• commentary
  • THURSDAY AUGUST 2 2007 4:00 PM

If You Fuck a Man, He Owns You

Submitted by Bitch_PhD

Edited by erin_broadley

Tags: abortion, reproductive rights, ohio



At least, some folks in Ohio are trying to make that the law--and with the current makeup of the Supreme Court, they man succeed, despite the precedent of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

OH State Representatives Adams, Wagner, Brinkman, Uecker, Huffman, Fessler, Wachtmann, Barrett, and Goodwin are sponsoring House Bill 287, which states that

(1) When the fetus that is the subject of the procedure is viable, no person shall perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman without the written informed consent of the father of the fetus.
(2) When the fetus that is the subject of the procedure is not viable, no person shall perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman without the written informed consent of the father of the fetus.


Since we all know that women are lying whores, the good gentlemen (and one lady;* Rep. Fessler is a (brainwashed) woman) of Ohio have taken care of the probability that the murderous bitches will just lie and say they've been raped, or shamelessly claim not to know who the father is: you can't get an abortion for rape or incest unless there's a police report filed. Daddy raped you, honey? And you were too scared or conflicted to call the cops? Tough shit. If you've been whoring around and claim not to know the father, you gotta get a paternity test. Possible babydaddy not around any more? Too. Fucking. Bad.

According to Feministe, Representative Adams argues that

In most cases, when a child is born the father has financial responsibility for that child, so he should have a say.


Which, as we all know, is a popular argument about libertarian-leaning people who believe that if you just say men and women are equal, that makes them so--minor things like a woman's right to bodily autonomy are irrelevant, whereas a man's absolute right to determine where and when he incurs financial obligations must not, under any circumstances, be infringed upon.**

As Melissa McEwan points out, requiring a woman to get a man's consent for an abortion is *not* giving him a "say"--it's giving him veto power. It's not making men and women *equal*--it's making women dependent on men's permission to decide what they do and don't do with their bodies.

But you know, if women didn't want to belong to men, we shouldn't have chosen to have uteruses in the first place.




*Irony alert. Of course any woman who could cosponsor a bill like this would be completely ladylike--since "lady," by definition, pretty much means "a woman who's bought into the idea that her sexuality belongs to men."

**Before y'all even get into arguing this point, let me ask if any of the guys (or foolish women) who want to talk about how unfair mandatory child support payments are to men have considered putting their energy into lobbying for governmental child support as a single-parent entitlement? Because if you don't want guys who accidentally cause pregnancies to have to support unwanted children--and let me point out that child support is *for the child*, not for the woman, thankyouverymuch--then you gotta provide some way for the kids to eat. Of course, if you don't think kids are entitled to eat, then you're just a straight up asshole.

Bitch_PhD wants everyone to know that they can contact (politely, one hopes--gentlemen and ladies do expect to be addressed politely) the Ohio State Legislature here.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

15 | 16 | 17

Next

Comments
saltonsea

saltonsea

Toronto, ON
July 2004

AUG 08, 2007 09:27 AM

Priest_Sphinxter said:
Anyhow, It's supposed to be a mutual responsibility between the man and the woman, yes? They should both be responsible for birth control, not just one or the other. They both made the "oops" mistake of getting hot and heavy without enough birth control (as in, sometimes condoms aren't enough) and they will both end up paying for it. Or not. But shouldn't it be a decision between the two of them?

The exception being rape/incest of course.



Yes, they both pay for the poor decision.

a) Girl has baby; Boy helps pay for baby.

b) Girl has invasive surgery; Boy doesn't get baby he wants.

As equal in consequence as you can get.

Saying it should be a decision between the both of them is just pointless.
What if they are at odds? Who gets final say on a time sensitive and invasive issue?
Should it not be the person who is pysically affected by the decision?
The man would just have to stand there and say yes or no, whilst the woman has to choose between having a baby she doesn't want, or an abortion she doesn't want.

Toku666

Toku666

Columbus, OH
May 2004

AUG 08, 2007 03:15 PM

TheGringo said:

Toku666 said:
I'd just like to say, to all who have decided that a knee-jerk "glad I don't live in Ohio" or "backward state" was an appropriate comment here:

Go fuck yourself. Every State of the Union has reactionary assholes in it, some of them in their government, even.


And some over-reactionary ones by reading this post.

Relax, dude. It's likely that people weren't typing about the citizens - but probably oh....I don't know.... the law makers?

Don't take it personally. I doubt they meant it that way.



Not at all, good sir. It is a friendly rejoinder to a seemingly ever-present reaction on the part of people who live "elsewhere" to the doings of people "here," regardless of the particular "elsewhere" or "here."

Ignorance is just that. If you hate a state so much, it might behoove you to try another. If you know little to nothing about a state, try not to make ill-informed pronouncements--especially "knee-jerk" style--about its citizens, lawmakers, or otherwise.

And as for the tendency to ascribe severe right-wing bias as a hallmark of the state's polity, please remember that Ohio would have given Gore the 2000 election if so many lefties hadn't voted for Nader, and the fact that Sherrod Brown's victory over an arguably very good and popular Republican incumbent means we have two Senators opposed to Bush's handling of Iraq, the other of whom is George Voinovich, one of the first Republican Senators to speak out against the aforementioned handling.

In shortest: "Ohio: FUCK YEAH"

malkav11

malkav11

Saint Paul, MN
July 2003

AUG 08, 2007 06:21 PM

apesamongus said:

malkav11 said:
#2: Yes, it should hopefully in a healthy relationship be a decision mutually embarked upon (with the final decision resting with the person whose body is supporting the fetus). But this doesn't enforce that, it gives the father the sole decision.


No it doesn't. I don't agree with the law, but you are absolutely incorrect in saying that it gives the father the sole decision. You fail logic for today.



Well, you're right, I should have said veto power rather than sole decision. That's kind of tangential to my point, though, which is that this law would not especially facilitate joint decisions. (Indeed, I'm not sure how you'd legislate something like that into happening.)

It's pretty clearly about reducing the number of abortions that take place any way they can.

BurningKrome

BurningKrome

San Jose, CA
April 2005

AUG 09, 2007 05:30 PM

reprobate said:

BurningKrome said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Subrosa said:

Joel_T said:

malkav11 said:

#2: Yes, it should hopefully in a healthy relationship be a decision mutually embarked upon (with the final decision resting with the person whose body is supporting the fetus). But this doesn't enforce that, it gives the father the sole decision.





No, it doesn't give the father the sole decision anymore then it would give the mother the sole decision. They would have to both want the baby aborted.

Example #1 Mom and Dad want baby = no abortion
Example #2 Mom wants baby, Dad doesn't = no abortion
Example #3 Dad wants baby, Mom doesn't = no abortion
Example #4 Mom and Dad don't want baby = abortion

Both parents would have equal rights to their unborn child. I think the law is unenforceable, and that many guys wouldn't be around long enough to be given a choice, but I don't think it is inherently wrong.


Even in your absurd diagram there, you're still giving the father veto power. Example #1 is irrelevant because it's not in any way what we're talking about.
Example #2 is a complete non-sequitur and irrelevant to this situation. The alternative here would be a man forcing a woman to undergo an extremely invasive surgery. It's untenable from a legal perspective and again, not what we're talking about.

So we're left with Examples 3 and 4. And in both situation, Daddy gets what he wants.

Moreover, the idea that both parents have "equal rights" to their "unborn child[ren]" ignores the fact that (as many people including myself have already pointed out) prior to being born the parents do not in the remotest tiniest little way have the same relationship with the fetus. It's not even comparable.



So, for arguments sake...assuming the technology was available, if the fetus was being grown outside either the father's or mother's body - but had been derived from the egg of the mother and the sperm of the father...would their relationship to the fetus be equal? If not, why not? If so, why so?




That would depend on how and why it got there, a fact that should be obvious to anyone that can manage to count to four.


Well, since it would be unlikely to have gotten there by accident...let's first assume that it got there intentionally.

If you wish, you may then address to the same question from the assumption of it having gotten there unintentionally, although it is an oxymoron in this hypothetical.

The point here is to dissect the issue into its constituent components, and then address the issue as a whole to determine what bearing each component has on the whole.

What is your answer to the question?

apesamongus

apesamongus

Atlanta, GA
July 2002

AUG 09, 2007 05:50 PM

Subrosa said:

apesamongus said:

Subrosa said:

100% semantics.


No, not semantics, logic. Talk law all you want, but in this case math makes you wrong, and maybe you can argue against math in front of a jury, but that's only because people are stupid.


People are stupid because they recognize that men and women are not equal integers when it comes to the biology of pregnancy? Wow.


Where did you get the impression that I was saying something about men and women being equal? Your reading comprehension is really abysmal.

Thanks for clearing that up, professor. Your use of the term "logic" here is laughable. Logic requires valid analogies. This one ain't even in the ballpark.


Um... now you don't even seem to know what an analogy is. I don't see any analogy here. Are you talking about the word "veto"?

Please explain how the father would not have veto power over a decision to terminate should this law passed.


Why would I explain that when absolutely no one has claimed that he wouldn't have veto power. You read really poorly.



Not really. I'm doing something called "making a point". The point is to show that this sort of veto power is unacceptable given the differences between men and women in the context of childbearing. And further that all talk of "equal rights" and "equal decision making power" is hogwash from the beginning.


I agree that the veto power is unacceptable. Additionally, I don't think that the father should get equal power in the situation, because the two sides are not equal to start with. The mother obviously has more vested interest in the outcome because of the health risk and time investment involved in carrying a child to term, so it is entirely reasonable that she have (vastly) more decision making power.

But none of that alters the simple fact that "it gives the father the sole decision" is a demonstrably false statement.

Tart

Tart

SUICIDEGIRL

New York, USA

AUG 10, 2007 09:56 AM

deanmoriarty said:

raist333 said:
"if you don't think kids are entitled to eat, then you're just a straight up asshole."

...so, why all the pro-abortion articles?



these are not pro-abortion articles, they are pro-choice/womens rights. Reading comprehension is fun isn't it?

Why do anti-choice folks think that pro-choice people want abortions to run rampant?



+1 dm

Callahan

Callahan

Seattle, WA
February 2005

AUG 10, 2007 11:49 AM

All i ask on this issue is for someone to do the math on A. What caring for a child actually costs and B. How much you can expect a dad to pay before he needs to start selling drugs to pay child support & rent/feed himself.

Ultimately the farest scenario is the one where the father has an option during pregnancy to opt out of a childs life and thus out of any responsibility. This would be exactly equal to a womens option to abortion or adoption.

Cigarette

Cigarette

Cleveland, OH
April 2004

AUG 10, 2007 05:01 PM

Callahan said:
Ultimately the farest scenario is the one where the father has an option during pregnancy to opt out of a childs life and thus out of any responsibility. This would be exactly equal to a womens option to abortion or adoption.



You can't do that shit after the fact.

The fairest scenario would be to have a contract between the partners before having sex.

Callahan

Callahan

Seattle, WA
February 2005

AUG 10, 2007 09:14 PM

Cigarette said:
The fairest scenario would be to have a contract between the partners before having sex.



There could be something to that. We need a lawyer to draft one up and put it on the internet to print out.

BurningKrome

BurningKrome

San Jose, CA
April 2005

AUG 10, 2007 09:19 PM

Callahan said:

Cigarette said:
The fairest scenario would be to have a contract between the partners before having sex.



There could be something to that. We need a lawyer to draft one up and put it on the internet to print out.


I think there's a lot to that. If you don't know someone well enough to discuss what would happen if you (plural tense) got pregnant, then you (singular tense) probably don't know them well enough to fuck them.

Admiral_Pants

Admiral_Pants

Austin, TX
May 2004

AUG 10, 2007 09:49 PM

BurningKrome said:

Callahan said:

Cigarette said:
The fairest scenario would be to have a contract between the partners before having sex.



There could be something to that. We need a lawyer to draft one up and put it on the internet to print out.


I think there's a lot to that. If you don't know someone well enough to discuss what would happen if you (plural tense) got pregnant, then you (singular tense) probably don't know them well enough to fuck them.



Impossible. There are no lawyers on SG.

spyder13

spyder13

San Francisco, CA
October 2006

AUG 14, 2007 08:19 PM

I admit, I'd be pretty pissed off if a woman had an abortion of the child I spawned without talking to me. But even I understand it is the woman's body and her choice. I just hope I am sane enough and have better judgement to make decisions to be with people who respect my judgement as much as they respect mine. So I feel I will never be in this situation. I may be a white male so I understand the priviledges are great, but I hate being attached to that so I try to just be human and live my life as such. I may be in the minority on this point, but that is what I continue to try to be.

As I reread this I sound like an arrogant jackass, but that's not my intetion. I just try to respect all living things around me; be that trees, animlas, people, water, etc... But I know when it comes to woman and animals especially, they only seem to have the rights afforded to them by man. And that's wrong! I sympathize more. I try to give all life the same respect. I think I succeed for the most part. I guess I just can't express it well.

Great article! Sorry for the rant.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

15 | 16 | 17

Next

featured interviews