Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
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
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.
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.
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.
I don't know if they want to hurt them, per se. I think they want to control them
Depends on the color of their skin.
Well, that's unfortunately true...
The party that actively fights to take away support to actual alive people are against this too? Shocker
It's the party of SmAlL gOvErNmEnt
Isn't banning things making the government bigger?
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.
Not that I support these idiots but birthdays celebrate birth. There is a difference between conception and birth.
Really birthdays celebrate a change in age. We just call them birthdays because the 2 are the same thing.
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.
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.
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
Anyone conceived in the US should be an automatic citizen.
Lol they’d love this one.
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
Post birth abortions is what they call school shootings
Yes, but those are "legal" abortions because the mother isn't making the choice.
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.
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.
I think Rhonda Santis should have the right to get an abortion if she wants to.
Have you heard the good word brothers? The word is vasectomy.
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!
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.
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
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.