Full disclosure: I am very biased on this subject, as I am 100% pro-life, and I believe abortion aka : murder) should be banned in all cases
Conservative Republican state representative John Adams from Ohio is proposing legislation in the state that could rattle the earth of pro-abortion zealots, and give some comfort to pro-life advocates across the Nation & State. The legislation would require for all women attempting to "abort/murder" their unborn child, to get written approval from the father of the child.
This bill would also enact harsh fines on those that do not follow this law.
Considering American men are far more pro-life then their female counterparts, and if this legislation can save at least one unborn child from death by selfishness, this legislation should 100% be put forth. For once, if this legislation passes, the fathers of America will have the chance to stand up for their unborn children - hopefully the first step towards outlawing abortion altogether.
Great news for America, and hopefully for the next generation of Americans saved by this legislation, if this legislation passes, and if America's fathers are as pro-life as I hope they are.
Remember to bookmark our site!
Consider advertising on our site!
5 comments:
Well, them wimminfolk can't make decisions like this on their own, can they? They need to get permission from their man, the way God intended!
Wow, coming from the party that claims to want smaller government, what kind of nonsense is this? This is practically unenforceable, unless you hire on a whole new branch of law enforcement.
And if the woman goes to the next state over and gets an abortion there, what crime has she committed? Will Mr Adams be coming up with something fascinating for that, as well? Will he be tagging pregnant women with GPS monitors next?
Wouldn't it be nice if some provision was in there for rape or incest?
For that matter, I notice there's no requirement for the father to stick around, pay child support, or anything other than give his permission.
This doesn't "promote" any kind of behavior in the father, just penalizes the woman. It's ignorant legislation, not well thought out, and would be struck down the first time it was challenged. Meaning it's just money down the drain, in the middle of a recession.
Am I the only one who’s reminded of Gladys Kravitz here? John Adams is worrying entirely too much about other people's behavior.
Let me address, line by line against you.
1.This has nothing to do with permission from a man, it has all to do with hig right as the father of the unborn child, as well as the unborn child.
2.We are not increasing government, we are only trying to reduce the culture of death, and give fathers a chance.
3.If she goes over to another state - its of no crime, sadly. Nothing will be coming up with that, it is all in Ohio only.
4.There is a provision regarding that, google the news story.
5.There is nothing relevant towards child support, this is about the father being able to have a say to save his unborn child, if the father sides with the mother - we have two idiots.
6.It wastes no money, no money will be spent on this. It penalizes women? Howabout the millions of killed unborn children?
7.Mr.Adam's is concerned with the law - that murder is illegal.
Thanks for the comments.
OK, so, in that same vein:
1. Nonsense. This actually has nothing to do with "permission" or with "father's rights." Let's at least be honest on that point. This has to do with restricting access to abortion.
2. This has nothing to do with increasing government? Then how do you enforce it? Who's going to be paying for the DNA tests to prove that the woman isn't "providing a false biological father"? (That's the first one - a misdemeanor.) I mean, after all, we have to take her at her word, right? "Innocent until proven guilty"? Unenforceable, unless you have some kind of Uterine Police, bursting into the room - "Halt! Put down that speculum!" We have states with "deadbeat dad" laws, who are supposed to track down fathers behind on their child support: they can't keep up, because they aren't funded (hold that thought, by the way). How are these new laws supposed to be enforced?
3. Hmmm... tough luck, I guess. (Ever hear of the "Mann Act"?)
4. I'll give you that one. Good point - I missed it.
5. (This is the sound of my forehead slamming against my keyboard) What in the Holy Name of the Fathers do you mean, "There is nothing relevant towards child support"? Let me just quote the inappropriately-named John Adams:
"...this is also an attempt and a hope to keep the two people who have created that child together, and I suppose if you just go back to the simple beginning, there is merit to chastity, and to young men and women waiting until marriage."
So why isn't there some penalty for the father? Why is this punishing only the mother? Dad, following the rules of this legislation, can just walk away. What if the bio-dad fights with the mom and leaves? Mom thought they were getting married. She's now forced to have the baby as a single mom, and become one of Reagan's "welfare queens"? If Dad just refuses to sign a "permission slip" for whatever reason, why is he not then legally required to provide financial support for his incipient offspring?
6. Yes, "just penalizes the woman." See previous comment. "No money will be spent on this"? Then why are you passing laws, if those laws are never going to be enforced? Either it's a law worth following, and therefore some sort of judicial effort will be spent on enforcement, or it's a colossal waste of time, and too much legislative cash has already been wasted. Either way, it's money getting spent.
7. No, Mr Adams is concerned with legislating his brand of morality - sticking his nose (and the nose of the government) into other people's private lives. He wants to get the government involved in the sex lives of the American people. (Until the law defines it as "murder," I'm afraid you can't just spontaneously decide to call it that - "murder" is a legal definition.)
1. This is about the rights of the father, as well as the rights of the unborn child in the womb. Don't you think the say of them are also important? Atleast the father has a claim. And it is also abort restricting abortions, which all can agree is a just goal.
2.This does not increase government, it simply is telling the abortion clinics what they must follow as per the law, they are required to self-regulate all of this. And if the mother breaks the law, ther are to report her to the police department, and if the clinic breaks the law - I guess they are hoping for someone to report it. The government will not be increased, have you read the legislation? It is more of a "what this clinic must do" list, then a government expansion, there is a difference.
3.Not much to say on that.
4.Thank you.
5.While Mr.Adams (properly named I might add, fighting for the freedom/life of the unborn) might be putting that as a chief purpose of this legislation. This mainly deals with the life of the unborn, and saving the unborn - after that, nothing is relevant. What if the dad leaves - she raises the child, what if the dad leaves her high & dry - she raises the child, and if she can't - adoption or family, murder is never an option.
6.No money will be spent, already proved that. No government expansio, only money spent - by murder mills.
7.He is busy with morality, and with justice. Do you know the definition of murder? Killing your unborn child because of selfishness, or because of idiocracy, or because you want to - is just that, murder. You cannot define it as anything else, it stops a living human from being born, it ends a life, in cold blood.
Thanks for the debate.
Well, let's stay focused for a minute. Apparently, we aren't going to change each other's minds on when a fetus becomes a human being, so that's probably just a waste of time in this argument. So let's just try to find a little logic in the consideration of this bill.
You keep saying that this law will not cost any money. Which is a ridiculous and unfounded claim. At the very least, you can't have a law passed in the first place without it costing time and money on the legislative side (plus the cost of judicial review). You can't enforce a law without it draining money from the police and the courts. And when this law is inevitably struck down, all of that money is wasted.
And why, you may ask, will this law be "inevitably" struck down? It's very simple.
Lincoln first signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 (there was a second one in 1863, but hardly worth arguing about). And within a year of his death in 1865, we had the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery.
And stating that one person has any control over the body, life and health of another person is slavery. (And that is regardless of whether he's married to her - I'm sorry, but marriage doesn't give him a claim on her internal organs.)
It's a cute idea, and a nice try in getting around abortion rights, but it doesn't hold up to any reasonable standard of judicial logic.
And in the end, why should the father have rights? At what point is he going to go through 9 months of pain and discomfort, permanently change his body, and run the risk of dying or ending up with permanent health issues in the process?
(I'll assume that you are aware that the US has the worst rate of maternal mortality in the industrialized world, right? And the second highest newborn death rate. Of course, all those other countries have the advantage of universal healthcare, which, of course, you're opposed to, judging by your archives.)
(How is that going, by the way? How can you denounce health care reform by claiming that government shouldn't come between people and their doctors, but you have no problem placing government between women and their bodies? Do you see the dichotomy there?)
Post a Comment