Abortion and a Woman's Right to Choose

From Ohio's Record-Courier:

Several Ohio state representatives who normally take an anti-abortion stance are now pushing pro-choice legislation - sort of.

Led by Rep. John Adams, a group of state legislators have submitted a bill that would give fathers of unborn children a final say in whether or not an abortion can take place.

It's a measure that, supporters say, would finally give fathers a choice.

"This is important because there are always two parents and fathers should have a say in the birth or the destruction of that child," said Adams, a Republican from Sidney. "I didn't bring it up to draw attention to myself or to be controversial. In most cases, when a child is born the father has financial responsibility for that child, so he should have a say."

As written, the bill would ban women from seeking an abortion without written consent from the father of the fetus. In cases where the identity of the father is unknown, women would be required to submit a list of possible fathers. The physician would be forced to conduct a paternity test from the provided list and then seek paternal permission to abort.

Claiming to not know the father's identity is not a viable excuse, according to the proposed legislation. Simply put: no father means no abortion. ***

First time violators would by tried for abortion fraud, a first degree misdemeanor. The same would be the case for men who falsely claim to be fathers and for medical workers who knowingly perform an abortion without paternal consent.

In addition, women would be required to present a police report in order to prove a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

Think you've heard enough?

No way. I saved the best stuff for last.

Here's Denise Mackura, the director of the Ohio Right to Life Society:

Pregnancy is a unique human condition and obviously a woman is affected differently than a man.

With that deep understanding of human anatomy, you can see why Ms. Mackura is an authority on the subject of reproductive rights.

As a woman, I can sympathize.

And by "sympathize" Ms. Mackura means "completely disregard the fact that a pregnancy will always affect a woman more than a man."

However, to completely take rights away from the father is unfair.

If there is unfairness, it is utterly dwarfed by the magnitude of the unfairness inherent in allowing a man to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

Currently, even in a marriage situation, a man has no right to even be informed of an abortion.

Apparently some confusion on the subject, let me clear something up:

A Marriage License is NOT a Bill of Sale.

Now, back to Ms. Mackura:

But if a woman doesn't have an abortion, men sure have a lot of responsibility then.

Since Ms. Mackura's argument is based on "fairness" and she is willing to casually strip women of their rights to prevent some "unfairness" to testis-Americans, perhaps no woman should be allowed to carry a pregnancy to term without the express approval of the he-man who inseminated her.

If this is really about "fairness".

And this really is about fairness, isn't it Ms. Mackura?

It's really not fair.

Sheesh...

You'd think that someone who brands herself "pro-life" would know that Life Isn't Fair.