[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Saya

If a man could volunteer to carry the baby than maybe, but its the woman who has to handle the health risks associated with pregnancy, carry the fetus for nine months and then go into labour. This treats women as merely incubators for babies.

Technically, that's exactly what the womb is. But it's far better to treat women as "merely incubators" than to treat men as non-entities.

See above. A man does not suffer from pregnancy. When the child is born, then he can have equal parenting rights, but before then no man has any right to force a woman to bear his child.

So a man can't force a woman to bear his child, but a woman can force a man to have no recourse when she aborts his child. That's still a double standard, and it's still bullshit.

Secondly, in this bill, if the woman doesn't know who the father is, she is prohibited from an abortion. So whoever did impregnate her can just not come forward, but she still has to suffer.

As I've already indicated in my last post, I support only the man's right to have a say. In any case, if the man doesn't come forward, then as far as I'm concerned, he's waived that right.

You asked what makes him an asshat.

I don't think that that question would apply to a **** victim seeking an abortion. "Question 1: Were you *****? Question 2: Did this act of **** get you pregnant? Question 3: Do you wish to abort the pregnancy? Question 4: Is Representative John Adams an asshat?" Yeah, that doesn't quite work.

No, its a healthcare right, a right as a human to have control over her own body and a right to autonomy.

If it's not a parental choice or right, then why are the parents of unborn children called the parents of unborn children?

Most men? Actually, more than half of men in America oppose abortion:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1212/abo...ion-gender-gap

That link says 46%. That's not more than half.

And even if "most men" wouldn't, what about those who would? "Sorry babe, you have to go through with this. Even though statistically speaking there's a 50/50 chance we're not in a stable relationship and we're more than likely to be below the poverty line."

And what about those who would convince the woman to get an abortion when she'd otherwise not get one? The specific people getting abortions would change, but the number of abortions would not.

In the article, and again you asked why he's an asshat, he did say he wants to promote chastity and waiting until marriage. In this bill, if a woman does not know who the father is, she is prohibited from having an abortion, and will go to jail if she still has one.

As I've already indicated, I don't support that part of the bill.

And yes, there is nothing morally wrong with casual sex, and what do you mean by "sexually liberated?"

Sexually liberated; defining one's views on sexuality not according to religious dogma, but rather on the reality of human nature. You want to have pre- or extra-marital sex? Go for it. Want to have more than one partner at any given time, or even at the same time? Sounds fun. Gender of your partner is irrelevant? Whatever floats your boat. I'm not sure where I stand on the age issue. In any case, I consider myself sexually liberated. Hell, if I wanted to I could take a mistress, and my wife wouldn't care (which would qualify her as being sexually liberated as well).

In the historical context this includes "free love", and the power to choose one's sexual behavior without the notion that sex as a shameful act that should only be between two people in a relationship. I understand not wanting to participate, I won't myself, but there is nothing wrong with adults having consentual sex with each other even if they are not in a relationship, or don't even know each other.

There's still a difference between being sexually liberated and fucking anyone and everyone who's willing and available. Even someone who's sexually liberated must take responsibility for their sex life. I wouldn't want to be the one to catch and spread an STD.

If her husband is like most men and oppose abortion, you think he'd let her leave the state and come back magically unpregnant?

If she really wanted an abortion, do you really think she'd stop and ask for permission?

And why should they have to leave to get a health care service they are entitled to?

"Entitled" is a subjective term. If the majority of voters in Ohio voted that women are not entitled to abortions, then they're not.

Why should we make it harder for women to get an abortion?

Why should we make it easier? Abortion should not be used as a form of birth control in place of other contraceptive measures. Using it as such is irresponsible.

[quote]Because economic reasons play a big part in the decision to abort, it can be difficult for some women to leave,[quote]

If they're so poor that they can't afford a $150 Greyhound ticket (that's round-trip and assuming that they'd travel from one end of Ohio to the opposite end to leave the state, rather then the closer state border), then how can they afford an abortion in the first place?

and really, if you're so for this than you'd want this on the national level, right?

Wrong. Such decisions are up to each individual state, and I'd rather it stay that way.

Its just barbaric to ask a women that if she wants her abortion she has to leave, just because she doesn't know the father, was ***** but didn't report it or because her husband thinks he owns her body.

In the context of this discussion, "barbaric" is quite simply a laughable term to use.