This came from the Democracy Now Friday Headlines for July, 24, 2009:

Ohio Proposal Would Bar Abortions Without Father's Consent

Meanwhile, in Ohio a Republican legislator has submitted a measure that would prevent abortions without the written consent of the biological father. If the father isn't known, the measure would force the woman to provide a list of people who could be the father in order to determine paternity. The group Feminists for Choice calls the proposal "another mechanism for demonizing and isolating women who have sex."

There's plenty about Democracy Now with which I agree; however, without knowing all the Republicans involved, I can say without hesitation that the focus is first and foremost on the child. Not acting as if fathers have no feeling about their children is also involved. I speak from personal, firsthand experience, but don't ask me to go into detail because I won't. I don't agree with coercing women into having children. However, it must be understood that the vast majority of the women in question and Amy Goodman, herself (the founder of Democracy Now), are not against coercion. Amy and those others want to be the majority power that can and will call out the police and military to enforce their rights as they see fit to define them via coercive democracy. I've never heard her say anything that would indicate otherwise, and she's had years to say it.

Therefore, it is a hypocritical position to suggest that the unborn and fathers should for some reason should be subordinated to the often mere whims of often promiscuous women. I use the term promiscuous here as a direct response to the statement of Feminists for Choice. I dare say that most of the Republican males who would support the legislation have sex with women and don't seek to demonize those women for it. I can only assume that the spokesperson for Feminists for Choice was referring to unmarried, loose women who want abortions on demand without the father having a right to say hold on, I would like my son or daughter to live and not be killed and that I will take him or her to raise up.

It doesn't sound so oppressive in that light does it. Sure, it's a strange thing to get the state to force a woman to carry an unwanted child to term. I don't think the spirit of such women would do a good job with such pregnancies. It would be better that males never have sex with such coldhearted females. Live and learn.

There are many possible scenarios. I'm not attempting to address them all here in some exhaustive list. I am though saying that putting it down as "another mechanism for demonizing and isolating women who have sex" is twisting by omission. Democracy Now did not include the reason given by the legislative sponsor or the general reasons of supporters and any co-sponsor(s). I wonder if Democracy Now would unilaterally employ the Fairness Doctrine and give equal time or space for the opposing view? She should.

"another mechanism for demonizing and isolating women who have sex." That's 68 characters with spaces. Would Amy allow the bill's sponsor to put 68 characters with spaces on her headlines page as a response? One could get carried away with that, but the general idea of stating various views so that people may make informed decisions is proper in Amy's chosen form of government, which many call the "tyranny of the majority." Don't get me wrong. I'm no Tory.

I do believe Amy believes she's educating the people against the mainstream. She is though becoming mainstream and needs to begin to think about offering both/all sides of the various major political questions of the day and to do that regardless of whether or not someone from the other side cares to be on her show.

"Modern day" eugenics is with us. Voluntary abstinence doesn't curb HIV/AID's or pregnancies say the "liberals." Well, is handing out condoms a cure for excessive lust in general? Is it good training to help to keep a check on blood lust that is warfare and money lust that is greed? These things are interconnected.

Where are the prophylactics for war and greed?

We need an unbreakable, irremovable condom for the entire Pentagon and another for the whole of Wall Street.

Let's prevent their seeds from being cast into the world with all their attendant evils.

Well, actually, people really do need to just say no to war and greed and sexual promiscuity all at the same time and in the same brain and body. Nancy Reagan had it right on one third of it. I have it right on all of it. That's because Jesus taught me about avoiding hypocrisy to the best of my ability.

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.