They're putting themselves into an awkward position to have to accept that a fetus is a person and thus eligible to receive tax deductions, use the car pool lane, etc.
Republicans will do anything to avoid admitting they were wrong.
The closest you're going to get is when they stopped talking about W after it was clear he was a dangerous dipshit in over his head.
Now they won't even do that, since Trump is twice the dipshit and a hundred times more incompetent.
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.
Rape is a crime of violence usually perpetrated with no thought to whether or not their would be a child.
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).
They're also putting themselves into an awkward position because this impacts men. Reactionaries only want the bae things to happen to other people.
I want to see how this goes in court when people can't test paternity for months. You see it makes a decent headline but is neither applicable nor effective for government or citizens.
I want to know what happens in the event of a miscarriage. Is the man still on the line for child support?
Does life insurance have to pay out on miscarriage? Find ways to make rich people lose money with this and I'll bet you'll start finding solutions.
I'm pretty sure this is just another step to make miscarriages punishable. If they can wrangle zygote personhood they can make any abortion both illegal and murder. They can then try to punish any women who miscarry.
Kinda like that drunk driving child support law im Texas. Sounds wonderful until you realize said driver will be in jail and not making money
It wouldn't be much different from today.
Babies aren't tested the minute they're born. They get tested some time after birth and the father then owes the back child support. It would be the exact same thing, except the father would be on the hook for an extra 9 months of payments.
This is entirely meant to kickstart another conversation over fetal personhood.
A couple of people have said that they don't know what kind of pandora's box they'd be opening, as it would also allow things like pregnant women claiming their fetuses as dependents, along with other tax breaks. It means women being able to collect child support, etc.
And the GOP are going to say this too. They're going to tell you just how much you can expect to get if you continue the pregnancy. They're going to package this as their "devotion to doing whatever it takes to support women and their children as part of the right to life movement."
"Following through with pregnancy will entitle women to thousands of dollars in additonal tax breaks by being able to claim additional exemptions in their tax returns for the year they're pregnant, which can be used to support women who otherwise would not have had the funds available to buy everything she needs at this most critical time, leading to difficult choices that could have been avoided."
And they will hammer this home. Until they get fetal personhood established and abortion banned. The minute they get their way, watch how quickly these tax breaks get rescinded in the next GOP-controlled budget. Watch how quickly they try to sunset these tax breaks as quickly as possible by burying it on page 47, paragraph 4 of a routine must-pass bill that would otherwise have gotten no attention. Watch how quickly the next "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" is almost entirely funded by cutting off these benefits. Heck, half of me believes that not only would they rescind the tax breaks, they'll somehow make pregnant women pay it back retroactively.
If it's not this specific topic, it'll be something. The overall game plan is this:
Make whatever promises are necessary in order to get a national abortion bill passed without too much public blowback.
Get a national abortion bill passed.
Rescind or ignore the promises.
Sounds about right.
They'll support women and fetuses right up until birth then it's "I got mine fuck you" as they cackle about poor kids suffering.
Oh but we'll have the imaginary issue of "conception queens" who get pregnant in December and abort in January just to get tax breaks
They'll envision it as this widescale issue that doesn't actually exist
This will make dudes kill a lot of pregnant ladies.
With they then be charged with double-murder?
The fact that they'd get charged with two murders instead of one would mean exactly nothing. If life in prison without the possibility of parole isn't a deterrent for them, it won't matter if they kill one person, two, or a busload of nuns.
DeSantis is unfit for leadership for a plethora of reasons
While I agree that some dude who gets a female pregnant should chip in for prenatal expenses, I’m sure the intended consequence of this law is to mess with the status of the fetus in regards to abortion.
Does this include rapists? What about women who rape men or boys and they get pregnant, are those men/boys on the hook for child support too? With Republicans knee jerk reactions and blanket laws, then yes, probably.
Find me an American conservative that even believes women are capable of something they would call "rape" and I'll be shocked.
The courts would not know what to do with this. You need to either have verified paternity or be acting in a fatherly role to be on the hook for child support. You can't fulfill either conditions on conception.
Edit:
If paternity is contested, the biological father shall not be obligated to pay such expenses until paternity is established.
Essentially it requires amniotic fluid sampling to establish paternity, which presents a danger to the fetus and makes this bill toothless. Also theoretically allows awarding retroactively after paternity is established. I'm not totally against it frankly, prenatal care is vital and expensive. I'd rather the state just pay for it though and the wording obviously needs to be thrown out.
The courts would not know what to do with this. You need to either have verified paternity or be acting in a fatherly role to be on the hook for child support. You can’t fulfill either conditions on conception.
They could just establish paternity post-birth and force the father to pay retroactively. That's pretty much what already happens now. Only difference is that the dad would just be on the hook for an additional 9 months in back child support, most of which will likely go uncollected.
Wtf. They simultaneously want to stop population decline by having more babies, but are creating the atmosphere where no one will have sex. This is Handmaid’s Tale logic.
The idea is everyone gets married at twenty. You can't just not have a sex drive. But you must use it as they wish.
Prom night just keeps getting more expensive.
Dear republican traitors: come get your boy, he's drunk in public
I say desantis’ mom should have a retroactive abortion.
It’s so easily it seems, to pass laws for people you have nothing in common with.
DeSantis says a lot of really stupid shit. This is no different.
I mean, at least the guy is consistent in his shitfuckery.
Isn’t this the dude who was given a bronze star for participating at guantanamo? Like he didn’t even do anything, they just gave it to him because he has no self esteem and is a just a bitch ass loser?
Edit: not complaining at all, downvotes are an important part of user content moderation. Just curious what I’ve done here that people don’t like? Is there something against ChatGPT? Is it my use of the term “shitty website” (which I’m just re-using from OP)?
Original:
In case you don’t want to visit said shitty website, here’s a ChatGPT summary:
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a potential 2024 GOP presidential candidate, has stated that he believes fathers should be responsible for child support from the moment of conception. He expressed this view during an interview with Fox News, emphasizing the importance of supporting women who choose not to have abortions due to lack of support from fathers. He mentioned legislation in Florida that aims to encourage fathers to pay child support and highlighted expanded postpartum medical care and adoption options. However, DeSantis' comments sparked backlash on social media, with concerns about enforcement challenges and the adequacy of support for victims of rape or incest. This discussion occurs amid a reversal in the long-term decline in abortion rates following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade protections. Most Americans support legal access to abortion to some degree, and many disagree with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health decision by the conservative-leaning Supreme Court.
They're putting themselves into an awkward position to have to accept that a fetus is a person and thus eligible to receive tax deductions, use the car pool lane, etc.
Republicans will do anything to avoid admitting they were wrong.
The closest you're going to get is when they stopped talking about W after it was clear he was a dangerous dipshit in over his head.
Now they won't even do that, since Trump is twice the dipshit and a hundred times more incompetent.
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).
They're also putting themselves into an awkward position because this impacts men. Reactionaries only want the bae things to happen to other people.
I want to see how this goes in court when people can't test paternity for months. You see it makes a decent headline but is neither applicable nor effective for government or citizens.
I want to know what happens in the event of a miscarriage. Is the man still on the line for child support?
Does life insurance have to pay out on miscarriage? Find ways to make rich people lose money with this and I'll bet you'll start finding solutions.
I'm pretty sure this is just another step to make miscarriages punishable. If they can wrangle zygote personhood they can make any abortion both illegal and murder. They can then try to punish any women who miscarry.
Kinda like that drunk driving child support law im Texas. Sounds wonderful until you realize said driver will be in jail and not making money
It wouldn't be much different from today.
Babies aren't tested the minute they're born. They get tested some time after birth and the father then owes the back child support. It would be the exact same thing, except the father would be on the hook for an extra 9 months of payments.
This is entirely meant to kickstart another conversation over fetal personhood.
A couple of people have said that they don't know what kind of pandora's box they'd be opening, as it would also allow things like pregnant women claiming their fetuses as dependents, along with other tax breaks. It means women being able to collect child support, etc.
And the GOP are going to say this too. They're going to tell you just how much you can expect to get if you continue the pregnancy. They're going to package this as their "devotion to doing whatever it takes to support women and their children as part of the right to life movement."
"Following through with pregnancy will entitle women to thousands of dollars in additonal tax breaks by being able to claim additional exemptions in their tax returns for the year they're pregnant, which can be used to support women who otherwise would not have had the funds available to buy everything she needs at this most critical time, leading to difficult choices that could have been avoided."
And they will hammer this home. Until they get fetal personhood established and abortion banned. The minute they get their way, watch how quickly these tax breaks get rescinded in the next GOP-controlled budget. Watch how quickly they try to sunset these tax breaks as quickly as possible by burying it on page 47, paragraph 4 of a routine must-pass bill that would otherwise have gotten no attention. Watch how quickly the next "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" is almost entirely funded by cutting off these benefits. Heck, half of me believes that not only would they rescind the tax breaks, they'll somehow make pregnant women pay it back retroactively.
If it's not this specific topic, it'll be something. The overall game plan is this:
Sounds about right.
They'll support women and fetuses right up until birth then it's "I got mine fuck you" as they cackle about poor kids suffering.
Oh but we'll have the imaginary issue of "conception queens" who get pregnant in December and abort in January just to get tax breaks
They'll envision it as this widescale issue that doesn't actually exist
This will not have the effect you think it does.
This will make dudes kill a lot of pregnant ladies.
With they then be charged with double-murder?
The fact that they'd get charged with two murders instead of one would mean exactly nothing. If life in prison without the possibility of parole isn't a deterrent for them, it won't matter if they kill one person, two, or a busload of nuns.
DeSantis is unfit for leadership for a plethora of reasons
While I agree that some dude who gets a female pregnant should chip in for prenatal expenses, I’m sure the intended consequence of this law is to mess with the status of the fetus in regards to abortion.
Female, good grief
Too sterile?
Would you prefer “chick”?
Baby momma?
How about "woman".
Does this include rapists? What about women who rape men or boys and they get pregnant, are those men/boys on the hook for child support too? With Republicans knee jerk reactions and blanket laws, then yes, probably.
Find me an American conservative that even believes women are capable of something they would call "rape" and I'll be shocked.
The courts would not know what to do with this. You need to either have verified paternity or be acting in a fatherly role to be on the hook for child support. You can't fulfill either conditions on conception.
Edit:
Essentially it requires amniotic fluid sampling to establish paternity, which presents a danger to the fetus and makes this bill toothless. Also theoretically allows awarding retroactively after paternity is established. I'm not totally against it frankly, prenatal care is vital and expensive. I'd rather the state just pay for it though and the wording obviously needs to be thrown out.
They could just establish paternity post-birth and force the father to pay retroactively. That's pretty much what already happens now. Only difference is that the dad would just be on the hook for an additional 9 months in back child support, most of which will likely go uncollected.
Wtf. They simultaneously want to stop population decline by having more babies, but are creating the atmosphere where no one will have sex. This is Handmaid’s Tale logic.
The idea is everyone gets married at twenty. You can't just not have a sex drive. But you must use it as they wish.
Prom night just keeps getting more expensive.
Dear republican traitors: come get your boy, he's drunk in public
I say desantis’ mom should have a retroactive abortion.
It’s so easily it seems, to pass laws for people you have nothing in common with.
DeSantis says a lot of really stupid shit. This is no different.
I mean, at least the guy is consistent in his shitfuckery.
Isn’t this the dude who was given a bronze star for participating at guantanamo? Like he didn’t even do anything, they just gave it to him because he has no self esteem and is a just a bitch ass loser?
Edit: not complaining at all, downvotes are an important part of user content moderation. Just curious what I’ve done here that people don’t like? Is there something against ChatGPT? Is it my use of the term “shitty website” (which I’m just re-using from OP)?
Original:
In case you don’t want to visit said shitty website, here’s a ChatGPT summary: