Proposed Bill Would Require Ohio Women To Get Permission From Man To Get Abortion
By Logan Murphy Wednesday Aug 01, 2007 11:50amVia Feministing:
Oh this is rich. A group of legislators in Ohio are pushing a bill that would give men a say in whether or not a woman can have an abortion.
"This is important because there are always two parents and fathers should have a say in the birth or the destruction of that child," said [Rep. John] Adams, a Republican from Sidney. "I didn't bring it up to draw attention to myself or to be controversial. In most cases, when a child is born the father has financial responsibility for that child, so he should have a say." As written, the bill would ban women from seeking an abortion without written consent from the father of the fetus. In cases where the identity of the father is unknown, women would be required to submit a list of possible fathers. The physician would be forced to conduct a paternity test from the provided list and then seek paternal permission to abort.
Written notes? Submitting a list of potential fathers? Sometimes I think that anti-choice folks forget that women are, you know, adults. Read more...
Login or Register to post comments.
It's only a matter a time before the reich-wing makes male masturbation illegal.
Ahh. Red-State Fascism at its best!
Republicans hate abortion; no new customers to sell bad loans, liquor, and prozac to... Like the slaves of yester year, american women don't want to give birth to new slaves.. and the slave masters are having none of it.. 'jump down turn around pick a bail of cotton...'
Will a man have to get a woman's approval before he can whack off?
So if a man can prohibit an abortion why can't he also insist the woman have one?
Solution -- Just turn her in to Homeland Security and tell them she is a suspected terrorist. They will torture her in Gitmo and with a little luck, Voila! -- Miscarriage! -- See our government isnt that worthless. Some good can come out of all this.
"It’s only a matter a time before the reich-wing makes male masturbation illegal."
-It's illegal to do in prison in FLA
Yeah but come on.. they are adults, SOME. (many are teens) But...
Are you saying the woman has all the rights in the world to take away a fathers child? To kill that fathers child? Women should have the right to choose but why can't men have some sort of say? Why can't they be protected under the law too?
Bwahaha! That's a good one. No, really funny. What? It's not a joke? WTF!?!
Ohio women must demand that their male sex partners sign releases before having sex.
When did women go back to being chattle again?
So if a woman uses the Republican court mantra: "I Can't Recall" in front of the court, will the court throw the pregnant woman in jail?
Tim @ 5:
My question exactly, especially given that the argument for this travesty is that the father has a financial obligation to the child. Good grief.
"Sometimes I think that anti-choice folks forget that women are, you know, adults"
No, they haven't forgotten anything. They don't accept woman as fully human, you know, Adam's Rib and all that crap. Chattel. "And the officer is just doing his job"...They are taking us backwards at a breakneck pace and if this kind of crap doesn't prove that they are fucking crazy, nothing will...
How nice for these republinuts to offer more laws that enter our homes and bedrooms!! "We need a Theocracy 2008" that could be a great GOP bumper sticker this campaign cycle.
How many times are we gonna hear some mouth breathing GOP goon say they believe in smaller government in the next year or so? Hypocrisy has a very well known regressive wingnut bias.
"[Rep. John] Adams, a Republican from Sidney" next on the republic sex scandal list.
Any guesses on what his particular sexual hang-up is?
Rusty Shackleford @ 4:
If you are married or live with a woman, it's already like that. :)
a list of possible fathers?
now, beacons of integrity (ohio state leg), what if the rapist doesn't give permission? or what if the father is also the grandfather? ohio, phhpt...
so glad i moved out of ohio, i'll never go back.
Ayatollah Adams has spoken
Dr. Matt @ 1:
"You can take my 'gun' from my cold, dead hand!!!"
If a woman needs the father's permission to have an abortion then shouldn't the reverse also be true: she needs his permission to bring the fetus to term? If the father can compel her *not* to have an abortion, then he should also have the right to compel her to have an abortion. Of course, that's absurd.
It's even worse with questions of parental rights and abortion: the right wants parents to have the power to prevent their daughters from having abortions. But by the same logic shouldn't parents have the power to compel their daughters to have an abortion? But you won't see the right make that "parental rights" argument.
It's totally time for science to figure out how to make the men have the babies. This is getting ridiculous and until they have to go through the process they shouldn't have the right to make women do it, especially if they don't want to. Sick sick sick.
This country is a pathetic joke. What year is this....1750???
Just another reason to hate the armpit of the nation known as Ohio.
I especially like the idea of doing a paternity test on the fetus before the abortion. Hey you numbskulls thats usually not even possible.
I thought the supreme court already ruled in the late '70's that the father had no rights or say in abortion issues.
So...who is going to foot the bill for all these blood tests? Oh, I see...so if the woman can't afford THAT for lack of medical coverage or perhaps isn't covered under whatever crap medical insurance she has, then she's having a baby no matter what.
Mmmm-HM!
I like to believe that I am pro-choice, but I have to say this...
A woman can force a man into paternity and make him financially responsible for a child...
A woman can terminate her pregnancy and deprive a man of fatherhood...
A woman can deceive a man into [or out] of legal paternity for a child; in many states, it is VERY difficult to get a man's name removed from a birth certificate or paternal financial obligations for a child that has been proven to NOT be his...
I am all for EQUALITY- but you have to ask yourself, what does that actually mean?!?!
It used to be that it took two people to make a child, but technology has shown that this can be worked around. If I remember correctly, there has even been a case where a couple that had frozen embryos and later divorced, the former wife wanted to carry one of the embryos to term and the former husband was arguing that he was going to be forced into paternal obligation. Is that fair?
What IS fair?
WTF? Why are they always so hell bent on passing legilation
to use against us? We must have 'permission', permits,
licenses, approval for every freaking act fathomable.
If they want THAT kind of control, they should go out
and buy a fucking puppet.
Shades of the Taliban. Of course, they would simply kill the pregnant woman.
is there no end to this madness!?!?!
And if the man objects to the abortion that the woman wants, will the man then be held to be solely and wholly responsible for the legal, custodial and financial care of the resultant child? One would hope...
Here is the first draft of the bill as written. Some thought it would be a tough sell, so they backed off slightly.
In cases where the identity of the father is unknown, women would be required to
be stoned to deathsubmit a list of possible fathers.esther @ 24:
Right! I think the best they can do is some sort of drawing of whatsis fluid from the womb (Ick! Scary!) and at that point, isn't it already way past time that one could even GET an abortion?
Next will be permission to get shoes. We can't have pregnant women walking around the house in shoes now!
Fricken Ohio.....giving my home state of texas a run for its money.
Wahey! Another step in the eternal process of making having an abortion as awkward and traumatic an experience as possible.
"What did you do today, Darling?"
"I introduced abortion legislature."
"Oh, is that in an attempt to ban abortions when you think the extent of neural development and induced birth survival rates makes you think you can make a reasonable case for your claims that the foetus should be considered a person?"
"Nah, I just decided to introduce legislation which would deny women the right to have an abortion when it's currently legal if their boyfriend/one-night-stand decides the 'strong moral views' he imbibes from his local nutjob preacher means he cannot abide it, regardless of what his relationship to the woman is. I reckon it should make life worse for about 10,000 girls a year. I loves me job."
Twunt.
JustAThought @ 27:
You may be right ... but abortion is also about having the right to master YOUR OWN BODY.
By your (very) good examples logic, one could also argue that using oral contraceptive is tantamount to depriving a man of a potential fatherhood ... c'mon.
[...] 3rd, 2007 by expatbrian H/t to Crooks & Liars and Feministing for this under reported bit of chauvinist [...]
haa...if i live in the state of ohio, and this damn law pass, here will be my list of possible daddies:
rep. john adams (guy who pass bill)
senator sam brownback
senator bill frist
senator rick samtorium
senator george allen
Couple of observations:
1. Maybe it's not fair that guys don't get any say in the matter. Then again, the amount of input required to make the child isn't fair either. Since women carry the child, they should have the final say. Sorry, but there isn't really a way to make this equal: it wasn't equal to begin with.
2. I believe rape is an exception to this rule? If so, does anyone anticipate a rise in rape charges if this law passes? Before you scream about this being dishonest, I tend to be an honest person myself, but if Mr. One Night Stand tells me that he's going to refuse to let me abort, I'm taking him down.
YBNurmal @ 15:
My guess would be child molestation.
Ohio is the new West Virginia. lol
Plisko
i wounder if you will defend an iraqi right to live. lets said an iraqi is living on top of a huge resource of oil, and bush wants it, but their leader don't want to give it to bush, bush then lie the american people into invading that country for the oil by bombing thus killing the innocent iraqi who live on top of the resource, do bush right to kill it for corporate gain overrule the iraqi right to live.
i am sure that the iraqi that live on top of the resource want to live, his leader is the best person in the world, but doesn't mean that he don't want to be alive.
lets put it in this term:
bush want to kill the iraqi that live a top the oil resources since their leader won't give it to him.
innocent iraqi want to live
do bush have the right to denied the innocent iraqi the right to life because of their leader. do bush have right override the innocent iraqi right to life?
lets talk about the health care industries:
a man need a surgery that will let him live but his health care provider said that it cost too much, thus denying him the right to life, causing him to die.
would you defend the health care provider right to override the man right to life.
how about this:
the man demanded the woman goes through with the unwanted pregnancy, when it is born, the man no longer wants to be a part of it, would you defend the man right to not be financially responsible?
Bananaphone @ 362
The bill says:
So, after you say that you were raped Mr. One Night Stand will sue the abortion provider, no doubt, claiming that they did not have "reasonable cause" to believe that you were raped. Then Mr. One Night Stand will use his settlement money to buy some new leisure suits and chest hair implants.
I think that I'd like this bill much better if an addendum were added; that being, if a man refused to consent to an abortion and than is ever so much as two weeks delinquent with child support payments the mother gets to shoot him and seize all of his possessions. Only so that she can sell them to support the child, of course, and that's what this is all about, right? The children?
Plisko,
It sounds like your real beef is with the child support system. That's understandable, as there are often very unfair outcomes in that system.
However, if that's the basis for your assertion that the man should have some control of the situation based on his potential financial responsibilities, then the only logical outcome of your argument is that the man should be able to force the woman to have an abortion.
As for property rights, the right to choose an abortion is not based on property rights. A woman doesn't have the right to abort because she "owns" the fetus. It's based on the right to privacy - more specifically, the right to control one's own body. That is the legal interest at stake. During pregnancy, this interest applies only to the woman.
That's not to say that the man has no interest in the situation. Of course he does. But on balance, the woman's interest in her own bodily integrity FAR outweighs the man's interest in potential fatherhood. She is at risk; he is not.
truthism @ 69:
Because the father is not the one who has to undergo the difficulties, potential health risks, and possible traumas of carrying a child to term for 9 months... and then letting it go. As long as a woman is solely able to carry a pregnancy and give birth, she should be the only one to decide whether her body will be used as an incubator for her own or someone else's child. Period.
michaelb @ 339:
Accountability and responsibility are prerequisite to avoiding the undesirable situation that many of these ladies unfortunatley suffered. Not a reaction to the lack there of
WTF?
Shade Tail @ 347:
The point I am trying to convey is that If you understand before the train wreck that you are responsible, and accountable for the consequences and you do not have the desire or means to deal with the situation then don't drive the train. It seems to me that folks that can't swim or float, stay out of the water, thus preserving there lives. Unless of course it would lead to an orgasim and drown someone else, that makes perfect sense.
Please understand that I am sympathetic to the agonizing decisions, the procedure and everything that goes with the unfortuitous situation. But really isthe pleasure worth the pain
As James Brown said: "It's a man's world" - that was 1967 or so, evidently it's still the case.
As long as men are in charge, this kid of legislation shouldn't surprise anyone.
President PNACcio @ 357:
Oh, okay.
michaelb @ 370:
That's for the person involved to decide, not the rest of us. Responsibility means making your own decisions and dealing with the consequences. That is why pro-choice people talk about the anti-abortion crowd treating women as if they're just children who can't take care of themselves. Whenever I see an anti-abortion person claiming that having an abortion is an irresponsible act, I have to wonder what they think responsibility really means.
This isn't meant as a comment about you, by the way, I mean it generally.
Ths is TOTAL bullshit!! I don't care what prick got a woman pregnant, how many dicks are out there not paying child support? That's a messed-up system to begin with, so now some fat cat wants to give these creeps more power over women? It's my body! No man can give birth! When that day comes, then men can sign the form to forbid the abortion of their child, but until then, they can all go back to the goddamned dark ages! Our species can create without them; it's only a matter of time!
I'm not a dem or a rep...I'm an American....Land of the Free...or at least I thought?!?! Shouldn't we be passing bills about bettering our childrens education, making our streets safer, keeping drunks and criminals off the roads, keeping perps off the playgrounds, or any other important issue for this/next generation? A man doesn't and SHOULDN"T have a say with what I do with my body. He didn't have a say when I wanted my tubes tied, as I didn't have a say when his balls were snipped.
Do they really think there aren't ways around this? Just because John got me knocked up, doesn't mean my friend Joe won't say he's the daddy and sign for me. Just another way for man to feel like he's in control. Until he has to push a 7-10 pound baby threw his little pee hole, he doesn't get a say. If he doesn't want the financial burden of raising a child, then sign over his rights, or better yet, wrap his pecker up! I personally could never have an abortion, but who I am to say some other woman can't? And who the hell is a MAN to say she can't?
Men...If you want a say...wear a condom! If you don't, then you just gave up your right.
Shade Tail @ 373:
So if a Women wants to have an abortion and the Man does not, no abortion. So it is obvious that the the Man is the dominant one ("The Decider"), and what he believes/wants is what the decsion is based on. So I am assuming this will work in reverse. If the man wants the women to have an abortion, and she does not, then based on this logic, the abortion must take place. Since one of the points he makes is based on "Financial responsibilty", this logic becomes even more apparent.
JustAThought @ 27:
.
You bring a lot of complicated issues to the table. The frozen embryo one is particularly troubling.
However, if we are talking about two people having good old fashioned sex and the woman ends up pregnant, then it's pretty simple. My body, my decision. Men don't have to ask a woman's permission to get a vasectomy (thereby possibly depriving her of motherhood) do they?
Well this is interesting... A bill requiring Ohio women asking the men for permission to get an abortion... Must be a generational thing.. My experiences as a young male citizen of Ohio in the 70s was that you didn't coorce or make threatening propositions with the side effect of removing personal rights from the women of Ohio in that era... Just didn't happen.. The least that would happen if that sort of attitude and idea was broached, is that you'd get laughed out of the house by your girlfriend and shut off (and I think you boys know what I mean) for some period for having that kind of temerity... The more draconian move.. After they laughed in your face, they'd dump your ass for someone else who was just as good in bed but not an ego crazed maniac who wanted to control all aspects of their girlfriends behavior..Just wasn't possible to make that kind of thing fly back then...
Any Ohio legislator who might propose such a bill back in say 1976, would not be in office in say 1978... I hope Ohioans of both sexes reject this busybody shit... IF a relationship is on a firm foundation than of course any pregnancy decisions will be shared between the two principles involved without some nanny legislation imposing on the situation... And if there is no firm foundation...If there is no love, if it was all just a one night stand.. Well, really, then, there are issues at play that no bill can fix. Without a real romantic connection between the two individuals involved? No amount of legislation or nannying or religio-facsist shaming will instantly create the kind of loving familial atmosphere needed for decent child rearing anyway...
Good luck to my fellow American citizens of Ohio in dealing with this latest goofyness...JD
"The Handmaid's Tale", here we come...
Bonkers @ 33:
You could do a DNA paternity using amniotic fluid via an amniocentesis.
So what law will Hilljack-Central Ohio cook up when they find most men AGREEING to the abortion?
I lived in PA in the late 60s and early 70s and this was State law there.
"Sometimes I think that anti-choice folks forget that women are, you know, adults."
Adults?!? They don't even think of them as human. They see women as brood mares for the state and the glory of god.
Oh yeah. Now that the Repukelickers have dismantled the Constitution, let's all go back to the Dark Ages. Maybe we can get some fundamentalist Muslims to initiate the GODLY MEN in this country on the fine art of stoning disobedient women to death in public.
That's one of those proposals that are so offensive to all but the most marginal Wingnuts that you want them to be out there for awhile, to get good coverage, and really scare the vast majority of voters into voting against the Repubs.
Look - this won't matter one whit anyway, once the world is plunged into total economic petro-dollar collapse. We're headed for global depression, widespread homelessness, hunger, and disease.
Pagan times surely are at hand.
Dr. Matt @ 40:
Not until between 16-20 weeks of pregnancy not to mention the time to wait for results and have that compared to your "potential list of fathers" list.
Adam @ 36:
Not necessarily. Now if the woman didnt want one, and the man did, then her side would obviously prevail. Lets put this in perspective and knock off the theatrical bellyacheing. I think the underlining aspect to this bill, which of course has NO chance of passing, is that abortion should be a unanimous decision.
An idea that just isnt so bad......
maybe they should get a note from thier parents before they fuck.
Fanon @ 47:
Actually, during the 10th to 13th week of pregnancy, a small sample can be taken from the placenta. This procedure is performed either transcervically or transabdominally. During the 14th to 24th week of pregnancy, a sample of amniotic fluid can be drawn. The
Just another anti-women law trying to be pushed thru.
Send these reichwing idiots back to the caves they crawled out from!
It's good when the fascists reveal what they're really after. The right has been devastatingly successful in eroding reproductive rights by setting up incremental roadblocks while appearing reasonable and serious to our punditocracy. Not even the most wankaliciouos pundit could call this reasonable.
Beacuse there's money involved the man has a right to refuse? What the f'ck is that? If the man doesn't want the child because he can't afford it can he demand that the fetus is aborted? Why does the idea of money get involved in this, beyond the references above to chattel?
Does this mean that these sick Rethug. male bastards are willing to raise their children alone when they insist No Abortion??
Send BillO a Letter:
[Deleted. Banned for posting personal info on the site-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Banned for posting personal info on the site-Sitemonitor]
All you men defending fathers' rights--I know several single females.
Personally I'm not in favor of abortions, but I'm also not in favor of telling a woman what to do with her body.
That being said, I think that if a woman IS going to have an abortion, then it should be discussed with both parents. I mean if you think about it, in every other instance other than aborting the child, the father would be responsible. If she had it, he'd be financially obligated (and forced by law if necessary) to help support the child.
This is definitely a touchy subject, I'm aware. I can see the point that the dude is making with the bill. I mean if she has the baby more than likely she's gonna be expecting the man to have some role in the raising of the child (and well he should) but when it comes to getting rid of it, he has no say in it? I mean...she didn't create the baby herself.
As I said...it's a touchy subject, and one I don't readily have a end all be all solution for.
So, what's to stop me from having a male friend say "yup, I'm the dad and yup, she can have an abortion" even if he's not really the dad. Aside from the fact that the whole thing is BS, it's not even logical.
This isn't a far stretch, but what if a woman gets pregnant and doesn't know how to contact the man, i.e. one night stands, vacation follies, etc.
The older I get, the more the GOP scare the bejeezuz out of me... these are folks who are almost Stepford-wife material... seemingly nice American BBQ buddies on the outside, but once you peer into their political and private views, they just get plain CREEPY.
Jay @ 48 - I agree. Is this really about choice, or father's rights?
Following their logic: if they are really concerned about the financial support aspect, they should also add a requirement forbidding a mother to give birth unless the father consents.
michael @ 49:
It is bad parenting that leads to baby killing in the first place. A permit for procreation should be issued by the proper authorities at the time of marriage. All fornication should be outlawed. This will not end the problem, mind you, but it will help put an end to the epidemic of immoral behavior that is sweeping the nation.
Dhalgren @ 29:
Only a matter of time.
There a plenty of xian nutjobs out there who become moist in the loins at the idea of legalizing stonings. After all, their bible tells them it's OK.
Dr. Matt @ 61:
Then no abortion for you! You dirty slut.
Jay @ 48:
According to who?
Well I don't care for the GOP but, why should a father have no say? What if he was willing to take the child? Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Fanon @ 67:
If I only had a dollar every time someone called me that.
What this country really needs is a law that requires the government to get the consent of an adult before it does anything.
Sometimes I think that anti-choice folks forget that women are, you know, adults.
Why not... they forget Iraqis are adults...
Limp-Dick Blimpaugh @ 55:
This "sick Rethug" did.
It's a bullshit GOP ploy just like the gay marriage ban(although that effectively destroyed the Domestic Violence laws, in which women are paying even more of a price for it). For one thing abortion is illegal in the state of Ohio, period. So why the fuck do they have to pass legislation for the man to decide on something that is illegal in the state of Ohio to begin with.
Fucking assholes have just realized our state is no longer red, and is turning bluer by the day. The GOP can't even walk to the eastern portion of Ohio without getting their asses handed to them physically.
WELL I WENT BACK TO OHIO
BUT MY FAMILY WAS GONE
I STOOD ON THE BACK PORCH
THERE WAS NOBODY HOME
NewNameAcquired @ 8:
SILLY BECAUSE MEN CANT GET KNOCKED UP!GET WITH THE PROGRAM!
Dr. Matt @ 70:
I gave you $7.00 last friday night. Quit yer bitchin'!
Dr. Matt @ 68:
If you dont want a say when it comes to the dynamic of your own family....well good for you.
Hello,
I am a Canadian. The US led the world because of its liberties, because of it freedoms and respect. But now the mask has been ripped off and the fact is the US can not lead any longer because it has fallen so far behind on issues of tolerance, acceptance and (to be blunt) sanity. The US's future vision is an idealization of the Inquisition, where as the rest of the Western World is looking towards a more respectful life. Canada has its conservative streaks to be sure, but for the most part, abortion, gay rights, death penalty have been settled. So when the rest of the western world sees oppressive and hateful laws like this we laugh and despair for what was once a nation of great leadership. You will find it again, but it is sad to watch the burning beacon of liberty that was the US fade into paleolithic darkness.
Jay @ 78:
My "family"? You're changing topics.
Doc Waterman @ 79:
Then beat it, will ya?
CafeenMan @ 77:
I think I owe you some change.
Jay @ 81:
hey im working on it!
what a bunch of foolishness-- have they really forgotten all about good old fashioned castration???
Hey Mr Neocon @ 65 -- r u trying to be amusing?
No I'm not. If I think I should have a say in what goes on with my own family, and dont want that right taken away, so why the hell would I answer to you? This is real simple to understand Matty... Take all the other crap and throw it away...the permission slips, DNA tests, etc...and just make this about abortion needing to be a unanimous decison.
YEA !!!
My only problem with this is that the proposed bill does not go far enough in terms of defining the role of the father in the law.
1. Get rid of the whole only in cases of abortion thing and lets identify all fathers as soon as pregnancy is determined, period.
2. Regardless of abortion, adoption, live or still birth, etc. when there is a pregnancy there is a father who is 50% financially responsible. In the case of adoption, daddy should still pay his percentage, in the case of abortion or still birth, daddy should still pay his percentage. Even in the case of the mother's death, daddy needs to pay the state. The daddy is responsible for creating a fetus and getting a little life started, regardless of what happens to that life.
3. In the case of a pregnant minor and daddy is an adult or in the case of incest, this is fantastic! Daddy goes straight to jail, and is still financially responsible.
The bottom line is guys should watch where their semen goes, because a fetus will be 50% the father's financial responsibility for the first 18 years of life. Again, even in the case of a fetus not living the full 18 years, the remaining money goes to the state. Daddies are big boys, they can handle it.
Come on GOPers, get real on Daddy-Hood! Shouldn't every fetus have a daddy? Make it a law. Make every fetus knows it has a daddy who is taking responsibility like all good Christian GOPer men should. We need more Daddy laws and not so many Mommy laws. In this respect the law books are horribly imbalanced and it's time we do something about it.
Mr. NeoCon @ 65:
yeah yeah as the repigs say if you dont beat it eat it!
We ought to trumpet the news of this bill to all 50 states -- it makes their side look --again -- like idiots. The whole story of the White House and this party is over-reaching on everything from executive privilege to saber-rattling with Iran to reproductive politics. By November 2008 the GOP may be as electorally viable as the Federalist Party.
Jay @ 78:
Jay @ 78:
It's not even a real question. This is designed to make you think that a: evil women use abortion as birth control and must be stopped and b: evil women are constantly depriving upstanding men of fatherhood (and must be stopped)
I worked for years in a women's health clinic and the number of patients we saw that came in alone was relatively small. Most people do make this decision together, but that is not something that can be mandated. Do you want to tell the woman who's husband beats her and the children that she already has that she must bear another child b/c she doesn't have her abuser's permission to abort?
Get your coat hangers ready, girls.
Dr. Matt @ 23:
Hey "Dr." Matt?
Contrary to popular belief, there are many smart, progressive citizens who happen to reside in Ohio.
get over yourself.
Why wait until the couple is seeking an abortion, when it's too late?
Require that men get permission from their mommies before having sex. If they don't have it, signed, beforehand, with the prospective partner's name on it, it's an offense punishable as rape.
Boy will that put a stop to promiscuity!
submit a list of possible fathers
Give them phone book for the nearest city and require every male able to jerk off to get a paternity test for every case. (No way this can become law.)
His motivation is wrong, but his point is actually quite valid. The system is completely unfair to men.
1) If I don't want to have the kid & the girl does she can force me to pay for the kid until it's 18.
2) If I want the kid and the girl does not she can kill it and absolutely break my heart.
3) If I am paying for a kid that later is found to not be mine, the courts force me to keep paying. You have to contest early or the court says the lack of money would disrupt the life of the kid too much. Typical Legal Opinion From A Female Arguing The Men Should Pay For Fraudulent Children
I am not for Mr. Adam's legislation in any way. However, something has to be done to fix the system. If there is an absolute right to abortion then men should have an absolute right not to pay. I'm sick of this "Women get all the say" when it comes to an unborn child. You simply can't have it both ways without expecting blow back from men. And I'm not talking about the typical "boy" that would run at the first sign of a child regardless. I'm talking about the decent men (Whatever percentage your willing to concede are decent) who are screwed by the current system.
Fanon @ 90:
Jay @ 94:
Because that could never happen, right?
Right?
(Crickets...)
Having been a part of a situation where my shild was aborted against my wishes I have mixed feelings on this. I did feel like I was without any say in the matter when the woman who was pregnant with my child decided not to go through with it. I also think that there is an argument to be made that a woman can go through with the pregnancy regardless of the man's wishes where he is still liable for financial duties. Ultimately though, I think that there are too many loopholes that begin to appear when discussing a woman's right to choice that I think this is a bad idea off the bat. I would personally like to see a balance of the decision making process when it comes to this.
While I agree that this bill goes way to far, I would and have argued that men should have some say. I will fully admit that I have no suggestions as to how someone can dictate to a woman what she can and can not do with her body, it is also true that men can't have children without women. Women only need a sperm donation from some man in order to have a child on their own. One of the perks of being the one that actually carries the child.
Again I have no idea how to insure the father's rights and I do not believe this bill as written is a good idea, but it a discussion worth having. It may be left with, well too bad guys until you can figure out how to carry a child for 9 months, you are out of luck, but at least we should have the discussion.
Please before you flame me for this, please note I don't have any solutions and I am not comfortable with giving anyone control over my body, but doesn't the father deserve something as well. I mean if the mother decides to have the baby on her own, she can do it. How does a father go about that exactly? I know biology makes that impossible, but should his rights as a father end there as well?
This bill is wrong on so many levels but don't be so quick to say the father has absolutely no rights. Like I said before I have no idea how you could compel someone into carrying your child, so it may be a moot point. But at least think about how a father, who has no other recourse could insure the survivability of his gentic material. I suppose he could donate to a sperm bank.
Are the people of Ohio going to allow these idiot legislators stay in office? Perhaps it is time to abort their representatives.
I guess you lost me Jay. What could never happen?
I am a male so I have no business and usually don't comment on the issue of abortion except to say it is entirely the business of a woman and her doctor. The state has absolutely no place in that conversation in any shape or form.
JustAThought @ 27:
Paternity tests will prove who the father is. As for "deprive a man of fatherhood", unless he's sterile, he squirts out millions of "chances at fatherhood" over his lifetime.
I'm all for equality, too. But not with my body. Please stay out of it.
Disclosure of a patient's medical condition to a third party (like a group of one night stands) is against federal law most specifically, HPPA.
Also the expense of conducting early amnio and all the DNA tests of all the names *I* would give them, would feed a family of 4 for well over a decade. And I think, if it were me, I'd forget the name of baby daddy, after all that.
Oh and Ohio, DNA doesn't come back in an afternoon, like on TV. It takes weeks.
Where's the love and money for kids without healthcare? It's like I said yesterday on the Ted Kennedy thread-Thugs would be all over expenditures for kids' healthcare as long as they're blastocysts, embryos or fetuses. This pretty much proves it.
Feministing says it best: "Fuck. You."
Hey ho way to go Ohio.
\. But at least think about how a father, who has no other recourse could insure the survivability of his gentic material. I suppose he could donate to a sperm bank.
He could hire a surrogate...
a person @ 101:
Then don't make us pay and you can do whatever you want with it.
think about how great the world would be if cheny bush and every repig had been aborted ,
OhioLiberal @ 91:
Lighten up. As a UofM alum, Ohio = Evil. :)
Fanon @ 103:
He could hire a surrogate...
Sorry, I was responding to the quote from Lib in TX
Good Lord....
Bad ideas for women are ALWAYS begun by men.
Why cant these people see that there is a reason why men are stereotyped as having less understanding and sensitivity to women?? this is a prime example of that.
What provision does it have if that man's 17 yr old daughter is raped by a scumbag and impregnated? .. and they catch him and he says no to the abortion? or they dont and she cant submit her report in triplicate?
What if someone's daughter/sister/girlfriend/wife/friend is drugged at a party or a bar and raped ?
why is there so much resistence in the community of male controlled politics and courts to helping women against men?
Men are overwhelmingly the predators in most respects of relationships down to criminal sexual acts or violence.
Maybe its because those same legislators and officers of the law, and courts, are committing or have committed the same acts in secret or private behind closed doors and they dont want to make penalties and investigations that would make their lives harder if they got caught....??
Kevin @ 98:
I don't think they have much say in the matter. It all depends on the Diebold programmers.
Jay @ 95:
Are you stating women were never forced to barbaic "back alley abortions" because of anti-choice laws?
Right?
(Crickets...)
Dr. Acula @ 85:
I find nothing amusing by the prospect of an America infested with immorality!
This will be an unpopular opinion, but if you want to keep abortion legal, you are called ProChoice. Discounting the choice obviously denied the fetus, 50% of the couple who have conceived are given no choice. If they both want to have the baby, fine. If she does not want it but he does, she can have an abortion and he is given no choice. (Yes, I understand it is her body.) If he does not want it, but she does, he is given no choice, then must use HIS body for the next 18+ years to pay child support (Yes, I understand there are dead beat Dads, these are generalizations). If you include the fetus, over 66% of the involved people are not given a choice. So, ProChoice would be a misnomer. I am not saying I am against abortion. I do believe there are times when it is necessary, but I am on the fence when it does not come to cases of rape, incest, or the mother's health. I know some of you will flip out on this opinion, especially of the one where the man must use his body to pay child support, but if a baby can be aborted without his consent, then a baby born without his consent should not be his responsibility. And, no, I have never had an unintended pregnancy, been involved with an abortion, and have raised my on children, so I am not trying to defend a personal situation. Do I think women should be forced to have children? I guess not, but then neither should a man. It took wo to tango in a consensual relationship. If one party can be absolved of responsibility the other should have the same rights. Unfortunately, the woman always pays the higher cost due to biology. OK, flame away.
Mr. NeoCon @ 111:
guess you must really be dissapointed in the repig party then neocon!
Next thing we will have is to get written permission from the guy on the sofa watching football to pick a tomato. Well it is half his too. Maybe he doesn't want a blt today.
We have an important election coming up. Go get a mirror and ask yourself if you are stupid enough to vote republican.
Really it is a very simple fix. All the Women in Ohio should leave the state.
I don't think I like Jay. Jay should go watch his videos of Bill O'Reilly.
Mr. NeoCon @ 111:
And the sooner we purge ourselves of all the evangelistas and fundamentalist phonies the better.
Fred Durstin @ 112:
Flame what? Your fabrication?
Dr. Matt @ 16:
If you withdraw early would that be birth control or masterbation?
POLL: MAJORITY FAVORS ‘FULL-BIRTH ABORTION’ OF DUBYA
Yeah, THAT'S going to pass.
Give me a break!
ysbaddaden @ 119:
An arrestable offense according to the likes of Jay et al.
Mr. NeoCon @ 65:
Every one should take a page out of the GOP play book and have a gay ol' time. That would solve the problem.
Dr. Matt @ 122:
Jay et al? Does mrs. al know?
Dr. Matt @ 122:
And an example of immorality infestation to the likes of mr.neokkkon
This legislation is just another shot at getting the Supreme Court to re-visit the issue of abortion. Specifically, it looks like an attempt to have them weaken the "undue burden" test. Which, based on that crazy "partial birth" decision (in which Kennedy announced the Court's new, paternalistic approach), they will gladly do.
IF the Ohio bill passes.
Yellow Elephant Safari @ 125:
Methinks free clinics have a salve that will fix that infestation right up.
Yellow Elephant Safari @ 125:
Plus think of all the opportunities for fatherhood you deprived yourself of! Millions!
The rights of the father? He has no rights because he entered a sexual relationship with only his dick in charge. When he engages his brain, maybe he will have consideration for a potential child and for the potential mother. For a guy to be an unthinking uncaring rutting buck and then claim injury is the height of hypocrisy.
Ohio is putting the master back into masterbation.
Jay @ 73:
Sounds like Mrs. Jay told Jay that if he was going to force her to keep the kid he had to take it becasue he is such an asshole she didn't want to be around him to the point of giving up her child. Probably because she found out he was a sick Rethug.
Of course it's a good idea that the father should have some say!
But where did this idea come from, that every "good idea" should be enforced by law?
It's a "good idea" to brush and floss regularly, too. But anyone trying to make it a legal requirement would be laughed off the political stage. As should these yahoos.
Login or Register to post comments.