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

[francisca.chapter3]

If it’s based on the child’s right to life, then base your argument on that. Not on some stuff about the rights of a man over his wife.

Three alternatives to decide for foetus:

1. Define abotion within marriage as breach of foetus civil right, punishable by law. This give power to the state to execute foetus Civil Right against parents will, allow it to dishonour womans privacy, as well as marriage privacy
2. Give husband shared custody of the
   unborn, but let the couple as the custody holders decide for their foetus, with no interference from outside marriage (uphold marriage privacy as well as womans privacy).
3. Wife as sole custody holder decides for her own body as well as the foetus body (uphold womans privacy, foetus right decides by wife only)

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Give husband shared custody of the
unborn, but let the couple as the custody holders decide for their foetus, with no interference from outside marriage (uphold marriage privacy as well as womans privacy).

The women’s privacy is violated by the husband. The first option is better since the life of the fetus is more important than any privacy.

 

[Polite_Atheist]

I’m glad you see spousal rape as a ‘rabbit trail’ The victims sure don’t

 

[francisca.chapter3]

Marital rape takes whole new thread to discuss.

My answers here influenced by the fact that some prolife people are willing to go as far as to coerce woman to give birth to a stranger’s child by rape.

This line of logic is tested here: This is about aborting/ not aborting foetus conceived by sex (alleged rape) within marriage with the husband.

 

[Lea101]

So, if I follow this logic, why a husband who has not (presumely) fathered the child of his wife, but her lover would be automatically considered as the legal father regarless of the biology?

Because that’s not his child? And I don’t get why you said regardless of biology. That was not my argument at all.

My stance is that legally, husbands (or a partner) has no legal right over the woman’s body. This means that if abortion is legal (which I’m against) because of arguments surrounding autonomy, nobody but the mother needs to consent to the procedure.

Do you think DNA and conception is more important than a marriage, and that all the children born in it would be treated the same? Is that right than the first one has two parents, and the second has only a mother because of an adultery while the two adults stay married?

I don’t understand what you’re talking about. Who said anything about two parents vs one parent?

We’re talking about abortion. The child would, in this case, be aborted.

If you’re talking about the child being born and raised up (which is out of topic), the child would have his mother and his biological father. Assuming he would want to be part of the child’s life.

If he doesn’t, and the husband wants to step in and be his father, that’s possible too. But this would obviously mean that he would have to be aware of the affair or else this would entail the woman lying. Which is a sin.

With your argument who would conclude that it is stupid that the husband is the father, but it is how the christian society had worked for many centuries…

Yes, it makes sense to immediately assume the husband is the father. But when the wife is literally saying “No, he’s not. It’s ____’ s baby”, that assumption is now silly to still hold. Do we just write off the biological father? Do we just say who cares if he’s sad that he can’t raise his babyp? If we’re talking about legal rights over such (born) children, usually paternity testing would be done.

But because we are talking about pregnancy and abortion, you could just avoid this whole ordeal by not requiring husbands to consent to the murder of a child that is his/not even his. It’s not pro life law. Not even a good pro choice law either.

 

[Lea101]

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.

You consent to a sexual relationship, not every instance of sex. Marital rape with no violence is possible and is obviously a sin.

That’s kind of the point. Making it all about the husband fundamentally undermines both those arguments.

Exactly. When you’re saying that husbands legally need to consent to an abortion, you’re saying that the child does not have inherent value until both parents want the child.

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.

I’m against abortion, but this doesn’t justify the proposed law. Abusive husbands are known to get the wife pregnant, and the severity of abuse is known to increase during pregnancy and will extend to the child after it is born.

The more consistent approach is to ban abortion, and even if it isn’t banned, you provide resources for the mother to escape and raise her child in peace. Instead of proposing this law.

 

[pnewton]

Really? Do you know what the phrase “rabbit trail” means? It does not mean it is unimportant. I think rather that most women are intelligent know the difference. Not everything here is abortion, but then neither does abortion mean everything.

I said what I did because violence against someone is never an excuse for violence against another, innocent third party. Spousal rape is not abortion, just like it is not murder of any kind. It seldom can have any legal recourse except separation, which is most likely needed. I still say it is not relevant to the topic here. I believe it instead to be a rhetorical distraction from what abortion actually is.

 

[pnewton]

Abusive husbands are known to get the wife pregnant, and the severity of abuse is known to increase during pregnancy and will extend to the child after it is born.

Rare cases, unusual cases, make bad laws. Yes, it is possible for spousal rape to result in a pregnancy the first time it happens. But after a few times, the person who chooses to continue to live with a person they claim is a rapist must accept some responsibility for that decision.

A few years ago, there was a case where a man found his child being molested and in a fit of rage killed the rapist. He could not even be indicted. This is what society thinks of the rights of a father to protect his child from sexual assault. I believe I am perfectly consistent in believing in the right of any parent to protect their child from an cruel and unjust death.

Yes, it makes sense to immediately assume the husband is the father. But when the wife is literally saying “No, he’s not. It’s ____’ s baby”, that assumption is now silly to still hold. Do we just write off the biological father? Do we just say who cares if he’s sad that he can’t raise his babyp? If we’re talking about legal rights over such (born) children, usually paternity testing would be done.

Realizing that this whole thread is hypothetical and unrealistic, then I guess I should interject that this would not phase me one bit. I see no-fault divorce as the greatest harm every committed to the family. Once we allowed adultery without any civil consequences, we encouraged adultery. Therefore, I would would, hypothetically, have no issue denying those who commit adultery to loose all power of choice, as well as everything else, if a divorce ensued.

 

[pnewton]

Sure you can. They are just words. Language is constantly evolving.

The extent to which you redefine it makes discussion extremely difficult. If words mean nothing objective, we might as well just post blah, blah, blah. I can only speak for myself, but once I see someone using words in unique ways, with no reasoning behind it, I pretty much have to disregard that as I would someone speaking in tongues.

I simply have to ignore the idea that there can be a marriage, no sex, and a baby, because it happened once 2000 years ago.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

I would would, hypothetically, have no issue denying those who commit adultery to loose all power of choice, as well as everything else, if a divorce ensued.

This has crossed my mind too.

Hypothetically, a man who sleep with other man’s wife should know that he may have placed his own flesh and blood under other man’s roof. I mean, what sort of right he has in doing that?

 

[Sarcelle]

As others have said before it would be a lot easier to ban abortion outright than to implement this proposed law.

 

[pnewton]

No doubt. I do not see this as any more than a thought experiment.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

Marital rape with no violence

Not enough reason to murder their own child.

 

[Lea101]

Not enough reason to murder their own child.

A weird response, given that I didn’t say that it was, and that you’re arguing in favour of a father being able to consent to abortion, which also doesn’t justify the murder of a child.

Edit: even rape with violence isn’t enough to justify an abortion. And hence…

As others have said before it would be a lot easier to ban abortion outright than to implement this proposed law.

This is true

 

[Lea101]

But after a few times, the person who chooses to continue to live with a person they claim is a rapist must accept some responsibility for that decision

This would be a very ignorant and uncharitable stance given that wives in this situation are often dependent on their husbands and even women’s shelters and social workers would say that these women would need time to save and/or to get everything in check before immediately leaving after the rape.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

francisca.chapter3:

Not enough reason to murder their own child.

A weird response, given that I didn’t say that it was, and that you’re arguing in favour of a father being able to consent to abortion, which also doesn’t justify the murder of a child.

Edit: even rape with violence isn’t enough to justify an abortion. And hence…

As others have said before it would be a lot easier to ban abortion outright than to implement this proposed law.

This is true

And yet, one person signature in the form makes it easier to abortion

 

[Lea101]

And yet, one person signature in the form makes it easier to abortion

Restricting abortion access must make sense if you want it to be law. Otherwise, we can start suggesting crazy stuff like being able to hula hoop for 5 minutes, lol.

As seen from this thread, it’s very difficult to justify this proposed law besides saying that it will reduce some abortions. That’s not enough. People have brought up that most abortions are from unmarried women, not married women in stable relationships anyway.

Proposed laws that aim to restrict abortions such as mandatory counselling, a waiting period, showing the mother ultrasound images and abortion procedures etc are a lot more reasonable since it’s making the women aware of what’s going on. Which not all women know thanks to plenty of pro choice programming.

 

[pnewton]

This would be a very ignorant and uncharitable stance given that wives in this situation are often dependent on their husbands and even women’s shelters and social workers would say that these women would need time to save and/or to get everything in check before immediately leaving after the rape.

I would say rather that my opinion of women is more charitable than this idea that they are weak and incapable of much. But I know it is part of our culture that people want more and more privileges without the responsibility for any of the results that goes along with the decisions one makes. But then, I most of the women I have know have been capable equals of men, and do not need the treatment one affords children.

…before immediately leaving after the rape.

I did not say that. If you take what I said with this amount of inaccuracy, then it would be understandable that you think it uncharitable.

 

[QwertyGirl]

It is unsettling, the number of people who believe, for example, that marital rape doesn’t have to be violent. Duh. That is an oxymoron. Rape is violent, even if there are no scars or bruises to be seen. It is emotionally violent. Very violent.

It has been discussed here rather in a really distrubing way. I think far more education is needed for many.

 

[pnewton]

FYI

Definition of VIOLENCE

the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy; an instance of violent treatment or procedure; injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com