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.