Ohio asshat wants women to get a permission slip to have an abortion.

[Saya]

Columbus, OH (LifeNews.com) -- An Ohio lawmaker has re-introduced legislation that would include a father's rights in the abortion decision-making process. Under Roe v. Wade, fathers are left out of the equation when a woman considers whether or not to have an abortion that would end the life of their child.

Rep. John Adams, a Republican from Sidney, wants to change that and the legislation he introduced today, House Bill 252, would require the biological father's consent before an abortion can be done.

The bill would apply to any abortion and would require written consent before it can be done.

Adams told the Daily Reporter newspaper that abortion centers would "need to get consent from the biological father" before the abortion can proceed and he called the measure a "father's right bill" to protect the interest of fathers who are given no say in the abortion process.

He also said the bill provides for criminal penalties for women seeking abortions who do not obtain consent properly.

"Providing a false biological father would be a first-degree misdemeanor the first time, which means not more than six months and jail, and a maximum $1,000 fine," Adams said. "And on the second occasion, providing false information would be considered a fifth-degree felony."

Adams told the newspaper that, in cases when the mother does not know the identity of the father, the abortion would be prohibited.

"There needs to be responsibility for actions," Adams said. "As someone who is pro-life, this is also an attempt and a hope to keep the two people who have created that child together, and I suppose if you just go back to the simple beginning, there is merit to chastity, and to young men and women waiting until marriage."

Adams said the bill offers exceptions in cases of **** or incest or when the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy.

This is the second time Adams has introduced the bill and he expects abortion advocates to oppose it when it comes to a committee debate and vote.

"The issue does stir emotion on both sides," Adams said. "When I introduced House Bill 287, I had some conversations that were less than pleasant."

He said Ohio Right to Life supports the bill and that he has more co-sponsors this time around, including a Democrat, Rep. Roland Winburn of Dayton.

http://www.lifenews.com/state4302.html

I know he's tried this before and it won't pass, but the fact that so much time and money is going to be spent even trying to pass this shit boggles my mind. "Women can't be trusted making decisions by themselves, what does their husbands say? Oh, you got knocked up from casual sex and you're not sure who the father is? Shame on you, you hussy, you deserve to be punished for not adhering to our morals! You were *****? Doesn't matter if most rapes go unreported, you have to prove it and announce it to the world!"

[Renatus]

Hmm, while I do think the father has some right in the matter, since it is the woman's body she has the final say. Why not simply add on somthing like a required waiting period if the woman is married unless the man gives his consent which would negate the waiting period. This waiting period could give some necessery time to think things through before a mistake is made that they could regret for the rest of their lives, if the woman still isn't convinced by then she can go through with it anyways.

I personally disagree with abortion, but if it's going to happen, might as well make sure the woman is absolutely sure.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Renatus

Hmm, while I do think the father has some right in the matter, since it is the woman's body she has the final say. Why not simply add on somthing like a required waiting period if the woman is married unless the man gives his consent which would negate the waiting period.

Thats still pretty bad. Why a waiting period? I'm not a doctor but I would assume getting an abortion as soon as possible would be the healthiest choice. And thats another thing, this affect's not only the woman's autonomy and her body, but it also affects her health. And why married women? We don't sign our bodies away when we get married. The decision to abort shouldn't be decided by lawmaking men who know nothing about it and just want to project their morals on other people, its a health decision made by a woman and consulted with a doctor.

And would that waiting period extend to the morning after pill? I would argue that would be the least traumatic way to end a pregnancy but could easily be seen as a sort of abortion as well.

This waiting period could give some necessery time to think things through before a mistake is made that they could regret for the rest of their lives, if the woman still isn't convinced by then she can go through with it anyways.

Thats still assuming people have the same opinions about abortion as you do, they could be perfectly convinced and willing right away and yet they should still wait because their husbands can't make up their minds? They still have to sit and watch their bodies change because of that? Why? Even the act of saying "honey, I went to get an abortion but they said you have to give me a permission slip or we'll have to wait" is insanely patronizing. Because someone else thinks that they are incubating a sacred life, a subjective belief that they do not adhere to.

I personally disagree with abortion, but if it's going to happen, might as well make sure the woman is absolutely sure.

I personally disagree with abortion so I will not have one. But I know my squeamish attitude towards abortion is completely subjective and I have no right to impose those beliefs on someone else or make it harder for them to get the healthcare they want.

[Despanan]

Ah yes, soon abortions, like guns, will come with a mandatory 3-day waiting period.

[Renatus]

Well because people tend to make abrupt decisions, and with all the horomone imbalences going on in a pregnant woman they can make plenty. Like how some women have thoughts to kill their kids somtimes due to sone of these imbalences. I doubt it's completely unheard of for one of these imbalences to lead to thoughts of an abortion one moment and then end up not wanting one the next, I think that would be a horrible situation.
I made the end of my earlier post in an attempt to point out the fact that I was looking past the fact that I disagree with somthing, though I am sorry if I did not make it clear enough, as I havent had much of sleep today.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Renatus

Well because people tend to make abrupt decisions, and with all the horomone imbalences going on in a pregnant woman they can make plenty. Like how some women have thoughts to kill their kids somtimes due to sone of these imbalences. I doubt it's completely unheard of for one of these imbalences to lead to thoughts of an abortion one moment and then end up not wanting one the next, I think that would be a horrible situation.

Its up to the doctor to decide if the woman is in an okay state of mind, again not a lawmaker. The imbalances you're talking about with the women who killed their children is POST partum depression, after the birth. In any case, its just wrong to treat women like they're hysterical and slaves to their hormones, if some have regrets later thats sadly their prerogative, other women shouldn't suffer for it.

http://www.webmd.com/news/20000822/s...egret-abortion

And most women do not regret having an abortion. The problems of a few should not hinder the rights of the majority, and because a few may become depressed afterwards does not mean that the state has any right to treat women like children.

[Renatus]

Originally Posted by Saya

The imbalances you're talking about with the women who killed their children is POST partum depression, after the birth.

There is actually more than just Post partum depression, otherwise they wouldn't need to specify that it happened after birth, Post partum depression just recieves the most press.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Renatus

There is actually more than just Post partum depression, otherwise they wouldn't need to specify that it happened after birth, Post partum depression just recieves the most press.

Whatever the case may be, the number of women killing their children in the US every year is 200,

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art..._children.html

And I doubt all of those murders were due to pregnancy, even if it was its a far cry from a significant amount of mothers to even come into this discussion. Even so, depression during and after pregnancy still only affects 13% of women:
http://www.womenshealth.gov/FAQ/depr...regnancy.cfm#b

About 1/3 of all women will have an abortion, and 60% of those who get an abortion already have children. Why can't they be trusted to know themselves and their bodies? Most of them have been through it before.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

[Renatus]

Originally Posted by Saya

Whatever the case may be, the number of women killing their children in the US every year is 200,

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art..._children.html

And I doubt all of those murders were due to pregnancy, even if it was its a far cry from a significant amount of mothers to even come into this discussion. Even so, depression during and after pregnancy still only affects 13% of women:
http://www.womenshealth.gov/FAQ/depr...regnancy.cfm#b

About 1/3 of all women will have an abortion, and 60% of those who get an abortion already have children. Why can't they be trusted to know themselves and their bodies? Most of them have been through it before.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Eh don't worry I only brought it up fyi not to get anyone riled up I conceed the discussion to you.

[Saya]

I wasn't getting riled up.

[Renatus]

Originally Posted by Saya

I wasn't getting riled up.

Ah well you can still have a cookie anyways if you want.

[Beneath the Shadows]

How does wanting to give the fathers a say make someone an asshat?

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

How does wanting to give the fathers a say make someone an asshat?

1. No one has the right to have that kind of control over another person's body.

2. Its punishing women who have casual sex.

3. Its making things very hard on those who have been *****, once again only one in ten rapes get reported, if you didn't report it you have to carry to term.

4. Its assuming that a embryo or fetus is a person and a child, and therefore a father would have parental rights. That is a completely subjective view, and has no legal standing.

5. Its a pro-life tactic to limit abortions and promote chastity and waiting until marriage, they really don't give a fuck about rights, they want to punish promiscuity and sex before marriage.

6. If you're in a commited relationship more than likely you're going to talk it over with your husband or boyfriend before you go through with it. But also according to the guttmacher link I provided, half of women who abort list fearing being a single parent or having problems with their significant other one of the reasons they aborted, and two thirds report not being able to afford a child. That means a man that they might not know very well or one that they are not in a stable relationship with has the power to veto the decision about their bodies.

7. This would cause the return of back alley abortions, and women will die.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Saya

3. Its making things very hard on those who have been *****, once again only one in ten rapes get reported, if you didn't report it you have to carry to term.

I just want to clarify for those who may be wondering this stat is based on those who report **** to a hotline but not to the police, last I heard the stat in the US was that 87% of rapes reported to hotlines went unreported to police, so it doesn't even take into consideration those who may be too traumatized to call.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Saya

1. No one has the right to have that kind of control over another person's body.

2. Its punishing women who have casual sex.

3. Its making things very hard on those who have been *****, once again only one in ten rapes get reported, if you didn't report it you have to carry to term.

4. Its assuming that a embryo or fetus is a person and a child, and therefore a father would have parental rights. That is a completely subjective view, and has no legal standing.

5. Its a pro-life tactic to limit abortions and promote chastity and waiting until marriage, they really don't give a fuck about rights, they want to punish promiscuity and sex before marriage.

6. If you're in a commited relationship more than likely you're going to talk it over with your husband or boyfriend before you go through with it. But also according to the guttmacher link I provided, half of women who abort list fearing being a single parent or having problems with their significant other one of the reasons they aborted, and two thirds report not being able to afford a child. That means a man that they might not know very well or one that they are not in a stable relationship with has the power to veto the decision about their bodies.

7. This would cause the return of back alley abortions, and women will die.

1. So what you're saying is that the rights of the woman takes precedence over the rights of the man? Sorry, I can't accept that. I believe in equal treatment.

2. No more than men.

3. I'm not talking about ****. I'm talking about consentual sex. In the cases of **** or disease, abortio should always be an option, no questions asked.

4. Technically, abortion is a parental right. So if the mother has parental rights, so should the father.

5. It won't limit abortions because most of the men would encourage the woman not only to get an abortion, but to do it ASAP. (It could also be said this encouragement would convince a woman to get an abortion when she would otherwise decide not to.) It doesn't promote chastity or punish pre-marital sex because if people are going to have sex, they're going to do it regardless. As for promiscuity, you make it sound as if promiscuity should be socially acceptable. Even people who are sexually liberated frown upon promiscuity.

6. As I've already indicated, most men won't "veto" the decision.

7. Oh, right, because a woman couldn't simply leave Ohio for a day.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

3. I'm not talking about ****. I'm talking about consentual sex. In the cases of **** or disease, abortio should always be an option, no questions asked.

Just how the hell does that logic work when we have already said that most **** victims don't report to the police and you have to have brought criminal charges for you to be regarded as a **** victim under this proposed legislation.

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

3. I'm not talking about ****. I'm talking about consentual sex. In the cases of **** or disease, abortio should always be an option, no questions asked.
5. It won't limit abortions because most of the men would encourage the woman not only to get an abortion, but to do it ASAP. (It could also be said this encouragement would convince a woman to get an abortion when she would otherwise decide not to.) It doesn't promote chastity or punish pre-marital sex because if people are going to have sex, they're going to do it regardless. As for promiscuity, you make it sound as if promiscuity should be socially acceptable. Even people who are sexually liberated frown upon promiscuity.

6. As I've already indicated, most men won't "veto" the decision

You don't know a lot of the men I know.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

1. So what you're saying is that the rights of the woman takes precedence over the rights of the man? Sorry, I can't accept that. I believe in equal treatment.

If a man could volunteer to carry the baby than maybe, but its the woman who has to handle the health risks associated with pregnancy, carry the fetus for nine months and then go into labour. This treats women as merely incubators for babies.

2. No more than men.

See above. A man does not suffer from pregnancy. When the child is born, then he can have equal parenting rights, but before then no man has any right to force a woman to bear his child. Secondly, in this bill, if the woman doesn't know who the father is, she is prohibited from an abortion. So whoever did impregnate her can just not come forward, but she still has to suffer.

3. I'm not talking about ****. I'm talking about consentual sex. In the cases of **** or disease, abortio should always be an option, no questions asked.

You asked what makes him an asshat.

4. Technically, abortion is a parental right. So if the mother has parental rights, so should the father.

No, its a healthcare right, a right as a human to have control over her own body and a right to autonomy.

5. It won't limit abortions because most of the men would encourage the woman not only to get an abortion, but to do it ASAP. (It could also be said this encouragement would convince a woman to get an abortion when she would otherwise decide not to.) It doesn't promote chastity or punish pre-marital sex because if people are going to have sex, they're going to do it regardless. As for promiscuity, you make it sound as if promiscuity should be socially acceptable. Even people who are sexually liberated frown upon promiscuity.

6. As I've already indicated, most men won't "veto" the decision.

Most men? Actually, more than half of men in America oppose abortion:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1212/abo...ion-gender-gap

And even if "most men" wouldn't, what about those who would? "Sorry babe, you have to go through with this. Even though statistically speaking there's a 50/50 chance we're not in a stable relationship and we're more than likely to be below the poverty line."

In the article, and again you asked why he's an asshat, he did say he wants to promote chastity and waiting until marriage. In this bill, if a woman does not know who the father is, she is prohibited from having an abortion, and will go to jail if she still has one.

And yes, there is nothing morally wrong with casual sex, and what do you mean by "sexually liberated?" In the historical context this includes "free love", and the power to choose one's sexual behavior without the notion that sex as a shameful act that should only be between two people in a relationship. I understand not wanting to participate, I won't myself, but there is nothing wrong with adults having consentual sex with each other even if they are not in a relationship, or don't even know each other.

7. Oh, right, because a woman couldn't simply leave Ohio for a day.

If her husband is like most men and oppose abortion, you think he'd let her leave the state and come back magically unpregnant? And why should they have to leave to get a health care service they are entitled to? Why should we make it harder for women to get an abortion? Because economic reasons play a big part in the decision to abort, it can be difficult for some women to leave, and really, if you're so for this than you'd want this on the national level, right? Its just barbaric to ask a women that if she wants her abortion she has to leave, just because she doesn't know the father, was ***** but didn't report it or because her husband thinks he owns her body.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Solumina

Just how the hell does that logic work when we have already said that most **** victims don't report to the police and you have to have brought criminal charges for you to be regarded as a **** victim under this proposed legislation.

Then maybe they should press charges more often. In any case, apparently you haven't noticed, but the only part of this legislation that I approve of is the man's right to have a say. The rest of it I do not support.

You don't know a lot of the men I know.

Gee, that was a compelling argument.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

Then maybe they should press charges more often.

Fuck off, really.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

Gee, that was a compelling argument.

About as compelling as you saying that most men would be all for the abortion.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Saya

If a man could volunteer to carry the baby than maybe, but its the woman who has to handle the health risks associated with pregnancy, carry the fetus for nine months and then go into labour. This treats women as merely incubators for babies.

Technically, that's exactly what the womb is. But it's far better to treat women as "merely incubators" than to treat men as non-entities.

See above. A man does not suffer from pregnancy. When the child is born, then he can have equal parenting rights, but before then no man has any right to force a woman to bear his child.

So a man can't force a woman to bear his child, but a woman can force a man to have no recourse when she aborts his child. That's still a double standard, and it's still bullshit.

Secondly, in this bill, if the woman doesn't know who the father is, she is prohibited from an abortion. So whoever did impregnate her can just not come forward, but she still has to suffer.

As I've already indicated in my last post, I support only the man's right to have a say. In any case, if the man doesn't come forward, then as far as I'm concerned, he's waived that right.

You asked what makes him an asshat.

I don't think that that question would apply to a **** victim seeking an abortion. "Question 1: Were you *****? Question 2: Did this act of **** get you pregnant? Question 3: Do you wish to abort the pregnancy? Question 4: Is Representative John Adams an asshat?" Yeah, that doesn't quite work.

No, its a healthcare right, a right as a human to have control over her own body and a right to autonomy.

If it's not a parental choice or right, then why are the parents of unborn children called the parents of unborn children?

Most men? Actually, more than half of men in America oppose abortion:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1212/abo...ion-gender-gap

That link says 46%. That's not more than half.

And even if "most men" wouldn't, what about those who would? "Sorry babe, you have to go through with this. Even though statistically speaking there's a 50/50 chance we're not in a stable relationship and we're more than likely to be below the poverty line."

And what about those who would convince the woman to get an abortion when she'd otherwise not get one? The specific people getting abortions would change, but the number of abortions would not.

In the article, and again you asked why he's an asshat, he did say he wants to promote chastity and waiting until marriage. In this bill, if a woman does not know who the father is, she is prohibited from having an abortion, and will go to jail if she still has one.

As I've already indicated, I don't support that part of the bill.

And yes, there is nothing morally wrong with casual sex, and what do you mean by "sexually liberated?"

Sexually liberated; defining one's views on sexuality not according to religious dogma, but rather on the reality of human nature. You want to have pre- or extra-marital sex? Go for it. Want to have more than one partner at any given time, or even at the same time? Sounds fun. Gender of your partner is irrelevant? Whatever floats your boat. I'm not sure where I stand on the age issue. In any case, I consider myself sexually liberated. Hell, if I wanted to I could take a mistress, and my wife wouldn't care (which would qualify her as being sexually liberated as well).

In the historical context this includes "free love", and the power to choose one's sexual behavior without the notion that sex as a shameful act that should only be between two people in a relationship. I understand not wanting to participate, I won't myself, but there is nothing wrong with adults having consentual sex with each other even if they are not in a relationship, or don't even know each other.

There's still a difference between being sexually liberated and fucking anyone and everyone who's willing and available. Even someone who's sexually liberated must take responsibility for their sex life. I wouldn't want to be the one to catch and spread an STD.

If her husband is like most men and oppose abortion, you think he'd let her leave the state and come back magically unpregnant?

If she really wanted an abortion, do you really think she'd stop and ask for permission?

And why should they have to leave to get a health care service they are entitled to?

"Entitled" is a subjective term. If the majority of voters in Ohio voted that women are not entitled to abortions, then they're not.

Why should we make it harder for women to get an abortion?

Why should we make it easier? Abortion should not be used as a form of birth control in place of other contraceptive measures. Using it as such is irresponsible.

[quote]Because economic reasons play a big part in the decision to abort, it can be difficult for some women to leave,[quote]

If they're so poor that they can't afford a $150 Greyhound ticket (that's round-trip and assuming that they'd travel from one end of Ohio to the opposite end to leave the state, rather then the closer state border), then how can they afford an abortion in the first place?

and really, if you're so for this than you'd want this on the national level, right?

Wrong. Such decisions are up to each individual state, and I'd rather it stay that way.

Its just barbaric to ask a women that if she wants her abortion she has to leave, just because she doesn't know the father, was ***** but didn't report it or because her husband thinks he owns her body.

In the context of this discussion, "barbaric" is quite simply a laughable term to use.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Saya

Fuck off, really.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know it would offend your sensibilities to suggest that rapists should be dealt with rather than be allowed to remain free and at large.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Solumina

About as compelling as you saying that most men would be all for the abortion.

According to Gallup in a poll more recent then the one Saya linked to, most men do support abortion.

[Solumina]

Pro-choice and being okay with abortion are two very different things and your link simply said that 49% or men are pro-choice

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Solumina

Pro-choice and being okay with abortion are two very different things

Um... sure.