They are trying to ridicule the Texas abortion bill. The difference is that the equivalent would be not to allow men to get vasectomies not force them to have one. It is one thing to force a medical procedure and a different thing to deny someone a medical procedure.
And there is also the small debate around the fetus being killed.
But Leftist think this is some kind of own.
The other difference is that men already have no legal reproductive rights, and have never had any reproductive rights. If you get a woman pregnant, she has total control of what happens next, but men sure as hell have legal responsibilities in the form of child support, which is commonly enforced even when the man cannot pay, resulting in prison time.
You'd think at some point thinking through "Hey, what would be the equivalent of men being unable to terminate a pregnancy?" they'd realize they already can't, and would avoid drawing attention to it, but I guess not.
The other difference is that men already have no legal reproductive rights, and have never had any reproductive rights.
This is the grand truth of it. If a pair get pregnant she can decide, without his consent, to kill the kid, and he'll never be the wiser if nobody tells him. If she decides to move away and have the kid, then give it up for adoption, he's shit out of luck if she doesn't name him as the father. If she decides to keep the kid, then he's on the hook for 18 years. His rights in regards to the unborn child? Jack shit. If she gets the right to try and kill the kid if she doesn't want it, then the least they could do is give the man the legal right to disown the bastard and sever all parental rights and responsibilities to it if he doesn't want it.
They are trying to ridicule the Texas abortion bill. The difference is that the equivalent would be not to allow men to get vasectomies not force them to have one. It is one thing to force a medical procedure and a different thing to deny someone a medical procedure.
And there is also the small debate around the fetus being killed. But Leftist think this is some kind of own.
The other difference is that men already have no legal reproductive rights, and have never had any reproductive rights. If you get a woman pregnant, she has total control of what happens next, but men sure as hell have legal responsibilities in the form of child support, which is commonly enforced even when the man cannot pay, resulting in prison time.
You'd think at some point thinking through "Hey, what would be the equivalent of men being unable to terminate a pregnancy?" they'd realize they already can't, and would avoid drawing attention to it, but I guess not.
This is the grand truth of it. If a pair get pregnant she can decide, without his consent, to kill the kid, and he'll never be the wiser if nobody tells him. If she decides to move away and have the kid, then give it up for adoption, he's shit out of luck if she doesn't name him as the father. If she decides to keep the kid, then he's on the hook for 18 years. His rights in regards to the unborn child? Jack shit. If she gets the right to try and kill the kid if she doesn't want it, then the least they could do is give the man the legal right to disown the bastard and sever all parental rights and responsibilities to it if he doesn't want it.
From personal experience, they don't realize this, and if you tell them men have no reproductive rights they just laugh and say you're crazy.
Women literally think men can decide to give up their parental rights to a child and not have to pay child support if they waive said rights lmao