Ohio may give fathers a say in abortion decision - Page 5

OKgrannie · 08-06-2007, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

So lets review, a woman who gets pregnant and decides to have an abortion can do so without having notified nor sought permission of the man with whom she engaged in sexual relations with. Where is the equal protection for the man??? There is none.

A man needs "protection" from a woman having an abortion? How does a woman having an abortion damage a man in any way?

Quote:

Just as there is no equal protection for the man who must pay child support to a woman who has decided to have a baby even against the wishes of the man. In both cases, the laws protect the woman over that of the man, the man has no equal protection

The law in this case is for the protection of the CHILD, not the woman.

Catus Felidae · 08-06-2007, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forester814

But since you brought it up, sure, there may be some grounds for a challenge based on the 14th amendment.

I don't see how. He has no constitutional right to be made aware of what medical procedures she might have, and she does have an constitutional right to privacy.

He cannot file a constitution challenge on behalf of the fetus. It has no constitutional rights to violate, and the SC has already ruled that only the parent with majority custody of the child has the legal standing to file on behalf of that child.

And...even if the SC ruled that it was not an undue burden for a woman to have to notify the father, it would still be a violation of the Patient Privacy Act.

forester814 · 08-06-2007, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catus Felidae

I don't see how. He has no constitutional right to be made aware of what medical procedures she might have, and she does have an constitutional right to privacy.

He cannot file a constitution challenge on behalf of the fetus. It has no constitutional rights to violate, and the SC has already ruled that only the parent with majority custody of the child has the legal standing to file on behalf of that child.

And...even if the SC ruled that it was not an undue burden for a woman to have to notify the father, it would still be a violation of the Patient Privacy Act.

Agreed all around.

I didn't say there were SOLID grounds for a challenge, CF.
But legal challenges have been brought on shakier grounds than these.

So, the possibility exists that a challenge will be brought, based on the 14th amendment. But, like you, I think it wouldn't have much of a chance.

garysher · 08-06-2007, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKgrannie

A man needs "protection" from a woman having an abortion? How does a woman having an abortion damage a man in any way?

>>>>>>>>>>

By killing his child

The law in this case is for the protection of the CHILD, not the woman.

If that were the case then abortion would be illegal

garysher · 08-06-2007, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catus Felidae

I don't see how. He has no constitutional right to be made aware of what medical procedures she might have, and she does have an constitutional right to privacy.

He cannot file a constitution challenge on behalf of the fetus. It has no constitutional rights to violate, and the SC has already ruled that only the parent with majority custody of the child has the legal standing to file on behalf of that child.

And...even if the SC ruled that it was not an undue burden for a woman to have to notify the father, it would still be a violation of the Patient Privacy Act.

I doubt whether a man's baby is considered the private affair of the mother - it certainly isn't after the child is born!

You are still trying to pretend that the father isn't involved in the conception and the future life of his baby.

If the woman has the right to abort the father's baby without his consent then the converse should also be true - the man should be able to denounce any financial obligations for a child he wanted to have aborted.

What a horrible world we live in

OKgrannie · 08-06-2007, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKgrannie (Ohio may give fathers a say in abortion decision)

A man needs "protection" from a woman having an abortion? How does a woman having an abortion damage a man in any way?

>>>>>>>>>>

By killing his child

But the man in this case doesn't know the woman is even pregnant. He doesn't KNOW, so he is not damaged in any way.

Quote:

The law in this case is for the protection of the CHILD, not the woman.

If that were the case then abortion would be illegal
__________________

The law is for the financial support of a CHILD, not a "pre-born" child, nor an "unborn" child, nor any other euphemisms you PLer's use to describe a zef. The law protects children, but not zefs. Fathers are required to support children, but not zefs.

garysher · 08-06-2007, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKgrannie

But the man in this case doesn't know the woman is even pregnant. He doesn't KNOW, so he is not damaged in any way.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If your house burns down, but you don't know about it, does that mean you're not damaged??

I think not!

The law is for the financial support of a CHILD, not a "pre-born" child, nor an "unborn" child, nor any other euphemisms you PLer's use to describe a zef. The law protects children, but not zefs. Fathers are required to support children, but not zefs.

But if the woman has the right to abort a man's baby against his wishes, then the man should have the reverse right NOT to be compelled to support a baby he didn't want.

We know you pro-deathers like to try and dance around the fact that a fetus is a baby in its early stage.

Saying that " The law in this case is for the protection of the CHILD, not the woman", and then killing the child, is logically inconsistent to say the least.

OKgrannie · 08-06-2007, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by OKgrannie (Ohio may give fathers a say in abortion decision)

But the man in this case doesn't know the woman is even pregnant. He doesn't KNOW, so he is not damaged in any way.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If your house burns down, but you don't know about it, does that mean you're not damaged??

I think not!

I am totally bewildered as to how your house can burn down and you not know about it. At least shortly afterward. The point being that a man need not EVER know that a woman had an abortion. If he doesn't know, nothing is lost.

Quote:

The law is for the financial support of a CHILD, not a "pre-born" child, nor an "unborn" child, nor any other euphemisms you PLer's use to describe a zef. The law protects children, but not zefs. Fathers are required to support children, but not zefs.But if the woman has the right to abort a man's baby against his wishes, then the man should have the reverse right NOT to be compelled to support a baby he didn't want.

We know you pro-deathers like to try and dance around the fact that a fetus is a baby in its early stage.

Saying that " The law in this case is for the protection of the CHILD, not the woman", and then killing the child, is logically inconsistent to say the least

.

A fetus is a baby in its early stage? LOL, I guess a fetus is a corpse in its early stage. The only question of concern is "What is it NOW?" And no one is killing "children" by abortions.

garysher · 08-06-2007, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKgrannie

I am totally bewildered as to how your house can burn down and you not know about it. At least shortly afterward. The point being that a man need not EVER know that a woman had an abortion. If he doesn't know, nothing is lost.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

But the principle is the same.

Keeping the news about a baby secret from its father isn't the honourable way to go for any of the parties concerned.

A fetus is a baby in its early stage? LOL, I guess a fetus is a corpse in its early stage. The only question of concern is "What is it NOW?" And no one is killing "children" by abortions.

Did you keep a straight face when you typed that??

It's a pretty torturous twist of logic to try and pretend that a fetus isn't really a baby.