Be more like sea horses, you mean?
I’d totally be down for that, if it were possible.
But of course, if males were capable of carrying babies to term, we wouldn’t even be having these discussions about abortion in the first place.
21 Likes
I’m so pissed off right now I can’t even.
23 Likes
I hope this dude gets raked over non proverbial coals for this unwise comment.
10 Likes
Doesn’t seem like someone with an unsurmountable majority.
https://ballotpedia.org/Justin_JJ_Humphrey
The guy he replaced was a Democrat.
10 Likes
You know what they say: better to be pissed off than pissed on, although the latter is exactly what Oklahoma Rep. Justin Humphrey seems intent on doing to women. Metaphorically, of course. I’m not going to judge what he and other consenting adults may do in private.
3 Likes
Holy crap! An Axlotl Tank bill! Dune, here we come!
9 Likes
Term ends
November 15, 2018
There needs to be a ‘Career Kill List’ in place for upcoming midterm elections, if there isn’t already.
If there is is, then this guy’s dumb name needs to be on it.
(Seriously; “JJ” as a middle name? Who does that?)
12 Likes
I have to say, I agree with the statement that the father should be involved with the decision, but that is entirely dependent on the circumstances on which the pregnancy took place.
I would argue that in any healthy relationship in which the woman is seeking an abortion, it is safe to assume the father is in agreement already as it was most likely a joint decision to being with. I know that is an assumption on my part, but it just feels like it would be the case.
He is obviously a loon, and his religious values are coming into play in regards to societal policy/law. Why can’t the rapture happen and take people like this away?
5 Likes
Thing is, we will be at that point in the none-too-distant future. And things are going to get very interesting then; when technology exists to sustain an embryo outside of the mother’s body, the foundation of Roe v Wade starts to crumble, both in the case of men electing to be responsible for gestation, and in the case of the state asserting an interest in seeing the fetus to term. Those will be interesting times, indeed.
8 Likes
A little off topic, but I was listening to NPR the other day when the next piece up was going to be about talking with Trump supporters in Montana and I thought, ok, I’m ready for this. I’ll go outside of my bubble and I will let these people explain their point of view and I will consider it rationally. But then this preacher started in about how we had to keep Muslims out of the country so that they would stay away from “our women” and I just yelled FUCK!! and turned it off.
17 Likes
Do you think the state has an interest in seeing a fetus to term? And can it be constitutional to force a person to cede their genetic material?
Edit: And do you imagine that men will actually be gestating with their bodies?
2 Likes
Actually, I think they are saying “Osama bin Laden, you succeeded far beyond our wildest dreams! Praise Allah!”
2 Likes
cough cough
AHEM
30 Likes
I think this will not be plausible just yet, and i can imagine when it is doable it’ll be affordable to a select few. So the concern of choice of one’s body would still very much continue to be a thing.
2 Likes
Ignorant and arrogant. Dangerous combination.
3 Likes
I’m sure it wouldn’t be the first time he’s been pumped full of semen.
1 Like
Suggested amendment:
Men wishing to exert such status on Hosts must be prepared to pay 18yrs support dollars and time for the child and 9 months full support dollars for the Host - amounts as determined by the Host, up front.
Otherwise we suggest next time they go fuck themselves.
12 Likes
Roe v Wade established a state interest in the life of the fetus and the health of the mother. Those interests do not become “compelling” until after the first trimester, in part because of the fetus’s inability to survive outside the mother’s body.
As to the question of whether a person could be forced to “cede their genetic material” I imagine they probably could; if both parents had expressed a desire to no longer continue the pregnancy, but the technological capability existed to continue the pregnancy without either of their support, I think it’s possible (depending on who is on the Supreme Court) that the fetus could be taken away from the parents and brought to term by the state. And they’d likely be able to charge the parents child support as well!
This is all speculative, of course. Nobody knows if this technology will exist or whether the law would be created or the courts would allow such a system. But if the laws applied to fathers now were applied to mothers in the future as well, I think that’s pretty much what we’d end up with.
1 Like
Also: they must be prepared to pay any and all medical expenses, in full (without the help of any insurance the woman pays for), and set aside a full fund to handle expenses for any medical complications that might occur…
4 Likes
Our generation should remember that it was after YouTube was founded that women got the right to vote on some things in Saudi Arabia.
There isn’t any correlation, but YouTube is 12 years old - TODAY.
hang on, wrong link, brb.
better link:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/13/world/first-women-elected-to-office-in-saudi-arabia/
5 Likes
