252
all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Motavader@lemmy.world 120 points 1 year ago

Well, at least that's a logically consistent position in the issue, even if I vehemently disagree with their broader stance. Of course, they would need to extend that to allow women to claim unborn children as dependents in their taxes, allow women to drive in the HOV lane alone with their fetus, etc.

I LOL'd at the quote about men not liking that, and paying child support from the time of conception was dumb. Yeah, no shit, dumbass. There goes your logical inconsistency again.

[-] Neato@kbin.social 46 points 1 year ago

It may seem consistent but Republicans aren't going to extend benefits to people that logically follow from this. Not without a SCOTUS case. They don't care about logic, they care about hurting women.

[-] Ragdoll_X@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They don’t care about logic, they care about hurting women.

100%. There are plenty of studies showing that abortion bans lead to more unsafe abortions and worse health outcomes for women and children, besides "pro-life" sentiment explaining very little of the left-right difference in abortion stance.

[-] Daisyifyoudo@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't know if they want to hurt them, per se. I think they want to control them

[-] SmashingSquid@notyour.rodeo 7 points 1 year ago

Depends on the color of their skin.

[-] Daisyifyoudo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Well, that's unfortunately true...

[-] Saneless@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

The party that actively fights to take away support to actual alive people are against this too? Shocker

[-] Daisyifyoudo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It's the party of SmAlL gOvErNmEnt

[-] SSUPII@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

Isn't banning things making the government bigger?

[-] TheFriar@lemm.ee 58 points 1 year ago

If you’re gonna be consistent about this “life begins at conception” bullshit, stick to your fuckin guns for once. A baby is born 9 months old, their first birthday is three months after birth—come on you fuckin cowards. That makes as much sense as anything else these fuckheads believe.

[-] cahhts@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Not that I support these idiots but birthdays celebrate birth. There is a difference between conception and birth.

[-] Skwerls@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago

Really birthdays celebrate a change in age. We just call them birthdays because the 2 are the same thing.

[-] revelrous@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago

I think until this year(?) South Koreans traditionally did something like this. You were born starting at 1 year old to count for your time kicking in gestation. There's some groundwork for FL to follow.

[-] TheFriar@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

What the person below said. You don’t annually celebrate coming out of your moms vagina. You annually celebrate another year of your life and your age getting higher. If, like these idiots suggest they believe, life begins at conception, you would celebrate your age turning over three months after you were born. And maybe it’d have a different name, and you’d celebrate both the “birth day” and your “age day.” I remember hearing something about “name days” but I’m not sure what those are exactly.

[-] SSUPII@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

The Christian church has assigned the name of various saints to the calendar. A "name day" is when the current day is one where the assigned saint is the same as yours. We usually celebrate it in Italy.

Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_day

[-] Deadband@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Anyone conceived in the US should be an automatic citizen.

[-] TheFriar@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

Lol they’d love this one.

[-] Saneless@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Good point. I'm going to start celebrating my Conceived Day sometime in late February

Now, for that uncomfortable conversation with my parents to find out the actual date

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 35 points 1 year ago

Post birth abortions is what they call school shootings

[-] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Yes, but those are "legal" abortions because the mother isn't making the choice.

[-] frickineh@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

The odds of women being murdered by a partner already go up during pregnancy. I wonder how much higher it would be if this actually happened.

[-] Whiskey_iicarus@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

However, some were supportive of the plan. "He's almost onto something with that," one person wrote. "I've been saying if they insist that life starts at conception, men need to be paying child support at conception. Make the testing free. And demand back pay."

I can't tell if the writer is playing along with the joke or not. I read that to be quote not actually supportive of the plan, but pointing out the obvious conclusions to actually make this stupid idea work.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

I think Rhonda Santis should have the right to get an abortion if she wants to.

[-] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago

Have you heard the good word brothers? The word is vasectomy.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 10 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Ron DeSantis has been ridiculed after suggesting that one way to reduce abortions is to force men to pay child support from the moment of conception.

During an interview with DeSantis this week, Fox News' Kayleigh McEnany noted that Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has proposed legislation that would allow expectant mothers to receive child support payments while they are still pregnant.

Asked if that is something he would consider, DeSantis, who is polling in second in the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, said: "Most of these women do not want to have abortions, but they feel like they have no other options because they get no support and that's because a lot of these men are nowhere to be found."

DeSantis' remarks were met with criticism on social media, with some noting the proposal is unlikely to be popular with men and difficult to enforce.

"This is a great way to ensure that the Republicans never win a presidential election again," author Eric Mrozek wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter.

Chris Knight wrote that forcing men to pay child support from conception is actually "a nailed-on way to assure a massive spike in abortions."


The original article contains 558 words, the summary contains 198 words. Saved 65%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] Fapper_McFapper@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Proposed first by Marco Rubio and now DeSantis is hopping on the bandwagon.

It’s like the evil part of their brains took over the thinking part of their brains and now there’s no room for a cogent thought or argument.

Of course, my observation assumes they owned a thinking brain to begin with. Those are some slim odds.

[-] wahming@monyet.cc -1 points 1 year ago

To be honest, this is one take I could support. Absolutely nothing else in the R agenda, but maybe this. Although a better approach would just be UBI, which would cover the child's expenses

[-] Batmancer@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

That is what I thought too. I was laughing to myself thinking, one of the worst people I know just said something that I think I support. I also agree a UBI would be a much better solution. I can’t even imagine how I’d feel if Ron Desantis supported that. I’d probably think of Viktor Frankl, renowned psychologist and holocaust camp survivor, who said something like, (I’m going to paraphrase from memory) anyone can begin making responsible choices at any point in their life and begin to live a life of purpose. I try to carry that wishing no ill will and second chance mentality. Never too late for a terrible, greedy, and/or power hungry person to be a good person and use their efforts for good.

this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
252 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19170 readers
4560 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS