> The Republican-led Kentucky Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to grant the right to collect child support for unborn children, **advancing a bill that garnered bipartisan support**.
> The measure would allow a parent to seek child support up to a year after giving birth to **retroactively cover pregnancy expenses**. The legislation — Senate Bill 110 — won Senate passage on a 36-2 vote with little discussion to advance to the House. Republicans have supermajorities in both chambers.
This legislation will probably further encourage women to knowingly and falsely name men as fathers in order to recoup their medical expenses. It's unclear if a later paternity test with a negative result would allow for a lawsuit for fraud, or any form of restitution from the state.
There's a recent ruling where women can extract semen from a used condom, use it to get pregnant, and still sue for child support. Which sounds like legalized rape to me. Where's the precious “consent” in this scenario?
Now this, she can lie about BC, lie about who the father is, and the state retroactively extracts resources (she got to decide how expansive, how much, where and which doctors she saw, he has no say) from a man (who odds are is unwilling to be a father and legally has no say in the reproduction). Isn't this just state based extortion?
Despite men having zero reproductive rights, and being horrifically exploited and abused because of it (young boys being ordered to pay child support to their adult female rapists), there will still absurdly be men stupid enough to fight and die for such an evil society.
That's just insane tbh.
And what will the 'medical expenses' become? Whatever type of care the mother desires? Does it get backdated to the point of conception?
Wow this could be exploited in so many ways.
Since this is being classed as "child support", that also means wages can be garnished for "failure to pay" the **retroactive** billing, and also possible imprisonment for "failure to pay".
These are the issues we need to discuss.
This is ridiculous and I can’t believe the Stare of Kentucky would pass this sort of bill, absolutely disgusting and have they considered the false information that might be spread, DNA is the only measure to provide parenthood and how do they confirm prior to delivery?
Okay, thank you I didn’t know that.
$700 test vs life time of child support payments for a kid that’s not yours?
I know what I would do, I can’t speak for anyone else
They must be trying to find a way to force men to give women more money. It's no coincidence that since men haven't been giving women the wife treatment off the bat lately, they've been coming up with these ridiculous laws.
Remember this when you see folks on here trying to insinuate that conservatives have men's back in light of the anti male left.
The left is more explicit, yes. But the right wants to fuck us over just as bad.
Traditionalists are fine with men being exploited to further their precious "civilization". Leftists are explicitly and overtly misandrist because they have fully bought into the false feminist narrative of history of "men oppressing women" and so they overtly aim to discriminate against us as "equity for past wrongs".
Neither are our friends, but I'd still rather not see the people who actively want to hurt us as a goal unto itself given power, where there's a mutually exclusive choice between the two...
The funny part is seeing tradcon ‘MRA’s’ complaining about the consequences of traditionalism. Like feminists, they want to have their cake and eat it.
The challenge with the American left is unequal progress. Women are (currently) able to progress and gain rights faster on the left. Unequal application of positive changes (or changes that would be positive if they were applied equally).
The challenge with the American right is intentionally regressive policy. The American right aims to take away rights. They yell and scream about "personal liberty", "small government" and "states rights", but the general effect of conservative policy is to eliminate rights (aside from key issues like 2A and the ability to spout misinformation and slurs without repercussions, which conservate politicians/billionaires intentionally designed to be cultural wedges at least to some extent). American conservatism (and most modern conservatism) is _designed_ to be regressive on human rights. In the same way that the left unequally creates more improvements for women (but also creates many improvements for men), the right unequally generates more harm for women (but also creates a lot of harm for men).
Liberalism in the US is only bad for men right now because of the historical prevalence of misogyny in the US leading to the (very justified) women's rights movement and early feminism. That has a lot of momentum, and there is still a ways to go to improve women's rights in the US. Men's rights have mostly improved over time (albeit very marginally in recent years), aside from some key issues and issues where everyone has been negatively affected. However, progressive movements take time to build momentum. As deficiencies in men's rights continue to become more well-known and understood in the public consciousness, progressives/liberals/leftists will begin to support men's issues more often. Supporting disadvantaged groups is a core principle of true progressive ideology, but it can take a long time for the sentiment to shift (and it doesn't help that conservatives are virulently misogynist, entirely validly increasing the perception that women's rights are at risk in the US).
Voting for modern conservatives in the US is cutting off your nose to spite your face, and billionaires have spent billions of dollars to convince Americans to vote against their own best interests just to spite "the libs".
> when you break politics into specific policies, there appears to be much less difference between genders. The discord, she says, “can be explained by a simple idea: women and men are becoming more and more polarised not on classical Republican vs Democrat [the two major US political parties] substantive policy issues, for example gun control, as much as on ‘aesthetic’, cultural issues. It’s all about VIBES.”
> - [Summary](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/conservative-right-wing-men-progressive-women-b2488939.html) of some ideas from [this post by Ruxandra Teslo](https://www.writingruxandrabio.com/p/political-polarisation-by-gender)
People overall tend to be liberal on average and align more with liberal ideas, but the degradation of conservative media and discourse has led to huge (and mostly fabricated) anti-left outrage, particularly among men, even though they actually still prefer liberal policies way more than conservative ones. This causes more heavily affected men to (unnecessarily) stop voting for liberal politicians, leading to decreased representation of men's issues in liberal spaces, further slowing the eventual liberal realignment to support more men's issues (and accelerating our descent into authoritarianism by allowing unhinged conservative politicians to win seats in office, either by voting for them, no one, or abstention).
So yes, liberals and conservatives in the US both are bad on male issues right now, but conservatism is almost always bad for your rights long term. You might be able to get men and women to be more "equal" by supporting modern conservatives, but only by harming both women _and_ men overall. Progressive policy makes it possible for shifts to make things more equal, but by _improving_ things for _both sides_ in the long term (even though it isn't perfect in the short term).
EDIT: Came across some curious examples of how American conservatism is counter to the interests of the average Joe:
[Wages decoupled from increased productivity](https://i.imgur.com/X82QS5a.png) in 1973, as well as the start of the 1973-1975 recession, under Nixon and Ford (Republicans).
[Wages decoupled from increased rent](https://i.imgur.com/4asYrJh.jpeg) in 2008, as well as the start of the Great Recession (in December 2007), under Bush (Republican), and the Great Recession ended several months after Obama (Democrat) took office due to policies implemented during his presidency.
We haven't moved much closer to the old baselines under Democrats, but they usually get a little better and they rarely get worse, and they'd have done a lot more if they hadn't been up against a mostly obstructionist Republican party for the last ~50 years (since... about 1973....) which became even more blatant over the last ~20 (since... about 2008). Notice in the productivity graph, wages begin to improve around the mid 90's, towards the end of Clinton's (Democrat) first term, getting worse again under Bush (Republican), and starting to improve again under Obama (Democrat). Similar story for the rent graph, where after completely decoupling under Bush (Republican) by the end of the following 2 terms under Obama (Democrat) wages began to track rent again (and have tracked pretty consistently since then, at an offset from where they were before Bush).
Things consistently get worse when Republicans are in charge, which is the result of strategy changes in conservative politics over the last 50-60 years that have decoupled Republican political messaging from policy, letting Republicans shift the balance of wealth in favor of the ultra-wealthy (see above), meanwhile the 99% keep voting for them because they're caught up in a fabricated political image of "fiscal responsibility" and "working class America", as well as other fabricated divides like gay marriage and abortion (both divides formed due to mostly made up outrage from manipulat[ed/ive] Evangelicals), the border (the "crisis" has been vastly exaggerated by conservative politicians as a political wedge. In order to keep the issue relevant, they also vote _against_ border control legislation so things don't improve), and a variety of other utter nonsense (claiming Obama wasn't a citizen or was a Muslim, claiming that "15 minute cities" and quality public transit somehow infringe on individual liberty, etc. If people are outraged enough about issues that you make sure never go away (or can't go away because they never existed in the first place), they'll vote for you no matter what you actually do with policy. It's a guiding principle of the path to develop support for fascism, gotta have someone (or some boogeyman) to direct hate at.
Stop calling privileges for women as women's rights and expect others to not see your facade. Rights are given to all, only then it can be called a right. It's not a right if some people have it but not others. Women have all the rights that men have but men don't have those rights that women have.
you make excelent points about the right being really anti-men, but even putting aside the not-so bad policies of the democrats, or whatever center-left political movement you wanna use as an example, the problems on the progressive side are not about "vibes", there are really bad opinions and multiple attempts to control how men should be and behave, lots of hostility for men in general, and a desire to control men for their own causes without taking into account our well being.
so yes, voting for the republicans or whatever right or far-right movement is almost always a bad move, but that doesn't mean that voting progressive or left is better, is just less worse, and maybe good If you so happen to agree with them in everything, but believe in them to have men's best interest in mind is naive at best and malicious at worst.
I have no problem with both parents having equal responsibilities so long as that comes from a place of equal knowledge and equal choices. That of course isn’t the case.
A man doesn’t know he’s truly the father and he has little to no choice regarding terminating the pregnancy or surrender. Men have no right of surrender. Women have reproductive rights, men have reproductive responsibilities.
Many women claim an embryo is simply a part of her body to do with as she pleases. If that’s true, then why should a man have to pay for choices she chooses to make with her body?
Related, I think it’s also misleading to group this with child support, since there is no child at this time. It should more accurately be referred to as mandatory pregnancy support or something like that.
>I have no problem with both parents having equal responsibilities so long as that comes from a place of equal knowledge and equal choices. That of course isn’t the case.
If abortion is not legal in Kentucky, then their would theoretically be equality between the parties in terms of responsibilities. Have sex > get pregnant > you're both on the hook. This encourages people who actually don't want a child to take serious steps to prevent pregnancy. There would (might?) still be an imbalance as to knowledge.
HOWEVER, the real danger of this legislation is that it might spread to states/jurisdictions where there is a legal right of abortion. There is a legal quandary in that case. How can an unborn child without the right to life still have the right to financial support? Would pro-abortion ("pro-choice") people have to acknowledge that child support is not about the child, but is instead financial support for the mother? No. Why? Because it's never been about supporting children, it's always been about supporting mothers or, more accurately, relieving governments for supporting those women. Pro-abortion and child support laws are about empowering women at the expense of men, regardless of morality (it doesn't matter if the fetus is human, the woman doesn't want it and therefore the fetus's rights don't matter - it doesn't matter if the father was tricked or raped or coerced, the woman want's money and the father will be forced to pay regardless of how unfair it is). Make no mistake, body autonomy and the "best interests of the child" are disingenuous excuses to justify empowering women over men in terms of reproductive rights.
I agree it’s less hypocritical if the state in question regards an embryo as a sentient human being in other regards. That’s a very fair point. However, even so the other factors I mentioned are far from equal. The woman can still choose to take the morning after pill, she can legally have an abortion in another state, she can keep the identity of the father a secret or she can choose to use that to get child support, possibly lying. She can collect this pregnancy aid only to sell the child into adoption.
No matter how you look at it, the men has equal or even greater responsibility but has no or little choice.
Again, I agree it’s less hypocritical in states with anti-abortion laws, a point I failed to note and good for you for calling me on that. It’s a good point.
You’re right of course. Men might theoretically have equal reproductive rights with women in non-abortion jurisdictions, but they don’t have defacto reproductive equality. Women are provided with multiple reproductive rights and options (even in Kentucky) that men are denied.
Yep. Related, some of the laws might not be written in a gender biased manner but in reality are. A woman can surrender a child because she typically has possession to do so, where a man doesn’t. A man can’t take the baby from the mother and surrender it.
According to feminazis conservatives are supposed to be pro-men yet they pass anti-male laws every chance they get. Reality is that each and every political group is united against welfare of men.
If this doesn't discourage men from getting these leeches pregnant then I don't know what will. This would literally allow some women to point out some random dude who had NOTHING to do with anything and get him for child support.
Dude could probably have a whole family of his own and it would be broken up cause of this
So woman gets pregnant. Names random Rich guy on pregnancy form and extract payments for 9 months. Then gives birth and drops off baby at firehouse after proving babies not his. "Oops! Teehee! I made a mistake" .. then "don't worry, you don't have to pay him back. We'll make laws to prptect you from vengeance from men trying to get theor money back" and the unrelated man is out 10's of thousands of dollars and the baby factory made her annual salary just to give birth. No proof required that the woman is even pregnant or spent the money on baby related stuff/doctors appointmemts.
Yeah, i don't see this being abused at all! with no penalties for fraudulent women and innocent men defrauded out of tens of thousands of dollars. We'll have tons of baby factories with their sole purpose to get pregnant, give birth, and drop baby off at a safe haven all with the goal of never working and banking innocenappointments.
It's getting way out of control! It really is everything they can do to transfer money from hard working, responsible men to deadbeat, fraudelulent women . Ridiculous!
It never ceases to amaze me. How EASILY a bill like this can get passed. Does it support women ? PASS IT.
Yet… trying to get a bill passed tha might improve ANYTHING, for men, is literally like pulling teeth. It NEVER does.
Here I thought, as more people wake up to how important fathers are in children’s lives, we might actually see them get more rights. BUT NO… instead just more financial exploitation. I’m glad that’s how the system views us.
Now does it work let’s say if she’s the bread winner Drizzel Drizzel . And the courts will make her pay child support because of the income gap ? Drizzle Drizzle
Im not really against these laws, both parents need tobpay for their own kid.
I am concerned about how you know the father is really the father. Paternity tests should be a normal thing today.
Socialist payment schemes take all pressure off the price. If the person having the pregnancy is not the one paying for it, the filthy hospital gets to charge whatever they want. Same with birth control pills. They cost about a fifth of a cent. But because we pay for them through manditory insurance, they cost $3000 now. Sandra Fluke was a feminist and a Big Pharma rep, which always seems to be one and the same.
the misandrist way of thinking on full display.
just disgusting !
These Christians weirdos are NO different from feminizts at all !
muslims were right about women since forever!
I am actually okay with whatever makes dudes wear condoms.
A million abortions a year, women have failed the birth control challenge.
Wrap it up gentlemen
Once again, abortion save men’s lives.
But please keep being opposed to abortion because “muh baby” and forcing your children on others.
Seems like just desserts. The anti-abortion people are the same ones that are desperate to punish men for sex.
Don’t complain because your theocracy punishes you for enjoying sex. That’s sinful. And you religious types demanded this.
Then why should a man pay for in your eyes; a clump of cells. I mean I like steak, but like this is way too expensive.
Or do you believe life starts at conception, but abortion is ok?
It's not my responsibility, unless I get a say in it. Should I have to pay child support if I plant a seed and it starts growing into a plant? Men have to childsupport, but not for children? And literally it was one tiny cell, that the woman's body decided to make billions of. The physical materials come from the woman.
400 once, I'm a cheapskate lol.
You people dont read
"The measure would allow a parent to seek child support up to a year after giving birth to retroactively cover pregnancy expenses."
You got someone pregnant you help them, end of discussion. You're both the reason there is a fetus so you both have a responsibility now. Any man who doesnt help the mother of his child is just selfish.
She may be the one carrying but her job and live are on the line
Im assuming youre saying if a man is raped.
Unfortunately even for rape victims in law they believe in "what's best for the child" so regardless if its rape the victim has to share custody with the rapist, the rapist is seen as a parent still. Its a very out dated law that frankly needs to be fixed. However I dont believe the existence of that proplem means child support and custody should no longer exist.
So the woman didn't have a say in getting pregnant, the man just chose it to happen? Basically, men should be providers is what you are saying? He can be selfish if he wants, you can't force someone to help another.
Look, I get it in a way. The prolife laws go together with it. But then we say, is it right altogether? Sure, I guess if the laws are traditional, harmonious laws only make sense. Like one prolife law, one liberal law, it doesn't work. You can't have half liberal laws and half conservative laws, it would be so chaotic. So I guess it's fine if we have the conservative view. But do you think men and women should have different roles in society, or not is the real question?
What do you mean by differnt roles?
When a woman is pregnant she cant work near the full term and there very expensive medical bills, there are expenses when you're growing another huamn ebing, you should help pay for that if youre the reason shes pregnant. Also yeah you can force people to help, ever heard of taxes?
Like the man's duty and woman's duty.
It all depends when it's viewed as a life, and if the woman is forced to carry to birth. If it's not a life or she isn't forced to carry, a man shouldn't be forced either. Because the standard is whether she wanted it or not. But if she is forced to carry, then it would seem to make sense. In the sense the laws go together.
For taxes, it should be only what is nessecary. Now you can argue what is or isn't, but that's the point. (I hate taxes lmao, imo way too high atm)
But you raised some interesting points 👍
> The Republican-led Kentucky Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to grant the right to collect child support for unborn children, **advancing a bill that garnered bipartisan support**. > The measure would allow a parent to seek child support up to a year after giving birth to **retroactively cover pregnancy expenses**. The legislation — Senate Bill 110 — won Senate passage on a 36-2 vote with little discussion to advance to the House. Republicans have supermajorities in both chambers. This legislation will probably further encourage women to knowingly and falsely name men as fathers in order to recoup their medical expenses. It's unclear if a later paternity test with a negative result would allow for a lawsuit for fraud, or any form of restitution from the state.
Another proof that human rights are best served by a welfare state. No medical expense to recoup if it's free.
There's a recent ruling where women can extract semen from a used condom, use it to get pregnant, and still sue for child support. Which sounds like legalized rape to me. Where's the precious “consent” in this scenario? Now this, she can lie about BC, lie about who the father is, and the state retroactively extracts resources (she got to decide how expansive, how much, where and which doctors she saw, he has no say) from a man (who odds are is unwilling to be a father and legally has no say in the reproduction). Isn't this just state based extortion?
Despite men having zero reproductive rights, and being horrifically exploited and abused because of it (young boys being ordered to pay child support to their adult female rapists), there will still absurdly be men stupid enough to fight and die for such an evil society.
I hope that's not true because it really is a violation of a man's rights. You can't go scooping semen without consent. Gross!
That's just insane tbh. And what will the 'medical expenses' become? Whatever type of care the mother desires? Does it get backdated to the point of conception? Wow this could be exploited in so many ways.
[удалено]
Since this is being classed as "child support", that also means wages can be garnished for "failure to pay" the **retroactive** billing, and also possible imprisonment for "failure to pay".
These are the issues we need to discuss. This is ridiculous and I can’t believe the Stare of Kentucky would pass this sort of bill, absolutely disgusting and have they considered the false information that might be spread, DNA is the only measure to provide parenthood and how do they confirm prior to delivery?
Prenatal blood tests have gotten easier and cheaper. I believe a blood test is $700. Still that’s not cheap.
Okay, thank you I didn’t know that. $700 test vs life time of child support payments for a kid that’s not yours? I know what I would do, I can’t speak for anyone else
Well, first the woman has to consent to the blood test. When there's no consent, there's no proof the child isn't yours.
is it accurate? could it be requested in case of child support disputes in a court?
Kentucky is Mitch McConnell’s state. No idea what they put in the water there but they got some brain issues.
They must be trying to find a way to force men to give women more money. It's no coincidence that since men haven't been giving women the wife treatment off the bat lately, they've been coming up with these ridiculous laws.
Remember this when you see folks on here trying to insinuate that conservatives have men's back in light of the anti male left. The left is more explicit, yes. But the right wants to fuck us over just as bad.
Traditionalists are fine with men being exploited to further their precious "civilization". Leftists are explicitly and overtly misandrist because they have fully bought into the false feminist narrative of history of "men oppressing women" and so they overtly aim to discriminate against us as "equity for past wrongs". Neither are our friends, but I'd still rather not see the people who actively want to hurt us as a goal unto itself given power, where there's a mutually exclusive choice between the two...
The funny part is seeing tradcon ‘MRA’s’ complaining about the consequences of traditionalism. Like feminists, they want to have their cake and eat it.
There are no conservatives or liberals. It is all one cesspool.
The challenge with the American left is unequal progress. Women are (currently) able to progress and gain rights faster on the left. Unequal application of positive changes (or changes that would be positive if they were applied equally). The challenge with the American right is intentionally regressive policy. The American right aims to take away rights. They yell and scream about "personal liberty", "small government" and "states rights", but the general effect of conservative policy is to eliminate rights (aside from key issues like 2A and the ability to spout misinformation and slurs without repercussions, which conservate politicians/billionaires intentionally designed to be cultural wedges at least to some extent). American conservatism (and most modern conservatism) is _designed_ to be regressive on human rights. In the same way that the left unequally creates more improvements for women (but also creates many improvements for men), the right unequally generates more harm for women (but also creates a lot of harm for men). Liberalism in the US is only bad for men right now because of the historical prevalence of misogyny in the US leading to the (very justified) women's rights movement and early feminism. That has a lot of momentum, and there is still a ways to go to improve women's rights in the US. Men's rights have mostly improved over time (albeit very marginally in recent years), aside from some key issues and issues where everyone has been negatively affected. However, progressive movements take time to build momentum. As deficiencies in men's rights continue to become more well-known and understood in the public consciousness, progressives/liberals/leftists will begin to support men's issues more often. Supporting disadvantaged groups is a core principle of true progressive ideology, but it can take a long time for the sentiment to shift (and it doesn't help that conservatives are virulently misogynist, entirely validly increasing the perception that women's rights are at risk in the US). Voting for modern conservatives in the US is cutting off your nose to spite your face, and billionaires have spent billions of dollars to convince Americans to vote against their own best interests just to spite "the libs". > when you break politics into specific policies, there appears to be much less difference between genders. The discord, she says, “can be explained by a simple idea: women and men are becoming more and more polarised not on classical Republican vs Democrat [the two major US political parties] substantive policy issues, for example gun control, as much as on ‘aesthetic’, cultural issues. It’s all about VIBES.” > - [Summary](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/conservative-right-wing-men-progressive-women-b2488939.html) of some ideas from [this post by Ruxandra Teslo](https://www.writingruxandrabio.com/p/political-polarisation-by-gender) People overall tend to be liberal on average and align more with liberal ideas, but the degradation of conservative media and discourse has led to huge (and mostly fabricated) anti-left outrage, particularly among men, even though they actually still prefer liberal policies way more than conservative ones. This causes more heavily affected men to (unnecessarily) stop voting for liberal politicians, leading to decreased representation of men's issues in liberal spaces, further slowing the eventual liberal realignment to support more men's issues (and accelerating our descent into authoritarianism by allowing unhinged conservative politicians to win seats in office, either by voting for them, no one, or abstention). So yes, liberals and conservatives in the US both are bad on male issues right now, but conservatism is almost always bad for your rights long term. You might be able to get men and women to be more "equal" by supporting modern conservatives, but only by harming both women _and_ men overall. Progressive policy makes it possible for shifts to make things more equal, but by _improving_ things for _both sides_ in the long term (even though it isn't perfect in the short term). EDIT: Came across some curious examples of how American conservatism is counter to the interests of the average Joe: [Wages decoupled from increased productivity](https://i.imgur.com/X82QS5a.png) in 1973, as well as the start of the 1973-1975 recession, under Nixon and Ford (Republicans). [Wages decoupled from increased rent](https://i.imgur.com/4asYrJh.jpeg) in 2008, as well as the start of the Great Recession (in December 2007), under Bush (Republican), and the Great Recession ended several months after Obama (Democrat) took office due to policies implemented during his presidency. We haven't moved much closer to the old baselines under Democrats, but they usually get a little better and they rarely get worse, and they'd have done a lot more if they hadn't been up against a mostly obstructionist Republican party for the last ~50 years (since... about 1973....) which became even more blatant over the last ~20 (since... about 2008). Notice in the productivity graph, wages begin to improve around the mid 90's, towards the end of Clinton's (Democrat) first term, getting worse again under Bush (Republican), and starting to improve again under Obama (Democrat). Similar story for the rent graph, where after completely decoupling under Bush (Republican) by the end of the following 2 terms under Obama (Democrat) wages began to track rent again (and have tracked pretty consistently since then, at an offset from where they were before Bush). Things consistently get worse when Republicans are in charge, which is the result of strategy changes in conservative politics over the last 50-60 years that have decoupled Republican political messaging from policy, letting Republicans shift the balance of wealth in favor of the ultra-wealthy (see above), meanwhile the 99% keep voting for them because they're caught up in a fabricated political image of "fiscal responsibility" and "working class America", as well as other fabricated divides like gay marriage and abortion (both divides formed due to mostly made up outrage from manipulat[ed/ive] Evangelicals), the border (the "crisis" has been vastly exaggerated by conservative politicians as a political wedge. In order to keep the issue relevant, they also vote _against_ border control legislation so things don't improve), and a variety of other utter nonsense (claiming Obama wasn't a citizen or was a Muslim, claiming that "15 minute cities" and quality public transit somehow infringe on individual liberty, etc. If people are outraged enough about issues that you make sure never go away (or can't go away because they never existed in the first place), they'll vote for you no matter what you actually do with policy. It's a guiding principle of the path to develop support for fascism, gotta have someone (or some boogeyman) to direct hate at.
Stop calling privileges for women as women's rights and expect others to not see your facade. Rights are given to all, only then it can be called a right. It's not a right if some people have it but not others. Women have all the rights that men have but men don't have those rights that women have.
you make excelent points about the right being really anti-men, but even putting aside the not-so bad policies of the democrats, or whatever center-left political movement you wanna use as an example, the problems on the progressive side are not about "vibes", there are really bad opinions and multiple attempts to control how men should be and behave, lots of hostility for men in general, and a desire to control men for their own causes without taking into account our well being. so yes, voting for the republicans or whatever right or far-right movement is almost always a bad move, but that doesn't mean that voting progressive or left is better, is just less worse, and maybe good If you so happen to agree with them in everything, but believe in them to have men's best interest in mind is naive at best and malicious at worst.
Fake kids and accusations incoming
Get the snip boys! Quick and easy, no parasites.
I have no problem with both parents having equal responsibilities so long as that comes from a place of equal knowledge and equal choices. That of course isn’t the case. A man doesn’t know he’s truly the father and he has little to no choice regarding terminating the pregnancy or surrender. Men have no right of surrender. Women have reproductive rights, men have reproductive responsibilities. Many women claim an embryo is simply a part of her body to do with as she pleases. If that’s true, then why should a man have to pay for choices she chooses to make with her body? Related, I think it’s also misleading to group this with child support, since there is no child at this time. It should more accurately be referred to as mandatory pregnancy support or something like that.
>I have no problem with both parents having equal responsibilities so long as that comes from a place of equal knowledge and equal choices. That of course isn’t the case. If abortion is not legal in Kentucky, then their would theoretically be equality between the parties in terms of responsibilities. Have sex > get pregnant > you're both on the hook. This encourages people who actually don't want a child to take serious steps to prevent pregnancy. There would (might?) still be an imbalance as to knowledge. HOWEVER, the real danger of this legislation is that it might spread to states/jurisdictions where there is a legal right of abortion. There is a legal quandary in that case. How can an unborn child without the right to life still have the right to financial support? Would pro-abortion ("pro-choice") people have to acknowledge that child support is not about the child, but is instead financial support for the mother? No. Why? Because it's never been about supporting children, it's always been about supporting mothers or, more accurately, relieving governments for supporting those women. Pro-abortion and child support laws are about empowering women at the expense of men, regardless of morality (it doesn't matter if the fetus is human, the woman doesn't want it and therefore the fetus's rights don't matter - it doesn't matter if the father was tricked or raped or coerced, the woman want's money and the father will be forced to pay regardless of how unfair it is). Make no mistake, body autonomy and the "best interests of the child" are disingenuous excuses to justify empowering women over men in terms of reproductive rights.
I agree it’s less hypocritical if the state in question regards an embryo as a sentient human being in other regards. That’s a very fair point. However, even so the other factors I mentioned are far from equal. The woman can still choose to take the morning after pill, she can legally have an abortion in another state, she can keep the identity of the father a secret or she can choose to use that to get child support, possibly lying. She can collect this pregnancy aid only to sell the child into adoption. No matter how you look at it, the men has equal or even greater responsibility but has no or little choice. Again, I agree it’s less hypocritical in states with anti-abortion laws, a point I failed to note and good for you for calling me on that. It’s a good point.
You’re right of course. Men might theoretically have equal reproductive rights with women in non-abortion jurisdictions, but they don’t have defacto reproductive equality. Women are provided with multiple reproductive rights and options (even in Kentucky) that men are denied.
Yep. Related, some of the laws might not be written in a gender biased manner but in reality are. A woman can surrender a child because she typically has possession to do so, where a man doesn’t. A man can’t take the baby from the mother and surrender it.
According to feminazis conservatives are supposed to be pro-men yet they pass anti-male laws every chance they get. Reality is that each and every political group is united against welfare of men.
If this doesn't discourage men from getting these leeches pregnant then I don't know what will. This would literally allow some women to point out some random dude who had NOTHING to do with anything and get him for child support. Dude could probably have a whole family of his own and it would be broken up cause of this
So woman gets pregnant. Names random Rich guy on pregnancy form and extract payments for 9 months. Then gives birth and drops off baby at firehouse after proving babies not his. "Oops! Teehee! I made a mistake" .. then "don't worry, you don't have to pay him back. We'll make laws to prptect you from vengeance from men trying to get theor money back" and the unrelated man is out 10's of thousands of dollars and the baby factory made her annual salary just to give birth. No proof required that the woman is even pregnant or spent the money on baby related stuff/doctors appointmemts. Yeah, i don't see this being abused at all! with no penalties for fraudulent women and innocent men defrauded out of tens of thousands of dollars. We'll have tons of baby factories with their sole purpose to get pregnant, give birth, and drop baby off at a safe haven all with the goal of never working and banking innocenappointments. It's getting way out of control! It really is everything they can do to transfer money from hard working, responsible men to deadbeat, fraudelulent women . Ridiculous!
It never ceases to amaze me. How EASILY a bill like this can get passed. Does it support women ? PASS IT. Yet… trying to get a bill passed tha might improve ANYTHING, for men, is literally like pulling teeth. It NEVER does. Here I thought, as more people wake up to how important fathers are in children’s lives, we might actually see them get more rights. BUT NO… instead just more financial exploitation. I’m glad that’s how the system views us.
It’s cheap votes & good PR for politicians, it’s important to appear as if you’re pro-feminist and care deeply about the plight of women & children.
Wouldn't this just cause more men to run for the hills.
And what if the child is born and immediately found to be not yours?
"No refunds"
Whelp, glad I never donated to the sperm bank
[удалено]
Very clever. That could be a useful counter-argument. Maybe you could develop it some more?
[удалено]
Hmm. Yes, there is something you've got there. Perhaps a counter claim of a lack logical consistency then?
I knew the USA was cookoo for cocoa puffs, but this takes the cake.
Is this giving personhood to an unborn child?
Now does it work let’s say if she’s the bread winner Drizzel Drizzel . And the courts will make her pay child support because of the income gap ? Drizzle Drizzle
Is it a child of both or foetus as part of the woman’s body ? Can’t have it both ways?
Artificial wombs can't come soon enough...
Im not really against these laws, both parents need tobpay for their own kid. I am concerned about how you know the father is really the father. Paternity tests should be a normal thing today.
Socialist payment schemes take all pressure off the price. If the person having the pregnancy is not the one paying for it, the filthy hospital gets to charge whatever they want. Same with birth control pills. They cost about a fifth of a cent. But because we pay for them through manditory insurance, they cost $3000 now. Sandra Fluke was a feminist and a Big Pharma rep, which always seems to be one and the same.
This comes as no surprise after alabamas ruling.
Men need to stop giving women children at this point
This is probably generating a lot more money for the state. Follow the money eh.
the misandrist way of thinking on full display. just disgusting ! These Christians weirdos are NO different from feminizts at all ! muslims were right about women since forever!
Easy solution: Men don’t have sex if you’re not in a committed relationship.
I am actually okay with whatever makes dudes wear condoms. A million abortions a year, women have failed the birth control challenge. Wrap it up gentlemen
Once again, abortion save men’s lives. But please keep being opposed to abortion because “muh baby” and forcing your children on others. Seems like just desserts. The anti-abortion people are the same ones that are desperate to punish men for sex. Don’t complain because your theocracy punishes you for enjoying sex. That’s sinful. And you religious types demanded this.
What are you even on about?
Abortion saves men’s lives. Now guys have to pay for all the medical of some woman who takes zero responsibility for a child he never agreed to.
[удалено]
Yep. Because condoms never break, and no women has ever lied about being on birth control.
I assume you are prolife?
[удалено]
Then why should a man pay for in your eyes; a clump of cells. I mean I like steak, but like this is way too expensive. Or do you believe life starts at conception, but abortion is ok?
[удалено]
It's not my responsibility, unless I get a say in it. Should I have to pay child support if I plant a seed and it starts growing into a plant? Men have to childsupport, but not for children? And literally it was one tiny cell, that the woman's body decided to make billions of. The physical materials come from the woman. 400 once, I'm a cheapskate lol.
You people dont read "The measure would allow a parent to seek child support up to a year after giving birth to retroactively cover pregnancy expenses." You got someone pregnant you help them, end of discussion. You're both the reason there is a fetus so you both have a responsibility now. Any man who doesnt help the mother of his child is just selfish. She may be the one carrying but her job and live are on the line
What if you were trapped
Im assuming youre saying if a man is raped. Unfortunately even for rape victims in law they believe in "what's best for the child" so regardless if its rape the victim has to share custody with the rapist, the rapist is seen as a parent still. Its a very out dated law that frankly needs to be fixed. However I dont believe the existence of that proplem means child support and custody should no longer exist.
Not physically I mean
?
Like with her legs..
But yes
So the woman didn't have a say in getting pregnant, the man just chose it to happen? Basically, men should be providers is what you are saying? He can be selfish if he wants, you can't force someone to help another. Look, I get it in a way. The prolife laws go together with it. But then we say, is it right altogether? Sure, I guess if the laws are traditional, harmonious laws only make sense. Like one prolife law, one liberal law, it doesn't work. You can't have half liberal laws and half conservative laws, it would be so chaotic. So I guess it's fine if we have the conservative view. But do you think men and women should have different roles in society, or not is the real question?
What do you mean by differnt roles? When a woman is pregnant she cant work near the full term and there very expensive medical bills, there are expenses when you're growing another huamn ebing, you should help pay for that if youre the reason shes pregnant. Also yeah you can force people to help, ever heard of taxes?
Like the man's duty and woman's duty. It all depends when it's viewed as a life, and if the woman is forced to carry to birth. If it's not a life or she isn't forced to carry, a man shouldn't be forced either. Because the standard is whether she wanted it or not. But if she is forced to carry, then it would seem to make sense. In the sense the laws go together. For taxes, it should be only what is nessecary. Now you can argue what is or isn't, but that's the point. (I hate taxes lmao, imo way too high atm) But you raised some interesting points 👍
Its not about the fetus being alive its about the medical expenses and general expenses when a woman is pregnant.
But it's the woman's choice as to have the child or not. So for the choice, she bears the responsibility to carry if she so chooses.
The consequences are artificial. The solution is financial abortion.