UNDENIABLE proof that Republicans care more about unborn feotuses than actual living **** and their moms

[Johan]

West Virginia Republican wants to ban ***** support because he thinks it'll incentivize abortions​

Chris Pritt owns his own law practice, Pritt Law, where he specializes in divorce, custody arguments and ***** support. But standing before the state legislature in West Virginia, his argument was a linguistic pretzel to justify eliminating all ***** support for the parent who gets custody of a *****.


According to Pritt, there are fathers who don't want to be involved in the lives of their *****ren.

"If she carries through with the pregnancy, he's going to have, possibly, some sort of ***** support obligation," said Pritt. "And, so, what he wants to do is, he wants to — in a sense — encourage her to go and find a way for her to get an abortion. Because he knows that a certain individual — if he has any kind if familiarity with her, he knows that she might be of such a state of mind, she must be in such a vulnerable position that it's not worth everything that he's going to put me through to carry this pregnancy forward. It's going to be easier, it's going to be better, for me to just go and terminate this 'life.' So she goes over to Virginia or to some other state where she goes and gets the abortion. So, I think that's a really clear possibility if we enact the Second Amendment here, I don't want to be doing anything that is encouraging thugs to go and get an abortion."

Parents fighting to not get ***** support for the ***** they're raising isn't something that happens. Single parents are generally cash strapped and any opportunity to ensure the other parent helps is important.
Having financial support is typically more of an incentive to have a *****, as the number one reason women give for getting an abortion is financial.

https://www.rawstory.com/west-virginia-republican-abortion/


So, according to Pritt, ***** Support leads to abortion because some assholes who don't wanna face the responsability of their sexual behavior might ask their sexual partner to get an abortion to avoid having ot pay them ***** Support.
A common argument used by anti-abortion folks is that women should bare the consequences of their sexual behavior but that kind of individual responsability only applies to women. When it comes to the sexual behavior of men, women should be the one faces the consequences, they are the ones who should be ****** to raise a ***** they didn't wanted and they should do so without any help from the ******.
Life may arguably begins at conception but one thing 100% unarguable : it takes two a man and a woman, a spermatozoon and and ovum to from a embryo. So if, as anti-abortion folks say, banning abortion is not about controlling women's body, controlling women's sexuality, why would they try to deny women financial support from the guy who participated to the creation of the embryo ? And how would you pretend not to lose any interested in a ***** one his born if you deny his ****** any support from the ******, if you allow men to basically say to the woman who beared and raises their ***** "No, that ***** is hers, not mine, I don't wanna have anything to do with him. I fucked her, end of story"

Also, why did meant when he said "if we enact the Second Amendment here" ?

 

[gmase]

https://www.rawstory.com/west-virginia-republican-abortion/

Also, why did meant when he said "if we enact the Second Amendment here" ?

Based on the rest of his comments, I doubt he knew what he meant.

He does try to clarify his other comments:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1553800881295998980

 

[John_8581]

Time for a musical interlude!