Page 1 of 2
#1 Proposed Ohio Law Gives Men Say in Abortions
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:22 am
by Comrade Tortoise
((Title Edited for being Too Extremest.))
http://www.recordpub.com/news/article/2327981
Abortion law would give fathers a say State legislators propose change; opponents blast bill as 'extreme'
Mike Hixenbaugh
July 30, 2007
Several Ohio state representatives who normally take an anti-abortion stance are now pushing pro-choice legislation - sort of.
Led by Rep. John Adams, a group of state legislators have submitted a bill that would give fathers of unborn children a final say in whether or not an abortion can take place.
It's a measure that, supporters say, would finally give fathers a choice.
"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 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.
Claiming to not know the father's identity is not a viable excuse, according to the proposed legislation. Simply put: no father means no abortion.
"I'm really pleased that this has been proposed for one reason - it draws attention to the fact that many men are concerned and care for their unborn children," said Denise Mackura, the director of the Ohio Right to Life Society. "You have no idea how many men call telling me about their girlfriends who plan to abort, asking what they can do to help her. They do want to help and they should have a voice."
With the proposal, men would be guaranteed that voice under penalty of law. First time violators would by tried for abortion fraud, a first degree misdemeanor. The same would be the case for men who falsely claim to be fathers and for medical workers who knowingly perform an abortion without paternal consent.
In addition, women would be required to present a police report in order to prove a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.
As is the case whenever abortion is the topic, sharp opposition has come from members of the House, along with multiple activist groups. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Activist League and the Ohio Right to Life Society have both spoken out against the legislation.
"This extreme bill shows just how far some of our state legislators are willing to go to rally a far-right base that is frustrated with the pro-choice gains made in the last election," said NARAL Pro-choice Ohio executive director Kellie Copeland. "It is completely out of touch with Ohio's mainstream values. This measure is a clear attack on a woman's freedom and privacy."
The proposal came less than two weeks after Rep. Tom Brinkman proposed legislation that would ban all abortions in Ohio. Brinkman, a Republican from Cincinnati, was one of eight representatives to co-sponsor Adams' bill.
With the recent liberal swing in Ohio state government, neither bill is likely to come to fruition. However, Adams' less extreme proposal has an outside chance of becoming law - a law that would have a major impact in Portage County and surrounding areas.
Portage has been among the leading Ohio counties in abortion-to-birth ratios since abortion was legalized in 1973. Since 1996, about 20 percent of Portage County pregnancies have been aborted - the seventh highest percentage in the state according to information from the Ohio Department of Health. The total comes to more than 4,300 abortions in 10 years.
Cuyahoga County has the highest abortion percentage with more than 30 percent of its residents' pregnancies being terminated. Summit County is also near the top of the list with a 21 percent termination rate.
Mackura doesn't think those numbers are likely to change anytime soon, though. Precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court indicates that, even if Adams' bill passed, it would likely be ruled unconstitutional by the courts.
"Simply taking a look at this as a possibility is a step in the right direction," Mackura said. "Pregnancy is a unique human condition and obviously a woman is affected differently than a man. As a woman, I can sympathize. However, to completely take rights away from the father is unfair.
"Currently, even in a marriage situation, a man has no right to even be informed of an abortion. But if a woman doesn't have an abortion, men sure have a lot of responsibility then. It's really not fair."
And yes. I am serious about the slavery bit
#2
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:45 am
by Comrade Tortoise
I fail to see how calling a duck a duck is extremist, but OK. Honestly, the only way that this sort of thing can be justified(a man having to consent to a woman's medical procedure) is if she is OWNED by him, or is not competent to govern her own affairs. This harkens back to the days before the first wave of feminism when women were literally considered property, unable to enter into contracts, or even be charged with a crime because the law did not consider them human beings.
#3
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:42 am
by LadyTevar
While I do not like the way this law is written either, calling it 'slavery' as you did in the title was misleading and pointless. Thus, I changed it.
Now, to go down the list of the problems here:
1. Rape or Incest: get a police report. Ok, folks, do you know that police estimate only 1 in 3 rapes get reports, and they fear it's even higher than that? On college campuses, it could be as high as only 1 in 5!
2. Incest. Again, how much of this is really going on here, folks? This, like domestic violence, is one of the hidden crimes that doesn't get reported nearly enough. About the only thing I can see this law doing to help it is forcing a Paternity Test to determine the father of the fetus. But then what will the law do when it comes back a father/brother/uncle?
3. There is this bit of information given in the article that makes me wonder what's going on. What is happening in these counties to give them such a high abortion ratio? Is it a low-income area? Is it an area where there is a high number of religious people who believe in Abstenance, not Condoms? Are these counties near the border where outsiders may be coming in to get the abortions done? We need some more background here.
Portage has been among the leading Ohio counties in abortion-to-birth ratios since abortion was legalized in 1973. Since 1996, about 20 percent of Portage County pregnancies have been aborted - the seventh highest percentage in the state according to information from the Ohio Department of Health. The total comes to more than 4,300 abortions in 10 years.
Cuyahoga County has the highest abortion percentage with more than 30 percent of its residents' pregnancies being terminated. Summit County is also near the top of the list with a 21 percent termination rate.
#4
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:08 pm
by frigidmagi
The requiring a police report is definitely insane, as Tev pointed out most rapes go unreported.
As for giving the father the finial say... I've said in the pass that I would prefer to have some voice in the decision if it were mine, but I think this most certainly goes under the title of way too damn far. Under this law the man can pretty much force a women to not only have his child but to raise it as under this law the man does not have a responsibility to do more then a child payment, which frankly is not parenting at all.
Yes, I've known some dicks who would do that.
Meanwhile I have serious doubts that a married women would do this without at least discussing it with her husband (unless the husband is not the father, but at that point you got a whole slew of problems in that marriage don't you?). In fact last I heard most married women don't get abortions. So it seems clear this bill is aimed rather pointy at unmarried women more then anything else.
#5
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 2:26 pm
by B4UTRUST
See, this entire situation just brings us back to another conversation on this board: Who's rights are more important here. That's what this law decides.
Because right now it's the woman's right to choose whether or not she wishes to have the kid, which sticks the father in an unwanted situation if he doesn't want the kid. He's forced to pay child support and help raise a child that he doesn't love and doesn't want to have.
With the new law, the rolls are just reversed, that's all. It's still the same situation. One half of the couple has the right to decide whether or not the abortion happens and there isn't a damned thing the other half can do to fight it.
But the sad part is, there really can be no middle ground compromise on who has the final say so. Either way you're stuck in a situation with one disagreeing parent who doesn't want the child.
#6
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 2:29 pm
by Comrade Tortoise
No. The situation is not the same. It would be if the child just sort of... appeared out of thin air. But it does not. It exists within the body of the female, feeding off of her metabolism and incurring risks to her direct physical health and economic productivity.
Flat out, there is no right of the father to balance here. None. As to have that right means that he gets some measure of control over another person's body, which no one has. To say he has ANY right to decide if an abortion happens is essentially to say that he owns her body.
#7
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 2:35 pm
by B4UTRUST
No, it is the same situation.
If the woman decides to keep the baby, the baby and the woman become a direct detriment to the male's financial stability plus indirectly, untold health risks associated with the stress, frustration, anger and mental issues with having to deal with this situation. You can't sit there and tell me that this sort of thing isn't damaging the male at all.
This law is unfair, yes. But the current situation is equally unfair. If a couple are together, she gets knocked up, they're happy then 2 months down the road they break up and she wants an abortion now, is the father's desire to have a child of his own any less worthy of being acknowledged then a female's choosing to keep a child dispite a male's desire to end the pregnancy? Why is it less worthy? Because he isn't directly harboring a parasite for nine months prior to birth?
#8
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 2:41 pm
by Comrade Tortoise
B4UTRUST wrote:No, it is the same situation.
If the woman decides to keep the body, the baby and the woman become a direct detriment to the male's financial stability plus indirectly, untold health risks associated with the stress, frustration, anger and mental issues with having to deal with this situation. You can't sit there and tell me that this sort of thing isn't damaging the male at all.
This law is unfair, yes. But the current situation is equally unfair. If a couple are together, she gets knocked up, they're happy then 2 months down the road they break up and she wants an abortion now, is the father's desire to have a child of his own any less worthy of being acknowledged then a female's choosing to keep a child dispite a male's desire to end the pregnancy? Why is it less worthy? Because he isn't directly harboring a parasite for nine months prior to birth?
yes
I am not talking about post-birth rights. We can argue about that until the fucking cows come home. But it is HER body that the fetus exists in. HE does not need to carry the fetus to term, go through childbirth, and risk lethal infection.
What you are saying is that a male has the right to either force a medical procedure on a woman, or bar one from taking place. And that entails that the woman does not get to control her own body. And that is a textbook definition of slavery. The implication here if we accept that another person can dictate a grown adult's medical decisions, is that it is OK to force transplants, or organ donation. Or force other procedures, or deny one taking place. A parent's right to keep their child alive would allow them to force a relative to give up a lung or kidney. It is not a slippery slope, just an extension of the same applicable principle.
#9
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 3:19 pm
by B4UTRUST
The real issue here is that there are no post-birth rights WITHOUT THE BIRTH.
I damn sure want a say in whether or not my kid is aborted if I want that kid, and I damn well will not ever concede that I should not have some say in the matter. You wish to totally remove the male's ability to have any choice in it, which, in essence, makes the male a slave to the female.
After all, the male has no choice what so ever in the matter. If he wants the kid and she aborts it, he has no say. If he doesn't want the kid and she keeps it he has to pay for it for the next 18 years. He's just as much of a slave as she is. The male may not go through the pregnancy, but he has just as much chance to suffer for it as a female.
If the woman's health is proven to be in direct risk because of this, if there are signs that the pregnancy is causing her physical problems, then by all means find a way to deal with the situation if it comes to an abortion. A living person's health would take precedence. But not every pregnancy goes wrong. Not every pregnancy kills the woman, puts her on death's door, or in any real way drastically affect her ability to do things.
If the woman is healthy, and suffers no health related risks from the pregnancy, the male should have an equal right to that child as the female. Half of his DNA is in the fetus after all, he is partially responsible for that child, so he should have some right to it. If he is financially and physically capable of caring for the child he should have a say in that child's life.
You seek to effectively keep it so the male has no rights, no say in anything concerning the child or his own future. Doesn't exactly sound much different from the slavery you're saying this law pushes.
I will state again, as I did last time, this law is unfair in how it's going about it. However, in the end there needs to be something done to ensure that a male has some say in the matter. Because right now the way it is, and the way the law suggests fucks one person or the other. One person will always lose, but everyone seems content to allow it to be the male that suffers in the end.
#10
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 3:57 pm
by Comrade Tortoise
I damn sure want a say in whether or not my kid is aborted if I want that kid, and I damn well will not ever concede that I should not have some say in the matter. You wish to totally remove the male's ability to have any choice in it, which, in essence, makes the male a slave to the female
Well tough luck. It is HER body. It doesnt matter how much you want a say, you have no right to force a medical procedure on a woman who doesnt want it, and you have no right to deny that same medical procedure. Her right to her body trumps any financial responsibility that you may incur. Her body is hers. Not yours.
After all, the male has no choice what so ever in the matter. If he wants the kid and she aborts it, he has no say.
Her body. her choice. You have no right to force pregnancy on her, just the same as you have no right to deny a woman any other medical procedure. The amount of "say" you get cannot have any legal force or you are enslaving her.
If he doesn't want the kid and she keeps it he has to pay for it for the next 18 years. He's just as much of a slave as she is. The male may not go through the pregnancy, but he has just as much chance to suffer for it as a female.
Oh please, you have recourse. There are procedures for abdicating your parental rights. And to say that you have much chance to suffer as the woman is not only disengenuous, but irrelevant. What are you going to do? Strap her to a fucking operating table against her will?
If the woman's health is proven to be in direct risk because of this, if there are signs that the pregnancy is causing her physical problems, then by all means find a way to deal with the situation if it comes to an abortion. A living person's health would take precedence. But not every pregnancy goes wrong. Not every pregnancy kills the woman, puts her on death's door, or in any real way drastically affect her ability to do things.
It is still her body. Her right to control it (within the physical ability of said control) is absolute. What? Do you have 51% OWNERSHIP of HER uterus because you impregnated her?
If the woman is healthy, and suffers no health related risks from the pregnancy, the male should have an equal right to that child as the female. Half of his DNA is in the fetus after all, he is partially responsible for that child, so he should have some right to it. If he is financially and physically capable of caring for the child he should have a say in that child's life.
Half of his DNA. ALL of her metabolic output and 9 months of her life. Having a say is one thing. You can ask politely. But you have no legal or moral right to force that woman one way or the other. Unless you want to say you own her uterus.
You seek to effectively keep it so the male has no rights, no say in anything concerning the child or his own future. Doesn't exactly sound much different from the slavery you're saying this law pushes.
Again. it is HER BODY. Come back when you have to keep a parasite in your uterus for 9 months.
#11
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 4:06 pm
by Comrade Tortoise
I will point out again, the rights of a father Post-birth, are entirely different from this issue. They are irrelevant, and have no bearing on whether or not a male should have final control over the uterus of a woman.
#12
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 4:09 pm
by LadyTevar
This is going to be fought out over and over again until we have created a working External Uterus.
Yes, B4, I agree that the father should have some say in the matter, however the father is not the one taking all the risks here. I see countless unwed mothers trying to get paternity proven, trying to get the baby-daddy to pay up and take responsibility. I'd be willing to bet most of the unwed fathers, if this law passes, will say "Fuck no, I don' want no baby!" If they do say they want it, forcing the mother into 9 months of pregnancy, once the baby's born Father walks out on his responsibilities and you have another Child Support case.
So, I want to know, what gives you the right to make a woman go through that if you're not man enough to commit to her in the first place?
#13
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 4:27 pm
by frigidmagi
You and B4 are both complete and utter idiots at this point and time. This bill is aimed directly at giving these foaming at the mouth extremists an excuse to dismantle the abortion clinics and force out... what should I call them?... ah... Politically unreliable doctors who will not toe the ideological line.
If by some (is there a word for evil miracles? Atheists please don't use the opening for cheap shots) miracle they do toe the line, it's a wedge between them and the feminists who have supported abortions for various reasons. It's also a wedge to use to separate male support over this, which frankly isn't going to work, despite popular opinion having a penis doesn't make you an automatic idiot.
#14
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 4:48 pm
by Cynical Cat
This bill needs to die yesterday. It is the woman's body, her choice. Period. If your worried about the results of hypothetical pregnancies, use protection and be discriminating enough to only have sex with women who have a thing I like to refer to as a conscience.
Incidentally, I've heard the term "black miracles" used to describe "evil" miracles frigid.
#15
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 5:35 pm
by The Cleric
Yes, her body her choice blah blah blah. But it's 18 YEARS OF MY LIFE, of MY metabolic output and stress and time and enjoyment that would have to suffer if she wants to keep a child. Are you ACTUALLY trying to equate carrying a child to term to the effort required to support that child until adulthood? There needs to be something in place to correct situations where all the mother wants from the father is a cut of his paycheck.
#16
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 5:38 pm
by Comrade Tortoise
The Cleric wrote:Yes, her body her choice blah blah blah. But it's 18 YEARS OF MY LIFE, of MY metabolic output and stress and time and enjoyment that would have to suffer if she wants to keep a child. Are you ACTUALLY trying to equate carrying a child to term to the effort required to support that child until adulthood? There needs to be something in place to correct situations where all the mother wants from the father is a cut of his paycheck.
oh yes, because she doesnt invest anything in the child at all...
#17
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 5:43 pm
by Cynical Cat
It's also eighteen years of her life too and its her body. She has just as much right to decide how she wants to spend the next 18 years and a hell of a lot more about what can be done to her body.
Realize there is a huge army of deadbeat dads out there because a lot of men have a long history of being shitty in these situations. Your fear doesn't give you the right to hijack her body.
Use protection.
Have some discrimination about who you sleep with.
Accept that there is a risk of unwanted pregnancy and disease when you have sex.
Or don't have sex.
#18
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 6:01 pm
by Cpl Kendall
The Cleric wrote:Yes, her body her choice blah blah blah. But it's 18 YEARS OF MY LIFE, of MY metabolic output and stress and time and enjoyment that would have to suffer if she wants to keep a child. Are you ACTUALLY trying to equate carrying a child to term to the effort required to support that child until adulthood? There needs to be something in place to correct situations where all the mother wants from the father is a cut of his paycheck.
I don't think you really understand how much time and effort really goes into raising and caring for a child. You may have to input money for eighteen years but the mother will have to spend eighteen years of her life putting
all her time into the child. She gets no free time or breaks aside from what she gets at work or when the child is at daycare/grandparents. Seriously as a parent I get very little free time. And my wife as the primary caregiver gets even less, a single mom would literally be snowed under with work.
Surely there must be more than just me on this board with kids that knows what it's like first hand?
#19
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 6:04 pm
by LadyTevar
No, Cpl... I think the rest of the guys are single, and many are military and under age 25.
In short, I think you and I are the only ones able to see the other side of it, me through my work, you through living it.
A question B4, Cleric, since you both are arguing Men's Rights: How long before you would marry the Mother? Would you marry her 'for the sake of the child', even if it was the result of a one-night stand? Would you even WANT to marry a woman you barely know, 'for the sake of the child'?
IF this law passes, I will be willing to bet that 90% of the men will not bother arguing, unless they're assholes like you two testosterone nitwits who seem to think Baby=MANLY.
#20
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 6:19 pm
by Cpl Kendall
I wouldn't go so far as to say that you should marry someone you don't love "for the sake of the child". A child growing up in a loveless marriage will simply be damaged emotionally and probably be unable to form proper relationships in their adult life. That doesn't mean however that you should shirk your responsibilities and not support them if she decides to have the child. You decided to have sex and if you can't handle the responsibilities that come with intercourse as a man than you shouldn't get your little pencil wet in the first place.
#21
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 6:56 pm
by frigidmagi
I should point out that I've known a number of marines who were very much involved fathers, both with time, love and money without marrying the mother.
In all honesty I prefer that people either be abstenice or practice safe sex (not only that but redundant safe sex, you wear the damn condom lumpy and she takes that pill, now 2 things have to go wrong instead of one) and not have children until they're married but I'm alert enough to realize that people do not have to be married to each other to be good parents. It's just easier that way.
#22
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 7:46 pm
by The Cleric
Cpl: I DO know how much effort goes into raising a child RIGHT. Doesn't take much to do a shitty job of it though.
CC: I do. I do. I know, and accept that.
Tev: I don't want children. At all. Ever. My point is that I would have NO SAY in the matter. If she wants the child, I'm burdened with it as well. Without a choice. It takes 2 to make one, but only half of that equation gets to make the choices from there on out? I don't fucking think so.
#23
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:05 pm
by SirNitram
The Cleric wrote:Tev: I don't want children. At all. Ever. My point is that I would have NO SAY in the matter. If she wants the child, I'm burdened with it as well. Without a choice. It takes 2 to make one, but only half of that equation gets to make the choices from there on out? I don't fucking think so.
That'll be a valid point once the male has even a fraction of the threat of permenant health problems and internal damage from the pregnancy as the woman, and not a moment before.
How typical. 'ME ME ME ME'. Never consider their might be real, objective threats to the woman. If it interferes with a man's presumed rights, fuck whatever dangers exist.
#24
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:05 pm
by LadyTevar
The Cleric wrote:Tev: I don't want children. At all. Ever. My point is that I would have NO SAY in the matter. If she wants the child, I'm burdened with it as well. Without a choice. It takes 2 to make one, but only half of that equation gets to make the choices from there on out? I don't fucking think so.
Then make the choice beforehand and make fuckin' sure you don't get her pregnant. Wrap the weiner, use lube with spermacide, what ever it takes for YOU to make YOUR choice.
Because right now, for men and women, if you play the game, you take the risks and you should DAMN WELL be responsible for what happens next.
#25
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:14 pm
by LadyTevar
SirNitram wrote:The Cleric wrote:Tev: I don't want children. At all. Ever. My point is that I would have NO SAY in the matter. If she wants the child, I'm burdened with it as well. Without a choice. It takes 2 to make one, but only half of that equation gets to make the choices from there on out? I don't fucking think so.
That'll be a valid point once the male has even a fraction of the threat of permenant health problems and internal damage from the pregnancy as the woman, and not a moment before.
How typical. 'ME ME ME ME'. Never consider their might be real, objective threats to the woman. If it interferes with a man's presumed rights, fuck whatever dangers exist.
At my job, I get to see the Medical Information on mother and child that's attached to every Birth Certificate; stuff that only her doctor/health provider sees.
Anemia. High Blood Pressure. Diabetes. Heavy Bleeding. Prolonged Labour. C-Sections. Craniopelvic 'insufficiency'. A host of things I don't have names for, because they're just Alphabet Soup that means something to Doctors, like HRAP and AMA.
So... what does the Father risk here? Not all of these problems go away with the pregnancy, you know. Some women don't recover fully. Is the Father going to have possible heart problems the rest of his life? Is the Father risking possible infection from the surgery to cut the baby out, because the head's too fuckin' big to fit through the HipBones?
You don't want Responsiblity for a Baby? You dont' want a WOMAN to make the choice for YOU? WEAR A FUCKIN' CONDOM AND USE SPERMICIDAL LUBE YOU JERKOFFS, OR DON'T HAVE SEX AT ALL!