Ohio bill: Women need men’s permission to have abortions

Oh this is rich. A group of legislators in Ohio are pushing a bill that would give men a say in whether or not a woman can have an abortion.

“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 [Rep. John] 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.

Written notes? Submitting a list of potential fathers? Sometimes I think that anti-choice folks forget that women are, you know, adults.
But seriously here’s the best part of the bill:

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.

Fuck. You.
But wait, it gets even better. Women would be required to present a police report if they want to “prove” that the pregnancy was a result of rape of incest. Because women can’t be trusted, obviously.
NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio executive director Kellie Copeland says, “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…It is completely out of touch with Ohio’s mainstream values. This measure is a clear attack on a woman’s freedom and privacy.” Not to mention our intelligence.
The text of the bill is here. And if you want to contact Rep. Adams, who is sponsoring the bill, all of his info is here.

and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

349 Comments

  1. Posted August 1, 2007 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

    Regarding financial responsibility:
    The true problem is our country’s lack of financial responsibility for children. We push the burden onto the citizens. The simple fact is, if pro-life people really cared about preventing abortions, they’d figure out a way to make caring for a child less financially burdensome.
    Many women choose abortion simply because they cannot afford to care for a child.
    The fact that some men who haven’t freely chosen to engage in sex can become financially responsible for the children created by their forced sperm donation (boys who’ve been statutorily raped, men who’ve been tricked) displays our social refusal to care for children.
    We take out these injustices on the children caused by them.
    It takes a village. But our village refuses to accept that responsibility.

  2. Cola
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

    Men would never suffer this kind of control over their bodies by women.
    This is completely unconstitutional. Of course it won’t get anywhere, but the intention is to propose something so extreme that people will accept relatively more reasonable anti-choice legislation. Cynical fucks.

  3. Persephone
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    I cannot comprehend why a woman, or man, who was pro-choice would have sex with a pro-lifer (the exception of course being rape, where there isn’t a choice in the matter), but I digress. We have a law similar to this in Colorado (if the couple is married the husband has to give consent, or some stupid shit). It’s bullshit. If men wanted to get a vasectomy they wouldn’t need the permission of their girlfriends or wives. Hmmm… OK, maybe that was a bad comparison, but since men can’t have children without a woman just yet (as far as I know), it’s the best example I could come up with.

  4. kissmypineapple
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    I recently had conversations with a few different men, just trying to persuade them to be a bit humbler about asking their future wives to have children. In my experience, the men I know who want children act like it’s nothing. They seem completely incapable (or possibly unwilling) to wrap their minds around the magnitude of their request. The physical and emotional strain along with the permanant life altering elements of pregnancy, childbirth, and motherhood seem to be lost on them. Even for a woman who wants children, that decision is HUGE. It’s like they truly believe that because women’s bodies are capable of all of this, that it isn’t a big deal.
    Even my boyfriend, who identifies as feminist, mentioned that he thought it would be nice to have a kid, in the same way someone my say they think it would be nice to have a boat. Like it’s just this whimsical thing. And (as a woman who’s never really wanted children) when I named some serious physical cons to having kids, he said, but you’d have a kid, as though that’s a pro of childbearing for a woman who doesn’t want kids. It’s really difficult to make a man understand.

  5. the frog queen
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

    Kissmypineapple, I totally understand. I’ve had similar conversations with my boyfriend. We’re at a very serious point in our lives, talking about marriage. Both of us express interest in having a kid when we’re financially able, but part of me is absolutely terrified of what will happen to my body and my emotions during and after. But he thinks its “no big deal” cause you know “women have babies all the time”… like that’s a good reason to go through with a pregnancy..!?

  6. azliza
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    kissmypineapple-
    thanks, you said it a lot more eloquently than i.
    perhaps part of that “aint no thing!” attitude that lots of guys have is perpetuated by what they see on tv, as far as the birthing process. It’s always so funny when a woman’s giving birth on tv- haha, she’s yelling at her husband that this is all his fault! and they think that a little patronizing is all it takes on their part.

  7. sasha0189
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    Aren’t these conservative-types always going on about how fucked-up the children from single-mother households are anyway? So if a woman is pregnant but not in a relationship with the father, why would they want to stop her from getting an abortion? Wouldn’t it just be one less future criminal (in their eyes)?
    Also, doesn’t a fetus have to be a little further along down the gestation-period path before you can do paternity tests on it? Or am I imagining that?

  8. EG
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    Sara, as you pointed out earlier, women who are entrapped by condom-hole-poking men can have abortions. If they feel very strongly about not having abortions, then yes, I would suggest that they use two or three methods of contraception, as many of my friends do.

  9. Miles
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

    If some men really want to have the full rights to choose whether or not to have an abortion, then they need to spend a bit more time and money on research!
    Quite a few years ago I read a science article which compared a fetus, in some ways mind you, to a parasite. The scientists quoted theorized that a method could conceivably (pun not intended, but there anyway) carry a fetus to term, with birth performed via C-section. They want the rights? Let them carry the baby! Then they can have the joy of convincing the other party to pay child support!
    It was so long ago I don’t remember any details of the research or whether any progress has been made. There is naturally a lot of resistance to this kind of research as many consider such an idea unnatural and unethical. Somehow I doubt there would be very many takers on the offer, although I am sure there would be some.

  10. Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    It seems to me that feminists are so angry (gee, that’s unusual) about this because it dares to give men an equal voice in whether or not they become fathers.
    Many fathers, as stated, are forced into financial slavery for upto two decades based on the woman’s decision alone. This will protect men from such egotistic women, will ensure a genuinely joint decision and even promotes women to report genuine rape cases. This is really a win-win situation for all involved.
    The only people who “lose out” (so to speak) are feminists, because they loose their current ability to enslave men.

  11. ahleeeshah
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    FROGQUEEN:
    You’re dating a guy that refuses to use condoms, and would leave you if you got an abortion?
    What?!

  12. Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

    It seems to me that feminists are so angry (gee, that’s unusual) about this because it dares to give men an equal voice in whether or not they become fathers.
    Many fathers, as stated, are forced into financial slavery for upto two decades based on the woman’s decision alone. This will protect men from such egotistic women, will ensure a genuinely joint decision and even promotes women to report genuine rape cases. This is really a win-win situation for all involved.
    The only people who “lose out” (so to speak) are feminists, because they loose their current ability to enslave men.

  13. Vervain
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

    EG – We have the best legal justice system money can buy! (I want that on a bumper sticker or something.)
    UCLAbodyimage – Yes, absolutely. If I didn’t want to gestate or raise a child, but the father did, I’d be happy to let him do so (and either relinquish my parental rights to it, or pay support and have visitation rights to it, depending on the situation.) That’s assuming the process of removing the fertilized egg from my body wasn’t more physically burdensome than being pregnant or prohibitively expensive, which might be the case.
    One final note: I’d never heard of a woman poking holes in a condom to entrap a man by getting pregnant, but if it’s happening a lot, I’d suggest give men the same advice we give women regarding date rape drugs–Don’t accept condoms from strangers, and don’t leave your condom unattended. ;)

  14. SarahMC
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    I’m sure many people’s view of childbirth is influenced by shows like that one on TLC about the Duggar family, that included 16 children (probably 20 by now). Michelle, the mom, wore a perpetual Laura Bush smile and let out a faint squeal with each birth. Then she gleefully returned home to do 100 loads of laundry a day with a litter of children crawling all over the place. “See, that woman wouldn’t have had 16 if pregnancy & childbirth were hard!”

  15. John Dias
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    I wish anti-abortion people would not look at abortion restrictions has having some sort of sociological use. I am a pro-lifer. I oppose abortion because I think it’s killing a human being. What difference does it make if the power game between men and women is affected? Support or oppose the legality of abortion on its merits.

  16. the frog queen
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    Ashleee,
    I’m dating the man I’m gonna marry. He won’t use condoms, so I’m on birth control. i.e. no babies. But he once expressed to me that he would fall apart (meaning probably leave me) if I got an abortion because we intend to have children in the future.
    The thing is, he says stupid stuff and he’s not a genious. I think he’s overly influenced by his family in that they view abortion as a sin..
    See he’s pro-choice, so he says, just not when it comes to his own sperm and me apparently.
    At any rate, if I ever did become pregnant I think he’d understand the weight of his words more. He’s in no position, financially or mentally to have a child. For that matter neither am I and he knows that i’d have an abortion in a second.
    Maybe that seems strange, but no relationship’s perfect and if he did leave me, well shit happens. although I’d be heartbroken I’m sure.

  17. Jessica
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    Wow Marx, generally I would ban a troll like you, but you’re kinda amusing. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go enslave some men.

  18. Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

    Thank you for the grace of allowing me a voice. On my site, I allow ALL voices to be heard, because, unlike too many feminists – men are not into censoring opposing opinions.
    I noted that your witty digs failed to actually raise any objection to my points though. I tend to take silence as a form of unwilling acknowledgement. My wife taught me that one.

  19. Jessica
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    You’re welcome!
    And, oh, you had points?

  20. the frog queen
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

    Marx, don’t all the posts on this thread already speak for themselves? Isn’t obvious no one agrees with you?
    its silly to make 97 posts over again dont you agree?

  21. EG
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    unlike too many feminists – men are not into censoring opposing opinions.
    That is so true. That’s why the many totalitarian regimes throughout history that have stifled dissent and made free speech a crime have all been run by women. Men just hate censorship.

  22. SarahMC
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    Men can only become fathers if their sperm meets with a woman’s egg, Marx. Now, it happens I’m sure, but female on male rape is quite rare. If you don’t want your sperm to enter a woman’s vagina, you are free to use a condom. Women are just as free to use their own birth control.
    Once you let your jizz enter a woman’s body, however, it’s gone.
    Daring to gestate the unexpected pregnancy that might result is not “enslaving” you.

  23. azliza
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    i think it’s funny when people like marx dont even bother to read the actual thread, they just assume that we’re angry that we can’t control men. newsflash- we’re angry that men won’t allow us to control ourselves.

  24. Phlegmatic
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

    It seems to me that feminists are so angry (gee, that’s unusual) about this because it dares to give men an equal voice in whether or not they become fathers.
    Maybe its just me, but Im pretty sure there could be ways of handling that without taking away womens rights over their own body. You know, something simple like recognising a mans decision to have nothing to do with the child, yet allowing the woman to have her child all the same. Basically saying “if you want this child so badly, you can go it alone, so long as you know that I dont want anything to do with this child�. I mean after all, it IS her body after all. And after all, it IS his life.
    Still, I get the feeling you are simply deluded into thinking you are persecuted against, and no amount of reasoning will dissuade you of that thinking.

  25. Vervain
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

    Marx – Since you so clearly lack basic reading comprehension skills, I concluded it would be pointless to respond to you.
    But my all means, declare yourself the winner of your strawman argument and move on. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!

  26. Vala
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    I think this bill is, in a REALLY messed up and wrong way, trying to address something that I see as a real issue.
    If birth control fails and I don’t want a kid, it’s my choice. I like it that way, and don’t ever want to see that change.
    However, if birth control fails and my PARTNER doesn’t want a kid, he has NO choice. That’s simply not fair.
    Of course, I’m not willing to have a child without a willing partner, so this will never be an issue for me. However, not everyone feels that way. With the current system, it is possible for men to be forced into unwanted parenthood. And even if the mother retains sole custody and provides sole care, the man is required to provide financial support to that child (and if the mother IS providing sole custory and sole care, that financial support can be HUGE!).
    I really think that some kind of opt-out law could be appropriate. My partner is very clear that he is not ready or willing to become a father. If I did become pregnant and decided to continue the pregnancy, I really think that he should be able to opt out.
    I’m not saying that we should take choice away from women – it’s just that we need to give men a choice as well!

  27. SarahMC
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    Ooooh Marx speaks for all men now!
    “Feminists” and “men” are not mutually exclusive.
    I LOL’ed at the suggestion that men value dissenting opinion more than women. It’s almost like you just crawled out from under a rock. :)

  28. EG
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    This will protect men from such egotistic women, will ensure a genuinely joint decision and even promotes women to report genuine rape cases. This is really a win-win situation for all involved.
    These egotistical women–thinking that just because pregnancy is a condition of their bodies that affects every aspect of said bodies, they should get to be the ones decidiing whether or not to endure it. Women are so selfish, not letting men have rights over their bodies. Next thing you know, they’ll say they get to decide whether or not they want to have sex.
    Newsflash, buddy: abortion is not a joint decision because pregnancy is actually a condition of my body. Not my lover’s. Mine.
    Marx is so clever, the way he knows that reporting the rape is always the best decision for every woman who has been raped. Raped by your dad? The captain of the football team? A cop? Are you a minor living with a religious family who would disown you? Doesn’t matter! Marx has the one-size-fits-all answer right here!

  29. Lisa27
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    “female on male rape is quite rare. If you don’t want your sperm to enter a woman’s vagina, you are free to use a condom. Women are just as free to use their own birth control. Once you let your jizz enter a woman’s body, however, it’s gone. Daring to gestate the unexpected pregnancy that might result is not “enslaving” you” -SarahMC
    “we’re angry that men won’t allow us to control ourselves” -Azliza
    You’ve summed up my thoughts fabulously.

  30. the frog queen
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    oh my, have to say it but Marx’s blog is women hating. How sad. very very sad. I suggest no one read, I’m a little disturbed.

  31. Doug S.
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    I think a rather trollish poster has successfully threadjacked the discussion. Financial support of a child after is has been born is a different issue that is only tangentially related to terminating a pregnancy.
    Fortunately for everybody, this horrifying bill is mostly just ink on paper, as the courts have repeatedly struck down provisions like these as unconstitutional. One theory holds that politicians do things like this because they know they can rely on the courts to strike them down, so they don’t have to face the consequences of their own proposals.

  32. Posted August 1, 2007 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    I wish anti-abortion people would not look at abortion restrictions has having some sort of sociological use. I am a pro-lifer. I oppose abortion because I think it’s killing a human being. What difference does it make if the power game between men and women is affected?
    Support or oppose the legality of abortion on its merits. If your only concern is that women have options in reproduction, say so. If you are against abortion because you believe it takes an innocent human life, then limitations on it (of any kind) are justified on that basis, not because they might give rights to fathers. If the proponent of that Ohio bill would just flat out say, “I am opposed to abortion, and I’ll push any legislation that limits it in any way,” he would be more intellectually honest than what he now appears to be.
    Those who find my position abhorrent should take note that I too find theirs abhorrent. Taking a human life to defend your autonomy is a narcissistic point of view, and in my opinion a child’s right to exist outweighs the “autonomy” or “reproductive freedom” or “sexual power” of any parent — father or mother — who produced that child.

  33. azliza
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    John-
    I don’t think anyone here is interested in debating the merits of one position vs another. This post is about some bullshit legislation designed to remind people that women shouldn’t make their own choices, not about where life begins.
    i assume by your name that you have no working uterus, and take note that you will never be pregnant. Until you do, don’t talk to me about being narcissistic. I’ll be as narcissistic as I damn well please if it means not putting some kid through a shitty life because I don’t have the financial, emotional, or mental means to raise a healthy kid (or go through a pregnancy, for that matter).

  34. SarahMC
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

    I really think that some kind of opt-out law could be appropriate. My partner is very clear that he is not ready or willing to become a father. If I did become pregnant and decided to continue the pregnancy, I really think that he should be able to opt out.
    I’m actually not at all opposed to this. Practically, it’d be hard to do, because women find out they’re pregnant at different points during pregnancy – so I’m not sure how we’d decide on the terms of the time limit men have to decide (whether they’ll be involved in the child’s life).
    But alas, this is not what the bill is proposing. It’s not asking for an opt-out period for men. It’s saying men should literally have the final say in what happens to a woman’s body. Of course, anything less would be tantamount to the enslavement of MEN, according to our gracious troll.

  35. Lisa27
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    I know the post is about something completely different, but in response to SarahMC’s points about the complications surrounding the possibility of an opt-out (which I also am not opposed to, in principle): the complications don’t stop once we have a period of time for the father to opt out during gestation – as above, “My partner is very clear that he is not ready or willing to become a father” – what if he opts out now and IS ready in ten or fifteen years, and wants back in? It gets so complicated!

  36. Pup, MD
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    How about a flowchart like this:
    1) Woman gets pregnant, she can
    a) Decide to abort. If so, end thread.
    b) Decide to have child. Proceed to 2).
    2) Woman tells man about baby, man says
    a) “Wow, okay, I’ll support you and the kid, because I want to take responsibility for my actions.” If so, man makes child support payments, has social responsibility to be a father. Failure to do so leads to legal asswhooping of man.
    b) “I don’t want any of that!” Man then gives up any responsibility or privileges entailed in fatherhood, can never claim the child in any way. Failure to stay away from child leads to another legal asswhooping of man.
    Seems like this would allow men to have post-conception decisions about fatherhood, just as women have post-conception decisions about motherhood, without allowing a man to interfere with a woman’s reproductive rights. Unfortunately, men already neglect their legal duties, and create a de facto 2b. But perhaps 2b should be a real legal option. A man would then have substantially less incentive to be a sick f*ck and try to force a partner to have an abortion.
    Men should obviously have no role in decision making re: abortion, other than to nod their heads and support the decision of their partner. The “right to not have your genes passed” is some strange, superstitious crap.

  37. ekf
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    John, with all due respect, you do not have any idea whether what has been happily (and desiredly) gestating in my body for the last 16 or so weeks is a human being or not. You can make arguments, you can have beliefs, and you are entitled to your opinions, but you do not know, because such a thing cannot be known. It is a philosophical and metaphysical question, and, for most people, it is determined on a religious basis.
    As such, promoting a legal framework in which the state can compel me to do something with my body on the basis of your belief about what is in my body goes one significant step beyond narcissism. Your beliefs should not determine my behavior in a free society, particularly when our competing beliefs are based in religion, a specific type of belief, the free exercise of which is specifically protected in our country’s governing documents.
    So before you judge my narcissism for wanting to be able to control my own body and whatever singular life it does or does not host on the basis of my beliefs, I’d really appreciate if you would re-examine your own willingness to think so highly of yourself and your beliefs that you would not only control your own body with them but also would make public policy on their basis and try to control the lives of millions of other people as a result of them. You may find that the term you’re looking for to describe such self-involvement to be a little further earlier in the dictionary under the title “megalomania.”

  38. Posted August 1, 2007 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    The other concern is that the wellbeing of an actual child is at stake when you start talking about child support. The issues of child support and abortion are brought up together by MRAs, but they’re not the same issue. While financial burden is something that should absolutely be discussed, it’s not the same as the physical concerns of a pregnant woman.
    The other problem with the child support issue is that it’s framed like a struggle between men and women, when it’s not. Child support isn’t giving money to women from men, it’s giving money to the care of a child from the person most able to do so. Men who have custody of children have every right to seek child support as much as women do.

  39. SarahMC
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

    And the reason MRAs bring up child support and abortion is because their main interest is sticking it to us horrible, horrible women. They either want to control what we do with our bodies, or they want to “punish” us by witholding money from their children. Of course, refusing to pay child support punishes the CHILD, but MRAs are so glazed-over in their zeal to screw women over, it doesn’t matter.

  40. azliza
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    SarahMC,
    They aren’t glazed over, they just know that we’re going to spend all their child-support money on shoes and earrings.

  41. SarahMC
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

    Oh, oh, that’s right. We’re all drivin’ Bentleys, talkin’ on our I-Phones while little Timmy starves back at the mansion.

  42. William
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

    Marx: You know, I agree with you on the whole “men deserve to have a choice in whether they’re going to be fathers or not” point. It is absolutely true that we have a system in place in this country that holds men to a different standard than women when it comes to parenthood. A woman who doesn’t want the expense of a child can have an abortion, a man has no such option. Perhaps that should be changed.
    Where you seem to have a problem is that the fetus doesn’t grow in a vat. It grows inside the woman and hijacks her body for nine-ish months, culminating in an extremely painful exit. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter if you contributed to the thing or not. The problem is that the fetus has hijacked the woman’s body and is preparing for a painful (not to mention expensive) exit. Your right to be a daddy is trumped by her right to not have someone living in her abdomen for the better part of a year.
    Thats the difference.
    Now if you want to talk about a man being able to have control of fatherhood, I’m all ears. Just remember that I’m there are far less invasive ways to manage that than forcing a woman to give birth or forcing her to have a abortion.
    P.S. If I wanted the representation of someone who took the name of the biggest embarrassment to western philosophy since Constantine decided to align Rome with a death cult, I’d ask. A penis doesn’t make a prole, you speak only for yourself.

  43. PamelaV
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

    Regarding the original post-
    It is the woman who carries the fetus/embryo/baby/whatever you want to call it, so ultimately, it is her decision. It is not the man’s body that is hijacked and leeched off of, it is hot he who goes through labour, and it is not he who cannot just step away from the situation and say “oh well, you are fucked”.
    This proposed bill makes me think I am living several hundred years ago. It is nauseating and I am sad it even exists for us to talk about.
    Trust women with their lives and their OWN bodies!
    Does anyone have a copy of anything they’ve written this douchebag?. Please post it.

  44. bilsemon
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    My message to his illustriousness:
    Have you lost your senses? You expect a women to give you a list of potential fathers and then have them paternity tested with a fetus to determine who is the father? And then get his “consent” to her abortion.
    You are really beyond belief.
    It is a woman’s body that is involved. The fetus does not belong to anyone but the woman until it is born. It does not belong to the father just because he ejaculated into the mother. Creating a life is awesome and a beautiful responsibility, one that your body will never be able to accomplish. And so, in your spite and jealousy, you try to chip away at a woman’s experience by staking a claim to her body.
    The fetus is not a person. Have you lost your senses? You expect a women to give you a list of potential fathers and then have them paternity tested with a fetus to determine who is the father? And then get his “consent” to her abortion.
    You are really beyond belief.
    It is a woman’s body that is involved. The fetus does not belong to anyone but the woman until it is born. It does not belong to the father just because he ejaculated into the mother. Creating a life is awesome and a beautiful responsibility, one that your body will never be able to accomplish. And so, in your spite and jealousy, you try to chip away at a woman’s experience by staking a claim to her body.
    The fetus is not a person.

  45. DreamSister
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

    Well said, EKF and William. Well said.

  46. Miles
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

    Marx and John, I am curious if you would be willing to accept implantation so you can take full responsibility for the birthing process and associated risks? I have not taken the time to perform an extensive search, but it does appear the procedure has reached the human testing stage if the following link is to be believed: http://www.malepregnancy.com/science/. It appears Newsweek also did an article on Mr. Lee, the male test subject. The study is being performed by the Dwayne Medical Center RYT Hospital.
    While several other great options have been posted to deal with some of the issues you have brought up, this would give you a chance to put your money where you mouth is so to speak. Would you take risks of childbirth? Deal with weight gain, hormonal shifts, etc? I think it likely that the idea is abhorrent to you. There are many legitimate physical, social, and psychological reasons why a woman may choose to have an abortion. Factors that men like us could not possibility understand. Even those who go through such a procedure would have too many factors out of synch to be able to express anything more than a limited understanding of the issues faced by women. Your simplistic explanations of feminists’ (and others) motives demonstrate a clear inability or unwillingness for serious dialogue.
    It is a mystery to me that many religious groups insist on abstinence only to prevent unwanted pregnancies when promoting safe sex via condoms and other means of birth control would be more effective as numerous studies indicate. I sincerely doubt anyone argues pro-choice because they really prefer to have an abortion instead of preventing unwanted pregnancies via birth control. Can we at least agree that one method of reducing abortions is to promote condoms and other methods?
    I realize now that I have gotten to far of the original topic so I will drop the subject. My apologies for the tangent.

  47. Posted August 1, 2007 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

    alex, if you find our comments THAT disheartening, there’s a simple solution–leave. Seriously. I would never hang around a forum where I found the majority of its participants so repulsive. This can’t be good for your blood pressure.

  48. SassyGirl
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    “Once you let your jizz enter a woman’s body, however, it’s gone.”
    And here comes my favorite argument for the man to have a say in whether or not a woman has any rights as to whether or not a woman can have an abortion: If the man does not use a condom, then he is giving his semen to the woman as a gift, you can’t take back a gift or dictate what is done with it after it has been given.
    Yeah, it isn’t the “best” argument, but it is mine, hey, my professor loved it and even the anti choicer I was debating with chuckled a bit and gave that one to me.

  49. Miles
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

    According to an Urban legends site at http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/malepreg.asp, the above linked Mr. Lee is a hoax. So please disregard the refrences listed unless you have more valid information.
    I do know that such research has been seriously considered however. So the questions I raised are still valid.
    I just can’t remember who, where, and whether any progress was made. I think some animal study attempts have been made, but memory is a rather tricky thing at times and this is far to long ago for me.

  50. UCLAbodyimage
    Posted August 1, 2007 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

    “One final note: I’d never heard of a woman poking holes in a condom to entrap a man by getting pregnant, but if it’s happening a lot, I’d suggest give men the same advice we give women regarding date rape drugs–Don’t accept condoms from strangers, and don’t leave your condom unattended. ;)
    I don’t know how often it happens. But I had something similar happen to me when I was 21.
    A girl I was dating stopped using birth control without telling me. Which lead to a very bad situation.
    So I can attest to the fact that that sort of thing definitely happens. Definitely much more wary now.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

218 queries. 0.847 seconds