Subscribe: Comments on: A new tactic in the abortion conflict
http://notfrisco2.com/leones/?feed=rss2&p=2859
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
Tags:
abortion  father fetus  father  fetus  induce abortion  law  perform induce  person perform  person  pregnant woman  section  woman 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: A new tactic in the abortion conflict

Comments on: A new tactic in the abortion conflict





Last Build Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 15:23:19 +0000

 



By: SamChevre

Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:02:30 +0000

I suspect that there is a drafting problem. It makes no sense to have section B1 and B2 separate.



By: José Solano

Wed, 15 Aug 2007 07:17:20 +0000

My comment refers specifically to “legalized public deception and falsification of public records.” By this I mean that there is governmental complicity in the lying scheme. I cannot imagine that there is any law that in itself reduces the number of liars in the world. There are laws against murder, theft, etc. but they do not reduce the number of people that will lie to have their way. But a government that allows anyone without proof to list himself or have someone list him as the father of a child complies with the liar. Many mothers will also lie so as to kill the person they are carrying. That is their problem and not one that government need support. And a society that ignores the rights of the father to allow a mother to kill her offspring is simply diabolical. It’s diabolical just in allowing the mother to murder her offspring. Denying the father’s right to protect his offspring simply compounds the sinister nature of the affair. Any law that can delay this execution is God sent.



By: Sappho

Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:10:05 +0000

OK, the text of the proposed law:
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF OHIO: Section 1. That section 2919.124 of the Revised Code be enacted to read as follows: Sec. 2919.124. (A) As used in this section, "viable" has the same meaning as in section 2901.01 of the Revised Code. (B)(1) When the fetus that is the subject of the procedure is viable, no person shall perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman without the written informed consent of the father of the fetus. (2) When the fetus that is the subject of the procedure is not viable, no person shall perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman without the written informed consent of the father of the fetus. (C)(1) A pregnant woman seeking to abort her pregnancy shall provide, in writing, the identity of the father of the fetus to the person who is to perform or induce the abortion. (2) No pregnant woman seeking to abort her pregnancy shall fail to comply with division (B)(1) of this section. (3) No pregnant woman seeking to abort her pregnancy shall provide to the person who is to perform or induce the abortion the identity of a man as the father of the fetus if the man is not the father of the fetus. (D) No man shall give a consent pursuant to division (B)(1) or (2) of this section as the father of the fetus if the man knows that he is not the father of the fetus. (E) No person shall cause a man to believe that the man is the father of a fetus for the purpose of obtaining the consent required by division (B)(1) or (2) of this section, if the person knows that the man is not the father of the fetus. (F) If, pursuant to division (C)(1) of this section, the pregnant woman identifies two or more men as possible fathers of the fetus, the person who is to perform or induce the abortion shall perform a paternity test, or cause a paternity test to be performed, to determine the father of the fetus prior to accepting any consent required under division (B)(1) or (2) of this section and prior to performing or inducing an abortion of the pregnant woman's pregnancy. No person shall perform or induce an abortion in violation of this division. (G) It is not a defense to a violation of division (B)(1) or (2) or (C)(2) of this section that the woman does not know the identity of the father of the fetus. (H)(1) Divisions (B)(1) and (2) of this section do not apply if the pregnant woman provides to the person who is to perform or induce the abortion either of the following: (a) A copy of a police report or a complaint, indictment, information, or other court document that gives the person who is to perform or induce the abortion reasonable cause to believe that the woman became pregnant as the result of rape or incest. (b) A copy of a paternity test that gives the person who is to perform or induce the abortion reasonable cause to believe that the woman became pregnant as the result of incest. (2) This section does not apply if the abortion is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, to preserve the life or the health of the pregnant woman. (I) The written consent required under division (B)(1) or (2) of this section and the written identification required in division (C)(1) of this section are confidential, are not public records under section 149.43 of the Revised Code, and shall be viewed only by the pregnant woman, the man claiming to be or the man identified as being the father of the fetus, the person who is to perform or induce the abortion, any law enforcement officer investigating a violation of this section, and a court and jury in a criminal case involving an alleged violation of this section. (J) Whoever violates this section is guilty of abortion fraud, a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the person previously has pleaded guilty to or has been convicted of a vi[...]



By: Jose Solano

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:11:47 +0000

Jean, you make a lot of assumptions that are irrelevant to the discussion on the proposed law. The presumed “intent” or “motivation” for proposing a law should have no bearing on our support of a proposed law. What has been proposed and written speaks for itself. It is the consequence of the law that needs to be examined. One might assume that a no smoking in restaurants law was created to annoy the smokers and hurt tobacco companies but that should not come into consideration when examining the objective value of the law. The only question should be, “Is the law more beneficial for individuals and society than it is harmful?” That’s what the criteria must be for judging this proposed law also. Is it more beneficial for the unborn child and respectful of the rights of fathers or not? Does it help reduce legalized public deception and falsification of public records? Please remember it is as much the father’s child as it is the mother’s and the father’s rights and obligations are being ignored by the woman’s desire to kill the young living person. It is also important to read the complete actual wording of the proposed law as we only have here a “Feministe” synopsis of a letter sent by the ACLU. Reference is given for the proposed law. House Bill #287 does provide exceptions in the case of rape and incest and if the abortion is “necessary” to preserve the life and health of the mother.



By: Jean

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:38:33 +0000

I don't disagree that all parents should support their children. I just don't think that because a law happens to align with what you thin is right and just, that that's necessarily the sole actual motivation of the people who made it.Historically, the vast majority of our laws regarding children and their welfare have come from the point of view that children (and their mothers) are property, not persons. Any serious discussion or analysis of changes in US family law takes this as a basic fact. I'm not talking about abuses; I'm talking about the intent of the law. The laws have been more aimed at protecting the father's/husband's interest in his property than in protecting the well-being of women and children. That's what's behind many of the legal precedents we have now, although it is changing. So, IMNSHO, a law that proposes giving a man the ability to control a woman and (or through) her (possibly also his) child is much more closely related to those old precedents of a man's property rights than to some new idea for protecting the child's rights. We'd all wish the law to be unfailingly right and just, but it's made by human beings, who are neither, at least not without fail.



By: José Solano

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 22:18:54 +0000

What is paramount is that the life of the person in the womb be saved. All laws that create deception, laws that support flagrant lying must be overturned. Fathers and mothers must be oblgated to support their children. The pregnancy medical care should be a mutual responsibility between the parents. Government must assist with medical care when the parents cannot afford it. Abuses will always occur with all laws. The law nevertheless must be based on what is objectively right and just.



By: Jean

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:08:03 +0000

Jose apparently forgets that it isn't mainly *women* who have passed all the laws that, for example *prevent* a woman from naming a father if she isn't married, and make her husband automatically the father if she is. These laws weren't passed to protect the rights and identity of the actual biological father, but to give only *him* control over who knows it. Not his child. And why would he want anyone *not * to know it? Because he might be obligated to pay money for the child's upkeep if they did. Does this law that lets a man prevent an abortion therefore award him sole responsibility for raising the child to age 21? As well as full responsibility for the mother's medical care throughout the pregnancy? I doubt it.



By: mythago

Sat, 04 Aug 2007 07:55:58 +0000

1) It impedes abortion--if a controlling, abusive man doesn't let "his woman" get an abortion, that's one baby saved, in their view. 2) People with this POV are not notable for holding the opinion that men and women should have equal power in a relationship.



By: José Solano

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:42:49 +0000

There are some people out there with Solomon-like wisdom working to protect the lives of the innocent. This proposed law was crafted by someone like that. It is concerned with the life of the person in the womb and with the rights of the father of that person. It is concerned with the rights of children to know who their real father is. It is concerned with preventing society from falsifying paternity records and justifying flagrant lying to the child and society. The proposed law does what it can under a diabolical law that allows for the wholesale slaughter of the innocents, a slaughter so callous and mindless that it would embarrass King Herod, a slaughter for which, if we are ever to have justice on earth, should call for Nuremberg type trials for abominable acts against humanity.



By: Nate Nelson

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:41:16 +0000

Oh. My. God. I am all over this.