Proposed Ohio Abortion Law Would Give Fathers a Say

As the story rightly points out, this bill may fall foul of the US SC decision in Casey v Planned Parenthood where a state law was ruled unconstitutional. Or this bill may be used by the current Supreme Court to overturn Casey. Let's see!

We can only hope for the best and write in support of this legislation.

One problem, though...

In addition, women would be required to present a police report in order to prove a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

Might entice more women to file false accusations of rape in order to have abortions. Not sure how to get around this, though... Not having a police report and just claiming rape isn't any better...

- she must inform him of a potential pregnancy
- if she wants the child and he does not, he should have the right to sign away is parental and financial responsibilities. her body, her choice, her responsibility.
- if she wants to abort and he wants the child, she should be required to deliver, and then revoke her own parental rights and financial responsibilities.
- if she wants to give the child up for adoption or abandon it, she must have his permission.

alternatively, if a woman has the child against the man's wishes, the child should be immediately placed in state custody for adoption queue.

oregon dad

...for the law to not stop at police report, but go further, to say arrest, charged, and convicted. This would deter the more honest women from filing charges, thereby saving a few men. Many 'honest' women are deceived by police and the system to thinking that they can merely file a police report and then nothing more will come of it - police lie as often as the rest of us breath.

It will do nothing to stop the ones who want their own way by any and all means necessary - they couldn't possibly care less if a man gets falsely thrown in prison for rape where he will be on the second lowest rung of the social ladder and likely to be subject to rape and assault on a regular basis himself.

But hey, every man spared from that is a positive in my book. Besides, requiring only a police report is still just status quo - believing the myth that women never lie. A report does not mean the validity of the claim was in any way shape or form investigated or tested. It just means she has to tell one more lie.

Sorry guys. This bill isn't going to help men much. It is not "choice for men". It doesn't give men the option of opting out of fatherhood and child support payments if a man wants a woman to have an abortion. Rather, it attempts to turn women into baby-carrying slaves for men who have impregnated them.

It is, in essence, a step AWAY from choice for men because if abortion becomes illegal you can kiss choice for men goodbye. One of the reasons why paper-abortions-for-men is a concept that few people have considered is because abortion itself is only barely legal. If abortion isn't regarded as being morally good or at least highly acceptable, you can forget about the possibility that paper-abortions-for-men might be allowed some day.

The Christian jihadists are not friends of men who want to legalize paper-abortions-for-men. Their goal is to make abortion illegal for everyone, including men who could benefit from a woman's having an abortion.

you are correct. if abortion is outlawed, there would be no need for a paper abortion for men. what has confused the decision making process is the belief that, because abortion is legal, then surely a woman would choose to abort an unwanted pregnancy. The very existence of that "possibility" allows both parties to assume an unacceptable risk. The risk to proceed with sex, simply because there is an ultimate "out".
But what really happens, in some cases, is a pregnancy occurs and the woman suddenly wants the child, while the man points to her previous statements of "I don't want to get pregnant and have a baby"....well now things have changed. She wants it, and he does not.

Had the promise of legal abortion not existed at all - both parties would have been more careful in the first place. At least that is what history shows. When abortion was illegal, people were more careful.

Nowadays, of course, women state that they are on birth control (unverifiable by the male) and often TRICK men into a pregnancy that he would never agree to. And, as Dr. Phil states, "he is abducted" against his will in to a pregnancy. http://drphil.com/slideshows/slideshow/2931/?id=2931&slide=1%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20&null=null

As long as abortion is legal for women, men need a similar "out". Why? For exactly the same reasons that women use for not wanting to proceed with a pregnancy.

If abortion were outlawed, with heavy penalties for practitioners and patients both, people would be much more careful than they are today.

oregon dad

You have an interesting point about how women might act more carefully if abortion were unavailable. (However, adoption might be an option, assuming that the government wouldn't do anything about the problem of perhaps millions of babies being offered up for adoption every year if abortion were illegal.)

One point that I wanted to communicate is that Choice for Men -- essentially paper abortions for men -- cannot ever be on the drawing board until the vast majority of the populace believes that abortion is 100% moral and rational. In fact, I suspect that most people, including many people who favor abortion, have never even contemplated the notion of paper abortions for men. When people regard abortion itself as immoral, the notion that men should be allowed to have "paper abortions" that would end up encouraging would-be mothers-without-child-support to have abortions is completely inconceivable. That's why I've tried to encourage the "Choice for Men" advocates to also support the morality of abortion.

Then again, I'm an atheist and don't believe that a magic god-being breathes a soul into a cell mass at conception nor do I believe that fetuses are capable of possessing a human-level abstract consciousness nor having a personality (you can't kill a person if the body doesn't contain a person), so take my point of view for what it's worth.

There are two ways to fix the "reproductive rights" problem.

A) Give both genders the rights currently available to men.
B) Give both genders the rights currently available to women.

This bill works towards correcting the problem in the direction of option A. I'm sure many of us would prefer B, but honestly, I would like to see it solved in either direction. The fact that this bill exists is a great step forward.