Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by tobefirst, Aug 2, 2007.
i don't like it.
i think its a horrible idea.
doesn't help father rights at all, just hurts things more i think.
>Simply put: no father means no abortion.<
Well, that's good. At least Jesus would be exempt.
I didn't read the article, but does it make exceptions for rape or incest?
Edit: evidently the woman would have to produce a police report proving it was due to rape or incest. I'm sure that will be a deal-breaker for a lot of people (me included).
Yes, with "appropriate" documentation.
This is just plain wrong.
Great, another way to take away people's right to do what they want with their own bodies.
The logic behind this makes no sense. If a fetus is just a fetus, then you can get rid of it. If you think it's really a child, then it would always be wrong to kill a child. No where in this does anyone but the person whose body the fetus is in become involved.
If you want to give fathers a say, allow them to opt out of child support well before the child is born. However, they shouldn't get to control what goes on inside someone else's body.
I just noticed that this is taking place in my former home state of Ohio. How unsurprising.
I'm a very pro-life person, but I think this measure is taking the wrong approach. I'm very torn on this.
Couldn't say it any better really. Some ideas are so ridiculous that the only sensible response is a short sharp one.
How paternalistic and degrading - once again men get a veto over womens bodies.
Didn't Gov Casey try this in Pennsylvania years ago?
I personally am very pro-life, but I think this is going to be a very bad law that is extremely hard to enforce. How do they do a paternity test on an embryo? I didn't think that was even possible. I think that the pro-life crowd is simply trying to make inroads against the existing abortion laws and I do not really believe that this is the best way to do that.
I don't think that it is the woman's body is what is man is vetoing but the decision to kill the unborn child that he made. If I were a father of an unborn child, I sure wouldn't want the mother to kill it. But I still think this law is not the way to go about it.
It was ten years ago when I got myself in this situation, me and the girl riding the party train when her pregnancy became an issue. I was prepared to do the right thing and support her baby, did not want abortion. >crackhead that i was< My mom concieved me out of wedlock, so I shudder to think what might not have been had she chosen to abort me in the late 6o's. It was a hard decision for her, but it worked out ok.
I hate to admit it, but I thank God that I didn't have a say in the matter of my party girlfriend's choice. She was wise enough to know how screwed up that baby would be with all the drugs we were doing and the lifestyle I lived - dooming another miserable child to our miserable world... in spite of the fact that I believe abortion is killing a baby, it seems best left in the hands of a woman, her counsel, and her doctor imop. I see potential problems with uncooperative fathers forcing mothers into seeking out unsafe alternatives, back to the dark ages.
Previous supreme courts have ruled that putting up unwarranted/unnecessary barriers to obtain an abortion is unconstitutional (the case I'm thinking of is 1991/92).
However with the current supreme court, previous decisions will have no bearing.
Amazingly, Ohio is one of the few states that could adopt this as law. The South Dakota initiative was voted down by the public as the health of the mother was overruled by her unborn child in that law, and the people didn't want that.
No potential problems, real problems. In addition how many blokes will be roped in to pretending to be the father for the purposes of giving consent, despite the fact he has nothing to do with it.
The only situation this will deal with is where the father doesn't want an abortion (for whatever motive - moral or vengeful). In the majority of other cases fathers of convenience will be found.
Could you expand on this claim a little bit? How does this hurt the father's rights, in your opinion?
The proposed legislation reminds me of similar laws having to do with biological fathers' rights in adoptions (although that varies greatly from state to state).
Not amazingly. Ohio is pretty backward. I grew up there and fled as soon as I could. From what I'm told it's getting worse, not better. Every time I visit my family there I get the willies. It's such a negative, defeatist place.
Well, if this a state law, then it will the highest court in ohio that has to measure it against the 1991 ruling by the SCOTUS. Interestingly if the law were to pass, and assuredly challenged in Ohio's highest court, whoever the loser is can appeal to the SCOTUS. Whichever side lost will then be willing to claim that the 1991 SCOTUS ruling is behind violated. Like laws, Court Rulings are just a tool to achieve an end.
This is wrong in so many ways it's not even funny.
What if the child has encephilitis or any one of a multitude of problems? Will the woman be forced to carry to term a piece of lifeless flesh?
What if the woman is unable to afford health care? The lack of prenatal care is linked to spontaneous abortions. Would she then be charged for murder if she spontaneously aborted because she had no health care?
Would they lock her up so that she couldn't travel to another state to have an abortion?
Will every pregnant woman be forced to disclose the father of their fetus? What about married woman who are fooling around? It sounds like this would lead to more than a few divorces?
This is so unconstitutional that it's simply not going to ever become law.
Thats a joke right?
Unfortunately, I don't think it is.
I would hope that the divorce rate would go up if that was the case. Why should a man allow his wife to cheat on him and have another mans baby without knowing it.
I know I would want to know if my wife was sleeping on the side.
I would hope she would say something before I found out she aborted some other guys kid.