HB 1441 father's rights

[little2add]

HB 1441 cleared the House Public Health Committee on Tuesday by a 5-2 vote. The bill would require pregnant women seeking abortions to provide “written informed consent of the father of the fetus.”

 Denying that men are responsible for a unborn human human being  because the female carries the child to term  is a contradiction given that it takes two  to make a baby 

Men take a  equal part in creating the baby, men  need to be responsible in the birthing process before during and after the child is born.  

This is a bill that’s trying to bring fathers back into their role, and so that was the intent.

If you  realize that life begins at conception, which means to me that you become a mother at conception and therefore the man becomes a father  at conception too.   

The fact that our young men and our young fathers don’t have a say in that choice is sad to me. It’s taking the rights of the father away.”

Edited February 15, 2017 by little2add

[Ice_nine]

I'm against abortion too but this is only going to reinforce the idea that this is a war on women. 

But to act like men and women play an equal role in procreation, I guess it's true, for that moment of conception. Oh poor men, the have to go through all of the labors of sexual intercourse. 

I think there are certain factions who only care about abortion because there are men who hate women or want to control their sexuality. I don't think the majority of prolifers fit this description, but I don't think its a wholly contrived idea from the far left.

[Anomaly]

Abortion will never be outlawed again without giving personhood rights to embryos.   

Any law restricting abortion can always be construed as putting more burden on the mother.   Sorry, but that is biological fact.   That is why many men are secretly for abortion because it allows them to escape all responsibility.   

HB 1441 will fail in court challenges because there can be no reconciliation of the uneven burden on women, and people in wombs will never be persons because they can't vote, protest, or be anything except a burden.  

[little2add]

 One positive thing that such a law would  establish is a undeniable Financial responsibility (child support),  visitation rights,  and that sort of thing of the daddy

 A woman should not have to make a decision alone to terminate/abort.    After all,  isn't the male equally  responsible for the  creation of the embryo ?

 

Edited February 15, 2017 by little2add

[Anomaly]

I don't diasagree that the law would put some of the burden in the male DNA donor.   But the financial burden only encourages the men to support women's healthcare and reproductive rights so that abortion can flush away the potential financial burden.  

[little2add]

2 hours ago, Anomaly said:

male DNA donor.

by male donor you mean "the dad"...

( not all men are unfeeling, selfish deadbeats)

Edited February 15, 2017 by little2add

[Anomaly]

A dad is who lovingly sacrifices to raise you.  Usually biologically related, but not always.   The male DNA donor is who got the woman pregnant.   Earned Dad status is yet to be determined.  

[little2add]

2 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Earned Dad status is yet to be determined

Kind of hard to do if the mother terminated his baby.  

 

Correction -

Kind of hard to do if the mother terminated his there baby.

Edited February 15, 2017 by little2add

[little2add]

Life begins at conception, one female (mom) + one male (dad).

[Ice_nine]

On 2/15/2017 at 10:52 AM, Anomaly said:

Abortion will never be outlawed again without giving personhood rights to embryos.   

Any law restricting abortion can always be construed as putting more burden on the mother.   Sorry, but that is biological fact.   That is why many men are secretly for abortion because it allows them to escape all responsibility.   

HB 1441 will fail in court challenges because there can be no reconciliation of the uneven burden on women, and people in wombs will never be persons because they can't vote, protest, or be anything except a burden.  

I understand pregnancy and womanhood are connected by a biological reality. You don't have to apologize. But I don't think we'll make any headway unless we're sensitive about it. Unless we make it clear that we care about the unborn child as much as we do the mother. And that we recognize the heavy (and perhaps "unfair") burden that's placed on women.

But like you said "dad status is tbd." Should a woman who becomes pregnant by an abusive man be connected to him for life? I don't think so. That's a key motivator I'm sure in a number of abortions. For women who have been manipulated and controlled by unscrupulous men, the child can just become another conduit through which to continue to abuse and manipulate the mother.

I guess that's the main problem I have with the law. If the father is merely a "DNA" donor who has not proven his ability to father a child other than his ability to copulate, I don't think he should have rights, really. At least if a woman carries a child to term she's proven some ability/willingness to consider her child's welfare beyond her own. That's another biological reality.

And if a man is willing and capable of being a father he shouldn't be sleeping with women who would consider an abortion. That's massively irresponsible on his part.

[Anomaly]

I agree with your concerns about the law bringing the potential of dragging in a POS to further muck up the life of a parent, child, family  (biological and/ nurture family).  I've seen it up close, it's a horror that doesn't end.  Ultimately I think it's a failure to respect the rights of children and being unable or unwilling to legally end rights of DNA contributors who don't have the best of the children at heart. It's astonishing the damage that biological "parents" and/or biological "family" can wreak in others whether it's evil intent or just their own damaged personalities.   

Chlidren always come second, if they're seriously considered at all.  

[little2add]

9 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

I guess that's the main problem I have with the law. If the father is merely a "DNA" donor who has not proven his ability to father a child other than his ability to copulate, I don't think he should have rights, really.

I'm just saying that It takes two.  You have also convently denied the rights of the unborn child who carries half of your own DNA.  Assuming that the impregnating was a mutual encounter or perhaps just a act of passion then both parents are behaving ilresponcable.  

What of the rights of the unborn human being, does not he/she have the right to both his/her biological parents?

And how is termination okay if the couple are not friends or in a relationship 

Edited February 19, 2017 by little2add

[Ice_nine]

I think the unborn person should have rights

[little2add]

22 minutes ago, Ice_nine said:

I think the unborn person should have rights

I read today something interesting or ironic about Norma McCorvey, the woman immortalized as plaintiff Jane Roe in the landmark Roe v Wade ruling.   She gave birth to a girl when her case was in lidication, this child was given up for adoption in 1970.  

Thie child who the basis of the legal case that changed American's political landscape forever.  The baby girl, who would now be a 47-year-old woman, was adopted immediately after McCorvey gave birth in June 1970.

Thay never reunited

The family who adopted the girl has kept their identity private all these years. 

It is not clear whether the woman was ever told she was the Roe baby, or whether her adoptive family even knew she was McCorvey's daughter.

[Archaeology cat]

On 2/18/2017 at 8:26 PM, little2add said:

I'm just saying that It takes two.  You have also convently denied the rights of the unborn child who carries half of your own DNA.  Assuming that the impregnating was a mutual encounter or perhaps just a act of passion then both parents are behaving ilresponcable.  

What of the rights of the unborn human being, does not he/she have the right to both his/her biological parents?

And how is termination okay if the couple are not friends or in a relationship 

I don't think anyone is saying termination is ever ok, but that the man doesn't necessarily get rights. Like, in my state, a rapist can claim paternal rights - that being the case could actually drive a woman towards abortion rather than face the possibility of her rapist having access to her child.