This enrages me...
May I have an abortion, sir?
To think that some people think this is a viable means to control women getting abortions...a signed consent from the fetus' father.
Awesome.
Awesomely ridiculous.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I think "Father of the Fetus" would make a good movie/album title.
OMG I LOVE YOU. I just found your blog but you rock my world:)
Come check out mine!
www.soledadshope.blogspot.com
Soleded
Jim Gibb - I totally agree. Good call. :)
Soledad - Thanks! I'm headed over there right now...
Perhaps they should make exceptions for those who are raped or knocked up by their "perv uncles." That being said, if I have consensual sex with a girl friend of mine and she becomes pregnant, I would be enraged if she aborted the pregnancy without me having any say so in the matter. I understand that I'm not the one carrying the child around in my stomach, and I'm not the one that would have to deal with all of the other negative aspects of child birth. Perhaps she should have thought about that before having sex with me, because that would still be my child that she's deciding to get rid of. Blame God for your gender infirmities of you dare, but if two adults make the consensual decision to have sex with each other, shouldn't the decision to abort or not abort rest equally on the shoulders of both adults?
I would just like to have consensual sex with a girlfriend of my own, instead of all these expensive Japanese love dolls. They don't do anything for me - literally... :)
Hey Patrick,
Her body her choice. Clearly you think her reproductive parts are yours (or at least in part yours) since you mix your labour with them...so I must ask you.....do you have to ask each other's permission to masturbate?
Soeldad
hahahaha I just read your post on people who instigate conflict....hahahhaahhahahah sorry. I stand by what I said but I would have put it on HIS blog and not yours had I know. Sorry SA!
Soledad
Apalling, and entirely unenforcable. So somebody writes a note. Is the state going to spend the money to go interview the note's author? Or do DNA testing on the aborted fetus? Ridiculous.
And Patrick, I have to respectfully disagree with you. Perhaps you could also have thought of the possible consequences before placing your penis in her without first donning a condom.
And, "gender infirmities"? Say that to a girlfriend, I dare you. Horribly offensive!!!!!!!!
LOL @ hideo nomo!
Soledad - You aren't instigating conflict! I like to see these debates created. Debates are the ways we discover our true feelings on issues that are important. Always feel free to post your comments here. :)
Slave - Yeah, I would like to see someone enforce that.
Patrick -
"...if two adults make the consensual decision to have sex with each other, shouldn't the decision to abort or not abort rest equally on the shoulders of both adults?"
I will agree that the decision should rest equally with both parties when either party can carry the baby to term and men choose to take care of and house the baby 24/7. Until that date...sorry, no.
By saying this, I am not insinuating that men/fathers should not be informed of pregnancies...or that they should not have a voice/opinion.
Sex is 50/50, you're right. Pregnancy/child birth and care rests 110% on women's shoulders.
110%? Look, it's a given that women bake the cookie in the oven for all 9 months, but come on! You can't have more than 100% responsibility for the gestation and birth of the child. I guess men have to develop a pouch and let the newborn live in there (a la marsupial) before you throw us a bone, huh? :)
Before I get into this I want to say that I am in no way trying to be combative. I do respect all of your opinions, even if I disagree with them.
Slave to the dogs, I don't say "gender infirmities" to be offensive or to voice my own personal opinion towards females. I use that term to demonstrate how a guy feels about the "her body her choice" arguments that are often made by females. Each gender has their role in procreation. Women often use their role to lobby for total control of this particular situation, which I feel is unfair. On the other hand, it's unfair for the guy to shirk his responsibilities and leave his girl and his kid high and dry. Look, I would gladly hold my kid in my stomach for 9 months if it kept my girl from aborting it, but you and I both know that it just doesn't work like that. If the girl wants nothing to do with the kid once it's out of her, fine. I will be the one who gives the 110% by raising it from that point forward. Any man that wouldn't give that for his own child isn't a man at all, and if the guy you slept with isn't a real man then you shouldn't have any problems obtaining his signature for the abortion. There's a certain responsibility inherent with having sex, isn't there? My stance is that men and women alike should come to terms with that. If a guy is not ready to take care of his girl friend and child if an accident happens, he shouldn't be having sex. If a girl is not willing to put herself through pregnancy should an accident happen, she should not be having sex.
Yes, ladies, it is your body, but it's our child. Does that mean nothing to you?
I understand the sentiment, but I think it's misguided. It seems pretty obvious to me that in virtually all cases, the father is going to have at least some say. Having an abortion is not some simple, willy-nilly decision. In any healthy relationship, a father will have have his say. And for those who do see abortion simply as "birth control"--they're probably doing the right thing, because they're not very intelligent.
I think the point is the absurdity of a father having absolute say. Can you imagine a situation in which the mother had come to the harrowing decision to abort, but was flatly overridden by a father hellbent on spreading his seed? Sounds like a solid foundation for a happy marriage. For God's sake, I could snip the end of a condom and force girls to bear my children by withholding my signature. The whole idea of this law is very, very regressive, and just plain bad policy.
And to say "If a girl is not willing to put herself through pregnancy should an accident happen, she should not be having sex" also seems a little outdated to me. It's a valid opinion, but that's tantamount to saying no one should ever get an abortion, ever. And I think that's basically the mentality behind this law, which could never, ever, be ratified I'm sure.
This discussion has been wonderful for me, I want you all to know. To show my appreciation, please visit - www.patrickstubblefield.blogspot.com and read "Where Are You?" Anyways, I wanted to say one last thing, and then leave the last word to you. This is your blog after all, so I think that's only fair.
Jim, I really appreciated your comment. After my last comment I thought a lot about different scenarios that would cause problems under this law. I don't think we would have to worry about rogue men whose mission in life was to spread their seed. At least in America, men just don't really do that. A more realistic problem would arise when a guy, who has no plans of sticking around to help the mother out after the pregnancy, refuses to sign because of his "moral convictions." I cannot advocate any law that gives man the total authority over a woman in these cases. However, I do believe that man should have more than just a "voice" or "opinion" in the matter. You have to think about who would suffer the greatest after making the decision to abort or not to abort. In my grief psych class we talked about a family whose son died before conception. Though they never knew or even held that child, they said this was an experience that they had never "gotten over." It was an experience they had to teach themselves to live with. I realize it's not exactly the same scenario, but I do think it would be similar. How would a 9 month pregnancy effect a woman in the long run? I honestly have no idea. We start hitting grey areas here, and it would probably differ from a case to case basis.
I'll end by addressing your statement that my idea was "outdated." Say the roles are reversed, and the guy wanted the abortion and the girl wanted to see the pregnancy through, wouldn't that be exactly what the guy was told? "Weren't ready to have a kid? Shouldn't have had sex with her." Sex is very glorified in our culture, and it does seem that restraint is "outdated." I think in reality people have less sex than we think. Yet, for argument's sake, let's say I'm wrong about that. Does the fact that an idea is "outdated" mean that the idea is inherently false?
Taking the opposite approach then, if a woman chooses to have the child against the man's wishes, does that void him of all responsibility for the upbringing of the child?
I think Jim Gibb has a point about the intent of the law.
Here's an interesting approach. really, Look at this in terms of the reason that abortion is a viable legal option in the first place, which is that it can't be definitely scientifically proven that life begins at the conception. If life doesn't begin at conception, I'd say that the father doesn't really have any legal rights regarding an abortion. Not during the first trimester anyway. Does that mean he shouldn't be involved in the decision? Of course not. But any woman that excludes the father from this process is probably not in a position to be a proper mother anyway.
Post a Comment