for abuse
Umm..I know this is Arkansas but fucking really? Are we trying to go back to the times where women are not seen as people but objects that take care of the house and kids?
This will probably be an unpopular post but I can kind of understand the argument for this since it's his child too but as the man doesn't have to carry the kid or birth it I'm a little torn on whether or not he should really have a say and definitely he shouldn't get no-questions-asked veto powers over an abortion if they're separated and so on. No exceptions for rape etc. is unacceptable.
god why did the liberal fears have to be right? the republicans fearmongered about loosing their bibles and guns but that was not going to happen
At this point, if you're anything other than a white male in this country, you're not safe from this government fucking your laws and rights in any way they can.
God this is just sickening.
So basically this is taking away women's reproductive rights and putting their health in danger? It's depressing how I'm not remotely shocked that it passed. I really hope it ends up getting struck down in court.
[QUOTE=The Rifleman;51769451]At this point, if you're anything other than a white male in this country, you're not safe from this government fucking your laws and rights in any way they can.[/QUOTE] oh don't worry, the coming trade war and economic collapse will fuck them over too followed by actual wars
[QUOTE=The Rifleman;51769451]At this point, if you're anything other than a white male in this country, you're not safe from this government fucking your laws and rights in any way they can.[/QUOTE] What if you're a white male gay person? Or a white male atheist?
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51766578]I posted this 10 days ago: [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51716024][t]http://images.gr-assets.com/books/1473094781l/38447.jpg[/t] Oh boy, I can't wait for reality to eclipse [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid%27s_Tale"]fiction[/URL]. :downs: [sp]Religious extremists hijack the federal government and take women's rights back to the bronze age[/sp][/QUOTE] If this leak is real, I'm not so sure it's a joke so much as an accurate prediction of the future. In the novel, all non-Christians are persecuted -- except for the Jews, who are allowed to leave the theocracy for Israel [sp]most drown at sea after the for-profit transport companies throw them overboard instead of providing enough room and food to supply them for the trip[/sp] if they choose not to stay and convert. Women's rights are stripped from them (except for elite-caste women) and their primary role in life is to give men healthy babies. They aren't taught to read, they aren't afforded decisions of their own (marriage is arranged; if you are a breeder you are assigned to high-ranking men for reproductive purposes), and if they fail to behave according to their station they're sent off to go clean up radioactive waste until they die a premature death. We see the Trump administration: - deprioritizing health care, welfare, safety, the environment, industry regulations, religious freedom, transparency against corruption - deprioritizing women's reproductive rights, and if this leak is true deprioritizing "non-traditional-family" rights and allowing discrimination - discrediting the media Sweeping extremist Puritanism after a major crisis is exactly how The Handmaiden's Tale's backstory kicks off, and here we have Christian destroy-the-establishment fundamentalist Bannon running the most fascist-like administration in US history and it hasn't been three full weeks yet. Don't let it happen. Don't let Margaret Atwood witness her fiction become reality a mere 32 years after publication.[/QUOTE] I posted this eleven hours ago, he said with an increasingly nervous and uncomfortable expression and tone. :worried: I'm not going to repost this with another generation of quoteboxes in the next relevant thread because this is getting silly in length, but jfc Can we re-do 2016, please?
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51769517]I posted this eleven hours ago, he said with an increasingly nervous and uncomfortable expression and tone. :worried:[/QUOTE] I was just about to mention that. It's not a full jump, but the journey of a thousand miles and all that. Although this is a pretty big step, should it get passed. Hopefully it gets struck down with the others. [QUOTE=Sableye;51769496]oh don't worry, the coming trade war and economic collapse will fuck them over too followed by actual wars[/QUOTE] Rich white straight cis Christian males. Specifically older than 40, otherwise they'll run into global warming.
[quote] "Woman" means a female human being [B] whether or not she has reached the age of majority.[/B] [/quote] [quote]"Serious health risk to the pregnant woman" does not include: (i) A psychological or emotional condition; or (ii) A medical diagnosis that is based on a claim of the pregnant woman or on a presumption that the pregnant woman will engage in conduct that could result in her death or that could cause substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman;[/quote] Can this law get any worse for rape or incest (both of which are included in the existing ban) cases? The law already seems to be the worst possible thing for the mental health of anybody affected by it, and with the bill on top of that makes it even worse .
[quote] “Unborn Child Protection From Dismemberment Abortion Act,” [/quote] What a name.
[QUOTE=Sableye;51769496]oh don't worry, the coming trade war and economic collapse will fuck them over too followed by actual wars[/QUOTE] why is this a good thing? do you lack the ability to see the consequences here?
[QUOTE=space1;51769579]why is this a good thing? do you lack the ability to see the consequences here?[/QUOTE] you know, i'm okay with the economy taking a huge shit soon just so everyone can learn not to elect republicans ever again
[QUOTE=Judas;51769600]you know, i'm okay with the economy taking a huge shit soon just so everyone can learn not to elect republicans ever again[/QUOTE] They'll just pull the oldest trick in the Republican playbook Plug your ears and blame the Democrats again
[QUOTE=Sitkero;51769613]They'll just pull the oldest trick in the Republican playbook Plug your ears and blame the Democrats again[/QUOTE] Can't ignore it if some Second Amendment people came along.
[QUOTE=KillRay;51769377] no exceptions for rape... makes you think[/QUOTE] Probably because this law isn't for any father of an unborn child, but specifically one married to the pregnant woman? Not that a husband "can't" rape their wives, but I think it's evident that victims of rapes in general still can get abortions with this law. No rapist is going to come out of the dark and sue for the unborn child of their victim.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51769852]No rapist is going to come out of the dark and sue for the unborn child of their victim.[/QUOTE] Step 1: Take condom. Step 2: Damage condom Step 3: Have sex with wife using condom without her knowing it Step 4: Repeat until your baby factory is now forced to work for you
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51769418]This will probably be an unpopular post but I can kind of understand the argument for this since it's his child too but as the man doesn't have to carry the kid or birth it I'm a little torn on whether or not he should really have a say and definitely he shouldn't get no-questions-asked veto powers over an abortion if they're separated and so on. No exceptions for rape etc. is unacceptable.[/QUOTE] I understand this hesitation, but as long as it requires a woman's body to carry out a pregnancy, it should be her choice only (imo). In an ideal world, it would be possible to safely extract an embryo from a woman's womb and ensure a successful birth without the woman's participation, so fathers could easily have the choice to do this.
At the same time, don't men reserve right to their child, even if it's in the woman's body? IMO Abortions should be a mutual agreement. Else the party who rejects the idea gets sole custody of the child. [editline]3rd February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=gufu;51769907]Step 1: Take condom. Step 2: Damage condom Step 3: Have sex with wife using condom without her knowing it Step 4: Repeat until your baby factory is now forced to work for you[/QUOTE] *flips the table* Step 1: Take condom Step 2: Damage condom Step 3: Have sex with husband using condom without him knowing Step 4: Get pregnant without having husband's opinion, force him to pay for child care and strip him of any custody in court. Who gives a fuck it's my pussy lmao We live in a fucking democratic society. Most things should be consensual.
[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51770042]At the same time, don't men reserve right to their child, even if it's in the woman's body? IMO Abortions should be a mutual agreement. Else the party who rejects the idea gets sole custody of the child.[/QUOTE] I mean, you find a way to rip out a fetus and put it into the dude, go right ahead. As of now, it's tied directly to the woman, so she gets to decide. [editline]3rd February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=CruelAddict;51770042] *flips the table* Step 1: Take condom Step 2: Damage condom Step 3: Have sex with husband using condom without him knowing Step 4: Get pregnant without having husband's opinion, force him to pay for child care and strip him of any custody in court. Who gives a fuck it's my pussy lmao We live in a fucking democratic society. Most things should be consensual.[/QUOTE] I mean, you're not flipping the table, you have a wholly different situation, that doesn't apply to the situation at hand. I mean, it's not like before hand if husband wanted for abortion to happen, the woman would be forced to have one.
[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51770042]At the same time, don't men reserve right to their child, even if it's in the woman's body? IMO Abortions should be a mutual agreement. Else the party who rejects the idea gets sole custody of the child. [/QUOTE] If its mutual agreement a guy could just say nope.mp4 and effectively force a woman to bear and deliver his child? To make this clear: If it requires mutual agreement then the guy must agree, if the guy doesn't agree to having an abortion then he effectively has control. Should be up to the woman imo, shes the one who's body is going to have to carry and feed the baby if she doesn't want to then its wrong to force her to do it.
[QUOTE=gufu;51770215] I mean, you're not flipping the table, you have a wholly different situation, that doesn't apply to the situation at hand. I mean, it's not like before hand if husband wanted for abortion to happen, the woman would be forced to have one.[/QUOTE] So we leave it up to three possible scenarios: 1) Either the woman decides the fate of fetus 2) Either the man decides the fate of fetus 3) Both decide the fate of fetus So how come 2 is more wrong than 1? After all, if you get pregnant, it's both parties' fault. [editline]3rd February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51770224]If its mutual agreement a guy could just say nope.mp4 and effectively force a woman to bear and deliver his child?[/QUOTE] If he says nope, then it's not his child. I think Sweden had some sort of concept like that in plans not long ago? [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/03/08/men-should-have-the-right-to-abort-responsibility-for-an-unborn-child-swedish-political-group-says/]Source[/url]
[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51770231]So we leave it up to three possible scenarios: 1) Either the woman decides the fate of fetus 2) Either the man decides the fate of fetus 3) Both decide the fate of fetus So how come 2 is more wrong than 1? After all, if you get pregnant, it's both parties' fault. [editline]3rd February 2017[/editline] If he says nope, then it's not his child. I think Sweden had some sort of concept like that in plans not long ago? [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/03/08/men-should-have-the-right-to-abort-responsibility-for-an-unborn-child-swedish-political-group-says/]Source[/url][/QUOTE] No I mean the guy says "no abortion for you"
[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51770042]At the same time, don't men reserve right to their child, even if it's in the woman's body? IMO Abortions should be a mutual agreement. Else the party who rejects the idea gets sole custody of the child. [editline]3rd February 2017[/editline] *flips the table* Step 1: Take condom Step 2: Damage condom Step 3: Have sex with husband using condom without him knowing Step 4: Get pregnant without having husband's opinion, force him to pay for child care and strip him of any custody in court. Who gives a fuck it's my pussy lmao We live in a fucking democratic society. Most things should be consensual.[/QUOTE] yeah it is her pussy so unlucky dude. when you have to carry a baby for 40 weeks then you can decide what happens to it. also, you totally moved the goalposts and those situations are totally different. you highlight an unfortunate situation but to strip someone of dominion over their body to satisfy an unlikely problem is not ok. there is a judicial system for a reason.
[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51770231]So we leave it up to three possible scenarios: 1) Either the woman decides the fate of fetus 2) Either the man decides the fate of fetus 3) Both decide the fate of fetus So how come 2 is more wrong than 1? After all, if you get pregnant, it's both parties' fault. [/QUOTE] Because, again, the father does not have to deal with the baby's development, which directly affects the woman. If she suddenly does not want the child and you do, then there are different things you can approach: 1) Have a child when she feels more ready for it. 2) Recognize differences in your interest towards having a child. Leave your partner and find someone else to have a child with. 3) Stay with your partner anyway, because you love them for who they are, not for their baby making capabilities.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.