Someone said that they don’t think that this law will stop people from having abortions, but ANY law that makes abortions worse than a minor inconvenience to constant pre-marital sexual intercourse and makes people, both men and women, face the real consequences will prevent abortions. This isn’t Bob-and-Jane fun and games… this is a real child’s life! And if Bob gets thrown in jail for trying to end that child’s life, it’ll be a far safer place for him than that child is in.

Or maybe I’m just way to drunk to be thinking about this.

The key legal concept here is “attempt to pressure…” (i.e. coerce).

Note that this does not require that any actual “pressure” or coercion has taken place.

(Just as in DV law, no actual violence needs to occur for a man to be arrested and convicted.)

Within our current feminist legal hall of mirrors injustice system, what do you think the “standard of proof” will be?

It will be merely the woman’s “subjective experience” of feeling that she’s being coerced. (”He gave me a brochure from our local Planned Parenthood clinic and said I needed to read it…”)

If a man even suggested to his female partner, let’s say she’s pregnant by her ex-boyfriend, that he wants them to consider an abortion — because that might be the best way to preserve their relationship — IMMEDIATELY under this law he is guilty of COERCION!

And his is not guity of any actual act, but merely guilty of the SUSPICION of the intent to commit a crime in the future … in other words — every man is guilty, a priori.

Logically — it is no longer safe to cohabit with women, period.

The only solution for this feminist racketeering scheme is totally reliable male birth control.
Until then, producing sperm means you’re at risk of extortion 24 x 7.

If I understand the law correctly, apparently a man in order to be prosecuted would have to do one or more of three illegal acts:

1) move or attempt to move out himself or move her out of their shared home
2) attempt to file or file for divorce
3) attempt to withhold financial support

Crime #1 could be just reading the classified ads for apartments for rent.

Crime # 2 could be having lunch with a friend who is an attorney in a Family Law firm.

Crime # 3 could be losing your job.

AND – any/all of these acts or “attempts to act” would have to be proved to be about directly seeking to “pressure” her into terminating her pregnancy, right?

I think I understand the motive behind those passing this law.

This law was passed by anti-choice activists who want to make abortion more difficult, and they are using the threatened prosecution of men to realize their anti-abortion objectives.

It is not about men’s right at all.

Men are pawns in the scheme this law has created.

As usual, more bank for Family Court lawyers.

Does it never dawn on these idiots to make men equal to women in the first place, as The Constituion demands, or are they hell-bent on destroying the fabric of society and making only the dumbest of men willing to undergo even the slightest risk that they will procreate. Eventually, we’re heading to where it will only make sense NOT to abort a child if its a girl. Who wants a slave child when they could have a queen bee.

Think on this you dim-witted feminazis in the Michigan legislature: Stop trying to cover for the fact that you’ve broken the law to make female “choice” as an excuse for murder, and you won’t have to keep ruining more people’s lives with police state control in a failed attempt to make female superiority workable.

But I have to say this law doesn’t seem to save any unborn baby’s life. The mother either gets on that medical table, spreads herself open for the abortionist to do his work, or she doesn’t. Now she may feel pressure, but that’s not the same thing as being forced.

This is all backwards. Men are usually condemned by ideological feminists as abusers, or abusers in waiting. The domestic violence courts routinely grant restraining orders on the flimsiest of evidence, all to force the breakup of a family or a couple. If the man is being abusive, the answer is always to effect a separation so that the “victim” can leave her “abuser.” Why now is there the emphasis for the abuser to stay with the victim?

The answer is that it’s all about the money. The woman can claim victim status in a breakup, and extort money through alimony payments. But this is often only temporary, commensurate with the length of the marriage or cohabiting relationship. But when kids are involved, the woman has got herself a gravy train of continuous revenue if a breakup occurs and she gets custody. Child support for 18 years — and perhaps longer — all without the requirement that the money be shown to have been spent on the child. It’s a money transfer, pure and simple.

But if there are no children in the picture yet, the woman’s prospects for such a financial gravy train are comparatively dim. Which is why we’re now moving beyond child support to pregnancy support. And like Glenn and Jeff wrote, it’s possible that the pregnancy could be the result of an adulterous affair. Once the baby is born, if it is born within the bounds of marriage, some states consider the baby to be a product of the marriage even if the husband did not father the baby. It will then be his responsibility to raise that child, and to support it (i.e. support the mother) with child support in the event of a breakup.

Don’t get me wrong, I really do hate abortion. It is a brutal and violent act against a true victim who has no choices at all. It is the violence that the feminist movement has embraced, while the same movement purports to stand against violence.

I wish the proponents of this bill would see the true agenda. Even I, an opponent of abortion, can see right through the ruse. I hope calmer heads win the day.

John Dias