Guess the state!

[theweaselking]

New proposed abortion law: No abortion without written permission of the father.

If you don't know who the father is, you have to submit a list, and get them all checked until you find the right one, and then get his written permission.

Rape or incest? You need written proof of such from the police, instead of the father.

Comments

[ladyjazz.livejournal.com]

BitchPHD puts it best; "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....

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."

I agree that there should be communication before a kid is concieved, birthed, etc, but women have been warned since the beginning of time that if they're going to be "easy" they risk getting pregnant—tough shit. I think it's fair that if a guy decides to have sex that that being responsible for alimony is one of the potential consequences, just as pregnancy is for a woman.

[chaosrah.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

I think it would be fair to let the father know. But I do NOT think it's fair to tell any woman what she can and can't do with her body. Obviously, I'm pro-choice. Personally, I don't know what I'd do in that situation, so I'm going to do my best to make sure I never have to make that choice.

On the other hand, it's not cool to let someone have, I don't know, several abortions in a short period of time.. Because that's like telling them that having sex has no consequences. I'm not sure how often this happens, though. I would hope after the first time people would be more careful.. But I'm sure this isn't the case, hah.

[thette.livejournal.com]

So, surgery is not a "consequence"?

I say as I always say, let's just *schluuurp* the little parasites.

[chaosrah.livejournal.com]

raising baby > money/time consequence than getting abortion.

[thette.livejournal.com]

So, you see pregnancy and childraising as a punishment? That's a fundamentally misogynistic and a pretty misanthropic viewpoint.

I want all children to be wanted children. I want all sex to be wanted sex, and I want there to be a hell of a lot more good sex in the world.

[chaosrah.livejournal.com]

No, it is punishment to those who do not want children, but want to have sex and not be responsible about it.

Personally, I want kids, but when I am ready. So I be careful until then. I know many people are NOT careful, and figure they can just get an abortion to fix the problem.

[thette.livejournal.com]

Yes, thank you for showing your true colours. Misogynist, as I said.

[chaosrah.livejournal.com]

Why the fuck would I hate women? You realize I am female myself? What I do hate, is stupid people. Is there a word for that one?

[torrain.livejournal.com]

So... there should be, like, oversight on who gets abortions. Because if they have too many, then they should *totally* be punished (that's what pregnancy is great for, punishing people), and of course the best possible thing to do is force them to carry a pregnancy to term. That's not *at all* going to *ever* result in a fetus that doesn't get good pre-natal care--and if it did, so what? The punishment is the important bit!

Of course, you want to be *responsible* about punishments. So somehow, this oversight based on how many abortions you've had will always understand and make exceptions for pregnancies resulting from anything the woman didn't consent to, despite the fact that they may be reluctant to tell you about the circumstances of the inception. You'll just *know* if the abortion they were getting was because they were irresponsible. Which is good, because it's none of your business and they're not likely to tell you.

This oversight will *totally* only catch the carefree, thoughtless, pleasure-seeking people who think spending several hundred dollars to get machinery shoved up inside them and chunks of blood vaccuummed out is a great way to spend a day, and would totally rather spend money and time on that than grabbing contraception and going out and being carefree and thoughtless.

Did I miss anything in this oversight theory?

[chaosrah.livejournal.com]

I don't even know what you are talking about anymore.
I'm pretty sure you took whatever I said the wrong way. *Shrugs*

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Well, look. You're suggesting oversight so that "too many abortions" = "you can't have any more abortions", right?

And you want this to catch the irresponsible people who have abortions because it's easier than birth control.

Which means
(1) You need some way of telling why the person is having the abortion, and you need this way to magically work despite people not necessarily *telling* you why they're having the abortion, because it's none of your business.

(2) You want incredibly selfish and irresponsible women to carry a fetus to term. This despite the fact that incredibly selfish and irresponsible women (ISIW) are not likely to give the fetus good pre-natal care, and the kid is going to end up being much more likely to have Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, a low birth weight, dying of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, and other fun stuff. So forcing the ISIW to go through pregnancy is a great way to punish them, but it does mean making it a lot more likely that the kid will be seriously fucked up once they're born.

If you think that forcing a physiologically damaged and unwanted kid to come into the world is an acceptable price for getting to punish irresponsible women, this is fine.

(3) You are supposing that there are women out there who have abortions rather than practice birth control because they're so selfish and irresponsible. This requires them to believe that abortions are easier and cheaper and less of an inconvenience than birth control. Not just say "Oh yeah, I'll have an abortion!" when they're bullshitting someone or aren't interested in talking about it, but actually believe it.

[chaosrah.livejournal.com]

Why are people still discussing this anyway? As far as I'm concerned, we are just beating a dead horse. Even worse, we are mis-communicating. This is just getting retarded. Why is it that on LJ, if you say more than a 4 word sentence you get your words twisted around and your ass chewed out? *shrugs*

[torrain.livejournal.com]

You indicated you didn't understand where I was coming from, so I figured I'd explain.

As to "twisted around"--you said that it's not cool to allow people to have multiple abortions in a short time, and that you figured pregnancy and child-raising were punishments for irresponsible people who wanted sex but not children.

I pointed out possible downsides to treating pregnncy as a punishment and to trying to not allow people to have multiple abortions in a short period of time.

I'm not sure where you see the twisting in this.