• 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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 17

Next

Comments
scorp17yh

scorp17yh

Brookings, OR
November 2004

AUG 02, 2007 06:26 PM

TheGringo said:

scorp17yh said:
Why is anyone suprised by this puke
This is why the Judeo/Christian religions were "invented"


ALL religions were invented. We should trust science over myth and folklore.




Agreed

Gringo

Gringo

Spokane, WA
May 2006

AUG 02, 2007 06:27 PM

imclever said:
it was mentioned in the article.


I guess it was...but it didn't appear to be what the article was about (to me, anyway). I assumed the article was more about having to get consent to have an abortion from the father rather than child support issues.

I agree, however, that child support should be for the child and not the custodial parent.

hankor

hankor

Calgary, AB
June 2007

AUG 02, 2007 06:28 PM

Their "point of view" is no different than some southern segregationists in the 1960's who had the "point of view" that African Americans should be their houseboys and maids and live in "servant Quarters"

Sorry. these people are wrong FLAT OUT!!

and deserve to be told that.


Morgan

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

AUG 02, 2007 06:29 PM

Why am I not surprised that this article brought out the lurker assholes? There was even a "abortion is murder cry cry cry" comment on the last page. That would make me laugh if it didn't make me so goddamn disappointed in humanity.

Morgan

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

AUG 02, 2007 06:30 PM

smock_b said:
If a guy helped make the baby, then why can't he have a say in what happens to his son or daughter? To me it seems only fair. I don't agree on the written consent, why can't he just say "yes I want her to have an abortion"? Why does it have to be in writing?



Because it isn't his body. It's as simple as that.

rasberry_bullet

rasberry_bullet

New Zealand
May 2007

AUG 02, 2007 06:34 PM

KingHELL said:


**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?



I do think that, in an age where recreational sex is widely accepted and it is safe and legal to prevent or terminate a pregnancy that you're not equipped to deal with, mandatory child support payments are unfair. But lobbying to change that system would effectively amount to throwing your money away. No Republican will ever back it, because it smacks of big government welfare. No Democrat will ever support it, because it's too easy to spin it as endorsing promiscuity without responsibility. And no politician period would want to go on record supporting the use of tax dollars to let deadbeat dads off the hook.

I don't think that a man who has consensual, recreational sex with a woman and unintentionally impregnates her should be held financially responsible for a child he doesn't want and has no interest in being a parent to. That makes about as much sense to me as forcing a woman to have a baby if she becomes pregnant. As far as I'm concerned, they both amount to "punishing" a person with parenthood for deciding to have recreational sex.



That is very true, how ever in the US how easy is it to get a benefit if you are a single mum? Have any idea how much it it?
Being able to get some kind of money from the government and not completely relying on daddy to pay up is extremely helpful in getting uninterested fathers interested in their child!

My sister is a single mum and gets around 320 a week until her baby is 3. But this is socialist New Zealand tho, we give money to everyone!

hankor

hankor

Calgary, AB
June 2007

AUG 02, 2007 06:34 PM

Dam right it is that simple!!!

GuiltShow

GuiltShow

Riverside, CA
May 2005

AUG 02, 2007 06:36 PM

So, I wonder if religion didn't exist would abortion still be immoral? I think so. I'm getting tired of people pointing the finger at the religious right as the source for every anti-abortion legislation. I'm not trying to defend the fundies but there are plenty of secular people that think abortion is horrible. I know it's sort of off topic, but still.

I have another question : It's only a man's child after it's born right?

hankor

hankor

Calgary, AB
June 2007

AUG 02, 2007 06:38 PM

It's a fetus before it is a child reverend


Gringo

Gringo

Spokane, WA
May 2006

AUG 02, 2007 06:39 PM

GuiltShow said:
So, I wonder if religion didn't exist would abortion still be immoral? I think so. I'm getting tired of people pointing the finger at the religious right as the source for every anti-abortion legislation. I'm not trying to defend the fundies but there are plenty of secular people that think abortion is horrible. I know it's sort of off topic, but still.

I have another question : It's only a man's child after it's born right?


I believe it's both of their responsibility. Prior to it becoming a baby - it's not the male who has to endure pregnancy nor childbirth.

In regards to whether abortion would be immoral if religion didn't exist - it's silly. "Immoral" is subjective.

To me, abortion is not immoral. To you it may be. But I'm not going to decide for you that it shouldn't be immoral. I wouldn't be that shitty to take away your right to your opinion.

GuiltShow

GuiltShow

Riverside, CA
May 2005

AUG 02, 2007 06:40 PM

hankor said:
It's a fetus before it is a child reverend




Reverend? Nice, I wasn't aware I had a title.

t Gringo : Subjectivity aside, people would still think it's "wrong" without religion telling them so and the principle stands for mos things I would imagine. I don't find abortion immoral either, for the record.

rasberry_bullet

rasberry_bullet

New Zealand
May 2007

AUG 02, 2007 06:42 PM

Morgan said:

smock_b said:
If a guy helped make the baby, then why can't he have a say in what happens to his son or daughter? To me it seems only fair. I don't agree on the written consent, why can't he just say "yes I want her to have an abortion"? Why does it have to be in writing?



Because it isn't his body. It's as simple as that.



No its not his body and for alot of women who get into this situation (ie pregnant from random night out) they are damned if they do and damned if the don't. I just hate how hard the US is making it for women to get abortions. Another reason why government and religion should be very VERY far apart!

apesamongus

apesamongus

Atlanta, GA
July 2002

AUG 02, 2007 06:43 PM

Cassette said:
I'm confused by the connection being made between the law (which says that the father's consent shall be a necessary condition for abortion) and the idea of a "man's absolute right to determine where and when he incurs financial obligations." Let's grant that a man incurs financial obligations when a child of his is born. I don't see how we get from the "absolute right" to the law ... I mean, if the legislators were protecting "man's absolute right to determine where and when he incurs financial obligations," wouldn't they make a law that says that the father's consent is a *sufficient* condition for abortion (i.e. that if a man doesn't want to incur financial obligations, he doesn't have to, and can order an abortion)? But that's not the law they're proposing.


The connection is made by BitchPHD's belief that humans are not rational creatures and her desire to prove that belief with every word she writes.

alexbowser

alexbowser

Orlando, FL
June 2006

AUG 02, 2007 06:43 PM

ohio sucks ass.

CraigMacTG

CraigMacTG

I'm lost
August 2006

AUG 02, 2007 06:45 PM

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?



Pro-life, anti-choice; pro-choice, pro-abortion. Its alot of fun to come up with mean new names for people who hold opinions opposite of one's own, and a hell of alot easier than working to understand their perspective and forming a rational argument with a hope of convincing them. Or maybe some people are under the impression that you change peoples minds by belitteling them

This might be a little off topic, but it irks me because a lot of the reason this debate has gotten nowhere in quite some time is because so many people on both sides spend all of their time being nasty to each other and no time intelligently discussing the issue with each other

hankor said:
I encourage all Women of Ohio to move to Canada.
We have giant swaths of land you can have and Universal healthcare PLUS a political culture that would make this kind of backwoods hillbilly douche oriented legislation impossible.

A woman's body is hers. No argument. No discussion. She has final say over what happens to it. If you disagree with this statement in any way observe the following instructions
1. please go immediately to the nearest cinderblock distribution center.
2. Ask the attendant for the heaviest block you can carry
3. Purchase said cinderblock (don't forget to tip)
4. Find the nearest lake or pond (please refrain from using a public pool)
5. Grasp cinderblock firmly.
6. Walk into lake or pond or lake until you are fully submerged
7. Sit down and begin to breath deeply.
8. Wait for Jesus to come get you.



Oooo even better! Suggest to people who disagree with you that they should commit suicide, and imply that they are stupid while you do so! Characterize them as negative stereotypes and call their opinions "douche-oriented!" Congratulations, you've really made an important contribution to this discussion.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 17

Next

featured interviews