http://www.recordpub.com/news/article/2327981

First off, the guy is not going to pregnent with the freaking child...

and there's a lot I can say, and no way to phrase it at the same time, the whole thing pisses me off.

That is bullshit! It should be the mother's choice. She's the one who's gotta do all the hard work. The father does jack squat in terms of being pregnant.

I really don't know how to touch this one and abortion in general is a sensative topic. Let me say that while I'm not really in favor of abortion I'm not against it either. However, if you receive government aid and intend to use health care benefits it provides to pay for an abortion then I am against that shit. I don't like the idea of my tax dollars going to pay for abortions. Sure my tax dollars go to kill people. Even infants and little kids in some cases but those are not American kids.

Oh wow. I think that would greatly hinder being able to get an abortion. If the mother doesn't know who the father is then she would have to give a list of names and have DNA tests. Seems like a lot of time and money wasted, considering abortions are usually performed in the first trimester . Forcing her to be pregnant is wrong and goes against her rights.
If a law like that ever passed I think it would be funny if the father had to wear a pregnancy belly the whole 9 months hehe for experience.

Isn't it funny how men are always the ones to say things against allowing abortions?

Listen. First of all, it's a medical procedure, and men will NEVER EVER BLOODY KNOW what pregnancy is. They don't have to carry the child, they don't have to deal with the responsibility and they don't have to deal with the consequences that happen to their body after having a child. It's easier for them to skip out on a baby if they have it, and they get to have the fun of sex without having to worry about getting fatter and fatter for nine months and having health problems and fat ankles and too much other shit to deal with.

Honestly, it is my opinion that the man does not have the fucking final say. If he loves the woman he knocked up, he should understand if she doesn't want to have the child, and she vice versa, and they can come to a decision, but if it is a situation where the man is forcing her not to, there is something wrong with the situation ANYWAY.

><

And anyway, if the kid not being born is going to be a welfare back, our tax dollars are still going towards it!.

I completely agree. And I'd like to add another thing. Men are always saying that every child has the right to a life. Well, what happens if a child is born to a mother who can't support him/her just because she wasn't ALLOWED to have an abortion? The child would either spend his/her whole life in an orphanage unless he/she got lucky or he/she would be living with his single mother on welfare his/her whole life. I don't think it's fair for the mother OR the child.

Men don't get it... -_-;;

I think you're all fucking horrible. Why shouldn't the father have a say in the life of his child?

I'm so sick of this entire "It's a womans right to decide" bullshit mentality that the feminazi morlaity-police enforce on us. While this law is a little unrefined, I think it's great that someone is standing up for the fathers rights for once.

After all, if the child is born the father is still financially responsible, and in that respect they legally should have a say in it, as it is a major investment. At the same time, this might encourage more progressive laws that encourage more paternal involvement with child rearing, and that treat the mother and fathers as equals in the process (rather than the father as an abstract figure in the shadows who is allowed no opinion).

Agreed. If the father is willing, I don't see the complete downfall.

I'm all for pro choice, but in some cases such as this, I kind of have to disagree with an abortion.

To hell with 9 months of pregnacy! ;3 It's worth it in this case.

I'm pro-choice.

However in saying that I have come to the understanding that there is more than a choice involved in such a decision.

Men can't understand. But's that because they are programmed differently, but they do have feelings and there's are often completely ignored where things like this come in to play. Some people choose to attack the male because he got the girl pregnant, but it takes two to tango.

Granted the weight of the decision should belong to the female, the father's choice is often pivotal in fair choices. Some males do care for the girl and for the child. In a healthy relationship equal weight of responsibility is best.

I'm for re-working this bill as there are still several things that are currently either unfair or unclear. But it could bring us closer to better relations between mother/father/child.

Well, yes I am. But lemme me say this Mike...

There is a certain amount of responsibility in a relationship with sex, and you should take the time to know a women before you sleep with her, including this little conversation about what the two of you will do if she gets pregnent.

And if you can't deal with the fact that she wants an abortion if she's pregnent, then don't sleep with her in the first place.

The same thing the other way, if he can't deal with her being pregnent and she wants to keep the baby, don't sleep with him in the first place.

But you shouldn't force a lady to be pregnent with your kid!

_That_ is my problem right there.

Now to be fair, I think a women who gets pregnent on purpose then forces the father to play daddy is a selfish ass. And there should be something done to prevent it.

I believe that the guys input is important, but that it's something couples should handle on their own, and that there shouldn't be a law forcing it. Especially one that can come turn around and bite me in the ass.

...thinking about this and I'm reminded why I love Pj. <3

I know I'm no regular, but I'm feeling loquacious.

I think, while it is the woman's right to choose (and I am pro-choice), the father should also have a say. I agree with Mike here. I mean, it's the FATHER. Of a CHILD. If this is a man who really wanted a family, but the mother decides, nah, don't wanna pop it out, then he gets the short end of the stick. Of course, there are all manner of complications and scenarios involved. A guy could get his girlfriend pregnant and refuse to allow her an abortion simply out of spite, for example. It should be a mutual decision, and disagreements can be brought up legally. Except that abortion is always being fought against in government. Tricky!

In other words, the man shouldn't always be left out entirely. It's not fair. But he shouldn't be given the power to essentially force a woman to have a baby.

Pregnancy is such a pain in the ass these days. Seriously, none of this should even be an issue.

Now, contrary to all that crap:

"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."

Wait, what? Seriously, if a woman gets raped and the guy gets away, and therefore no father is found or identified, she is forced to live with the pregnancy that was forced on her? How can that even be considered?

Almost all abortion laws have exclusions for documented forcible rape. Actually, a "no father, no abortion" bill that only made an exception for DOCUMENTED rapes might do society a lot of good. After all, a lot of rapes (both violent and date) never go reported. With date rape you of course know the father, so it's all moot anyhow, but with violent rape you would need to get checked out right away after the rape, and be willing to press charges and give a description to be able to get that abortion, just in case.
This would mean that a lot of rapes that would normally go unreported (leaving the woman with a risk of undocumented medical conditions as a result, and allowing the rapist to go un-documented to rape again freely) would now be immediately reported.
Diseases and injuries would be prevented/treated, criminals would be apprehended, neighborhoods could be put on alert sooner, and lives would probably be saved.


As for the "having to harbor the child", Yuffie, I'm sorry but I view the child as a living thing and the sum of a lifetime, rather than just being a pregnancy. 9 months of discomfort to me does not justify terminating something that could potentially live 120 years if there is someone willing to raise it and take on that responsibility.

Look at it from the other perspective. If the laws were actually fair, as they stand now the father of a child could force you to abort, even if you didn't want to. I don't think there is a woman alive who would let someone else decide if HER baby lives or dies. I'm amazed that men have just gone along with this for this long, it's disgusting. Just because it's not PC in this society to stand up for mens rights doesn't mean we shouldn't have any.

To you, it's nine months of discomfort...

I know a woman like that. She's got 4 kids all from different fathers. She enjoys having them and then breaking up with the fathers so she can have the kids, not take care of them, and still get all the child support from all of the fathers. I find it disgusting.

And I guess in a case like that, the father SHOULD be right. But it's quite unfortunate how the courts almost never listen to the fathers. Even if they are the better person.

9 months of taking responsibility for your actions. If the child is totally unwanted and isn't going to have a good potential either way, then yeah, kill the bastard, but I think a human life that would be charished, wanted, and raised is worth 9 months of discomfort.

Look, it's not that the father has a say. It's that the father, in that bill, could force the mother to do what she wants.

It takes away HER say.

Really though, this all is why I'm a fucking virgin, and why when I do get married, I'm getting a fucking IUD.

You could get an IUD now...

It's not taking away her say, it's giving the father the ability to protect his childs life.

...it's more then nine months. Recovery takes a good year to a year and a half at least.

But I just realized that as a kid, I'd look at this much differently then an adult, and that we'd view things differently. So it's really unfair for me to say anything.

(And I sent you a pm Lothlin)

This law has been bothering me since I read it. I agree that men should have a say in what happens to their children. A father should have input because it is also his child . Ideally there would be a discussion between the mother and father and the mother would consider his feelings, especially if he was willing to raise his child. The part that bothers me is the way the law is written. It feels as though the mother would be forced to be pregnant against her will because the father said " no I don't aprove of the abortion". The way it sounds the final decision goes to the father and forces her to be pregnant even if she doesn't want to be. It doesn't exactly take away her say because she can decide that she wants the abortion to begin with but then the final decision is given to the father.

It IS taking away her say, at least the way it is worded; sure, she can say something, but basically instead of the father having an opinion and the mother having the final say, it's now switched. There needs to be some sort of middle ground on this issue.

Meh, no reason for me to get an IUD now really.

Lothlin...

I want your babies. The ones you aren't going to have. :D

You can have my ebabies <3.

We should decide on some names XD.

I don't see how it's taking away her say. If she wants to keep the baby no one can stop her. If the Father wants to keep the baby no one can stop him.
It's as fair as any such law could be. No, I don't like the wording, but I'm all about the principle. It also protects the childs rights because in 2/3rds (or 3/4tjs, if you insist on have a gender bias) the child is allowed to live.

The only condition that you are having an issue with is "Mother wants dead, father wants alive, therefore baby lives", and that is utter, absolute bullshit. I'm sorry, but if you are ok with "Mother wants alive, father wants dead, therefore baby lives" but not the afore mentioned condition, then you're a sexist monster and this shit has gone on for too long.

From the other perspective, if you're ok with "Mother wants dead, father wants alive, therefore baby dead" think of it as if the law favored "Mother wants alive, father wants dead, therefore baby dead". THAT is what it's like to be a father in this country, and THAT is the ONLY bullshit here.

You women really need to consider this from the fathers point of view and quit being so damn wrapped up in yourselves and selfish to see that the system has been warped from its inception. I don't know if it's because you've never thought about it this way, or because the propaganda has so drilled it into our heads that babies and men have no rights, and the only people in this country allowed to have an opinion on abortion are women, but either way it's time for a long overdue change.

If this law is taking a way a womans rights to "have a say", then it's taking away her right to say "The father has no right to make decisions about his childs LIFE", which is something women should never have had in the first place.

Actually, I had an issue with 'mother wants dead, father is nowhere to be found'. Or how this could be used in cases where the father doesn't actually care about the child's life, but is just being an evil bastard.

>< Goddamn, I hate the issue of abortion sometimes. There's really no good way to solve it.

I do see what you're saying Mike.

That's exactly what I think. (refer to one of my earlier posts)

You make a valid point, the father is basically screwed and has no say in anything with the way it is now. That really isn't fair.

I think that if the pro-choice, pro-life factions got together they could be a positive force for change.The goal should be lowering abortion rates. By helping to lower abortion rates through education and alternatives ,instead of arguing . The topic of abortion is complicated and I can see both sides of the argument, I've been going back and forth on all the different points. Its had me thinking since this post was created, looking up literature, and asking friends and family their opinions. They are probably sick of me by now .

The problem is those two sides can't really be reconsiled. You're never going to convince some people that murder is ever justified, and likewise it doesn't seem fair that one mistake can absolutely ruin a young girls life.

You can't build a system around determining the level that it impacts someones life either, like, I would argue that a 12 year old, or even a 17 or 18 year old aught to be able to have the option of an abortion because having a child will drastically change the course of her life, but that a 25 year old would probably be in a position where she could have a child with only reasonable changes to her life/lifestyle. However, a lot of people (especially that 25 year old) would disagree with that!

Pretty much everyone agrees with medically justified abortions, but even now many people don't.

There have been stabs at trying to get both sides to focus on prevention, but that's just ignoring the issue, and prevention only works until someone gets pregnent anyway, and then the issue is raised again.

Even if we all agreed that abortion was morally wrong, there is still the arguement that people are going to get one anyway, so they might as well be legal and available for the sake of being safe.

It's an incredibly complicated and devisive issue, and one that practically can't be resolved through civil discourse.

I guess I am just optimistic.

Hm. Well, there's no reason for a chick who doesn't want to get pregnant to get pregnant. There's plan B now, for Christ's sake, just in case a woman can't muster up the courage to go to the gyno. It's not really meant for that, but, still it's a resource readily available. Or for that matter, buy a bottle of black cohosh dietary suppliments, it's not as effective as birth control pills and you'll probably have a heavier crimson wave, but it works better than no birth control at all. Or even... chicks could practice the preventative measures of... not having sex or masturbation!

Christ... though I still think this bill is pretty dumb. I can see some rationality if the mother and father are legally married? Though I'm still not totally sold on that exception, either. I seriously doubt the bill would pass, the Supreme Court would shut that shit down immediately. Oh, and the dad taking on financial responsibility for the kid being born against the mother's own will as some sort of reparation? Hahahahah... sure, sure. Because child support collection rates are soooo high. Please. According to Ohio's stats... only a little above 50% of those kids would be getting their funds. And I'm sure the mom had to fight hard to get it even to that percentage of 50+%. The government does such a shitty job of getting parents to pay that crap. Most of the dad's will probably duck out of being around the kid after a while.

And yeah, it's cliche to blame the father to be unsupportive and a bunch of dead-beats. It just appears to be the big trend. I work at family care centers and on a daily basis I see mothers who got taken advantage of by dads who promised to stick around and be a parent and then when it came time, it was too much for him to handle. And he still doesn't have the nerve to make his child support checks. Oh, and are you wanting to know what a family usually consists of at the family care center? The kids, the mom, and the mom's parents who are the mom's major support system. At least Kentucky is somewhat progressive by providing free health insurance for minors so that takes away a little stress from raising the kids.

I'm sorry, until the government is remotely supportive of giving those kids a decent life (far from it), it's pretty hard for me to take up for father's who want to have the baby.

Yeah, thanks a fucking ton for stereotyping my gender as deadbeat sons-of-bitches who are completely incapable of raising or careing for a child.

Do you also oppose affirmative action because "Black guys will just spend the money on crack"?

Michael, she already said that was cliched.

And she works at a family care centers where she sees this stuff, and probably knows more about this first-hand. Did you really read her post?

I know this is a sensitive subject for you, but I still think that was a very rude thing to say.

:(

I did, and working in the mental health field I can certainly understand being jaded or corrupted by always seeing the worst in people, but that's no excuse to allow institutionalized sexism and inequality continue.

So you being an ass to everyone on this topic is going to prevent that continuing?

You're a smart man, but that doesn't mean you aren't being really rude...

Nah, I'm pro-affirmative action, actually.
But if stereotyping me while accusing me of using stereotypes helps, I mean, go ahead.
Sure, it came off as me saying a huge majority of guys are incapable of being a father. There are plenty of bad mothers, too. There are some mom's who just hold their kids ransom, basically, for child support checks and other various single-mom benefits. There are great dads, too, I see them around work as well. Hey, my dad won father of the year, if that helps. Hahah.

Anyway, I'm just putting my thoughts out there like everyone else. At least we're talking about something that's a little more important than the usual stuff.

P.S. Thanks for sticking up for me, Yuffie. Us women got to look out for our own. Heh. :P

I'm not trying to be an ass for no reason, but it's pretty hard not to be when the system is so incredibly warped that any attempt to balance it is seen as "crazy bullshit".
(On that note, Biggs, it's impossible to tell someone they are guilty of holding negative and unfair stereotypes without stereotying them as someone who holds unfair and negative stereotypes! :P )

And yeah, there are a lot of deadbeat dads out there. Ever wonder how many deadbeat moms there are? Oh, I forgot, women don't have to pay child support to the children they don't raise!

So the courts take kids away from fathers who want them, give them to unfit mothers, and then order them to pay for them. Yeah, awesome system. I'm so glad everyone is in defense of it!


I'm not saying the current bill is flawless. Something very important I would like to see added to it is that in the event that the mother does not want the baby, but the father vetos the abortion, that the father automatically takes full custody and legal responcibility for the child. The mother should probably have the option to be freed of all finacial/legal/maternal responsibility as well (and subsiquently all rights to later demand custody of said child, like in an adoption situation). On that note, I'd like to point out that guys will probably NEVER have that option, to disown an unborn child and divorce themselves from all responsibility. A mother has a child she doesn't want she can just kill it. A father has a child he doesn't want, he's just inherited 18 years of payments. Again, the father has no rights.

Chuck and I were talking about this at the bar the other night. Another thing we agreed on is that this paternal approval of an abortion should work like a governatorial veto. Unlike a presidential veto where if he doesn't sign a bill into law for 30 days it fails, in a governatorial veto if the governor doesn't sign a bill, it still becomes a law after 30 days.
Basically, that the father would have some period of time (probably 14 or 30 days, or maybe something more subjective based on trimesterage and the legal timeframe for an abortion in that region) to veto the abortion and absorb full custody of the child upon its birth. Should he approve of the abortion he could immediately agree to it, and it could be carried on with immediately. If he was uncomfortable signing for it, was being difficult, or wasn't sure, after the allotted ammount of time he would loose his right to protest the abortion and it could be carried on with.

[off topic-ish]
As I was writing that, a though occured to me that in the condition such a law was past, there would also need to be a tightening of laws concerning pregnant mothers and what they could and couldn't do. Since, under these conditions, the mother would still have to carry the child (but would never have to see the little bastard again after its birth) she might get all crazy and vengeful, and try to drink it stupid or something.

That is the best thing you've said all thread.

And while I think you downplay the effect of pregnency, I agree with a lot of what you said there. Very well thought out.

It's a sexist world. What can I say.

No matter the sex, it should be something they need to agree on.
If you have sex, then you should have to both agree for an abortion. Notone's decision or the others.

Now rape is different, but so if difficulties, where it could kill the lady by having the child.

Yes I am pro choice, but that doesn't mean the choice should only be the females.

It should be held mandatory that she would have no right to later demand costody of the child. She was wanting to kill it, so after she gives birth, she is to have nothing to do with it later in life.

True it sounds harsh, but would you give up a child who is 13 to their mother who never wanted anything to do with it, just beacuse she decided she did?
(I wouldn't)

I personally think it should be up to the woman carrying the child. If the woman wants to be a heartless bitch and kill the child, let her do it and let it haunt her concisions for the rest of her life. However, if the father wants to take care of the child, let him. Women can be just as corrupt as, if not more corrupt than, men.

I mean, I'd never get an abortion unless it was under some extreme circumstances. This is why I believe in birth control. If people would be responsible and take the proper precautions before sex, we wouldn't have these stupid issues. >.<