- ‹ previous
- 928 of 8922
- next ›
Ohio Abortion Bill Requires Man's Written Permission
WTF.
An Ohio state rep., John Adams (R, for Ridiculous), has introduced a bill that would require a woman to get written consent from the man she had sex with to conceive. And if she doesn't know who the dad is, she has to submit a list of names of men she's had sex with! Scarlet Letter, here we come.
The bill would make it illegal to lie about who the dad is, and would make abortions without consent a crime. No word on instances of rape and incest, would we need to get a permission slip from daddy then, too?
Listen, I get that a father has a vested interest in seeing his progeny thrive, that's a man's most basic evolutionary instinct. But until men have to carry a growing fetus for nine months, sometimes risking their health to do so, and most certainly altering the rest of their lives, until then, the woman has the final say. If she makes the hard decision that abortion is what's best for everyone, well, sorry boys, you're going to have to be live with that. Just like she will.
The opinions of the author
The opinions of the author of this column, and the tone with which they are delivered bothers me. Really, enough of this whining about how the pain and inconvenience of childbirth entitles a woman to decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. It doesn't.
A woman's right to choose is derived from her ownership of her body. And certainly, enduring a pregnancy and giving birth imposes serious cost on a woman. But saying something like, "would we need to get a permission slip from daddy?" unfairly trivializes the man's role in child rearing. Reproductive rights advocates have hammered home the idea that giving birth is a choice. Therefore if a woman, against the wishes of her partner, chooses not to terminate a pregnancy (obligating him to pay child support), she willfully impinges on his rights.
If a woman want's the unfettered right to choose, she should be prepared to take on the responsibilities of rasing the child herself. Otherwise, I think a compelling case can be made for the father to have a say.
Oops. I accidentally
Oops. I accidentally recommended this comment. I meant to do no such thing!
Instead, I'll write a reply, because I TOTALLY DISAGREE.
"Therefore if a woman, against the wishes of her partner, chooses not to terminate a pregnancy (obligating him to pay child support), she willfully impinges on his rights."
That's BS and you know it. It ought to be self evident just how grossly erroneous your logic is, but let me spell it out for you: impinges on HIS RIGHTS? HIS RIGHTS against child support. Um, no. It is the MOTHER'S right to recieve child support, and the child's right. DO NOT confuse the mother's right with the father's right in this case.
When did keeping it in your pants become passé?
It sounds to me like Mr. Adams and coul2t both think it's unfair for a man to have no control over his female partner's pregnancy or the results thereof, just in different ways. Is it unfair for a man to have no say-so? Perhaps. But life isn't always fair.
When I was single, I certainly wasn't celibate. But I always figured that whenever I had sex that could result in a pregnancy, I was risking handing over control of part of my life to my female partner. That risk included both the possibility that I would be responsible for raising a child, and the possibility that I would bear the grief of an abortion that I would have no say about.
Being aware of that kept me very careful about both partners and birth control.
Being an adult is primarily about taking responsibility for what you do and what the consequences might be. If a man doesn't want to cope with the impact of possible unilateral decisions by his female sexual partner, then he needs to keep his dick in his pants. It's an old-fashioned family value called self-discipline.
And if he and his partner had their fun and now she's pregnant, whining about his "rights" as a man cuts no mustard with me: man up and deal with child support or abortion or whatever consequences there may be. It's another old-fashioned family value called responsibility.
BTW, life is very strange when a Republican state lawmaker is against men suffering the predictable consequences of their actions, noted right-wing divorcé Rush Limbaugh goes on vacation to the Caribbean with somebody else's Viagra, and a left-coast liberal like me is having to defend the value of sexual continence.
Never said anything about childbirth
Coul2t, I am not, nor are pro-choicers in general, whining about the pain of childbirth. A pregnancy that endangers the LIFE of the mother is not a matter of inconvenience or pain tolerance. And I agree that the decision to bring a child into the world is one you'd hope happens communally, that women and men make the decision together to have and to raise, till death do they part. But wanting that in theory does not mean legislators have the right to go so far as to say that a woman can't have an abortion without consent.
You say "If a woman want's the unfettered right to choose, she should be prepared to take on the responsibilities of rasing the child herself." Women need to evaluate what they have or don't have in a partner. And some women can't and aren't able to take on the responsibilities you speak of, so they abort, and they have to live with that decision. It's not pretty, it's not simple, and, as much as you'd hope the father is engaged, caring and involved, it's really ultimately her decision to make.
permission for abortion
If the men have any say at all it should be commensurate with their authority. Responsibility should equal authority,i.e. 0%.
A really stupid law as the woman has complete authority(100%) over who she has sex with and if she names the father or tells anyone! If it isn't her choice it is a crime and she is the victim and owes the perp nothing!