politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I think they'd gladly accept those changes. I agree that men should be financially responsible from the point of conception but the language of calling it "child support" is definitely intentional and nefarious. They want zygotes to be looked at socially and legally as people to legitimize total abortion bans and the harsh punishments that follow.
It also gives the father power over the mother. Just wait for: He pays for it, so he should have a say in whatever the mother does.
As though abortion bans don't incentivize rape already.
Why is this getting downvoted? He's absolutely right.
Rape is all about power and control. Forcing the woman to also carry the rapist's baby (or possibly even raise it) would be a trophy for the rapist. The fact that "that bitch now has to carry and pop out my kid, too!" is going to make rapists all sorts of giddy knowing that the US government is going to make sure that the victim suffers for at least 9 more months.
"Hey, I'm in jail, but that's my kid in your stomach. Do me a favor, and let me know if he has my eyes, OK?"
The level of mental torture that rapists would have on their victims would grow exponentially, and that alone is going to be a huge incentive for those who get off on having that kind of power over women.
Abortion bans absolutely do incentivize rape.
I find incentivizing rape a bit out there. Rape is a crime of violence usually perpetrated with no thought to whether or not their would be a child. This is more nefarious. It continues to erode women's self autonomy with the end goal to eventually reduce them to little more than breeding stock.
Forcing a woman to carry and deliver a child often forces them to remain dependent on their partner, thus increasing his control over her
If you scroll through incel forums or read the research papers regarding their communities this particular kind of rape and forced birth revenge is an outright fetish in those communities supported by a shameful amount of anime porn that services that particular fantasy.
Rendering women to breeding stock is definitely the more widespread concern but I am not sure calling it further insentive for rape is actually all that off base.
No, but forcing their victim to go through pregnancy would be an additional "bonus prize" that they could "win". We see this already in states that are still fucking retarded enough to say that a rapist has paternal rights. These people routinely use that power to further traumatize their victims by trying to assert those rights even from jail. They don't actually care about the kid -- the entire point is to either waste everybody's time with frivolous lawsuits because they have nothing better to do, or to continue the victimization because the twisted joy they get in making her life miserable gets them off (sometimes, literally).