filtherton

Touche.

Maybe will needs to form his own party.

FoolThemAll

Only because neither language formation nor values formation are in the domain of science. If some crazies redefined 'humanity' as "white upper-class landowners with at least one slave", science would have NOTHING to say to them. Nothing.

That's not quite right, though. I fall back on the wishes of both clumps of cells. And when those two clumps of cells have irreconcilable differences, say "that's nine months of my life I'll never get back" versus "that's my life I'll never get back", I make the obvious choice.

But the facts are not inconclusive. We know all we need to know about the z/e/f. We just come up with different interpretations of those facts. We both go with what we don't absolutely know. If what you're doing is searching for a way to make your position objectively better, I really don't think you're going to find it.

You were the one to bring up souls. And I answered this already. In a word: the blueprint.

Again, there's nothing scientific in this disagreement.

The potentiality is hardwired into the organism. It proceeds naturally if not interrupted. It's a physical, real part of the make-up. It's not some wishy-washy "I have the potential to be president", it's concrete and observable.

It's not potential in the way the word is usually used. It's actually a characteristic.

Certainly. No, I'm not talking about the legal construct.

Get ready for Mr. Godwin... so the Holocaust was only a mass number of displeasing events? That's all it was, morally? (Hey, at least I didn't do the abortion=holocaust comparison!)

Are you forgetting the other meaning of murder, or dismissing it?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

pig

fta: i think you're making my argument for me...so thanks. I know I can't make my argument objectively "better," the point is that it's indeterminant, when averaged over multiple people. No one can agree. Reasonable people...can't agree. We all agree that putting a gun into a kid who has just been popped is a bad thing. Slitting your grandmother's throat...probably immoral. When it comes to the z/e/f or whatever you want to call it, there's a lot of confusion. Perhaps not for you, but for others. So I say, in your personal life make personal decisions that affect you personally. That's called choice, and is why I'm pro-choice. Make your choice.

However, since we don't have that little question nailed down, I don't see how we can make official policy about a potential father's rights...when the fundamental of question of "is there anything to have rights over?" hasn't been settled. It's putting the cart before the horse. If we give some sort of "father's rights" to the fetus, then it gets argued backwards that there must have been a human life to give rights over. It's like intelligent design, in my opinion. We don't give a man the "rights" over anything else in a woman's body...so if we grant rights in this particular situation...then what exactly are we doing?

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

filtherton

Well, if you need to call it murder for it to be a big deal, the you're kind of proving my point about the need to use the word "murder" because of the emotional weight it has.

But it does depend on perspective- i'm sure most military folk would disagree with you about the nature of murder in the context of war. The nazis probably didn't think it was murder. That's the point- labeling a certain act a murder is just another way of saying that somebody got killed in a way that you consider to be unjust. The fact that you want to call abortion murder reflects more on your opinion of abortion than it does on the merits of abortion. It's just a way of framing the argument, an unfortunate way because it relies more on appeals to emotion than reason, but i guess that type of thing is unavoidable when discussing morality.

1010011010

Wow. I don't think I've ever quite seen anyone dehumanize women to the point of calling them a "clump of cells" and equating their status in the word with a fetus. I've seen people make arguments that treat women like children, but this is a pretty impressive new level of extreme.

It's also disingenuous to imply that the effects of pregnancy and childbirth are an isolable 9-month period, but I've never observed much interest from some sides in how unwanted pregnancy has lasting impact on the lives of women, so I'm not surprised if you honestly think your comparison is meaningful.

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

Ustwo

I don't think you 'get it', in fact I'm sure you don't.

We are living creatures are just lumps of cells. Your body is really a hive of various related cells, and your gonads are the 'queen' if you want to expand it out. Its not 'dehumanizing' someone to call them a lump of cells any more to call a fetus a 'lump of cells'. YOU are a lump of cells, thats ALL you are. You can think, dance, make forum posts, but you are just a lump of cells, as am I.

FTA's stance is pretty clear. To HIM that 'lump of cells' thats a fetus is as a life is not unlike that lump of cells thats a woman, or a man. Its a human lump of cells. One is fully differentiated as a adult, the other is just forming, but they are the same in different life stages.

There was nothing extreme at all in what he said.

Abortion has a lasting effect on women too. I had a girl crying in my arms over hers. We were casually dating, I go to visit her, we are about to have sex and then shes sobbing about some abortion she had at 16.

My family also used to take in teens who were pregnant so they could give birth away from the pressures of family and their friends in school. They gave the kids up for adoption.

I wonder how many of those girls are happy that they didn't abort now years past. I only still know one, shes happy about it.

I can't think many women who gave their children up for adoption are thinking 'Oh this is so horrible, I can't live without knowing who my children are, I wish I had aborted them instead!'

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

dc_dux

Nice anecdotes, but completely unsubstantiated by medical studies. ..as far as the girl crying in your arms, I guess you just ooze empathy, but girls/women experience a range of emotions from sadness to relief to happiness.

In fact, studies by Reagan's pro-life Surgeon General Coop, the American Psychological Association and Royal Colleges of Obstetricians and Gynecologists among others have found that an abortion has no more lasting effect on most women's mental health than taking an unwanted pregnancy to term.

***

To the more germane question.....IMO, a potential father should be included in the discussion over options, but men will never and should never have an equal voice or equal rights in a woman's reproductive decision......we/they should focus on a dad's equity in child custody battles (there should not be a presumption that the mother would be a better parent), adoption rights, etc.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Shauk

I'm sorry it took me this long to go through 6 pages but you all just fried my critical thinking skills, so then I went back out and read the topic again and "Mysperm" was right next to my "Myspace" link on my firefox bar and I just had to share my giggles.

Willravel

You don't think that abortion can and has caused stress or emotional problems for some girls/women?
There is no scientific law about a specific occurrence's effect on someone's mental health because there are too many variables in psychology. What may be totally fine for one person could cause PTSD in others. As such, a ruling such as the one you listed above is irresponsible because it's misleading. For some women, abortion can be much worse than bringing an unwanted child to term, thus making that ruling incorrect in some cases.
I'm not suggesting an equal voice. I can't remember anyone mentioning equal rights. I created this thread because men have no rights. I'd like less than half, but more than zero.

dc_dux

I agree....I was responding to Ustwo's comment "Abortion has a lasting effect on women too." Maybe, maybe not....maybe the effect on a woman's mental health is negative, maybe its positive.

As you say....the effects vary. But there is an intent by many who oppose abortion to generalize and politicize the issue by using anecdotes and flawed data to suggest that abortions pose a direct threat to a woman's mental health. IMO, that was Ustwo's intent..but I could certainly be wrong.

You might find this interesting, particularly as it described the study done by pro-life Surgeon General C Everett Koop:

Despite years of trying, antiabortion activists failed to gain any traction with the nation's major medical groups in alleging that abortion posed a direct threat to women's health, especially their mental health, so they turned to the political process to legitimize their claims. In 1987, they convinced President Reagan to direct U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop to analyze the health effects of abortion and submit a report to the president. As Koop had been appointed to his position in no small part because of his antiabortion views, both prochoice and antiabortion factions believed the outcome to be preordained. (An eminent pediatric surgeon as well as an outspoken abortion foe, Koop had no prior experience or background in public health; both public health and prochoice advocates in Congress vehemently opposed his appointment, delaying his confirmation by several months.)

Koop reviewed the scientific and medical literature and consulted with a wide range of experts and advocacy groups on both sides of the issue. Yet, after 15 months, no report was forthcoming. Rather, on January 9, 1989, Koop wrote a letter to the president explaining that he would not be issuing a report at all because "the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women." Koop apparently was referring to the effects of abortion on mental health, because his letter essentially dismissed any doubts about the physical safety of the procedure.

Prochoice members of Congress, surprised by Koop's careful and balanced analysis, sought to force his more detailed findings into the public domain. A hearing before the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations was called in March 1989 to give Koop an opportunity to testify about the content of his draft report, which had begun to leak out despite the administration's best efforts. At the hearing, Koop explained that he chose not to pursue an inquiry into the safety of the abortion procedure itself, because the "obstetricians and gynecologists had long since concluded that the physical sequelae of abortion were no different than those found in women who carried pregnancy to term or who had never been pregnant. I had nothing further to add to that subject in my letter to the president"

Abortion and Mental Health: Myths and Realities

Rights are a legal issue and there are no legal half rights.

As I said,the man should be allowed to be involved in the decision-making, but ultimately, a woman's reproductive choice is hers.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

It's not a threat often enough to justify making a rule either way. As such, it's an ineffective argument for either side. I couldn't argue it's common enough to justify turning people away because of potential emotional distress and a pro choicer couldn't justify accepting people because there's no potential for emotional distress.
Heh. I have that bookmarked in my "abortion" favorites list already, actually.
A man cannot be guaranteed a part of the decision making when he is only allowed to be included on the whim of the woman. Thus the thread.

dc_dux

Since this is a political thread, how would you frame such a law?

And what purpose would it serve, if the ultimate decision is left to a woman to determine her own reproductive choice? If you are saying the ultimate decision is not the woman's, then you are asking for equal rights and an equal voice.

You might read, but probably wont agree with this article in Salon (if its not already in your bookmarks):
Dad's Sad, Mad: Too Bad

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

An example of what I would ask for:
Should the father's identity be known, he will be contacted upon the abortion of his unborn offspring.
This wouldn't interfere with Roe v. Wade in any way. The decision making process would not change (unless the woman didn't want the father to know, in which case he couldn't be contacted because his identity wouldn't be known).
I'm not asking for equal rights.

dc_dux

I dont undertand what this would accomplish, other than "knowing" ...if that is your only intent in compelling the woman to identify the father.

Such a law could also leave the father potentially open to criminal charges of statutory rape, sexual molestation....if the mother was a minor.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

It's main function is to help avoid situations like my friend was in. His gf lied about an abortion and he couldn't verify it. Under this law, a man could verify it.
Yes it would, and I have no problem with that. Statutory rape is wrong.

dc_dux

How would your friend's life have changed if he could have verified it..after the fact?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

It would have told him that she was lying and that she wasn't pregnant. He dropped out of school and found two jobs because of her lie. As a direct result, he didn't graduate on time and he suffered a great deal because of guilt. He was eventually able to get back on track, but it took several years.

Had this law been in effect, he could have contacted a system and ask "My name is xxxxxxxx, did xxx get an abortion? I would be the father." Instead it took him telling her parents and them having to inquire. It took months.

Edit: To clarify, a DNA test would be performed on the unborn child and the father before information was released. DNA tests can be done from very early stages in the development of the fetus.

host

A reasonable person could view FTA's opinion as extreme, because what another person decides to permit to grow, or not, in her uterus....is none of his business.

Last november, South Dakota voters took back women;s right to choose, after their legislature and governor. took it away from them:


<h3>How 'bout brainwashin' the boys, too?:</h3>

Ustwo, why do you seem to post, so often, so similar to someone falling under the spell of every conservative financed disinformation "Op", from tort "rerorm", to this, excerpted from the NY Times article, linked below?

Ustwo

So its now 'unreasonable' to be against abortion morally?

Whatever host.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

Perhaps it would be better to address my posts, as you and I are more likely to share common ground than you and Ustwo.

I am of the personal opinion that abortion is tantamount to premeditated murder, as "life" as it's described by science would be an applicable description as soon as the organism (fetus) begins functioning, however I accept that this view is not necessarily shared by a great number of people I believe to be intelligent people. As such, I am willing to not fight the position that this should be a personal choice. If I am ever in a position where my personal opinion has been asked I will give it, but I would be wrong to force it on people who do not share it. As such, I would not support legislation to ban abortion, nor would I take any steps personally to prevent them.

The conclusion that abortion is murder, however, means that fatherhood essentially begins as soon as the zygote is formed and cells begin to replicate. As such, any rights enjoyed by a father after birth would clearly apply before birth as well. This is the point in the thread upon which I and people who do not consider a fetus alive differ. Regardless, one could argue, based on the idea that a fetus is property (which is how the law sees it), that the acquisition or creation of said property is a joint venture. While a woman clearly bears more as she carries the property to term, said creation absolutely requires the cooperation of two parties. As such, at least some rights, though no where near a much as the woman and not overriding the woman's right to her own bodily functions as is clearly secured by Roe v. Wade, should be given to the father.

The example which I provided above, allowing the father to be notified of the abortion of his potential offspring, would not violate a woman's right to her own bodily functions, nor would it violate her privacy as the man was also directly involved in the procreation.

Would you consider such a law unfair?

dc_dux

will...IMO, you havent made a case for your proposed law and I would still oppose it.

What I could support and what I think would be reasonable would be an expanded statement by the AMA (and or appropriate affiliates) of its current policies and practices for physicians:
Perhaps adding language....the patient should be encouraged to inform and involve the spouse/partner if such notification poses no threat to the patient, with the patient retaining the final right to determine the most appropriate treatment.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Ustwo

That sounds about as effective as a harshly worded letter from the U.N.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

dc_dux

The only solution to the issue Will raised will be a reasonable middle course that both sides might find acceptable at some level...ss opposed to your harsh solution to take a woman's reproductive rights away from her.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

host

will, this is the United States, and the year is 2008.... I can understand anyone believing that life begins at conception, or even that it is improper to interfere with the process of ovulation, or, in the case of a man, "wasting his seed", belief in sex only for procreation and a reverence towards semen and ovum.

I think it is okay to familiarize others with a sense of a reverence for life, and procreation, even at the earliest stages, and in the potential. I think it's okay to talk to anyone who will listen or read another person's opinions about these concepts and closely held beliefs.

Try to counsel people, stand in close, legal proximity to clincs and other medical facilities which provide women's reproductive health services, including abortion servivces. Try to engage people approaching or leaving these facilities, to try to influence them. Donate or volunteer for advertising and counseling services aligned with your belieffs.

But, remember our circumstances, they're in my opening sentence. I think a pharmacist who objects to filling prescriptions for birth control,is acting reasonably if he defers to a colleague to fill such prescritptions. But, if he works alone or has a commitment to customer service as part of his job description, he should fill the prescritption without comment or delay, or resign form his position.

A woman in the US has the right to vote, and the right to choose what grows or doesn't grow in her uterus. No restrictions are discussed or planned to narrow or curtail a woman' voting rights.

The right to choose must be considered in the same way. Just as the vote was, the right to choose has been a hard fought battle. We need to accept that it is over, and not attempt to reign it in or narrow it via attempts to impose legally enforceable restrictions oin it, no matterhow altruistic and reasonable the motivation to do so, is.

We must all agree not to mess with it. Gun rights advocates demand nothing less, and compared to the right to choose, gun ownership seems trivial matter. If your concern is fathers's rights, why niot propose changes to family law practice, having to do with support obligations, under the law.

Willravel

I'm not messing with anything but bias that has no reason. As I said, I'm not suggesting that we take away a woman's right to choose. I am suggesting that we allow a man to know if he has (potential) offspring or not. It's actually a case of privacy, not Roe v. Wade. I regret mentioning Roe v. Wade in the OP. As to the privacy issue, the information should not be owned by the woman just because she's the one pregnant. The information is not included in "my body, my choice".

Did you read my post? You didn't respond to anything I wrote.

dc_dux

Will.....how would you protect a woman from a potentially bullying, verbally or physically abusive man if she were forced to allow him to know?

Nope...it doesnt fly for me. I can see going as far as encouraging a woman to provide notification to the man if she feels it would not leave her exposed to a potentially threatening situation.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

That excuse won't fly. Some people will physically and emotionally abuse people, and there are already ways to deal with it. If a man hits a woman, do you think she won't be able to call the police just because she aborted his child? That makes no sense.

You act as if when people are married, a man can do whatever he wants to a woman.

dc_dux

Will....you should know that most bullying is never reported...and you want to give a man another excuse to bully a woman who may feel threatened if she were forced to report her pregnancy?

I might add that your justification for notification based on your friend's dropping out of school, having to get two jobs and not graduating on time is not very compelling to me. Guys drop out of school for many reasons, often looking for an excuse to externalize their action.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Elphaba

I continue to wonder why I participate in subjects that pretend to be about "father's rights" or some other "this isn't about abortion" topic. Will, whatever your initial intention, your topic now boils down to your belief that a woman choosing an abortion is nothing less than "premeditated murder."

The debate on when life begins, or ends for that matter, belongs in Philosophy. Host made it very clear that challenging current law begins with a lawyer willing to make that challenge to the law. Has that challenge been made? Are you making an effort to change the law, or is judging women as murderers sufficient for you? Your moral code doesn't trump the law.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Willravel

That's true, most women are delicate flowers and most men are abusive.

Here's a nutters idea: you're reaching, a lot. There's no reason to believe that this type of policy would cause ANY abuse. None whatsoever. In fact, I'd go as far to say that this would likely help a great many people.
He would have graduated with honors and gone on to a good UC. Instead he graduated late and had to attend a shitty JC. Her lie ruined his life and your lack of sympathy is symptomatic of apologism. She was wrong to lie, and her lie damaged him greatly.

I've still not seen any case to suggest my proposal isn't sound.

You're letting yourself be blinded to what I'm saying. It's a shame I have to keep writing this over and over and over, continually explaining to those who refuse to listen:

I HAVE NOT, DO NOT, AND NEVER PLAN TO TAKE ANY ACTION TO TAKE AWAY A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE AN ABORTION. MY MORAL CODE IS MY OWN AND I AM WELL AWARE THAT FORCING IT ON SOMEONE ELSE IS WRONG. I HAVE NEVER NOR HAVE I EVER EVEN HINTED AT ANYTHING DIFFERENT.

Is that clear? So this will be the last time I address this point in the thread.

Contacting the father to simply supply information will not interfere with a woman's right to choose, so it's not a part of this thread. Nothing I suggested would take away a woman's right to choose. I even made it clear in the OP that none of my proposals would interfere with Roe v. Wade.

Apparently even the most intelligent people cannot grasp this. I must say that I'm profoundly disappointed.

Close the thread if you want, Mods.

dc_dux

Many/most pro-choice advocates who believe all aspects affecting a woman's choice is ABSOLUTE will never buy into your proposal. I think you know that. But I dont sense a willingness to compromise on your part. You want the man to have an ABSOLUTE right to know.

I was looking for a political solution that might be acceptable to both sides as a reasonable accommodation to the man....less than you want, but better that nothing....and more than most pro-choice advocates would probably support.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

My suggestions already are compromise. Under my ideal system, all abortions would require a paternity test and the state would contact the father. I'm suggesting, as a compromise, that if a father asks he can find out.

Your proposal, a system in which the man can only know if the woman wants it, is absolutely useless. She can currently just tell him and show him the bill. In other words, your proposal isn't compromise as it's already in place.

Are you abandoning your argument that my program would cause a spike in abuse from men, or are you still arguing it?

dc_dux

I would still argue that some women would feel intimidated to be forced to provide notification to the man.

I have no idea how many and neither do you and neither of us will ever be in the woman's position to know.

Good luck with your compromise!

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

mixedmedia

Maybe it's because you said this over on page one.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Willravel

If the man tries anything, she can call the police. I don't see any reason to think that abuse would happen (more than normal), but if it does the woman isn't defenseless.

I was providing my viewpoint so that compromise could happen. In compromise, one must understand both sides. I made it clear through the whole thread that I believe abortion is wrong, but that I'd not force my beliefs on someone.

Unfortunately, I have been the only person in many pages to try and offer any middle ground solution.

Elphaba

I am not being stubborn, or unwilling to grasp the issue you have presented in regards to the feelings of the father. I have tried to give an example where the agreement between the mother and father is impossible. It returns to who has the final say of the fetus when there is disagreement. I'm not seeing where your compromise argument changes the ultimate choice that is now legally held by the woman.

What am I missing that shouting hasn't caused enlightenment?

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Willravel

The mother has the final say. I don't want to change that. Whether I agree with it or not is, I now understand, moot.

I'm sure you understand the concept of not agreeing with something, but also recognizing that trying to change it would be wrong.

Rekna

Will how will the government contact the father? A paternal test needs samples from the baby and the father. Thus in order to determine who the father is they need to already know who the father is..... The state doesn't have a database of our DNA (thank god) and thus such a law would be unenforceable.

If we want to remove the double standard in the law either

1) Fathers should have a right to prevent the abortion

OR

2) Fathers should have the right to say "I don't want this child" and thus be free of any financial responsibility.

Personally I prefer number 1 to number 2. Can anyone think of any other ways to remove the double standard?

pig

yes rekna: ex-vitro and testtube babies. that's about it.

will: i think that everyone understands what you think you're trying to say. THE PROBLEM IS THAT NONE OF US THINK THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS TENABLE. If you want to do the all-caps thing. Speaking for myself, but I think probably somewhat representative of the group you're trying mostly to convert, I understand that you want some sort of mandatory notification for "a male" any time a woman goes to get an abortion. However, you do not want to revoke Roe v. Wade, or more correctly, you're willing to not "overturn" Roe v. Wade.

OK. The problem, as I see it, is those two positions become nearly mutually exclusive, pragmatically. What a nightmare! I disagree with your objection to dc's statements about the probable affect on women who have been / are being abused. (ps. No one is saying all women are abused, or that all men are abusive. Nice strawman. Some women are abused, and they would be disproportionately affected. pps. It's not a marginal amount of women, according to most sources I've seen) Furthermore, what happens if a woman is dating multiple men, and has a contraception malfunction with one of them? What if a cheating wife, or girlfriend situation occurs? Of for that matter, a cheating husband or boyfriend matter? For me, it's a huge difference between "Which situations would I, as the male, like to have a right to know, and which situations should I actually have a right to know?" Let's say the girl lies about the father, and/or refuses to give a name? What's her penalty? Is she denied the right to the abortion until she fesses up? Is it pending a DNA test? Once again, it will go back to a place that host alluded to earlier. More educated/middle class chicks will tell the docs to fuck off, and/or pay outright for a doctor who is leniant on the disclosure forms, while people with less access to legal and financial defense strategies will tend to be affected. (yes, that's a hypothesis). As well-intentioned as I know your wishes are, I don't see them ever working out. The fact that others disagree with you doesn't mean you need to get petulant and suggest that the thread be closed. It's not the first time a thread hasn't gone the way the OP wanted.

I'm not saying it's perfect, and I agree that the way things are right now it's definitely way-lop sided toward the female's discretion. I don't necessarily like it, but I don't see any meaningful way to moderate the situation that doesn't involve a cure that's worse than the problem.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Willravel

My thread is more about maintaining a double-standard, but reducing the distance from one set of rights to the other. Unfortunately, either of your suggestions would require an asterisk to Roe v. Wade, which is something most people would have a serious problem with.

The state will contact the father by requiring it on one the forms required to have an abortion. If the information is wrong, there could be a penalty. If the woman can demonstrate that the father has a history of violence, then he will not be contacted.

I see this as a good compromise. It doesn't take away the sole decision from the woman, but it also includes the man in an informational sense, assuming he has no history of violence.