This makes me so furious, I can't speak!

*sigh* OK...

World War II, in a very roundabout way, made the American public more open to the idea of Jews, and actually gave Jews a foothold in American society. It became...unpopular to become associated with anti-Semitism for a time, because Hitler was the enemy.

Why is that not happening now? Why do we seem to be leaning towards the morals of our enemies? Why is it even OK to push the "Women, submit to your husbands" angle at this point in time?

And, OT, why has Feministing not blogged about the women in Mauritania? Sorry, I submitted that WEEKS ago, and I think its an important feminist issue.

I love the verbiage in the article. This, apparently, is a "less extreme" than the bill outlawing abortion altogether. Well then, by all means, let's all vote for it! Fortunately, it only has 8 co-sponsors (probably a core of GOP nutbags) out of 99 members in the Ohio House.

But who knows, maybe they're setting up the fathers for conspiracy to murder charges in their new post-Roe prosecutorial scheme.

P.S. Contacting Adams only gives him grist for the pamphlets he'll use in whatever crazy fucking district elected him. These are very insular environments.

"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."

Oh, if that's the case, then can he also request that the woman have an abortion. Maybe in the future there will be court cases where men can fight for the "right" to abort fetuses that they don't want to support.

Financial responsiblity is completely ridiculous reasoning.

"Simply put: no father means no abortion."
But only the woman has financial responsibility in this case. Sorry, Adams, you're full of sh*t.

ugh this makes me angry too :(

because if no one is sure who the father is, he's CLEARLY invested enough to care if he has a baby or not. does a situation of "paternal uncertainty" sound like a situation in which people WANT a child???

and really...if the father of the fetus wants to keep it but the woman wants to get an abortion...and then she's forced to keep it...that doesnt sound like a happy couple/family to me.

UGH! I am embarrassed to be a resident of Ohio at the moment! I am going to write my state reps write now!

Well, obviously, if you aren't sure who the father is you're just a big ol' whore and you deserve what's coming to you.

*eyeroll*

Fuck you, Ohio.

Well, at least they're putting their misogynistic agenda up front. Give me this bullshit over the "pro-woman" anti-choice rhetoric any day.

OK, I am literally shaking right now. This is awful. I feel like I'm going to burst into tears but I really don't want that to happen.
Pro-life whack-jobs propose this sort of thing all the time in debates on the Interwebs, but now it's actually proposed legislation. I feel so helpless.

What a joke. Men need say in reproductive rights, because at the moment, we have no say whatsoever, we have one archaic form of birth control that most men have long grown to abhor, and men are almost always left with the brunt of child payments and legal woes.

So Ohio thinks the proper answer is to turn around and say that the man needs to give permission for abortions? HELL NO. Men need to be able to turn around and request that the woman abort her child, and have it mean something. Strangers aren't meant to raise children, and if the man had more say in which pregnancies went through, we'd have a lot less single mothers and unhappy homes out there. And a lot less guys forking out monthly payments for a child they'll never even know.

men are almost always left with the brunt of child payments and legal woes

WTF? Since when do women pay for the minority of "child-payments?" You think men who have to pay child support have it rough or something? Paying is the DEFAULT for mothers. Boohoo, men are financially responsible for their offspring, just like women.

What's with men who think women:
a.) don't earn money
and
b.) don't spend their money on their (expensive) kids?

Newsflash, dude: Women work damn hard to raise their children, whether they're single moms or they have a partner. Come off it.

Yes, your right itsnotfluff, financial responsibility reasoning is so ridiculous.

I had my daughter almost four years ago, and when I found out I was pregnant, I knew right away that the father was not going to be involved in any way. So I knew I would be having to do it on my own, with the love and support of my family and friends. BUT our lovely government officials just nosing into our personal business, and when I went to apply for medicaid, they wanted to open a child support case for me. I knew they werent going to get anywhere with that, and all I wanted was some complimenting health insurance to go with my private insurance that wouldn't cover most of my pregnancy costs or my daughter following her birth (and since I was trying to complete college - I didn't have a lot of money at the time to pay for everything out of pocket at once). Why do they want to make it so difficult for us women to even try to make a better world for ourselves? I am so glad I don't have to go to the medicaid office any more, because it was an absolute nightmare! I feel awful for those women who are far worse off than I was in that situation.

And I suppose it's just a coincidence that all this rigamarole they're proposing stands a fair chance of pushing the woman past her ability to have a simple first trimester abortion, hmmm? How convenient.

Oh, and Alexmlwallace? Shove it. Nobody should be able to stop a woman from getting an abortion, and nobody should be able to force her to get an abortion. Forcing an abortion on a woman who doesn't want it is one of the more twisted things I've heard any commenter propose on this blog, and it's sick.

In my rage against that other part of your post, I missed this:

Men need to be able to turn around and request that the woman abort her child, and have it mean something. Strangers aren't meant to raise children, and if the man had more say in which pregnancies went through, we'd have a lot less single mothers and unhappy homes out there.

I'm ALMOST speechless. I thought you were pro-choice? Insisting that a man be able to *decide* whether or not a woman gestates a pregnancy is beyond fucked. Oh, but we'd have a lot fewer single mothers... YEAH they'd all be completely traumatized from the experience of having some man decide she has to abort! Jesus Christ on a cracker. I can't imagine what that might be like for a woman who's morally opposed to abortion. The state swoops in and tells her she has to because the douchebag she slept with doesn't feel like paying child support.

AAARGGGHHHHHH. Very angry about this.

I'd love to hear Alex's plan for having it "mean something" for men to demand that their partners have abortions. Is he envisioning cops showing up at a woman's home, handcuffing her, probably having to tranquilize her, and carting her off to the clinic, where he imagines that there will be a doctor so lacking in morality that he or she will perform an abortion on a woman against her will.

Here's a newsflash: in this country, we do not force medical procedures on people without their permission--and when we do, such as forcing sterilization on poor women of color, most right-thinking people find it pretty appalling.

Here's another newsflash: men and women have the right to bodily integrity. Neither has the right to wallet integrity. You can use condoms (you "abhor" them? too bad. I'm not especially ecstatic about the pill.), or you can get a reversable vasectomy, or you can engage in non-vaginal sex, or you can make sure your sexual partners are infertile. But once that cum is out of your body and in in hers, your decision-making is done. You may have to pay money; that is simply not comparable to having medical instruments shoved up your vagina against your will. Cry me a river.

Oh, man ! I just looked at saw one of the co-sponsers is my district representative. UGH!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think Alex's point is that if you need a man's permission to abort, the same line of thinking would require that you need a man's permission to give birth. It's the perfect example (for patriarchs who don't get it) of why this proposal is so ludicris. Couldn't we turn around and say "no father, no child"? Then no one could vote for this bill.

I think you're giving him too much credit, Trixie. It's fairly clear in his post that he thinks fathers being able to demand abortions would be a good thing, because "Strangers aren't meant to raise children, and if the man had more say in which pregnancies went through, we'd have a lot less single mothers and unhappy homes out there. And a lot less guys forking out monthly payments for a child they'll never even know."

His words, and they sound pretty sincere to me.

"Father of the fetus..."

WTF???

And by the way Adams, you asshat, for the first 8 weeks it's an embryo, so that would be "father of the embryo."

But really shouldn't we just follow the logical progression to include sperm as living and call them "fathers of the sperm?"

Um, does that make jerking off mass murder?

And a lot less guys forking out monthly payments for a child they'll never even know.

And whose fault is it if they never bother to know the kid? Am I supposed to feel sorry for them or something?

Back to this outrageously stupid bill. Has nobody in the legislature noticed its blatant flouting of doctor-patient confidentiality?

@EG:
You can use condoms (you "abhor" them? too bad. I'm not especially ecstatic about the pill.)
...
You may have to pay money; that is simply not comparable to having medical instruments shoved up your vagina against your will. Cry me a river.

May I just say, "kickass." Oh, and "seconded."

If every man who is to have a say in the reproductive decisions of a woman with whom he has sex signs a notarized document on the day in which he has sex with said woman, then I think it's okay. I mean, that's not such an unreasonable request, right? If a man wants the right to contribute to the decision-making with respect to the consequences of his sexual actions, he won't mind running off to notarize a legal document every time he has sex, will he?

Also, where the fuck are all of the yammerers about personal responsibility and not fucking until you can take responsibility for your actions, the same arguments used against us slutty women who don't want to be forced into pregnancy by the state? If the man fucks, he needs to understand that a consequence is he might have to pay for a child's life forever, and a consequence might be that any pregnancy he causes might be aborted. Don't like it? Don't fuck. Period. Keep your dick in your pants, boys, and if you don't, use birth control or give up your right to choose. Why does this not work in the mind of this Ohio jackhole?

I hate this bullshit so much.

I have another question for this John-McDick-Asshole: so if the father gets to refuse abortion of the fetus when that is what the woman wanted, then is he required to take full responsibility and custody of the child since it was solely his decision in the matter and she had no say?

Seriously though, Alex may be on to something here. It's the perfect way to defeat this sort of legislations. If a woman has to get permission from her parents or "the father" to have an abortion, shouldn't she have an equal obligation to get their permission to have a child? The nasty result of this being that there would probably be way more abortions, thus defeating the forced birth camp's goal of eliminating abortion buy using the same tactics. Afterall, the woman could experience depression, regret and economic hardship, following the birth of a child so we really need to "protect" her from making this decision herself.

The nasy result of this, as you put it, is perpetuating the idea of women's lack of agency in their own lives. You don't defeat stupidity by introducing more stupidity, and you don't stand up for women by knocking them down.

Hey, by the way, what if the father is out of state? What's gonna happen then, the Feds are gonna be dispatched to arrest him and drag him back to Ohio for a paternity test?

I'll tell you who could get rich off this legislation--a bunch of guys who decide that they're willing to write these notes for say, 50 bucks a pop. "I, Joe Schmoe, am the father of [fill in name here]'s fetus, and give her permission to abort."

Kimmy- I never stated that a man should be able to force a woman to get an abortion, and don't believe anything even close to that statement. It's disgusting. You've completely misinterpreted what I was saying, as so many people do the moment somebody brings up the other gender in this whole reproductive rights shebang.

SarahMC- I'm referring to child support... as in the monthly payments decided in court. I'm well aware that women pay for children as well, thanks to this handy-dandy thing I've got called common sense.

So much for anything remotely pro-equality. I just hope this isn't an accurate representation of the modern face of feminism, because if it is, it's becoming a parody of itself. Feminism is supposed to be about equality, something that many feminists seem to have been forgotten in the past 15 years or so.

EG- Ummm... no. But if you would prefer to envision the bad man daydreaming about brutal violence against women to further solidify your judgments against me, go ahead. It's really disgusting that everybody assumed I wanted abortions forced. I was thinking more along the lines of birth control that would enable men to actually have a say about whether or not they'll have children or not. Or have you not noticed that men haven't seen a new mainstream form of birth control since 1597? You say it's too bad that men abhor condoms, and that we should cry a fucking river? Tell it to Africa- it's pretty obvious that something needs to improve, because they haven't caught on, and, due to all the men that, yes, abhor them, probably won't catch on. Tell them to cry a fucking river, and then tell all the women they infect with AIDS to a cry a fucking river, and then maybe you can also go tell the pre-pubescent virgin girls they rape to "get rid of AIDS" to cry a river too.

Chell_belle- Your question really has no relation to anything I believe in whatsoever, so I don't see how I could really answer it. And, ahem, "John McDick Asshole"? I see we're really engaged in some serious discussion now!

Anyways, I think most people here read what I said and completely ran with it in the wrong direction. I've noticed it happening a lot on this site, because most people here are incredibly intolerant of any viewpoint other than their own. Sad that this is the face of feminism today. It's incredible disheartening, but hey, there's a choir to be preached to and I'm not a member.

If a woman has to get permission from her parents or "the father" to have an abortion, shouldn't she have an equal obligation to get their permission to have a child?

Well that's the logical conclusion, yes; but anti-choicers aren't exactly known for their respect of logic or reason.

I just saw a term thrown around that I fear is going to be applied to me, simply because I'm realizing that there are a lot of judgments going around, and a lot of mistruths being said.

So, in case any of you are suspecting the worst, don't worry, I'm militantly pro-choice.

As vile as Alex's logic is, he does (very, very indirectly) bring up a good point. Parental consent laws and this heinous bill assume that if a girl's parents or the prospective father know that a woman is planning an abortion, they will stop her. But that reasoning can backfire easily. Not all parents would oppose their daughter aborting, and not all prospective fathers would object to the abortion, either. In some of these cases, the parents/prospective father would strongly support an abortion, to the point of coercion.

Introducing stupid legislation can be a valid way to call more attention to stupid legistlation. I live in Washington State where the courts decided that gays could be denied the right to marriage because the purpose of marriage is the creation and nurturing of children. A gay rights group introduced legislation to null all marriages that didn't result in the conception of children within three years. It called quite a lot of attention to the baselessness of the marriage/children arguement.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003558717_nokids06m.html

HEY ALEX. I wasn't talking to you!! I was talking to John Adams, the guy who created the legislation. I'm not paying ANY attention to you! Cute though!

Oh, I see, men who rape virgins in order to cure themselves of AIDS are actually the fault of condoms. Yeah. That makes tons of sense. Because how cruel and inhumane is it of me to have no sympathy for men refusing to use condoms because they don't like them, even when refusing to do so endangers their lives and the lives of the women they fuck. Clearly, men are not moral agents at all and should not be blamed. It's all the fault of those dastardly condoms. What else are men to do?

You're conflating two separate issues, by the way. Condoms are the only option for either sex that prevents the spread of HIV. So I'm not sure what your point is re: Africa's AIDS epidemic.

As I mentioned, vasectomies are reversable. Go get one. You can also go back through the feministing archives and peruse the many threads devoted to coverage of potential new contraceptives for men. But that wasn't what your comment was about, was it? Your comment was about the trials and travails of poor, innocent men who are forced to actually pay child support for children they've fathered. And I repeat, cry me a river.

I'm referring to child support... as in the monthly payments decided in court. I'm well aware that women pay for children as well, thanks to this handy-dandy thing I've got called common sense.

Child-support payments are decided by the court only when the woman in question has enough money to go to court. Otherwise, not so much. Do some research--do you really think that a monthly payment even begins to compare to the ongoing daily expenses of raising a child? The bulk of financial responsibilities for children certainly does not fall on men.

Um, does that make jerking off mass murder?

Haha. That reminded me of Legally Blonde when they're in class talking about sperm donors and Elle says something like "all masturbatory emissions where the sperm was not seeking an egg could be termed reckless abandonment."

This is a terrible bill and I hope/presume it will not pass given its limited support (I am curious what it would mean for women who went out of state to have an abortion and then returned and a father found out).

However, some of the views expressed here on responsibility for the child post birth are almost as bad. Many reasons women choose abortions are based on longer term factors when it is no longer a simple issue of the woman’s body. For example, economic factors (I/my family can’t support a child) or emotional (I am not ready to be a parent). In this respect men would like an equal say as we are, under the law, equally impacted by the birth of a child. This is not unreasonable (no more so than women seeking control of their lives). It does NOT necessarily mean forced abortion. We live in a litigious society where custody is well understood. This could be a simple legal process (very quick to ensure a woman’s choices are not negatively impacted) of a father giving up all rights and obligations for the child so that a woman could make a decision based on all the information. For the record, I would also couple this system with an iron clad child support payment system so that if you don’t opt out you are explicitly taking responsible. I would propose something like the government pays up front based on a fixed scale and collects directly from the parent like income tax.

To say “you should not have sex�, or “you should have thought about the consequences first� is no different than anti-choice people saying the same thing to someone who wants an abortion because they accidentally became pregnant (I will leave out the issue of sexual assault, which is not an issue of choice).

Introducing stupid legislation can be a valid way to call more attention to stupid legistlation. I live in Washington State where the courts decided that gays could be denied the right to marriage because the purpose of marriage is the creation and nurturing of children. A gay rights group introduced legislation to null all marriages that didn't result in the conception of children within three years. It called quite a lot of attention to the baselessness of the marriage/children arguement.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003558717_nokids06m.html

Gee, Mr. Common Sense Alex, I wonder why MEN have to write the majority of child support checks? Could it be because in most cases the SINGLE MOTHER is the one raising the child, saddled with the day-to-day caregiving and responsible for the majority of the expenses? As in, she's paying a hell of a lot more than the man; it's just not called "child support." It's called parenting.

Alex, I have a couple of questions that are genuine and not meant to be antagonistic, so read them without any "tone" to them. k?

Why is it that men being able to force women to have abortions = equality?

Why does not sharing that perpective make us the sad "face of feminism" today?

What about the last 15 years is it that makes you think feminism is about anything else other than equality? It sounds like you have some significant beefs with feminism (or your perception of it). Where is this coming from? Can you give examples?

I think this bill is total bullshit, it is controlling and patriarchal and disgusting.

I do think,however, that it would be good for men to have more of a say in what happens to their potential children. Both men and women have methods of birth control available, but everyone knows that these do not always work. I think it is unfair that in the event of a mistake the decision is left entirely to the women. There should be some way that both parents could legally express their desire to have and raise a child, or not. (In a totally non binding way, allowing for the health of the mother)

I CERTAINLY do not think that men should have the first right of refusal on whether or not a woman has an abortion that is ridiculous. What happens to a woman's body should ultimately be her own decision.

However, I do think that a man has a right to say whether or not he is chosing to support his child. I think that both parents should have the right to legally declare their choice to support or not to support carrying the pregnancy to term. This declaration of support/non support should be a clear and legally binding document that a woman can use to help her make her decision about whether or not to abort. For instance if a man wanted the child, but his girlfriend did not want it he should be able to offer to assume up to 100% of the legal and financial burden of the child. She could then factor this in her decision regarding whether or not she wanted to carry the pregnancy to term. Conversely if he does not want it, then he should be able to say he will not financially support it should the mother choose to have it. (I also think that financial support would have to be tied to visitation rights, if you want to see your kid you have to contribute money. If you decide when the is 13 you want to see them then you have to pay back support.)

I know this isn't an ideal solution. If a woman really didn't want to carry to term, but the father was willing to support it that could get complicated, I think there would have to be clear protections in place for the mother, especially for health reasons or situations like sexual assault and incest.

Anyway, this is all "in an ideal world" where stuff actually worked. I do think a system like this would cut down on the children in the world that no one wants to pay for. It would also eliminate the myth that women are having children just to collect child support from the childs father.

Ugh.

Well, it should go without saying how disgusting it is that a man should get to decree that a woman pay such a price so HE can have a child HE wants, so I'm just going to say that I hope the Ohio Democrats get creative with proposed amendments.

First and foremost, cite the reasoning for this bill in the first place to require the father's permission to give birth/create the baby; secondly and on a more serious note, require that every father who does not grant permission for an abortion sign an agreement for child-support payments to be deducted from his paychecks, and if he has no paychecks during the time he's required to pay child support, an agreement for it to be subtracted from his personal property on the date it's due (with enforcement), and if that is ended, open up a line of credit in his name (offered by the government, perhaps) from which payments may be given to the mother. Have him legally required to sign one or the other

If it passes, charge it as unconstitutional not under Roe v. Wade, but under the Thirteenth Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist . . ."

(If paternity tests aren't required in cases where the fatherhood is not in question, what is to stop the woman from getting a male friend to pretend to be the father and sign a consent form?)

Funnily enough this law applies in Japan, where abortions are widely and easily available. There is a process for getting round it but no-one ever bothers - they just get a male friend to sign the release form. No-one checks if he is the biological father or not. I agree that the spirit of such a law is deeply fucked but I think in practice its so easy to get round that it would have little impact. In the UK we have no requirement for your partners consent but you may have to check with your parents!!

Single mom working a full time job and having to be there every minute of every day for the kid vs. dad who has to *gasp* pay some money each month. Oh the injustice.

As far as I can see the mind of these winning men goes something like this. Damn bitch got pregnant. I would raise it by I got a career and am to young ot not be going out every night. If she wants to keep it it her responsibility. What this fucking court is making me pay for this kid and I don't even get to boss around it and the mom. THATS UNJUST. I know. I'll fail to control myself in court and yell and scream and bad mouth the mom. That way maybe I can get partial custody, because you know raise a kid is easier then writing a check.

Yet another example of twisting the loss of power into the suppression of rights.

Kali Ma- I started to type out a response, but it quickly dissolved into an incomprehensible mess. Apparently my personal views on feminism are more convoluted than even I knew- I consider myself a very hardcore feminist, yet I hardly identify with the movement as a whole. Which is partly why I was interested in this new blog, as I thought it would be the modern face of feminism. Finally, I thought! Feminism that's interested in progress, in equality for both sexes! A place where sexism is seen as a faux pas, for BOTH genders!

After spending a few weeks reading the posts and a few days posting comments, it's becoming pretty clear that it wasn't what I originally thought.

And now even my second response is getting longer, and it was supposed to be just a blurb! Ah well. If anybody would like to discuss (civilized!) feminism, abortion, or whatever you even feel like it, feel free to email me at alexmlwallace@gmail.com.

alexmlwallace, 60% of child support cases are in default and not being paid currently in the USA. If you simply move out of state it is often possible that a man may never have to pay child support. Demanding that a woman abort a fetus at the whim of a man (or stay pregnant at the whim of a man) is patriarchy at its worst. No other adult human being has the right to determine medical decisions for another adult human being. What you suggest is morally reprehensible. If you are so concerned about "child support" payments, then advocate for male hormonal birth-control options or other male fertility precautions. If men were responsible for their own fertility (instead of putting it all on women), then women and men would be able to decide when and under what circumstances to have children. If you want every child to be wanted by both partners, advocate for universal health care where birth control is considered a human right (for both men and women) and for comprehensive sex education so that Maury Povich style "whose the baby daddy" isn't a real problem. Also, consider those 60% of children who are due child support but can't have a winter coat or always have a meal at home. Think of them, not the mothers because quite frankly, that's who we're talking about.

Oh, Alex; you make a horribly offensive post that, coincidently, everyone happened to "take the wrong way," and because we were rightly aghast at the sentiment behind it, feminism is bad and we're really turning you off to it.
Either apologize for failing miserably at getting your "actual" message across or acknowledge that our perception does match up to your intent.

Africa is suffering w/ AIDS because there's not ENOUGH condom use! And the men there won't use the ones they have available. Kinda tough, if you're a woman under a man's control, to insist that he uses a condom he *abhors* when he forcibly fucks you. Dontcha think?

This is unbelievable. On the flip side, are they going to force abortions if the father doesn't want the child?

So uh, what if I go to France or another country that isn't the US and while there I have sex and when I get back, I realize I'm pregnant. Am I going to have to track down this person (imagine you only have a name to go off of), make them trek all the way over here (so much paperwork and time!) all so I can get a paternity test and obtain their permission for an abortion? Is the governement going to help me out in tracking them down and paying airfare? or are they just going to shoot me the finger and tell me to have fun being a mom?

This bill is ridiculous. I am so mad I can't even think about it. UGH! I am so terrified of what they are trying to turn our country into.

SarahMC-I'm not going to apologize for you not understanding what I wrote and then further clarified. Africa still has an AIDS epidemic because the use of condoms isn't anywhere near high enough for it to slow down the spread of disease. I suggested that men should be looking for new forms of contraception that could stop the spread of disease and give them more of a say as to whether or not they're going to be getting women pregnant- simultaneously addressing two key issues, stopping the spread of STD's and helping men avoid unwanted children. I didn't realize how explosive those two issues truly were!

The word "equality" implies "for both genders." Going around saying you advocate equality for both genders is redundant.

Just so happens that as it stands, women are the ones considered second-class citizens, not men. So yeah, most of our concerns are re: women.

I'm really curious about all the "reverse sexism" (another unnecessarily cumbersome term - "sexism" doesn't imply "...against women." Even though that's usually the direction in which it's aimed.) being perpetrated in our movement, though.

This is wrong on so many levels. I also wonder would this bill also allow men to request/demand that the women get an abortion if the man did not want to pay support. Even Adams in his defence of the bill reduces men to their "financial responsibility" Is that all this is about is money?

SarahMC- Thank you for the semantics. I'm well aware that there are more issues facing women than men. However, there is zero discussion of issues facing males on this blog. I've been subscribed to feministing via RSS for a bit now. Since "most" of your concerns are re: women, surely you can point out an issue that has faced males recently.

After all, equality means both sexes, and feminism is the pursuit of equality. So, if this blog is called feministing, it should be about the pursuit of equality. And if, as you just said, most of your concerns are re: women, that implies that a minority of your concerns are re: men.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm quite curious what issues facing men you've given thought to lately, since you clearly favor equality over sexism.

As far as I know, condoms (used correctly) are pretty damn effective at preventing pregnancy. But darn; you don't like them.

Listen - in most cases men leave pregnancy prevention up to women. We're the ones with the most to lose. So we're the ones saddled w/ the responsibility of making sure we don't get knocked up. Most of the time that requires pumping ourselves full of hormones. Now, I'm pretty sure the male pill is either currently in development or about to hit the market. But guys are all, "I'm not putting hormones in my body!"

Don't blame women because you're not satisfied with the condom. We're stuck searching for the *perfect* birth control method for our entire sexually-active life.

Alex, people took your comment and ran in the direction it pointed. I'm not sure why you're surprised that people thought you were saying men should have a say in whether women are allowed to get abortions or give birth, given that you said:

What a joke. Men need say in reproductive rights, because at the moment, we have no say whatsoever,... ...Men need to be able to turn around and request that the woman abort her child, and have it mean something... ...if the man had more say in which pregnancies went through, we'd have a lot less single mothers and unhappy homes out there.

It's hard to see how that should be read, outside of "Men should have legal rights to force or deny a woman abortion." It sure seems pretty explicit to me. Is it really a surprise that any pro-choice people aren't pleased by the suggestion that men should have rights against a woman when it comes to her right to choose or not choose abortion? If you meant something other than that, I'd suggest that a better response would be to explain what you meant rather than ranting about how bad feminism is now.

we have one archaic form of birth control that most men have long grown to abhor, and men are almost always left with the brunt of child payments and legal woes.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. What kind of birth control options would you like? Condom technology has hardly stayed static since the sixteenth century and pretending that it has is ridiculous. Furthermore, you can get a vasectomy, which is an outpatient procedure that takes practically no time, and may not even require stitches. Men's birth control methods are ridiculously safe, effective, and have virtually no side effects, compared to the methods available for women, which can involve serious side-effects and complications, and provide no protection from STDs.

So, yeah, cry me a fucking river. Condoms are cheap, easily obtained, extremely effective, prevent pregnancy and the spread of disease, and have no side effects. Wow. That sure sucks.

Please.

SarahMC- That was my entire point, and you were completely, 100%, absolutely WRONG. Here I am, a man saying "I WANT MORE BIRTH CONTROL OPTIONS!" I would gladly take a pill everyday. Gladly. Happily. Willingly. I'm not sure how much harder I can beat this into your brain- I don't like walking around with a loaded gun, and trust me, most men feel the exact same way.

You'd think wanting more methods and choices in our birth control might ring a bell at a FEMINIST site, but no, instead you'd prefer to assume exactly otherwise.

Alexmlwallace, I need clarification on something. You said (and this is a copy/paste):

Men need to be able to turn around and request that the woman abort her child, and have it mean something.

How could anyone with any reading comprehension whatsoever interpret that as meaning anything other than what it says? It says nothing about contraception. It says nothing about child support. It mentions men's request for abortion meaning something.

Don't blame us if your meaning bears no relationship to your words. And don't expect us to cry because you don't think men's problems are getting enough face time on this blog. Men aren't the focus here. Women are. Get over it.

My views on the fathers' rights topic is here.

I don't know if this helps the argument any, but as for the flip side....
If a man pokes a hole in a condom to intentionally impregnate a woman, as means of entrapment of a woman that has repeatedly stated she does not want to be in a serious relationship with him, if pro-choice, the woman has the right to end the pregnancy.

If a man is lied to by a woman about being on birth control and she intentionally becomes pregnant as means of entrapment of a man who has stated he does not intend to be in a serious relationship with her, what choices is he left with?

This BY NO MEANS is a statement for forced abortion.

I am married to this situation, since the entrapment failed to produce a boyfriend, let alone a husband, we are punished by repeated failed attempts for visitation, monthly checks, and 300 dollar car seats that produce only an hour and a half at a chucky cheese for every 6 months of begging and being jerked around. Yes we can take court action in a few years when we have the financial resources. But the situation is unequal, and by nature, will probably remain that way.
I guess it's just another example of inequality and frustration.

Kimmy: Men aren't the focus here. Women are. Get over it.

Thank you for your honesty. Bye!

Sara, I always have very little patience for the "entrapment" issue. The man could have used a condom. He didn't. The fact that your husband isn't getting the visitation rights that he wants is an entirely different issue and one that yes, points to the inequities of our "justice" system, which is that those with money can afford to use it, and those without get screwed.

I must interject now after reading ALL of that. I can't see how Alex, who claims he's a hardcore feminist would make such outrageous statements about forcing women to abort or to give birth. I'm wondering if maybe he just hasn't represented himself properly. It's easy to lose things in internet banter. I often do myself. Alex, could you clarify your opinion maybe?
Cause I don't totally undertand it either although I'm not prepared to throw stones at you.

Also, I can sort of understand where Alex is coming from.. if I get what he's saying (and I'm not sure I've read it properly) in respect to men having some say in pregnancy...because my boyfriend maintains that if I got pregnant I would have to give birth because he would leave me (which I would say too bad, I abort, but i'm on birth control and not anticipating a problem)

As for my opinion:

Men and their sperm!? So in this instance if I understand Alex correctly I'd have to simply say (what i told my boyfriend) that in the case of an accidental pregnancy (which I believe thats the scenario Alex is suggesting) the overwhelming physical and mental anguish caused by a forced pregnancy or abortion,on a woman, outweighs the males right to a contribution because he will endure no physical anguish as a result of either.

Thats the way I see it. I dunno tho.

I don't see what is so offensive about the idea that men should be able to opt out of having their genetic material become a person. Condoms break, partner's hormonal birth control can fail, and women can lie about being on birth control to intentionally get pregnant in an attempt to hold on to a man. Perhaps Equal Concent to Birth legislation is necessary to get more birthcontrol options for men.
And I don't want to hear about how they should just keep it in their pants because that arguement is just as insulting to them as saying we should keep our legs closed is to us.

the frog queen- I want more birth control methods for men. I want more birth control methods for women. I want to keep abortions legal across the nation. I want men to listen to women when they say they want to abort the baby. I want women to listen to men when they say they want to abort the baby.

I don't want more children coming into the world with fathers that never wanted them. And no, that isn't some subtle way of saying that the father should grab a coathanger and forcibly remove the fetus (which some people here had the audacity to assume I was saying.)

Trixie said it far more eloquently than I could have.

Quit attacking me, Alex, when clearly I'm not the only one who read your words literally.

This is not my blog. Just 'cause it's called Feministing doesn't mean it has to cater to the issues you want to talk about. I believe we had a huge discussion about male infant circumscision a few weeks ago. Maybe that was at Feministe. Anyway, we frequently discuss gender roles/norms, which oppress all people. It's not always a "men VS women" thing. Sometimes it's a "patriarchy VS everyone" thing.

I shouldn't even be defending this blog. It speaks for itself. And if you're too lazy or willfully ignorant to recall that we value justice for all people, that's your problem.

It would be great if there were more birth control methods. I'm on the nuva ring, which I love! I LOVE MY NUVA RING! and my boyfriend refuses to wear condoms ... which is why I'm on the ring. But in some instances, hormonal birth control is determental to the woman.. it sucks.. (anyone hear about the effectancy of the today sponge btw!?)

However, I do think there are enough options for a responsible couple to figure something out. In the case of accidental pregnancy I'd be worried that for instance, a young impressonable teenager or a battered woman would end up having to abort or give birth to a child because of legislation. How do you legislate equal say between two parties? It's not like there can be a deadheat moment cause the fetus is only there for 9 months!?

I think its perfectly logical and reasonably to assume that couples who accidentally end up pregnant will be able to talk to eachother about what is realistic for them. I think some sort of legislation giving the right of men to decide a womens maternal fate can only do more harm than good. i.e. hurt more women than help men.

Thank You Trixie, Better said than I because I have high emotions with the situation. What about the woman who had a hole poked in the condom that the man was wearing, shouldn't she have been on birth control or wearing a second barrier method?

Okay, I'm guessing that pretty much everyone here can agree that it would be horribly wrong to give males equal say over what a woman can or can't do with her body. If you have sex with someone who is pro-choice, then having your offspring aborted is just a risk you have to take.

SO, since we all agree on this, I'm interested what you all think of this scenario:

In the next 10-30 years we will probably have artificial wombs that can incubate offspring to maturity. In this scenario, do you think the male should have any say over whether the embryo is transferred to an artificial womb rather than aborted?

I'm coming to the party late but let me get this straight, once more with feeling.

Alex said this:

...Men need to be able to turn around and request that the woman abort her child, and have it mean something... ...if the man had more say in which pregnancies went through, we'd have a lot less single mothers and unhappy homes out there.

And, unless he was making a horribly bad joke, he wants the feminists on this board to believe that he's pro-choice?

Oh wait, I want women to listen to men when they say they want to abort the baby.

Mind you right before that he did say that he wants men to listen to women. However, seeing as women are the bearers of the burden of the pregnancy they should have final say in whether or not the child would be brought to term. Even if the father was going to take complete and sole custody of the child afterwards, pregnancy can wreck havoc on a woman's body and there's no guarantee that it will go smoothly.

A man can make his case, no one is saying he shouldn't, what we're saying is that this BILL is going to give men the sole power over women's bodies. As Jessica pointed in the post it's like getting a permission slip when the woman shouldn't have to fucking do that. No matter how you want it to be "equal" if the male partner has to sign off on it or else the woman can't get an abortion that's men trumping the rights of women, period. And it's not equality.

Though I do love the new posters to this board who, upon saying outrageous things get upset that people call them on their shit and decry modern feminism about not being "fair".

Like Kimmy said, this is a blog dedicated to women's issues, which for the most part are NOT men's issues, though NiceGuy(tm) types like to come in and whine that whenever a women's issue is discussed we're not focused on the menz enough. I'm pretty sure at some point when there's another topic about menstruation there will be guys here crying, "But what about men? Menstruation affects us too!"

And Alex, while it's cool that you are willing to take more hormonal birth control most of your brethren aren't. I'll have to find the article but there was a discussion a while back about male hormonal birth control and a poll saying that a lot of guys were uncomfortable taking it.

I don't understand how anyone could not have a very serious problem with this bill. Unless they were an extremely naive, simple, (dare i say) ignorant person.

The fact is that there can't be full equality on the issue of pregnancy until men carry the fetuses, gain 40lbs, go through labor, get theirvaginas torn and stitched, shit on a cot, let little babes suckle their nipples whenever they want, and have a looser vag for the rest of their lives (just to name the physical beginning).

Oh, how I wish that could happen.

If we are playing "what-if," I think it's a very bad idea to set the precedent that if a man wants whoever he got preggers to have an abortion and she refuses, he shouldn't have to pay childcare. That is just as scary for a women who is anti-choice to have to face as it is for someone who is pro-choice to have to ask to get an abortion.

RE: Men's right to determine whether or not they bring their genetic material in this world

Of course, for women, the decision whether or not to carry a baby to term is not limited a philosophical exercise as to whether or not she thinks it's right for her to bring life into the world. She also has to ask herself if she wants to undergo all the health risks that accompany pregnancy (and also, in some cases, if she wishes to risk losing her job). Although I do not believe that American society holds men and women equally responsible for childcare/financial obligations once a child is born (I believe the burden is on women), even if that were the case, I think we all can agree that a woman in deciding whether or not to carry a fetus/baby to term has to consider concrete risks that may forever alter her body (and I don't just mean cosmetically and actually I do mean even in routine pregnancy) or even end her life.

And that to me, is one of the many reasons why this legislation is absolutely horrible.

I'm coming to the party late but let me get this straight, once more with feeling.

Alex said this:

...Men need to be able to turn around and request that the woman abort her child, and have it mean something... ...if the man had more say in which pregnancies went through, we'd have a lot less single mothers and unhappy homes out there.

And, unless he was making a horribly bad joke, he wants the feminists on this board to believe that he's pro-choice?

Oh wait, I want women to listen to men when they say they want to abort the baby.

Mind you right before that he did say that he wants men to listen to women. However, seeing as women are the bearers of the burden of the pregnancy they should have final say in whether or not the child would be brought to term. Even if the father was going to take complete and sole custody of the child afterwards, pregnancy can wreck havoc on a woman's body and there's no guarantee that it will go smoothly.

A man can make his case, no one is saying he shouldn't, what we're saying is that this BILL is going to give men the sole power over women's bodies. As Jessica pointed in the post it's like getting a permission slip when the woman shouldn't have to fucking do that. No matter how you want it to be "equal" if the male partner has to sign off on it or else the woman can't get an abortion that's men trumping the rights of women, period. And it's not equality.

Though I do love the new posters to this board who, upon saying outrageous things get upset that people call them on their shit and decry modern feminism about not being "fair".

Like Kimmy said, this is a blog dedicated to women's issues, which for the most part are NOT men's issues, though NiceGuy(tm) types like to come in and whine that whenever a women's issue is discussed we're not focused on the menz enough. I'm pretty sure at some point when there's another topic about menstruation there will be guys here crying, "But what about men? Menstruation affects us too!"

And Alex, while it's cool that you are willing to take more hormonal birth control most of your brethren aren't. I'll have to find the article but there was a discussion a while back about male hormonal birth control and a poll saying that a lot of guys were uncomfortable taking it.

EG raised two questions earlier: how do you deal with fathers who are not residents of the state, and whats to stop guys from just taking parental responsibility for 50 bucks a pop. That got me thinking. I'm a guy, I live in Illinois, and violation of this proposed law is a misdemeanor. Whats to stop me from signing permission form after permission form via fax from out of state? I doubt Illinois would extradite over a misdemeanor offense that doesn't exist in this state, especially if it was a largely political offense. Even then, it might not even come to that if you had enough people involved. Whats to stop Planned Parenthood in Illinois from making an open call for men willing to donate their signatures?

You can take that logic a step further, whats to stop Planned Parenthood in Illinois from simply providing signatures that they believe to be genuine but that they never bothered to check? Whats to stop someone from providing 30 or 40 assumed names with addresses that fall in Lake Michigan?

I imagine any attempt at enforcement of a bill like this would be next to impossible and would end up a PR nightmare. People like this asshat Adams need to know that even if their bills succeed they will cost the state huge amounts of money and make them (and their constituents) look foolish. The pro-choice crowd needs to make it understood that they will wantonly violate these laws.

This legislation can't be passed.. Like William said, how will it be enforced?!

As somebody who is used to show legislation out the ass in Texas, I can assure everybody that the authors and co-sponsors are not interested in logistics or in this actually ever being implemented.

Alex, I have to agree with everyone else that your original post was abhorrent. Your words say that a man should have the right to force a woman to have an abortion, which is absolutely not a pro-choice position. You claim to be pro-choice and that we have all taken your words the wrong way. But really, I don't understand how your post could mean anything other than what I, and many other, think that it mean. So please don't be so shocked that people are pissed off at your statements. And please don't think that its rude of us to request that you refine and better express your ideas.
Also, Feministing has done posts on men's reproductive health. I believe there was a recent post on circumscision (albeit it was focused on the effects of circ. on men's sex partners). And I am certain that if you look through the archives you will see a post or two on new developments in men's birth control.
That said, these are mostly women's issues becuase Feministing is primarily concerned with women's issues. Yes Feminism is about equality, but again, the site focuses on women's issues rather than all issues of equality/inequality, including racism, ageism, "reverse sexism", etc. (although there have been some great posts on the intersection of racism and feminism, as well as other topics). There is nothing wrong with the site having a focus. Try some other website, like Pandagon, if you want to look a broader issues.
Phew! That said....this is one of the most disgusting, insulting, and non-sensical bills that I have ever heard of. And it does logically follow that if a man must give permission for an abortion, then a man must give permission for the birth of a child as well. And I do suspect that a LOT of guys are going to choose abortion over childcare or child support before they are ready for fatherhood.

Alex, pls just admit your very first comment wasn't worded clearly..or at least not to the best of your ability.

B/c it DID sound as if you were playing the violin for men who pay child support, for "children they hardly know"...

Also, I don't understand your point about condoms and AIDS...that seems really out of left field. I don't think anyone here would disagree that new methods of birth control and STD prevention for men would be awesome but we just don't have it yet. They are being researched however.

I agree with Ephemeral's anaylysis about our litigious (sp) society...however, I have the same question as
lokispet

On the flip side, are they going to force abortions if the father doesn't want the child?

This bill, is absolute nuttydum. Even if I didn't have a problem with the ideals behind it, it's STILL chock full of holes (many probed here)!

Just out of curiosity and this subject isn't directly completely related to article, I apologize.. but whats everyones opinion on this..

What do you think of the motivations of a man who wants to keep or abort a fetus? Do you think they are drasticaly different from that of a womans? or are the intechangeable? I'm just curious..

"In the next 10-30 years we will probably have artificial wombs that can incubate offspring to maturity. In this scenario, do you think the male should have any say over whether the embryo is transferred to an artificial womb rather than aborted?"

I would say that artificial wombs should only be used if a couple really wants a child, but the mother's body can't handle giving birth.

Realistically, the couple would also have to be able to foot the bill for said artificial womb. Imagine how expensive those would be.

The problem with using this theoretical development as a way to "make abortion obsolete" is that you're making one of the usual mistakes of the anti-choice crowd: considering only the well-being of the fetus before it's born. Who would raise all these artificial-womb babies? We've got plenty of naturally-born babies in need of adoption, and not enough parents. Who would provide the resources to raise yet more children properly in this already overcrowded world?

Exactly, norbiz.

There's a direct relationship between the fact someone says "I'm not doing this for controversy" and the likelyhood that, in fact, they're doing it for controversy. As soon as someone says "I didn't bring it up to draw attention to myself or to be controversial" it's almost a certainty that that's exactly what they're doing.

I live in Ohio, and I just sent a lovely e-mail to Mr.Adams. Bastard.

frog queen-

i think motivations between men and women may be similar: aren't financially ready, emotionally stable, etc (or, on the flip side, want to be a parent, can't morally terminate, blah blah). what i think is drastically different is the ability for women to understand how a pregnancy will affect their bodies and the rest of their lives verses a man. any man who wouldn't support my choices is a man that i would not consider a long-term partner.

Then there's the 19-year-old woman here in Colorado who wants to define "personhood" as beginning at conception. So what happens to miscarried embryos and fetuses, or to the half of all fertilized zygotes that do not implant?

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_6474481

Sorry I don't have a link to the article they are discussing here. The full article costs $2.95 to download from the newspaper's archive.

I'm sure they are going to try and pass this off as giving both parents a chance to decide. However, it's really just giving men all the veto power in the situation. Which really makes sense because.. ya know.. men are the ones who get pregnant.

the father has financial responsibility for that child, so he should have a say

So, since he would be financially responsible for the child after it's born, does that mean he can also force the woman to abort to avoid that financial responsibility?

I can't believe that is the entire reasoning behind it either. What if we made it so men were not required to pay child support? These people would still find a reason for the father to decide, which would be horrible. Because then a father would be able to force a woman to have her baby and then he wouldn't have to financially support her. That would be really damaging, considering financial instability is one of the leading reasons women get abortions.

I'm sure they are going to try and pass this off as giving both parents a chance to decide. However, it's really just giving men all the veto power in the situation. Which really makes sense because.. ya know.. men are the ones who get pregnant.

the father has financial responsibility for that child, so he should have a say

So, since he would be financially responsible for the child after it's born, does that mean he can also force the woman to abort to avoid that financial responsibility?

I can't believe that is the entire reasoning behind it either. What if we made it so men were not required to pay child support? These people would still find a reason for the father to decide, which would be horrible. Because then a father would be able to force a woman to have her baby and then he wouldn't have to financially support her. That would be really damaging, considering lack of financial stability is one of the leading reasons women get abortions.

As an Ohio resident, and one who is constantly appalled regarding the bullshit legislation like this that gets proposed in her state, I have another angle to add to this.

Ohio is an equal opportunity offender when it comes to women's/men's rights. If an unmarried woman has a child, she is automatically granted sole custody of the child. A father who wishes to be involved in his child's life in this case would have to sue for visitation if the mother doesn't allow him near the child.

So Rep. Adams would have you believe in this bill that he is looking out for concerned fathers, when the law already denies them lawful access to their children (born outside of marriage). I wonder if (god forbid) this law would pass, would Adams give a damn about following through with the responsible father's rights? Or will men who want to know their child still be forced to sue in order to be a part of his child's life?

Long story short, Ohio is one hypocritical state when it comes to the law.

UCLAbodyimage, to your question about the artifical wombs: I think if the man really wants the baby and the woman doesn't, then then it should be an exact role reversal. Follow this:

If a woman wants a baby and the man doesn't, then the woman has the baby and the father doesn't do anything in the child's life, usually, except possibly right a check for child support.

So, same should go that way. The fetus can go to term in the artificial womb and the man can take full responsibility for it since it was his decision and not the womans. Then the woman can choose to not have a part in the life of the child, outside of maybe a check for child support (that is, if she doesn't leave state like the men do now). I'm not sure this is the ULTIMATE 'right' thing to do, but it seems the fair thing to happen given the current realities. I'm sure there could be better ways to handle this, though, as we all know how rotten we think a man is when he doesn't stay in the child's life.

I guess that's the only "equal" thing given the current reality of it all.

It seems to me that taking an embryo out of a woman and putting it in some type of artificial womb would still involve sedation or surgery, and so i'd be hesitant to say that doing that would make it equal- the woman's body still suffers a risk.

I have to agree with Azliza. Doesn't it seem extremely evasive to the women to cut the fetus out of her to put it into a man? Shouldn't she have a say in that...

I don't see what is so offensive about the idea that men should be able to opt out of having their genetic material become a person.

I agree 100%.

I also find it amusing that this bill probably contradicts the authors' religious beliefs. If a father has to exist to get an abortion, then logically Mary's whole "virgin birth" scenario never took place.

FROGQUEEN,
There may be many instances where men and women have the same reasons for wanting an abortion.
However, a man will never have to face the effects of pregnancy on their body. And I'm not just talking about labor, delivery, weight gain.
For example, I am 7 months pregnant and on official bed-rest. I've been in constant pain and I'm very worried about my baby. I'm unable to work. The situation has caused emotional stress to my loved ones, including my 5 year old. I am so much luckier than many women in that the my family can handle the financial burden of the increased medical bills and the loss of income and because I have a great support network.
However, I would never put myself or my loved ones through this again. Should I become accidently pregnant in the future (Husband will get a vasectromy, so an accident is unlikely) I will not hesitate to have an abortion.
My situation is something that no man will ever have to experience.
And it highlights yet another problem with this bill: costs. If they are saying "no father (with signature), no abortion" then who the hell is going to cover the costs of a normal pregnancy and child care. Who will cover the costs of medical complications and resulting loss of employment for mothers on bedrest? And let me tell you the costs are great and exceed medical care. This includes the costs of child care for existing children, day to day expenses, such as rent, and the costs of having someone help with things like housecare (laundry, dishes, etc).
OF course, the bill's sponsor haven't thought this through. Its absurd.

JaneMinty, you just made me laugh out loud with virgin birth comment!

Tankerton, I'm very sorry to hear about the complications your experiencing. Thats horrible!! and I'm sure if your in the US it's a larger strain. I read something about the costs of being pregnant in the US and it scared me.

YOur right tho and thats a whole other issue I haven't thought of, as I'm canadian and the cost of having a child is drastically less. But thats a big issue for the US I never considered! Who would pay for that? They can't expect to force women to have kids and just throw them into the system of welfare! How scarey!

Wasn't there an attempt at a similarly wacky law in Florida a few years ago? It required women who were giving a child up for adoption to put notices in newspapers to inform the potential father of her actions: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020829_hodes.html

Not exactly the same, but the same class of stupid and paternalistic.

Especially read the bit about the history of the Act-it was created in response to a rapist who tried to get his victim's child from its adopted parents. So the solution was to force rape victims (and others) to let their rapists know about the adoption, so that they could more easily contest it?

If I may make a bit of a clarification to an earlier post...it seems as though people read something I posted as advocating a position that if men don't want to be responsible for the fruits of their sexuality, they should keep their dicks in their pants. My tongue was planted firmly in cheek, and I was only referencing that kind of position as a note on how hypocritical it is of the anti-choice side to pull their slut shaming, "personal responsibility" crap with women, and then to act like the poor menz need the laws to protect them in case some mean woman denies them their heir. If they want women to have "personal responsibility", then they should want the same for men, but that's not the way they act. They just want to punish women.

So, just to be clear -- I think the law should refrain from slut-shaming both men and women, and, in a perfect world, there would be some mechanism for permitting men some say (albeit certainly not a veto!) about what happens when their view of an unintended pregnancy they helped cause differs from the view of the woman now unintentionally caused to be pregnant. We're not in a perfect world, and until there are better ways of dealing with sex and pregnancy and parenthood, we will continue not to be. It's complicated, and it's not made any easier by jackasses like Adams, who think that entirely taking away a woman's moral and legal agency.

They've been trying this for a while, gaining support under a "movement" called "choice for men" (or C4M for short). It's totally fucked up and dangerous.

Wow, I go into Manhattan for lunch and come back to almost 100 comments!

Just want to remind folks to lay off the personal attacks. I know it's hard to remain civil when talking about some of this stuff, but please...try.

Well this certainly is disgusting. Im absolutely in agreement with anyone who thinks abortions and pregnancies are solely the choices of the women who will experience them. Trying to give authority over them to men who will never experience them is nuts in my opinion. I really think men should no more be allowed to make these decisions for women in regards to pregnancies/abortions, then they should have to pay for a baby they didnt want anyway. Perhaps people will think me heartless but I simply say tough shit to any men who want the child the woman is carrying, when she doesnt, and to women who want support for a child that the father didn’t want.

Then again, I only brought up my views on men having to have “financial responsibility� because it was mentioned above. Bottom line is men have no say.

Of course, its not like Im planning on having kids, or engaging in the activity that sometimes leads to having kids.

I pulled a fake login name off bugmenot.com so I could give some of the more stupid comments on the article a good fisking.
I just couldn't resist. ;)

Try and guess which one is me! It won't be hard--the high snark quotient is pretty much a dead giveaway.

Okay, so it's taken me more than 2 hours since initially reading this to be calm enough to actually put words together...

I remember as a kid, maybe about 8 or 9, that my mother taught my younger brother a song that they used to sing, especially while getting dressed and doing bathing routines. I always interpreted it as being about teaching kids that other people touching them in ways they don't like is okay for them to say 'no' to and stand up for themselves, but it sums up my feelings here pretty decently:

My body's nobody's body but mine!
You run your own body, let me run mine!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..!?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

FROGQUEEN:

You're dating a guy that refuses to use condoms, and would leave you if you got an abortion?

What?!

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.

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. ;)

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!"

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.

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.

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.

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.

You're welcome!

And, oh, you had points?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

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. :)

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!

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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!

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.

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."

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Well said, EKF and William. Well said.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

"A girl I was dating stopped using birth control without telling me. Which lead to a very bad situation."

Every man should use a condom everytime, unless he wants to have a child, then that would not be an issue.

"BUT our lovely government officials just nosing into our personal business, and when I went to apply for medicaid, they wanted to open a child support case for me."

I thought the idea was that when you're entitled to support from someone then a third party can't come along and let the one who owes you support off the hook...even if you're a child, your father owes you, and the third party is your mother.

"It seems to me that taking an embryo out of a woman and putting it in some type of artificial womb would still involve sedation or surgery,"

It would also require the invention of technology that allows the transfer of an embryo *after* it's already implanted in a uterine lining. Doesn't IVF work in part because it transfers embryos from petri dishes where they didn't implant?

First, I come to this site everyday and truly enjoy learning about what's going on on the world, but my favorite part is reading the discussions that follow. Then some troll comes on and just ruins it for me. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy discussing opposing opinions, but when the opposing position happens to be that feminism, something very important to me is bullshit, it really chaps my ass.
Sorry for the run on. Regarding the original post... I've thought about this before and it all comes down to this: Since women bear all the physical responsibility like carrying and nurturing the fetus, then giving birth to it, I'm gonna say women have the sole right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy or not.
I'm reminded of a recent General Hospital storyline, where a boy's family was trying to sue the teen he impregnated to carry to term. I don't watch daily, but I believe the character had the abortion, then went on to new soap drama, rather than dying or suffering some ofther horrible fate.

"A girl I was dating stopped using birth control without telling me. Which lead to a very bad situation."

When I have taken birth control pills, I have been solely responsible for getting them, paying for them, remembering to have them with me, taking them, and dealing with the side effects. My partners have never taken more than a passing interest (and usually at my prodding), yet every time - EVERY TIME I've had sex with a man I've spent at least half of the time running back through the last 7-21 days thinking about whether there's a time I missed a pill, or was a few minutes late, and reminding myself to take the next several at exactly the right time. If you want responsibility over your sex partner's pregnancy status (as I want over my own status), you have to TAKE responsibility. Ask her if she took her pill every day. Take a sugar pill yourself at the same time every day, and at least imagine it was causing you side effects. Use a condom anyway. Get a vasectomy. Don't have sex. Personally, I most advocate for the condom option.

Also, numerous comments have addressed the argument that unwanted pregnancy hijacks a woman's body for 9-ish months and culminates in a painful exit, but let's not forget that childbirth changes your body forever, in all kinds of ways. And many men seem not to like it, either - remember the posts about vaginoplasty (sp?) we've had over the past months/years? Some of those are done to "reconstruct" the vagina after birth, to enhance sexual pleasure (presumably primarily for a male partner - if I have vaginal surgery, I don't expect to ever have vaginal pleasure again - just the thought of it hurts).

ok...i couldn't even get through all the comments b/f i HAD to write something.

having to get a father's permission to abort is BULLSHIT! I live by a firm standard, and i am going to catch some shit for this but i don't care. NO UTERUS NO OPINION! it changes you FOREVER! if a man wants to cough up a womb to grow a human, fine...give him say, but until then, fuck off. i am sick and tired of bending over backward to appease someone who made sperm once (we all know what a challenge THAT is)

michigan has a law that says any woman giving birth to a child out of wedlock must produce the name of the father to file a paternity case. after the abuse i suffered at his hand i would rather have chewed my arm off than file for paternity or get support from that ass...but the state wouldn't have it. unless you provide a name and a test comes back...no state aid or medicaid for you! fuck off! if you don't know...you must provide a list and they pursue one after the other until they find one. well...for me that opened a whole can of worms that i didn't need. if i want to raise my child alone, that was my business! my safety was at stake, but they didn't care.

and what is w/ all these fathers who believe that child support is the brunt of financial cost? i will tell you that the meager amount barely covers what is needed...so get over yourselves. i usually don't get so heated over this, but money is not the answer to everything...and i don't need a man's permission to grow or not grow a baby in MY body. if he wants to get stretched out and fat and changed forever...go ahead and grow it yourself. YOU carry the baby.

this bill is just one way of making sure that we have no freedom in our repro choices...and we need to stand up for ourselves!

i apologize for offending anyone...but as someone who is living the result of the state forcing me to involve the man...and i live scared every day...we need to face the facts that this bullshit is taking away our freedoms

ouyangdan: well said. I also like the "not your uterus - not your opinion" line of reasoning. And fuck the policymakers in Michigan who have left you living in fear, just for trying to get reasonable medical care for you and your child.

Right on, Ouyangdan!

rereading my comment to ouyangdan and recognizing that they're not leaving her living in fear for "trying to get reasonable medical care for you and your child" but also for having a child out of wedlock -but heaven forbid she should have an abortion either(these people seem to say) - damned no matter what you do if you have sex, and determined a prude if you don't...

Garrett Sparks – great chart, nice, simple, promotes information, equality and choice for all!

Here is the letter I just sent off to Representative Asshat (thanks to a lot of the comments here!):

Dear Representative Adams,

I am writing because I am extremely opposed to your archaic piece of proposed legislature, H. B. No. 287. While I understand the desire to make both parents responsible for a pregnancy, enacting this kind of legislation is not the way to go about it.

I was wondering how you intend on enforcing this law. If no man can sign a form that is not the father of the fetus, then will you require every man signing as “the father of the fetus� to take a paternity test to prove as such? What if a man is the father, but refuses to take a paternity test? The woman still has to give birth to a child she does not want?

I also strongly object to the section that requires women to provide police reports that “give reasonable cause to believe the woman became pregnant as the result of rape or incest.� This is incredibly insulting, in that you are stating women are not to be trusted – that they need to provide official documentation of their trauma. Not only this, but have you ever considered the numbers of women who don’t report rape or incest due to humiliation and/or fear of physical violence? You are asking women to put themselves in danger, or to relive a traumatic experience.

Let me paint a scenario for you. A woman is in an abusive relationship with a man who refuses to use any form of protection, and does not allow her to do so, under threat of physical violence. She gets pregnant, and the father also refuses to sign a consent form. Then, he leaves the woman, and does not intend to send her any money. Would there be a clause in the bill that states that if the father refuses to allow an abortion, he is required by law to support the child financially? If not, in this situation the woman is forced to have a child that she was forced to conceive, against her will, then must raise it by herself and also bear the brunt of the financial responsibility? What environment do you think that child will be raised in?

It is an extreme example, but I hope it paints an accurate picture of what this bill is trying to do. It is not creating equality in a decision between women and men. It is ultimately making women submit to the wishes of men, and leaving the power of the decision in men’s hands.

I hope that you will reconsider your support of this bill.

And I don't even LIVE in Ohio!

Yogi wrote:

"I cannot comprehend why a woman, or man, who was pro-choice would have sex with a pro-lifer"

Because pro-choice men can be sexist assholes, too, doncha know?

At least a pro-lifer won't coerce you to get an abortion if you don't want one.

Of all of the situations I know of where a pregnant woman disagreed with the sperm donor about what to do with the fetus, the woman wanted to keep it and the guy wanted to abort it.

It's the same for parental notification/ permission laws. They hurt a minority of women. More often than not, the parents WANT the girl to abort, even when the girl doesn't want to.
---

If guys want a choice, they need to demand more male birth control.

"Every man should use a condom everytime, unless he wants to have a child, then that would not be an issue."

A. Not everyone can wear condoms.

B. The bigger issue here is about being truthful regarding birth control practices.

*skips over majority of comments*

One way we could prevent unexpected pregnancy would be to sterilize all men. Then, the only people who would have a shot at getting pregnant (via sperm banks or combining two eggs and whatnot) would do so purposely.

Then, the anti-abortion people would have their way and those "sluts" would be free to screw around without worry of a baby.

/snark

Mimo92-

If you combine 2 eggs, you end up with female babies, and then where would the menz be? :P

My infertility used to be quite painful to me on occasion. I suppose, in that regard, the Right Honourable Mr Adams should be thanked for showing me the upside of sterility. Is it any wonder the demand for tubal ligations is going up in this country?

As an Ohioan, I would like to propose a rider to this bill: All male residents of the State of Ohio shall undergo a vasectomy within thirty (30) days after reaching the age of thirteen (13) or, in the case of male residents who have reached the age of thirteen prior to the effective date of this Section, within thirty days after the effective date hereof. It shall be a felony of the third degree for a male resident of at least thirteen years of age to be unable to furnish proof of vasectomy. Persons subject to the foregoing provisions may obtain a reversal of the vasectomy upon presentation of the written and notarised consent of all prior and prospective female sexual parters such persons have had or shall have within ten (10) years prior to or following the date of the request for permission to reverse the vasectomy.

If we're going to be making women's bodies subject to the whims of men, there's no reason we shouldn't be doing the reverse. After all, there would be fewer unwanted pregnancies (and abortions) if there were fewer fertile males around.

As an Ohioan, I am rather less optimistic about the prospects of defeating this bill. The General Assembly is a rather dismal place, and the fundamentalists tend to get what they want. As for a constitutional challenge, the man who said in Planned Pregnancy of SE Pa. v. Casey that a man should have as much power over his wife as he does over his minor daughter is now on the Supreme Court. In any case, any belief I once had that laws like this would be quickly invalidated appears rather naive in the light of recent events.

However, in Ohio, citizens can amend the State constitution by referendum. Putting Equal Rights and Bodily Integrity amendments on the ballot could be an effective way to mobilise opposition for this bullshit, and might help to create a political climate rather more hostile to proposals of this sort.

wow. double you tee eff. i wrote to my representatives and to this ass, not that he'll listen.

My commentary on the bill and how to oppose it

i wrote to my representatives and to this ass, not that he'll listen.

There is no point in arguing or negotiating with someone who wishes to see us treated as less than human beings. Instead, we need to be talking to each other, our friends, our neighbours, and other women we encounter to raise consciousness of this danger and to find effective means of organising to counteract it.

Welll something needs to be done about it, thats for sure.

I do not think its fair for the woman to have 100% say and make men financially responsible for it.

A simple solution would be to offer the men a choice: If the man doesnt want a child, but the woman doesnt want to abort, the financial responsibility should be entirely hers.

If the woman wants to abort and the man doesnt, well too bad it is her body.

But something needs to be done with it, because its current state where one partner decides if the baby is kept or not, and then forcing a man to pay to raise a child he does not want, is completely unfair.

Women (myself included) should have 100% say only if there is some form or clause that would relieve the man of any and all responsibility.

This is a very tough subject, but you cant just say, hey I dont want the baby, fuck you Im aborting. Ahh Ive changed my mind (6 months later) now support me and my child for 18 years.

Women (myself included) should have 100% say only if there is some form or clause that would relieve the man of any and all responsibility.

I'd be fine with that, as long as it only applied to men who had no responsibility in causing the pregnancy in the first place.

Elise, I would be in support of that rider to asshole Adams's bill. Excellently put.

Yes but how can you claim 100% reproductive rights, but then say I dont want 100% of the responsibility?

You fall back on the notion its completely fair to have 100% say over the fetus, and then 100% say over financial responsibility.

If you cant take 100% of the responsibility, common sense dictates you dont deserve 100% control. Deal with it.

Yes but how can you claim 100% reproductive rights, but then say I dont want 100% of the responsibility?

Last time I checked, a woman has about 50% responsibility in getting pregnant. In the case of men who haven't got a vasectomy and don't regularly wear condoms, the man's share would increase. Women don't get pregnant spontaneously.

But if its your body, its your responsibility to remain protected.

By what your saying, you agree that every man has the right to infect women with HIV, and that it should be legally acceptable.

After all sex is 50%.

Thats some scary shit.

If you mean "by a complete and bizarre distortion of what I'm saying to the point of unrecognisability", I would have to agree.

There's been a lot of talk on this thread about a man being able to "opt out" of being a dad if he wants his wife/girlfriend/etc to get an abortion but she wants to carry to term and raise the child. While I do definitely understand how many feel it's lobsided to leave the entirety of the decision to one parent, there are more complicated issues at work here. What if neither parent can afford to pay for an abortion, especially if the pregnancy is over the 1st trimester? Also, it's fairly common that a potential father will say that he supports the pregnancy at first, and then will change his mind later on, after it's too late to get an abortion? What if it takes a while to track down the father? I think you can all see where I'm going with this line of reasoning: an opt-out option would be bad bad bad for women, especially for poor women.

Scilian: women have some options (though not fabulous ones) for preventing pregnancy that don't require a man to wear a condom. Women don't currently have woman-controlled methods of preventing HIV. (yes there are female condoms, I know - I haven't talked to anyone who has tried and liked them, and they're much more expensive and harder to find, at least where I live).

roro80- if you can't afford an abortion, how are you going to be able to raise a child?

Sicilian- I really don't understand your point. If you're a man, and you don't want to get a woman pregnant, then PUT ON A CONDOM.

“Because pro-choice men can be sexist assholes, too, doncha know? At least a pro-lifer won't coerce you to get an abortion if you don't want one.�

A man who would coerce you into getting an abortion is not pro-choice, because he obviously does not respect a woman’s right to bodily integrity, just “ok with abortion�, which doesn’t make anyone pro-choice.

I really don't understand your point.

What he's saying is that, if a man were to have unprotected sex with a woman who is able to become spontaneously pregnant without his intervention, the man should be able to opt out of paying child support if the woman decides to keep her spontaneously generated pregnancy.

At least that's what he seems to be saying, if one tries to make some sense out of it. Otherwise, he's just saying that he isn't familiar with where babies come from.

RockStar -- exactly. I guess what I considered a logical conclusion wasn't explicit (sorry): if a man can legally say "go get an abortion or I opt out of raising the kid", but there is no financial (or logistical, etc) way for her to get one, she is then forced to raise the child alone, because the father "opted out". And further, if the opt-out law were to state that, ok, then if the man wants an abortion, then he should pay for it, how quickly would you guess the menz will retort that a woman who really wants an abortion will say she doesn't so she doesn't have to pay for it? I'm just not seeing a logistical way to deal with the opt-out idea.

Shinobi actually stated a similar idea to one which I thought I was the only one to ever have thought of. That is, men should be able to get out of paying child support by signing a legal document saying they absolve all rights to ever see their child and will never try to contact the child. After that, if there is ever reason to believe that the man broke his contract and he was found guilty of it then he would have to pay child support from then on.

This makes much more sense to me than the way the current system is. Men don't have a say in whether a woman carries a fetus to term or not. And that's the way it should be since it's the woman's body and not the man's. But, since the man doesn't have this say, according to our current system they have to pay child support whether they wanted the child or not and whether they want to be a part of the child's life or not.

As a feminist, this is something that has always bothered me since I'm very much interested in equality for all and this is one area where the men are getting the short end of the stick. I'm aware that there are so many other areas where women are getting unfairly treated (hence the need for this website and the continued existence of feminism.) But that still doesn't make this particular injustice for the men right.

I just noticed Phlegmatic is also advocating for a similar idea.

To all the folks who support the idea of men opting out of parenthood and child support: when exactly do you propose a man can decide this? Within the first 3 months of a pregnancy? Within the first six months of a child's life? On the day that a woman could no longer have a late-term abortion legally? After a divorce? What if a man agrees to be in a child's life and to support it but then decides "nah" once the woman could no longer have an abortion? Also, whose going to support these children? The state that refuses to fund health care for low income children as is? No man should ever have to pay child support? If a man decides that he doesn't want to be part of a child's life, should that automatically mean that at the moment of birth all children of single mothers should be taken away and put up for adoption? (This was once an ACTUAL proposal by Gingrich--rather, that the children of women on welfare should automatically be put up for adoption or in orphanges). The thing is, as I pointed out, 60% of child support payments are not being made in the first place; its really easy to screw over poor women who are single mothers. Its being done every day. Child support is not "for the woman" but rather to provide the necessities of what it takes to SURVIVE for a child. Your proposals, that a man could drop out of his genetic responsibilities are reprehensible and wrong. This could never work and it shouldn't be considered. If you really want to work for all children being wanted than one needs to support:
1. Universal Health-Care and Universal access to contraception for women and men.
2. Comprehensive Sex Education that helps young people develop a sexual philosophy that respects their own health, their partner's, and teaches the planning of families (not some nonsense that God decides when you should have babies...its all about the sperm and eggs).
3. Financial Education classes that help children comprehend the impact of teen parenthood on their whole lives and on the lives of children.
4. Advocate for more male contraceptive options in addition to condom use and a philosophy of sex that makes men responsible for their fertility and women responsible for their fertility.
5. Require all hospitals to offer EC to rape victims and require all pharmacies to carry (had have pharmacists who are willing to dispense it) to anyone woman over the counter.
6. Support universal child-care.

Peace

YouCanToo -- I'm with you on the sentiment, but again, the logistics don't work out. How late in the pregnancy can pops opt out? What if he says "let's have a kid" at 2 months pregnant and decides at 7 months that, no, he's not up for it? I know that one factor in getting an abortion is not having someone there to help or be the father, and if that man changes his mind after an abortion is medically possible, where does that leave the woman? Of course, this happens all the time already, but at least the woman has some recourse to get child support (if, of course, she is able to afford to go to court).

I've always been under the impression that a paternity test performed on an fetus can compromise a pregnancy so that’s why they aren’t done often. So they are risking accidentally terminating a pregnancy to pervert an abortion. That is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. This bill just goes on the prove what I’ve known all along, these people aren't concerned about saving babies, but about trying to control women and punishing them when they don’t obey.

Elise beat me to the Planned Parenthood v. Casey mention, and I thnk she's got some great points there. This law would be right in the face of that decision, but what else is new? What's disconcerting is states' sudden desire to not only challenge established law and precedent but also their need to interfere in the homes and private lives of their citizens. How very neo-con of them; I'm not one, but I'm surprised more true Republicans aren't revolted at the idea.

Any chance we can shift that 5 to 4 vote before this sort of law ever comes before the Court?

Thanks, HeatherNan, you much more clearly made the point I was trying to make.

I think we can sum up this entire conversation thusly:

LORETTA:
It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG:
But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA:
Don't you oppress me.
REG:
I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA:
[crying]
JUDITH:
Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS:
Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG:
What's the point?
FRANCIS:
What?
REG:
What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS:
It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG:
Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

Roro,
I never thought of it as an issue where men would "opt out" during the pregnancy. I've been thinking about how this would actually work and one way could be that the men who are sure that they don't want anything to do with the child could sign the document at any time. Those who haven't signed, but are also unwilling to pay child support can be brought to court and given the option to pay or be forced to sign away their rights to the child. I don't think it's that complicated or unenforceable an idea. Any contact the man is found guilty of then he automatically has to pay from then on.

I don't understand the recent posts saying it won't work because the man might say he's for the pregnancy in the beginning and then decide he's not later on. Whether a woman carries to term or not is her decision and she'll make it based on her situations and knowledge at the time. Things can change in anyone's life and they can regret doing/not doing something. As it is, women may think they are going to have the baby's father there for them (financially and otherwise) in the future and that could change. The idea I and others have proposed isn't really affected by that.

YouCanToo -- You mean after the child is born? So if dad breaks up with mom when the child is, say 2 years old (maybe even a planned child -- how would you prove otherwise?), and no longer wants to pay for the child they had together, he can just opt out then? It sounds like a "dead-beat dad clause".

I had assumed the opt-out option we were talking about would occur before the child was born just because the post has to do with fathers' rights in the abortion decision.

As it is, women may think they are going to have the baby's father there for them (financially and otherwise) in the future and that could change.

The point a lot of people seem to be missing is that child support isn't about "being there for" the woman; it's about supporting a child one had a hand in creating. The idea that a man should have the right to abandon a child whose existence he is in part responsible for just because a woman didn't undergo an invasive medical procedure is simply surreal.

Sorry, I'm going to try to word that post a little better:

Roro,
I never thought of it as an issue where men would "opt out" during the pregnancy. One way this could work is that the men who are sure that they don't want to have anything to do with the child could sign the opt out document at any time. Those who haven't signed, but appear unwilling to pay child support can be brought to court and given the option to pay or be forced to sign away their rights to the child. I don't think it's that complicated or unenforceable an idea. If the man is found guilty of any contact then he can be court ordered to pay from then on.

I don't understand the recent posts saying it won't work because the man might say he'll provide financial support in the beginning of a woman's pregnancy and then change his mind when she's further along. Whether a woman carries to term or not is her decision and she'll make it based on her situations and knowledge at the time. Things can change in anyone's life and they can regret doing/not doing something. As it is, women may think they are going to have the baby's father there for them (financially and otherwise) in the future, but that could change. The idea I and others have proposed isn't really affected by that.