First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
HuffPost Headline says "In Arkansas, Women Will Need Permission From Men To Get Abortions"
3496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / Seoul, South Korea
Offline
Posted 7/13/17 , edited 7/14/17
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/in-arkansas-women-now-need-permission-from-men-to-get-abortions_us_59637d02e4b02e9bdb0e17bb

Do you think this law is good and fair? Well, despite being objectively fair and logical on paper, people(mostly women) have had a largely negative response to it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/childfree/comments/6mtfq9/state_requires_mens_permission_for_abortion_news/

Even comments that are sound logically and have no holes in their arguments gets bombed with dislikes and/or deleted(again, likely from women).

Strange that no one got around to posting this topic, it's about two days old. But what do you guys think?

Is this law somehow anti woman or do you think it is fine? Perhaps you would achieve equality through a different route?
16175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 7/13/17 , edited 7/14/17
From what I can tell, it's not a bill requiring permission to get abortions, it requires both parents to have a say in what to do with the remains. In practice, it would potentially make things more difficult, but it doesn't seem to be quite what you are implying.
49947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / New Jersey, USA
Offline
Posted 7/13/17 , edited 7/14/17
They need permission from their husbands to get an abortion? I mean I can understand if they had an agreement or disagreement on whether or not they wanted to get an abortion. But permission seems a bit odd to me not sure why though.
24100 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / In
Offline
Posted 7/13/17 , edited 7/14/17
You all are so afraid of Muslims bringing in sharia law that you been blind to fact that the Talinbangelicals have been pushing their own forum of it for years
Posted 7/13/17 , edited 7/14/17

sundin13 wrote:

From what I can tell, it's not a bill requiring permission to get abortions, it requires both parents to have a say in what to do with the remains. In practice, it would potentially make things more difficult, but it doesn't seem to be quite what you are implying.


That's because it's Huffington Post. They're one of the master shitposters of news in the modern day era. For a "direct to source" understanding as to why people are kind of in an "uproar" - check this out (it's the amendments that they want to add to the pre-existing law that focuses on what to do with the remains of a deceased person - the amendments add more stipulations that are regarding human tissue that comes from abortions).

But, needless to say, it doesn't necessarily imply that you will need the father's consent to actually have an abortion. It just makes it a little trickier because of the legalese to discard of the "human tissue" without the consent of the mother of (not and) the spouse of the mother. This doesn't really cover those situations where the father of the child isn't the same as the spouse of the mother of the child (this doesn't cover children out of wedlock).

This bill actually does two things (neither of which force the mother to get the permission of the father to have an abortion):

1. Prohibits research on human tissue that was the result of an abortion.
2. Ensures that human tissue that came from the result of an abortion are disposed of in accordance with Arkansas Code § 20-17-102 (also known as "Arkansas Final Disposition Rights Act of 2009").

That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. It also means that anyone that performs abortions must be medically equipped to dispose of the human tissue in accordance with the aforementioned Act. This is the real "cause for alarm" in the liberal ecosystem. Why? Because it makes accessibility to abortion clinics a bit more difficult. Not all abortion clinics will be equipped to dispose of the human tissue in accordance with Arkansas Code. North Carolina is notorious for adding in these odd stipulations that make it difficult for an abortion clinic to exist (like changing the "mandatory size of a janitor's closet" in order to be legally able to perform abortions).

In other words, people need to learn how to read.
3496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / Seoul, South Korea
Offline
Posted 7/13/17 , edited 7/14/17

ninjitsuko wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

From what I can tell, it's not a bill requiring permission to get abortions, it requires both parents to have a say in what to do with the remains. In practice, it would potentially make things more difficult, but it doesn't seem to be quite what you are implying.


That's because it's Huffington Post. They're one of the master shitposters of news in the modern day era. For a "direct to source" understanding as to why people are kind of in an "uproar" - check this out (it's the amendments that they want to add to the pre-existing law that focuses on what to do with the remains of a deceased person - the amendments add more stipulations that are regarding human tissue that comes from abortions).

But, needless to say, it doesn't necessarily imply that you will need the father's consent to actually have an abortion. It just makes it a little trickier because of the legalese to discard of the "human tissue" without the consent of the mother of (not and) the spouse of the mother. This doesn't really cover those situations where the father of the child isn't the same as the spouse of the mother of the child (this doesn't cover children out of wedlock).

This bill actually does two things (neither of which force the mother to get the permission of the father to have an abortion):

1. Prohibits research on human tissue that was the result of an abortion.
2. Ensures that human tissue that came from the result of an abortion are disposed of in accordance with Arkansas Code § 20-17-102 (also known as "Arkansas Final Disposition Rights Act of 2009").

That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. It also means that anyone that performs abortions must be medically equipped to dispose of the human tissue in accordance with the aforementioned Act. This is the real "cause for alarm" in the liberal ecosystem. Why? Because it makes accessibility to abortion clinics a bit more difficult. Not all abortion clinics will be equipped to dispose of the human tissue in accordance with Arkansas Code. North Carolina is notorious for adding in these odd stipulations that make it difficult for an abortion clinic to exist (like changing the "mandatory size of a janitor's closet" in order to be legally able to perform abortions).

In other words, people need to learn how to read.


The hell? Why did this quote ping me?
13943 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 7/13/17 , edited 7/14/17
Well I don't see anything wrong with needing consent from both the man and woman of the baby that is going to be aborted, but only the man having a say in whether or not an abortion will happen is not right.
Posted 7/13/17 , edited 7/14/17

Magical-Soul wrote:
The hell? Why did this quote ping me?


Who knows? The notification system for quotes is a bit wonky on Crunchyroll. I did ping you on the other thread about r/The_Donald - just not here. Probably got a few crosshairs confused somewhere when sending the notification?
21375 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / SoFlo
Offline
Posted 7/13/17 , edited 7/14/17
Oh yeah. I see this going well.
558 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/13/17 , edited 7/14/17
So basically the new law requires human remains to be treated as human remains where ever they come from. <sarc> Yep, pure evil, </sarc>
Posted 7/13/17 , edited 7/14/17

Tyrconnell wrote:

So basically the new law requires human remains to be treated as human remains where ever they come from. <sarc> Yep, pure evil, </sarc>


Yeah, it's clear that some people just don't read these things themselves.
Admittedly, it does make access to abortion clinics slightly more difficult. That's the only genuine issue that stems from this and abortions. It has absolutely nothing about forcing the mother to have the father's permission for an abortion.
16175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 7/13/17 , edited 7/13/17

ninjitsuko wrote:


Tyrconnell wrote:

So basically the new law requires human remains to be treated as human remains where ever they come from. <sarc> Yep, pure evil, </sarc>


Yeah, it's clear that some people just don't read these things themselves.
Admittedly, it does make access to abortion clinics slightly more difficult. That's the only genuine issue that stems from this and abortions. It has absolutely nothing about forcing the mother to have the father's permission for an abortion.


I'd be curious to see how such a thing would be enforced. Does the clinic have to keep the fetus on hand until they are able to get in contact with the father to get consent for disposal? It seems like as a law, it simply wouldn't really work in cases with absent or unknown fathers. Some concessions for such cases should be written into the law.
12147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 7/13/17 , edited 7/13/17
The hell kinda sense does that make? If the man was gonna go through all the same stuff the woman goes through during a pregnancy, then I could understand this but as it is it just seems like outright sexism.
3496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / Seoul, South Korea
Offline
Posted 7/13/17 , edited 7/13/17

octorockandroll wrote:

The hell kinda sense does that make? If the man was gonna go through all the same stuff the woman goes through during a pregnancy, then I could understand this but as it is it just seems like outright sexism.


Assuming the woman needed a man's permission to get an abortion.

How would this be "sexism"?
6638 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/13/17 , edited 7/13/17
im of the opinion that the father should at least be informed under most situations with the main exception being rape but i think the mother should have more say on weather to have one or not
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.