The most insidious thing about this is the way it attempts to be “reasonable”. Of course it’s reasonable to consult fathers, of course they should have a say. And therefore it’s only reasonable - when the slutwoman has multiple partners - to give every potential father the right to claim the pregnancy.

And it’s not like they’re banning abortions, oh no. There’s even provision for rape/incest victims - just produce the police report and submit to some humiliating questioning, and you can have one.

The net effect of this legislation, should it pass, is that a woman seeking an abortion is likely to be tied up in paperwork, jumping through bureaucratic hoops. Meanwhile, her pregnancy is progressing, she’s into her second trimester, and if there is enough delay (via challenges to allegations of fatherhood, tracking down potential fathers and testing their DNA, etc), she’s into her third trimester and - so sad, too bad - she can’t have an abortion anyway.

It’s an appalling piece of legislation - stinks on just about every level, including physical danger to the woman. Amnio and CVS aren’t safe - there is approximately a 3% risk of complicated miscarriage, perforation of the uterine wall, infection and consequent fertility problems for the future. There is nothing reasonable or fair about it - and men should be up in arms, too, because when the woman with the belly stands up and shouts “J’accuse!”, they’ll be put through the investigation wringer.

On the nasty side, someone over in dark_christian on LJ suggested every woman seeking an abortion should name John Adams as the father, or indeed anyone who supports this bill.

Birth control for men, the condom, is cheap, widely available and unlike birth control for women, has far fewer physical side effects, is not subject to doctor or insurance approval, offers some protection from STIs and costs a lot less money.

Vasectomies are not as physically traumatic as tubal ligations and more research is being done on reversible method of male birth control. This is the stage men have total control over whether or not they will be fathers.

States with stringent child support laws have lower rates of claims because men have an interest in taking control of birth control methods and making sure they do not become finanacially responsible for another human being before they are ready.

Women have more options but they are not more free because of it. This is largely the result of biology but many female birth control options are controversial and under politcal atttack from the right wing. They are more costly, have far more side effects or are completely inaccessible. women can and should have these options because they have power over their own bodies but this would only render them more powerful than men if men had NO birth control options of their own.

Funny, cuz all the 17 years olds I knew who did act like this, all had two parents. Me, my mother was all I had and I cared for her too much to pull shit like that, including getting an abortion completely behind her back, so she wouldn’t have to deal with it. Most of my friends who were raised by single parents feel that way.

It seems to me, that if you were really raised by two parents, and raised all your kids with a co-parent, how in the hell do you qualify to remark on what kids raised by single parents. Trust me, better to be a completely single parent, than to have a half-assed obligated one. It causes more pain to have never known your parent that is not around, than to have a sample of what it’s like to have a dad(or mom) and realize that yours sucks and doesn’t really care about you, is only there b/c the have to be.

Off by 35 years - getting ready for the grandkids, in say, 10-12 years.

Raising kids for 18 years is much harder than one might think.

Lots of mental health issues - the under 18 brain is just not the same as the adult brain.

My parents are and were top notch, raising 4 schmucks, but they saw their share of under 18 behavior that causes lots of gray hair.

And my hair is 80% gray, thanks in part to under 18 behavior of my 2 “little darlings” that caused parental stress, worry, sleepless nights, etc.

292993

Laws are not the issue - my point is about ethics. My upbringing was not with a single parent, and yes the law should not require 2 parents. Things can and do go wrong with 2 parents working hard 24/7 and raising the poor schmuck in a single home for 18 years. It is a risky business, raising poor schmucks (who get no votes, and it shows, in our society).

The risk of unfortunate results (e.g., major depression for mom and/or poor schmuck, etc.) goes up, I suspect, when the 18-year project is undertaken by a single mom (or dad), particularly where there are major income/asset limits.

Ducking the issue by saying it is a fetus not a child, or the woman owns the womb and its contents, or it is too hard to look forward for 18 years, is unfair (ethically, not legally) to the prospective child.

True, of course. Like when I sign a mortgage for 30 years, I am just forecasting, hopefully reasonably, that I can pay it off.

Just because we have no crystal balls does not mean we have no ethical duty to consider the rights of that poor schmuck, to be, if there is no abortion.

Picture said prospective child when he is 17, telling mom he needs $$ (some to be used for drugs), he just smashed up the car (again), he is depressed (suicidal?), he is jobless (and not looking), he never wants to be like mom (but wants her food, housing, laundry service).

This is probably not atypical 17 year old behavior, perhaps, but it shows the value in 24/7 committed parents (ideally 2 - there is safety in numbers) able to help pull the child out of the occasional tailspin.

Unrealistically romantic notions about “it will all work out” (even with virtually no money and uncommitted dad) are ethically suspect.

Suppose the shoe were on the other foot, said 17 year old decides he wants to adopt and single-parent because, heh, things might work out, you never know. (Assume the law allows adoption for 17 year old males - like it allows natural birth by 17 year old females.)

Within 9 months, he might get a great job (that he can hold down while emotionally and physically supporting a child 24/7). Right. It is statistically far-fetched, so ethically suspect because of the impact on the child to be (which he cannot ethically ignore, even though the child is not yet adopted).

Some things are just unreasonable, at particular times in life, on their face. Those are probably unethical, toward the child to be, even if not illegal.

Hammer.

Nail.

Bang.

that and “life’s not fair” is a stupid argument coming from a liberal femminist message board that is pushing for more equality for women and minorities … of course life isn’t fair, but aren’t we trying to make it more so?

The argument isn’t “life isn’t fair,” the argument is that your complaint is with biology, not the law, and yet you keep complaining about the law.

Sometimes the law can address biological inequalities, sometimes it can’t. Short of science creating artificial wombs, I don’t see how the state can address this inequality through law. And it already does so through social programs and institutions, like oh, say marriage, which foster communication between the potential parents.

The fact that women get a (legal) say in whether or not they have children after they become pregnant, while men only get a (legal) say in whether they become parents before pregnancy happens is a result of biology, period.

This isn’t like complaining about the glass ceiling or rape. This is like complaining about the fact that men get to pee standing up. It’s not even really a case of fairness, it’s just a case of the situations being different. You can address the results of this difference by acknowledging that this means that men’s public restrooms don’t need as many stalls/urinals as women’s restrooms need, but you can’t penalize men or speed up time for women to address the individual unfairness of the time it takes to pee.

So, push for better social programs, but drop the stupid requests to change the law.