656
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
656 points (98.2% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2282 users here now
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. 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.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I was up in Ohio this weekend and saw signs saying "Vote NO on Issue 1. Protect Children. Protect Parent's Rights." Like, the lie about "protecting children" I get, but how the fuck can you spin abortion access as restricting parents' rights?
For decades now, they've claimed that legal abortions will lead to forced abortions.
"They're trying to do genocide and eugenics!" they loudly proclaimed, readying their own plans for genocide and eugenics.
But don't you see? They only want to genocide the others!
Ah yes, the conservative's belief in the all-important man's right to do whatever the fuck he wants. How could I have forgotten that?
Seems like a cookie-cutter argument that can be used against legalizing almost anything. People who argue in bad faith must love it.
I've been seeing this too in Ohio, they've been using deceiving wording on the issue 1 campaign signs with the goal of confusing voters. When we looked up the issues ourselves online we quickly realized that those who support the right to choose should be voting yes. I fail to see how forcing mothers to give birth to a stillborn fetus is "protecting parent's rights".
Their tactics are getting old, man.
It would allow children to have abortions against their parents will. No seriously that’s it. Like I for one think that you don’t get a say in if your kid has an abortion if they don’t want you to because they’re old enough to have gotten into this mess
So it's more like "grandparents' rights" without having to admit that they screwed up somewhere along the way that lead to them being grandparents in the first place.
It’s always about the edge cases, rather than the common ones.
I certainly expect a say over my 12 year old’s healthcare: they didn’t have a clue at that age. If I had a 12 year old girl and a Republican got her pregnant, damn right I’d do what I could to save her future (assuming I was not in jail).
However, a more typical case is those 16-18 year olds growing up too fast, and yes, being in that situation is a fast track to adulthood and difficult questions that are entirely that person’s business
Should still be that child's option, not the parent
I've seen some anti choice people frame it as a father's right to have their child exist. Which if you squint and don't think about it too hard kind of makes half a point. Sucks to be in that situation and can feel some sympathy, but doesn't rise to the level of justifying using someone's body/ making medical decisions for them without their consent though. Not agreeing with the stance of course, but that's the only framing I can think of that's not "just lying on purpose"
Yeah like I sympathize with people in that position until they try to ban abortion or feel they should have a legal say in whether or not someone else remains pregnant.
In this case though, I think it is still lying on purpose. This situation still happens with similar regularity because having an abortion when your partner wants to keep it isn’t something often done lightly. More of a common scenario now is men whose partner and them both want an abortion, but the risk or cost of pursuing it is too high so they’re stuck with a kid neither wanted.
That "right" (which doesn't even exist) does not override someone else's right to bodily autonomy.
The argument is that a minor could make reproductive issues for themselves without a parent present or knowing. That's where they're drawing the "parents rights" from. It would reach into STD care too, for instance. Where the bill lacks a little of logic is that someone's gotta pay for the care, and that's usually a parent.
E: I see it also mentioned another point is that the father could lose his say as well.
Don't take my comment as though I'm taking a side, I wondered the exact same thing and looked up why it was stated that way.
Shouldn't it be more accurately phrased as "Grandparent's rights" then? 🤣
That doesn’t mean you get details. My elder kid recently turned 18 and is in college. I have to pay all medical bills and all college bills but don’t see any details except who to pay. I have to say it’s a bit of a shock from a few months ago
Did the detail (Explanation of Benefit or whatever) stop on their 18th then?
Yes. For me the biggest issue is college paperwork. I not only can no longer see his grades, for which I’m paying, but I can’t see online paperwork for student loans or other financial aid, which is helping me pay, and I don’t get paperwork notifications, to help make sure he meets all those paperwork requirements
I was wondering the same thing until I saw a YouTube ad from Mike DeWine (Governor of Ohio) urging people to vote no. Apparently, if your kid gets pregnant, and wants or needs an abortion, you as their parent, cannot object or prevent that. It's totally backwards though, if abortion is illegal, then you have no choice, and no right to help your child avoid the pain and trauma of carrying an unwanted or risky pregnancy to term.