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.
francisca.chapter3 said:
would you support it if the civil law give right for the husband to consent to/ forbid the wife from aborting pregnancy conceived within legitimate marriage?
Click to expand...
No. Furthermore, I think it may run the risk of harming the pro-life cause. (context: USA)
 
Last edited:
Rape doesn’t have to include physical violence, rape is sex without consent. You seriously misunderstand that. What 'medical report’s? Whst if the husband just excused any bruising with the excuse that his wife likes rough sex? What symptoms would ‘prove’ a rape took place?

The life of the woman and the unborn fetus take precedence over the personal views of the man. Physically, he’s no longer involved after the woman is pregnant.

Are you a priest? To say that ‘marriage assumes sex’ and that rape doesn’t occur unless violence is involved is a gross misunderstanding of the way relationships work.
 
I think we go to an another debate: domestic violence.

The live of a child is valuable regarless of the circunsntances of his conception.

Does the people that go into this debate, think that the child should live in ideal circunstances but not in less ideal circunstances?
francisca.chapter3 said:
If husband divorce the wife, then she can sign the abortion form with single signature, or give the baby for adoption, or she raise it on her own.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that many legislationw would permit a marriagee to be disolve during the time where a legal abortion is allowed…
 
depend on the marriage’s legislation.
But in some countries, some divorces happened because of the refusal of the marital debt.
 
This type of proposal is nonsensical.

A. Unmarried women are most at risk of committing abortion. Why are we targeting the most stable population?

B. A husband that objects to an abortion would likely be divorced by the wife. Once the divorce is complete, the protect for the unborn child would GO AWAY. The law does NOTHING.

This type of proposal is a farce, with no practical value. All it would do is prove that “Christians” consider women to be chattel property, which is itself a nonsensical position for a Christian to believe.
 
runningdude said:
B. A husband that objects to an abortion would likely be divorced by the wife. Once the divorce is complete, the protect for the unborn child would GO AWAY. The law does NOTHING.
Click to expand...
Just a practical counter argument. In many countries, abortion is only legal in the first trimester. And A divorce often takes more than 3 months to be complete…
 
Polite_Atheist said:
Finally, spousal rape is a thing. What if a husband rapes his wife, then denies to consent to abortion? What then?
Click to expand...
Then his child is not killed. This is not a bad thing. This whole spousal rape rabbit trail is too convoluted to consider. Perhaps marriage is not for everyone.
 
QwertyGirl said:
It is a mistake to assume anything about anyone’s marriage.
Click to expand...
Apparently not even the definition. What a perverse society we have become, not just sexually, but linguistically. You can’t just make words mean new things, or something different for everyone.
 
Anicette said:
The live of a child is valuable regarless of the circunsntances of his conception.

Does the people that go into this debate, think that the child should live in ideal circunstances but not in less ideal circunstances?
Click to expand...
That’s kind of the point. Making it all about the husband fundamentally undermines both those arguments.
 
I haven’t read most of the responses. But from a policy standpoint, this wouldn’t address the majority of abortion, which are performed on unmarried women.

A much, much greater priority should be placed on combating abortion coercion, i.e. men threatening women if they don’t get abortions. That’s a thorn in the side of the pro-“choice” movement.
 
blackforest said:
A much, much greater priority should be placed on combating abortion coercion, i.e. men threatening women if they don’t get abortions. That’s a thorn in the side of the pro-“choice” movement.
Click to expand...
Yep. This right here.
 
Not at all! They are now able to separate fetal cells from maternal cells in a simple blood sample from mother. Testing is then performed on the separated fetal cells. The older and riskier method required amniotic fluid.

So with a maternal blood sample and a sample from the “father” they are able to to match…or not…from the DNA obtained. Hope that helps!
 
The civil definition is what defines this particular law so depending on what it says could make a difference.
 
Pattylt said:
The older and riskier method required amniotic fluid.
Click to expand...
Thankyou much.

I need to clarify some info above:

You mean the older the pregnancy the more risk for the reliability of test result or you mean more invasive, because the test need to take the fluid from the womb? So how young/ old is best/ reliable test using mother’s blood sample only?

Is this newest tech available for public or is still in limited places/ under research?

Any citations ?

Thankyou again
 
runningdude said:
A. Unmarried women are most at risk of committing abortion. Why are we targeting the most stable population?
Click to expand...
In order to uphold foetus CIVIL right, it has to start from married parents first. The law must flow from whatever recognized by the law first, then whatever else as consequence of it.

Some prolife people still hope that they can topple Roe v Wade. But this Roe v Wade has been used as Judicial Precedents by many other binding rulings. One of those is Planned Parenthood versus Casey. This one is the bases why now clinics bound to make sure women see their fetus heartbeat and get all the information before decide on the abortion.

Roe v Wade also becomes the bases why no man can by law force a woman to abort (or not to abort) her pregnancy. Man can still physically/ mentally force a woman to abort her pregnancy, but that would be against the law (against Roe v Wade to be more precise).

As you all can see, the law is built layer by layer. It is difficult to topple Roe v Wade, and for what? It will make prolife work go back to zero.

I am open to correction. All inspirations need to be tested.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
40.png
QwertyGirl:
It is a mistake to assume anything about anyone’s marriage.
Click to expand...
Apparently not even the definition. What a perverse society we have become, not just sexually, but linguistically. You can’t just make words mean new things, or something different for everyone.
Click to expand...
@QwertyGirl
Two people cannot marry because they share the same hobby, or they like to walk around in the park holding hands.

If no sex within civil marriage, that marriage is considered civilly illegal. Many illegal marriage is used to obtain citizenship. These couples they enter civil marriage with no intention of having no sex. These are illegal marriage.

I agree with pnewton.
Law language doesn’t change definitions
 
Last edited:
Polite_Atheist said:
Rape doesn’t have to include physical violence, rape is sex without consent.
Click to expand...
When you are married to someone, you consent sex too. Therefore marital rape with no violence whatsoever, it is questionable when it is used for excuse for aborting their own.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top