WTF Ohio.

noisy_penguin · July 2009

[url]http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/23/756636/-Excuse-Me,-Sir,-May-I-Have-An-Abortion[/url]

Mrs.Babbsy · July 2009

It's a scary place. I hate to even drive over there, well here since I am in OH right now.

PDXPhotoGrl · July 2009

The American Taliban at work. Lovely.

jens_a_ten · July 2009

I cannot even fathom this. At least attempt to veil the raging misogyny and classism in your lawmaking, seriously. And calling it "Father's right"? FUKC you Adams.

SarahBethBR · July 2009

Hasn't pretty much the exact same law already been overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional?I honestly cannot see this actually passing and being allowed to happen.

Irishgrl417 · July 2009

Wow, I'm sititng here with my mouth opened questioning if I just read that correctly. In the event that the father is unknown, we may force a woman to have a baby with a stranger. That's a brilliant idea, I can't see anything going wrong there. How long before Ohio is complaining that their adoption agencies or family services can't afford to keep up with the number of abandoned babies?

kaybeeknits · July 2009

Also, what about rape?

Novemberrocks · July 2009

I think the bill should include a clause that if the biological father refuses to agree to the abortion, he must a) carry the fetus for the rest of the pregnancy, b) pay for all prenatal care, and c) either raise the kid by himself, or find someone else suitable to do it.

oklagirl · July 2009

Have any of you guys read Unwind by Neal Schusterman? It's a young adult book, but I enjoyed it. It doesn't touch on exactly this issue, but is pretty thought-provoking. http://www.amazon.com/Unwind-Neal-Shusterman/dp/1416912053/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1248377670&sr=8-1

jens_a_ten · July 2009

d) Pay the woman whatever the going price is to hire a surrogate these days. I am so enraged by this, I can't even think straight.

KristenBtobe · July 2009

Oh, it won't pass.

jens_a_ten · July 2009

I assume that it won't, but the thought that enough people support it, and enough high powered people think this way, that it's even a serious suggestion as a law, is enough to make me murderous.

PDXPhotoGrl · July 2009

Mrs.Kay, it seems that there is a rape exception, as long as you filed a police report. Because that totally happens with every rape. UGH.SUCK ON IT, RAPE VICTIMS.The Handmaid's Tale comes to mind. Good ol' Margaret Atwood. I wonder if she knew she was a visionary.

FallinAgain · July 2009

Nov.'s post made me think. Women can force men into being fathers at least to the extent of paying child support. If a woman chooses to continue a pg that a man does not want, should he have to pay?

FallinAgain · July 2009

I agree that it's her body to the extent of being the sole party who should decide to abort the pg. Then, though, it exits her body and her choice becomes his obligation. I must admit that I find that troubling.

jens_a_ten · July 2009

Fallin, I'd agree with you more if the system was more successful at making men actually pay their child support. But, I wouldn't be completely opposed to the idea of a law that allowed men to not pay if they submitted some kind of formal objection to continuing the pregnancy, within a certain time period. But then you'd get into the issues of women who just wouldn't tell the guy that she was pregnant until the time period had already lapsed. Or the man or woman lying about knowing, etc. All kinds of complicated situations. I would just hate to see these guys who are all cool with the pregnancy, and then bail when the kid comes, or shortly after. Or the guys who don't want to pay if they break up with the woman later down the road, get loopholes to get out of providing support by just saying "I didn't support continuing the pregnancy."

FallinAgain · July 2009

I agree that there would have to be some consideration regarding proof that the man objected during the pg when the woman could have aborted or that the woman intentionally did not tell him to deny him the opportunity to object.

jbloom · July 2009

I find this all so pointless. Wouldn't people just drive to the next closest state that doesn't have shiitty laws?

kaybeeknits · July 2009

In general, I think it's hard not to feel that its not fair for the man to be required to pay child support if he doesn't get a choice about whether the fetus should be kept or not. Unfortunately though, life isn't fair and that's a consequence of him having sex. The woman also has to deal with her own set of consequences regarding her choice, whether she had to deal with an abortion and the possible emotional/physical repercussions or if she decides to keep the baby and is responsible for caring for the baby (physically/emotionally as theoretically the father is providing some of the financial burden)

Irishgrl417 · July 2009

Then, though, it exits her body and her choice becomes his obligation. I must admit that I find that troubling. You raise a good point, I never thought of it that way. But what's the compromise? He finds out she's pregnant and gets to choose a baby or a 1 time payment? She can use that money for an abortion or baby items and he gets to walk away and never look back?

PDXPhotoGrl · July 2009

To clarify, I think it becomes his obligation as soon as he has sex with her. That's where his choice begins and ends: he knows the potential consequences. His choice to take on the risk to become a father is made when he puts his P in her V.The mother's choice is whether or not she wants to allow herself to be a vessel (as well as financial responsibility -- that's not the sole obligation of the father). If she does allow it, then both of them continue to share the responsibility of what they have already taken on. If she does not, then it releases them both from that responsibility. I don't think the second choice (abortion vs. carry) negates the culpability of the first (sex or abstain).For me, the fuzzier question is after the child is born. What if one parent wants to give the child up for adoption but the other doesn't? Assuming the parent that wants to keep the child assumes sole custody, is the other parent still held financially responsible? Does it matter which parent is which?When you take the woman's body aspect out of the debate, it's a much harder question for me.

FallinAgain · July 2009

Or she knows he doesn't want a baby and makes a decision to have the kid and provide for it on her own.

FallinAgain · July 2009

For me, the fuzzier question is after the child is born. What if one parent wants to give the child up for adoption but the other doesn't? Assuming the parent that wants to keep the child assumes sole custody, is the other parent still held financially responsible? Does it matter which parent is which?Yeah, this is what I'm getting at essentially. I was trying to take the woman's body out of it, I guess. I'm pro-choice, but I also don't think that a woman because she has the choice should get to strap a man she knows doesn't want the kid with financial burdens for 18 years when both chos to have sex but only she chose to have a child result from the sex. I think he should have the right to relinquish his rights and obligations if she chooses to have the baby (with some sort of evidentiary considerations and time limits in place).

SarahBethBR · July 2009

To clarify, I think it becomes his obligation as soon as he has sex with her. That's where his choice begins and ends: he knows the potential consequences. His choice to take on the risk to become a father is made when he puts his P in her V.But by that argument, isn't the woman's choice made when she let's him?I definitely think the woman should have the choice. It's just hard to make an argument verbally.

kaybeeknits · July 2009

But by that argument, isn't the woman's choice made when she let's him?I don't think so, because the argument is he knows the risk he is making. He is doing something that might result in pregnancy. Further, he knows that he will not be able to make a decision about the pregnancy because it doesn't take place in his body.

wadingmoose · July 2009

I think it's awfully shortsighted to force a woman to carry a baby to term that she doesn't want. There are a large number of women out there who want the children they're carrying and yet continue to do things to put the fetus at risk - drinking, eating poorly, smoking, etc. I'm not saying it's right, but you can't force a woman to take care of the fetus, even if you do decide you can force her to carry it.I get what PDX is saying, you can only control yourself and your body, not your partners. So while the man's control ends with sex, that's only ruled by biology - that's the end of his control over the situation. After that the woman's body is the one affected and she's the one who makes decisions (hopefully) about what is and is not done to her body.

kaybeeknits · July 2009

Okay, I have the solutionBefore anyone has sex they have to sign an agreement in which the man states what he are willing to contribute to a possible baby. Then, if it was a hook up he can mark the "awe hell no" box.Problem solved.

SarahBethBR · July 2009

Sarah, I thought I was pretty clear, but I believe the same obligation and culpability rests with both parties.No, I think you are being clear.I'm just struggling with my own answer to this question and your wording in the first part kind of clarified why I struggle to put my own feelings into words here. It's a difficult question.If the woman is given another chance to make that decision, why not the man? I think he shouldn't get the chance to decide to abort or not because he's not carrying the child. But from there, where do you go?

FallinAgain · July 2009

But by that argument, isn't the woman's choice made when she let's him?Sarah, I thought I was pretty clear, but I believe the same obligation and culpability rests with both parties.But not really. They don't really have the same culpability when the women can choose whether or not the accidental pg that results from the same decision to have sex results in a child or not.