Would you support it if the Civil Law Give Right for Husband to Consent to/ Forbid Wife's Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter francisca.chapter3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Murder is illegal and yet murder still happens. The point of the law is to help prevent bad things from happening. Yes the mere words on a piece of paper won’t stop some people from murdering their children, hence why we have law enforcement to crackdown on these supposed back ally abortion clinics. Like how we have law enforcement to crack down on dangerous criminal organizations.

Murder is murder, which is agianst God’s commandment. Doesn’t matter if you dress it up as “abortion” or “women’s rights”. Murder is murder.

If terrible people want to risk their lives and freedom to murder a child in a “back ally abortion clinic”, than they have the God given free will to do so. But a bigger travesty would be to legalize it and allow women to murder their children in a safe environment.
 
SadPotato said:
What if the wife is being abused?
Click to expand...
Abuse is different matter. Probably the husband disagree on the abortion, so they quarrel? Or because she commited adultery? Either way, it is about their child (or probably not): if they quarrel because the husband want the child, most probably it is his child. So the abuse is a separate matter. If he becomes violent because she commit adultery, then probably it wont be born, or it be given for adoption and wont grow in that house. Their relation will be sour or probably end in divorce, but that is the consequence of adultery. So do not commit adultery.
 
francisca.chapter3 said:
Abuse is different matter. Probably the husband disagree on the abortion, so they quarrel? Or because she commited adultery? Either way, it is about their child (or probably not): if they quarrel because the husband want the child, most probably it is his child. So the abuse is a separate matter. If he becomes violent because she commit adultery, then probably it wont be born, or it be given for adoption and wont grow in that house. Their relation will be sour or probably end in divorce, but that is the consequence of adultery. So do not commit adultery.
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about adultery at all. I’m talking about men using an abortion veto as a weapon to keep their wives under their control. Even if a woman were to leave an abusive marriage, having children with her husband would still create a legal connection that can be very hard to dissolve.
 
SadPotato said:
I’m talking about men using an abortion veto as a weapon to keep their wives under their control
Click to expand...
How does he use the veto to control her?
SadPotato said:
Even if a woman were to leave an abusive marriage, having children with her husband would still create a legal connection that can be very hard to dissolve.
Click to expand...
That’s because God create marriage to unite husband and wife, and not in order to dissolve the connection. After divorce, he cannot abuse her anymore. Why the need to dissolve his legal connection to his children?
 
SadPotato said:
Having children with someone makes it infinitely harder to leave them
Click to expand...
This is true, even for non abusive relationship.
SadPotato said:
men who abuse their wives aren’t likely to think twice about abusing their children.
Click to expand...
I know a family whose husband abusive toward the wife, but never touch their children.

Abortion should not be used to simplify relationship.
 
francisca.chapter3 said:
I know a family whose husband abusive toward the wife, but never touch their children.

Abortion should not be used to simplify relationship.
Click to expand...
I’d argue that saving multiple people from an abusive situation is an extremely valid reason.
 
Last edited:
SadPotato said:
Having children with someone makes it infinitely harder to leave them, and men who abuse their wives aren’t likely to think twice about abusing their children.
Click to expand...
Abusers should not get parental rights imo.
 
SadPotato said:
Thing is, I know from multiple loved ones’ experiences that abuse isn’t always easy to prove.
Click to expand...
Even when it is the children aren’t always removed. Sometimes if one child is being abused, only that child is removed, even if there are other children. I read about a man whose mother was very abusive when he was a child. It was caught and he was taken into care, but his siblings were not and she started on one of them.
 
Killing someone as a means of saving them from abuse seems rather extreme.
 
jeannetherese said:
Killing someone as a means of saving them from abuse seems rather extreme.
Click to expand...
The vast majority of abortions happen too early in pregnancy for the embryo to be aware of what’s happening to it. It’s perfectly understandable why a lot of pregnant women would find that preferable to birthing a child who would be in danger of abuse from their father.
 
I don’t think I will support this one. If the situation was reversed and the law is still in effect, it will be used negatively to the wife who is trying to save her unborn child.
 
pulchraesamicamea said:
I don’t think I will support this one. If the situation was reversed and the law is still in effect, it will be used negatively to the wife who is trying to save her unborn child.
Click to expand...
Very true. Violation of bodily autonomy can go both ways.
 
pulchraesamicamea said:
I don’t think I will support this one. If the situation was reversed and the law is still in effect, it will be used negatively to the wife who is trying to save her unborn child.
Click to expand...
He need to physically drag her to the clinic to do that. And even if he can get away with the dragging her, the clinic still won’t perform the abortion without her signature.
 
He can easily just use threats to leave her or kick her out of the house to obtain that signature. In fact, coercion for abortion actually happen so this still doesn’t change anything.
 
From a strictly practical point of view, one might support or reject such a law based solely upon whether or not there would be fewer or more abortions if it was put into place. I don’t know the answer to whether or not it would make a difference, since some would-be fathers pressure the mother to abort and some pressure the mother to give birth.

One possible point fraught with great controversy would be of a would-be rapist father trying to stop a wife of a couple, a wife whom he had raped, from aborting his unborn child. Unless exceptions were made for rape, that controversy alone might be able to sink that law.

I am against abortion, but I think this sort of law would be very hard to get passed and would be a source of great outrage from the usual suspects if it was.
 
Last edited:
When I said abuse is separate issue, I meant there are laws for abuse. So use these laws to deal with abuse cases.

For example if husband threat to kick her out from the house, record his voice and present the evidence as prove of abuse. I believe, these cases of husband abuse exist even now.

Even with woman-privacy-right in place, some men still think that “to subdue woman” is taught by Jesus. Some religious men and some atheist men behave alike with opposite philosophy, but the same motif. Thus it is very possible husband abuse wife to coerce abortion.

When this happens, it depends on how the abuse cases are handled on case by case. The law that forbid husband to coerce abortion on wife already exist ( Roe V Wade). So when husbad do it, he break the law. So therefore to have the law (roe v wade) is the foundation to defend women from any coercion regarding her body.

Go back to husband consent for abortion, he cannot use it to coerce abortion by law. Roe V Wade prevent him from doing so, regardless abuse.

If he abuse her/ use intimidation to get her signature, he could be prosecuted by abuse laws.

Actually, in my opinion, to fine them will be easier for light intimidation reports, especially if there are too many complaints from women, it is harder to send all of them to prison. In the end only heavy cases get penalized by imprisonment. Whereas abuse usually starts with light intimidation first. Light intimidation cases, usually they get away unpenalized.

Fine with increment amount if behavior repeated, is good to prosecute even “light intimidation”, it makes him a record, and at the same time warn him to change behavior. The record can be used as evidence of past behavior towards her.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top