NationStates

"A Republican lawmaker in Ohio, U.S.A has re-introduced a bill that would give a man the final choice on whether the woman he got pregnant could have an abortion.

Dubbed the “father’s right bill,” it would give the man the right to stand up and say he doesn’t want the fetus he contributed DNA to to be aborted. But it says nothing about then forcing him to be a good father or provide financial stability.

So yeah, way to go Ohio, if this bill makes it through to law, you won’t just be pulling a woman’s right to choose what happens to her own body (be it having to go through pregnancy or not), but you’ll be sticking a mother with everything that comes with pregnancy and putting none of it on the guy. Woohoo - score another one for progress.

OK, sarcasm done with.

I’m sure this will be met with a fair amount of “Oh, but now she can give the child up for adoption, so why should the guy be held responsible?”

Because that’s not actually what’s behind the bill (again, a bill, not a law). Its sponsor, Rep. John Adams (who has reintroduced a bill first put forth in 2007), has stated publicly that this is an attempt to “keep the two people who have created that child together.” In other words - he’s trying to force a family unit out of pregnancy rather than the other way around. He’s not aiming for adoption, he’s aiming for one big happy.

And realistically, that isn’t the way the world works. If it did - how do we account for all of the divorced parents out there? According to most studies, children don’t keep people together (the most oft-repeated stat figures half of all of America’s children will see their parents divorce at least once).

Throw in the fact that Adams’ plan would prohibit an abortion in cases where mothers don’t know the identity of the father (and bringing forth a fake would carry jail time), and I’m still trying to see how this could possibly be anything but punishment for the women involved. There’s a clear message here of “you made your bed, now lie in it.” But it’s focused solely on the woman, who has a federally protected right to make a brand new bed, and again lets men off scot free.

This isn’t about babies or foetuses, folks. It’s about a return to the patriarchal order where men are handed the right to dictate the way a woman can live her life, and she’s stuck with it." http://www.babble.com.au/2009/07/21/new ... -abortion/

Obviously, Pro-choicers will not agree with this. But even if you are pro-life - what the hell? Seriously? No. Really. Seriously?

Desperate Measures wrote:But it says nothing about then forcing him to be a good father or provide financial stability.

Well why would they when the bolded part already is apart of the law?
They should change it to if the father wishes her to abort beforehand and she doesn't then he doesn't have to help in the upbringing as it is solely her choice like it should be.

There are to be expected. the court is as conservative stacked as it is going to get. Now is the time to challenge Roe V wade in as many ways as possible.
I wouldn't be surprised if another state puts a large tax on abortion.
Overturning roe V wade is not likely. But chipping at it is very much possible.

I say fine. Either we allow the Father a say in abortions, or allow him to be forever exempt from child support for that child.

You can't have it both ways.

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:I say fine. Either we allow the Father a say in abortions, or allow him to be forever exempt from child support for that child.

You can't have it both ways.

huh???

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:I say fine. Either we allow the Father a say in abortions, or allow him to be forever exempt from child support for that child.

You can't have it both ways.

I vaugly understand why this is not the case in legal terms but can not articulate ti very well.
Something along the lines of when the woman makes the choice it is not a person, but a growth in her body.
And after birth the child is now the responsibility of both DNA donors.

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:I say fine. Either we allow the Father a say in abortions, or allow him to be forever exempt from child support for that child.

You can't have it both ways.

The problem with abortions is that it's a zero-sum game. There's no compromising to be done. If the two parents disagree, then only one of them can get what they want and the other one gets nothing. You can't half abort a child. Giving the father "a say" such as this bill is trying to do is putting the decision entirely in his hands. This bill is allowing another person to make a medical decision for a pregnant woman, and that should offend everyone.

Sdaeriji wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:I say fine. Either we allow the Father a say in abortions, or allow him to be forever exempt from child support for that child.

You can't have it both ways.

The problem with abortions is that it's a zero-sum game. There's no compromising to be done. If the two parents disagree, then only one of them can get what they want and the other one gets nothing. You can't half abort a child. Giving the father "a say" such as this bill is trying to do is putting the decision entirely in his hands. This bill is allowing another person to make a medical decision for a pregnant woman, and that should offend everyone.

Yes.

Eh, id be for it if there was a mandate on the father to PROVIDE for the child he forced the mother to have. Otherwise im going to have to go with no.

That and he shouldn't have the 'final' say. It should definitely mean something in the final outcome, it IS his baby too afterall. But final say?.. pfft.. no.

Sdaeriji wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:I say fine. Either we allow the Father a say in abortions, or allow him to be forever exempt from child support for that child.

You can't have it both ways.

The problem with abortions is that it's a zero-sum game. There's no compromising to be done. If the two parents disagree, then only one of them can get what they want and the other one gets nothing. You can't half abort a child. Giving the father "a say" such as this bill is trying to do is putting the decision entirely in his hands. This bill is allowing another person to make a medical decision for a pregnant woman, and that should offend everyone.

I agree. Not only that, but the feminists would have a field day with this one.

San Guillermo wrote:
By the way, is the guy's name really John Adams?

Yeah!

So in essence he proposes the Biblical system ? The Father is the one who owns the fetus, the woman merely the sperm recepticle ?

How nice.

I love the end-all of legislative identification - A "insert political party here" "insert political stature here" has...

Oh, wait... bluh, reading comprehension fail.

Absolutely friggin' not. The mother is the ultimate authority as she has the parasite growing inside of her. The man has no place whatsoever to decide what's done to it until after the parasite has plopped out.

Chipping away at civil rights ftl.

Can we have the woman have the final say on whether the guy wears a condom or has a vasectomy, then?

Now we just need a bill to put women in burkas and ban them from driving.

PS: To answer the OPs question, this is a cynical attempt to rally the republican's political base, much like their support for creationism and opposition to things like gas taxes or higher fuel efficiency standards. In Nixon's era, the republicans saw that they could become popular by waging a "culture" war on progressivism. Many people are brainwashed into thinking if they can just get the country moving backwards that alone will make it a better place, regardless of the cost of intellectual honesty or civil liberty.

My favorite part is if the guy just completely ditches, flies himself to the moon, the woman has to find him in order to get the abortion.

What about the baby?

This debate revolves around when does life begin?

Is abortion murder? Plan and simple.

If one murders a pregnant woman and the baby dies, is that 2 murders? If so, why isnt the abortion 1 murder?

To all of you who are for abortion... I say this.... THANK GOD YOUR MOTHER WASNT!

Close your legs, take responsibility for your actions and STOP KILLING OUR KIDS.

It seems kinda funny to me, "kill the children, save the rainforests".

Very simply put, this is wrong. It is so very wrong on so many levels of wrong. Its another backward attempt to force "The Good Old Days" on the new generations. It makes me feel sick.

Vectrova wrote:Absolutely friggin' not. The mother is the ultimate authority as she has the parasite growing inside of her. The man has no place whatsoever to decide what's done to it until after the parasite has plopped out.

So he basically has no rights whatsoever? Frankly, if a woman wants to carry a child to term over the protests of the father, I think the father shouldn't have to pay child support...it's only fair given the woman's right to kill it off before it's born without input. She shouldn't be permitted not only to terminate her pregnancy without input but to also ensure the father is forced to pay for the child if she decides that she wants to keep him or her.

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:What about the baby?

This debate revolves around when does life begin?

Is abortion murder? Plan and simple.

If one murders a pregnant woman and the baby dies, is that 2 murders? If so, why isnt the abortion 1 murder?

To all of you who are for abortion... I say this.... THANK GOD YOUR MOTHER WASNT!

Close your legs, take responsibility for your actions and STOP KILLING OUR KIDS.

It seems kinda funny to me, "kill the children, save the rainforests".

Yeah. Great. I see you got some beliefs there.

How about you explain how the choice should be left to the father and not the mother?

Vetalia wrote:

Vectrova wrote:Absolutely friggin' not. The mother is the ultimate authority as she has the parasite growing inside of her. The man has no place whatsoever to decide what's done to it until after the parasite has plopped out.

So he basically has no rights whatsoever? Frankly, if a woman wants to carry a child to term over the protests of the father, I think the father shouldn't have to pay child support...it's only fair given the woman's right to kill it off before it's born without input. She shouldn't be permitted not only to terminate her pregnancy without input but to also ensure the father is forced to pay for the child if she decides that she wants to keep him or her.

I think the father should have the ability to opt out of being in the child's life.

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:To all of you who are for abortion... I say this.... THANK GOD YOUR MOTHER WASNT!

My mother supports the right to choose, thank you very much.

Close your legs

Why does someone always have to trot this out? You're basically saying you think women who get abortions are stupid sluts. It's infantile and misogynistic.

take responsibility for your actions and STOP KILLING OUR KIDS.

Your kids? Your kids? Sorry, you have kids? Who killed them? Or do you just routinely claim possession of children if they happen to exist in the same country.

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:What about the baby?

This debate revolves around when does life begin?

Is abortion murder? Plan and simple.

If one murders a pregnant woman and the baby dies, is that 2 murders? If so, why isnt the abortion 1 murder?

To all of you who are for abortion... I say this.... THANK GOD YOUR MOTHER WASNT!

Close your legs, take responsibility for your actions and STOP KILLING OUR KIDS.

It seems kinda funny to me, "kill the children, save the rainforests".

Another its always the woman's fault argument. Go back to 1100.

Desperate Measures wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:What about the baby?

This debate revolves around when does life begin?

Is abortion murder? Plan and simple.

If one murders a pregnant woman and the baby dies, is that 2 murders? If so, why isnt the abortion 1 murder?

To all of you who are for abortion... I say this.... THANK GOD YOUR MOTHER WASNT!

Close your legs, take responsibility for your actions and STOP KILLING OUR KIDS.

It seems kinda funny to me, "kill the children, save the rainforests".

Yeah. Great. I see you got some beliefs there.

How about you explain how the choice should be left to the father and not the mother?

There are 3 parties involved: The Mother, The Father and the baby. If the mother wants the abortion and the ather does not, then unless there has been rape, incest, etc, the mother goes through with the pregnancy and gives child to Father.

If the Father wants the abortion and the mother does not, the Mother has it, and the Father has no rights, nor is he responsible financially.

If the baby wants to live, but the Father and/or Mother wants to kill it, too bad for the baby.