Ohio bill would give Fathers the final say on whether a woman can have an abortion
Thu, 2007-08-02 08:41
#1
Ohio bill would give Fathers the final say on whether a woman can have an abortion
Thu, 2007-08-02 08:41
#2
This is so incredibly fucked up and ass backwards I can't even bring myself to give any sort of meaningful response.
[url=http://www.recordpub.com/news/article/2327981]I think I'm gonna throw up.[/url]
quote:
As written, the bill would ban women from seeking an abortion without written consent from the father of the fetus. In cases where the identity of the father is unknown, women would be required to submit a list of possible fathers. The physician would be forced to conduct a paternity test from the provided list and then seek paternal permission to abort.Claiming to not know the father's identity is not a viable excuse, according to the proposed legislation. Simply put: no father means no abortion.
In addition, women would be required to present a police report in order to prove a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.
Thu, 2007-08-02 08:46
#3
Ohio: making Florida look good since 2004
Thu, 2007-08-02 09:04
#4
Polly B
Holy shit.
(I would submit a list of fathers...every man I had ever come across in my whole life including my own family and the doctor required to track down the paternity.)
This is fucking insane.
Thu, 2007-08-02 09:32
#5
Wow. That is fucking loopy.
Thu, 2007-08-02 09:40
#6
quote:
Originally posted by sgauvreau:
[b]Ohio: making Florida look good since 2004[/b]
Instead of insulting 11 million people, how about distinguishing between a piece of legislation proposed by a few lawmakers, and the state as a whole?
quote:
With the recent liberal swing in Ohio state government, neither bill is likely to come to fruition. However, Adams' less extreme proposal has an outside chance of becoming law - a law that would have a major impact in Portage County and surrounding areas.
Thu, 2007-08-02 09:52
#7
Fine apples, when the voters of Ohio sweep the perpretrators of this bill away in the delousing stations of history in the next election, I'll have the nicest things to say about them.
Thu, 2007-08-02 09:59
#8
quote:
Originally posted by oldgoat:
[b]Fine apples, when the voters of Ohio sweep the perpretrators of this bill away in the delousing stations of history in the next election, I'll have the nicest things to say about them.[/b]
State representatives are not elected statewide. They represent districts. Often, they're elected due to the composite views of the electoral on a multitude of issues and bills, and not just their abortion stance.
Thu, 2007-08-02 10:44
#9
Nonetheless, they have to be Repugnicans to support such a bill. I think we can make educated guesses about the representative's general stances on other issues based on this bit of idiocy.
Thu, 2007-08-02 11:49
#10
Scott Piatkowski
Abortion: a man's right to choose [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2007-08-02 13:05
#11
quote:
They represent districts. Often, they're elected due to the composite views of the electoral on a multitude of issues and bills, and not just their abortion stance.
And this makes it different how? How about when it's your body and your life at stake then you get to show just as much anger as some of us do, m'kay?
Thu, 2007-08-02 13:11
#12
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]And this makes it different how? How about when it's your body and your life at stake then you get to show just as much anger as some of us do, m'kay?[/b]
It makes a difference, I don't think it's fair to hold a population fully morally accountable for all the goofings of their elected politicians. For example, I don't hold the views of members of the Iranian government on Jewish people against all the Iranian people. I admit that at some point I probably did.
I know a lot of people from the midwest and from Ohio. The paintbrush was inappropriate. In fact, one would that on a progressive website ANY paintbrushing is inappropriate.
Thu, 2007-08-02 13:22
#13
remind
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]Instead of insulting 11 million people, how about distinguishing between a piece of legislation proposed by a few lawmakers, and the state as a whole?[/b]
Apparently you did not read the article correctly! And what oldgoat had to say I say to you too.
quote:
However, Adams' less extreme proposal has an outside chance of becoming law - a law that would have a major impact in Portage County and surrounding areas.
It states that the other anti-abortion laws proposed do not have a chance, however it states, this Bill, giving the fathers the final say does have a chance!
There is nothing fucking correct about that at all. Again, in case you do not get it, it is eroding women's rights and giving a man control over a woman's body and her future.
Thu, 2007-08-02 13:23
#14
I'm just going to quote oldgoat. And frankly, whether you know people in Ohio or not is entirely irrelevant. I do too. So what.
quote:
Fine apples, when the voters of Ohio sweep the perpetrators of this bill away in the delousing stations of history in the next election, I'll have the nicest things to say about them.
Thu, 2007-08-02 13:35
#15
It was a joke man, don't hijack the thread.
Thu, 2007-08-02 14:07
#16
On the flip side of this coin, do the pro-life supporters of this bill now believe that as long as both parents agree to an abortion it's acceptable? They probabaly figure it's only one step in the direction of getting rid of legal abortions entirely, but they are certainly ceding some ground here. As opposed to saying all abortions should be illegal period (as the other bill mentioned in the article does), they are actually tacitly using the conceptual ground of choice. Since this loopy bill won't pass, I think we can almost look at this as a kind of perverse victory. Some members of the anti-choice crowd have finally been dragged onto pro-choice ground. Appropriating the concept of choice (however absurdly) suggests the original philosophical ground beneath them is crumbling.
Or maybe I'm being overly optimistic. I just always try to find a rainbow in the rain. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
At any rate, it's good to hear liberals have gained ground in that legislature. Hopefully the sponsors of this bill are the type of nuts no one takes seriously.
Thu, 2007-08-02 14:24
#17
quote:
Originally posted by Will S:
[b]They probabaly figure it's only one step in the direction of getting rid of legal abortions entirely, but they are certainly ceding some ground here.[/b]
No, I really don't think that's the case here. If you try and put yourself in the mind of a pro-life advocate, then you will realize that, because every abortion is essentially murder, that [b]anything[/b] that helps to limit the number of abortions is a good thing.
Like any movement, you take what you can get for the time being, but you continue to fight for what you truly believe should be.
Thu, 2007-08-02 16:37
#18
remind
quote:
Originally posted by EddieSizzle:
[b]If you try and put yourself in the mind of a pro-life advocate,[/b]
Why? These self righteous fucks want to have the right to control my life and other women's lives.
quote:
[b]then you will realize that, because every abortion is essentially murder, that [b]anything[/b] that helps to limit the number of abortions is a good thing.[/b]
Uh, I do not believe you are speaking juxposition of being in anti-choice perspective, as such I call you on your comments and say; "that would be NO it is not murder and it is not a good thing to strip women of their rights to self". This law has potential to put some man, who is only interested in controlling the woman, in absolute control of her.
quote:
[b]Like any movement, you take what you can get for the time being, but you continue to fight for what you truly believe should be.[/b]
This is not a movement, this is an outrageous action of people trying to control other peoples rights and freedoms.
-----------------------------------
Given Eddiesizzle's post, I would ask this thread be put in the feminist forum where it belongs
Thu, 2007-08-02 16:59
#19
Remind,
Your reply is outrageously reactionary. If you had taken the time to read what I was replying to, then you would understand. Since I don't think you did, let me break it down for you:
I was replying to the part I quoted, that said (regarding the pro-life people) "they are certainly ceding some ground here."
* You ask why you should put yourself in the mind of a pro-life advocate.
Simple answer. In order to understand what they're thinking. Everything I wrote after that is based on what they are thinking. [b]They do not think that they are ceding any ground here[/b]. That is my only point. I explained why they think that. I'll repeat it again: since they think that abortion is murder, stopping any abortions is a good thing.
A few other things:
* I wasn't trying to juxtapose anything, if that's even what you meant.
* Saying something is not a movement because you disagree with it, well, come on now. I'll use the two big examples of Nazism and fascicm: they were both movements (at some point) and I'm pretty sure none of us here can deny that.
* Given my post, this thread belongs in another forum? It's a current event - let's not limit it's discussion just yet.
Thu, 2007-08-02 17:17
#20
remind
First eddiesizzl, if I accept your were not trying to sneakily say abortion is murder, I would have to say you are presuming that WOMEN --who really this is all about-- do not know what the anti-choicers thought forms are. And that would be an eroneous presumption, we, after all, are the ones who have had to, and continue to have to fight for our rights, and for them to be upheld, as well as fighting a partriarchial system.
Secondly, I don't give a shit whether or not this is a current event, or not, we have already had this discourse about currents events pertaining to women and our rights should always be placed in the feminist forum.
Thirdly, what would you like to say, or feel should be said, that would be limited if this topic was in the feminist forum where it belongs?
My response to this is, if it would be limited in the feminist forum, then it has no business being said in the first place. Moreover, just freaking typical that a man would try to control the discussion of something that impacts women solely and then add the rider "just yet".
Thu, 2007-08-02 17:38
#21
Remind, point by point:
First, there was nothing "sneaky" about my original post. I merely wanted Will S to not presume that the pro-lifers are giving up any ground. There was no presumption on my part being made about women - it was a response to Will S.
Second, I appologize for suggesting that this thread stay in this forum. I am new and thought that since this is so fresh, it should stay here. I was under the (possibly wrong) impression that once it moves to the feminist forum, it won't get as much attention as it might deserve.
Third, again, I just think that this issue would get less attention than it deserves if it's in the feminist forum.
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Moreover, just freaking typical that a man would try to control the discussion of something that impacts women solely and then add the rider "just yet".[/b]
Lastly, can we keep the sexist rhetoric to a minimum, please? If I have spoken wrongly, attack my words. But please, leave what my lovepump make me out of this.
Thu, 2007-08-02 18:06
#22
quote:
Originally posted by EddieSizzle:
[b]I merely wanted Will S to not presume that the pro-lifers are giving up any ground. There was no presumption on my part being made about women - it was a response to Will S.[/b]
Maybe I should clarify post or edit it to better reflect what I meant to say. I'm not presuming they are giving up ground, only suggesting that it could be seen that they were if you were looking at the rhetorical battle shifting to the notion of centrality of choice (in this case the father's). There's another topic in the feminist board that was dealing with a similar issue.
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=001228]T... on the feminist board[/url]
People posting there were expressing some worry that if pro-choicers were asking the anti-choice crowd what would be an approproate sentence if abortion became illegal that we would fall into the trap of legitimizing the idea that abortion should ever be recriminalized. I was trying to suggest the flip might be true here and that if we were to look at the discursive battle that this proposed bill shifts the ground to turf that could be considered friendlier to us pro-choicers and legitimazing the idea that the fundamental issue here is one of choice.
Thu, 2007-08-02 18:30
#23
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
[b]Abortion: a man's right to choose [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
Yeah, no shit.
Thu, 2007-08-02 21:20
#24
How about "Father knows best"?
Thu, 2007-08-02 21:31
#25
remind
quote:
Originally posted by EddieSizzle:
[b]Remind, point by point:First, there was nothing "sneaky" about my original post. I merely wanted Will S to not presume that the pro-lifers are giving up any ground. There was no presumption on my part being made about women - it was a response to Will S.[/b]
You are correct there was nothing sneaky about your post, after rereading it several times you plainly were stating that abortion is murder.
quote:
[b]Second, I appologize for suggesting that this thread stay in this forum. I am new and thought that since this is so fresh, it should stay here. [/b]
Fresh? What the fuck does freshness have to do with where a women's issue topic should be? What we should wait until when to move it? Unbelievable, especially considering just a month ago it was decided these tyupes of topics that affect women should be placed in the feminist forum regardless of whether they are new news or not. Why? So we do not have men as always telling women how and what they should discuss with issues that face only women.
quote:
[b]I was under the (possibly wrong) impression that once it moves to the feminist forum, it won't get as much attention as it might deserve.[/b]
And just whaty attention does it deserve eddiesizzle? I already asked what else you believe should be stated that could not be stated in the feminist forum?
quote:
[b]Third, again, I just think that this issue would get less attention than it deserves if it's in the feminist forum.[/b]
Why do you think that? And what type of attention do you think it deserves?
quote:
[b]Lastly, can we keep the sexist rhetoric to a minimum, please? If I have spoken wrongly, attack my words. But please, leave what my lovepump make me out of this.[/b]
No sexist rhetoric coming from my mouth, only commentary that is absolute truth, another man trying to control a woman's issue topic, as always. Say nothing of your calling abortion murder, as really that is what you were doing, no matter how you tried to couch it. And frankly, your telling me what to do is what is sexist.
Fri, 2007-08-03 05:26
#26
Actually, it makes perfect sense for this thead to be in the feminism forum, so I'll move it.
Regarding this comment:
quote:
No, I really don't think that's the case here. If you try and put yourself in the mind of a pro-life advocate, then you will realize that, because every abortion is essentially murder, that anything that helps to limit the number of abortions is a good thing.
I see no reason to not take it at other than face value. He's discussing how an anti-choicer might view it, not supporting their stance. I see no problem with that.
[ 03 August 2007: Message edited by: oldgoat ]
Fri, 2007-08-03 08:23
#27
As usual, I like Feministing's [url=http://feministing.com/archives/007480.html#comments]take on the matter.[/url]
quote:
NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio executive director Kellie Copeland says, "This extreme bill shows just how far some of our state legislators are willing to go to rally a far-right base that is frustrated with the pro-choice gains made in the last election...It is completely out of touch with Ohio's mainstream values. This measure is a clear attack on a woman's freedom and privacy." Not to mention our intelligence.
Fri, 2007-08-03 18:26
#28
Just heard about this nonsense and I'd thought I'd hop over to Babble to post, but of course you guys are way ahead of me.
My favourite part of the bill is the mandatory pre-natal dna tests for women who may have had multiple partners. How are they going to determine this anyway? Lie detectors? I see a whole new money making scheme for some entrepreneurial man out there. Dial a dadddy. He shows up, swears he's the father and then ok's he abortion. Easy as pie. I mean can't we just burn these loose pregnant hussies at the stake or something. I'm sure if they are pure of virtue and only slept with one man, they won't burn. This would save a lot of money and be much more fun to watch. If Ohio's going back to the dark ages, they might as well go all the way.
(oh and I'm being sarcastic for those posters who are quick to jump to conclusions)
Fri, 2007-08-03 19:25
#29
I'd be 100% in favour of this under one condition: the father who doesn't OK the abortion must carry the pregnancy to term by himself, in his own body.
Fri, 2007-08-03 20:00
#30
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
[b]I'd be 100% in favour of this under one condition: the father who doesn't OK the abortion must carry the pregnancy to term by himself, in his own body.[/b]
[img]http://petegraham.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/arnie_preggers.png[/img]
![http://petegraham.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/arnie_preggers.png[/img]](http://petegraham.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/arnie_preggers.png[/img]){kind=link}
Fri, 2007-08-10 08:59
#31
I went back to Ohio,
but my city was gone. . .
Sigh.
What can I say? There are parts of and people in this state that make Iowa look like Vancouver.
This legislation has no chance of passing due to the simple fact that any Federal court that hasn't been infested by the worst kind of Bush appointees will quickly rule it unconstitutional.
That does not diminish the whole idea of even introducing such legislation however. It is indicative of some of the attitudes among the GOP leftovers here from November's near purge of quacks.
I apologize for all rational Buckeyes everywhere. This will not stand.
Fri, 2007-08-10 12:26
#32
Jesus, that is just.... stupid.