data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a4c9d/a4c9db6983a6f4bd9bb714c0af75865cb73edfce" alt="Avatar"
ofriceandruin [none/use name]
“She” gets to face the consequences: pregnancy. “She” now has to terminate it or carry it to term and decide whether to keep it or give it up for adoption. Those are the consequences.
Precisely, so let her decide. And let the “man” decide if he wants to support a child. If not, let the state intervene and provide child support. As I’ve stated elsewhere in this thread, why is it that people go all in on Medicare for All, free college, and all that jazz, but when it comes to universal child support, they suddenly become these austerity hawks and start using borderline gender essentialist shit to say “well the man should pay.” Here is how I feel about that: https://pasteboard.co/JDHZ3v3.jpg)
Abortions, just like giving birth, can be unpleasant and traumatizing.
This reminds me of the shaming rhetoric used in the 90s about abortions being “safe, legal and rare” (https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-48-shifting-media-representations-of-abortion-part-i).
Sure, but why is this rhetoric all good when it comes to things like “defund the police” or “tax the 1%” or “medicare for all” but then people turn into big time austerity Biden libs when I suggest universal child support? It strikes me that there’s something deeper going on.