F
francisca.chapter3
Guest
And the reason it is dubious is?
Besides it is not “outlawing”. It is to help the husband and wife to decide as a couple, and-- as you mentioned-- it is inline with previous rulings
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Would you support it if the Civil Law Give Right for Husband to Consent to/ Forbid Wife's Abortion
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Besides it is not “outlawing”. It is to help the husband and wife to decide as a couple, and-- as you mentioned-- it is inline with previous rulings
L
Lea101
Guest
I see.
But the 3 points seem to contradict each other?
You’re against abortion and want it restricted, and yet you want women to have a choice. I’m pretty confused over that because restrictions by nature would take that choice away. Unless you’re referring to late term abortions and that sort of stuff, which is a pretty common stance for a lot of people.
But also, if you don’t want her to be coerced by anybody, husbands having a say would be technically be coercion since she needs his permission to abort. If he disagrees, she can’t abort and is coerced to carry the baby to term?
But the 3 points seem to contradict each other?
You’re against abortion and want it restricted, and yet you want women to have a choice. I’m pretty confused over that because restrictions by nature would take that choice away. Unless you’re referring to late term abortions and that sort of stuff, which is a pretty common stance for a lot of people.
But also, if you don’t want her to be coerced by anybody, husbands having a say would be technically be coercion since she needs his permission to abort. If he disagrees, she can’t abort and is coerced to carry the baby to term?
F
francisca.chapter3
Guest
A husband is not the same as “anybody”But also, if you don’t want her to be coerced by anybody, husbands having a say would be technically be coercion since she needs his permission to abort.
Last edited:
E
Elf01
Guest
He already has to pay child support even if he didn’t want the child.If man want to have a say, they have to pay.
L
Lifeisbeautiful3
Guest
As he d@mn well should.He already has to pay child support even if he didn’t want the child.
R
runningdude
Guest
It is specifically NOT in line with previous rulings.Besides it is not “outlawing”. It is to help the husband and wife to decide as a couple, and-- as you mentioned-- it is inline with previous rulings
It is a dubious strategy because Griswold never required the husband’s permission to use birth control. It stated that marriage created an expectation of privacy that precluded searching a couple’s bedroom for illicit birth control. This expectation of privacy was expanded by the US Supreme Court to preclude the state from checking to see whether a fetus was still in a women’s uterus or not, which is the logic by which abortion became legal nationwide under Roe v Wade.
The idea that the law could be narrowed back so that a husband could check to see whether a fetus were still in his wife’s uterus or not is a legal non-starter. The invasion of his wife’s legal right to privacy would kill any such proposed law immediately.
To put it bluntly, abortion is only going to be outlawed when the unborn child’s right to life is found to be more legally compelling than a women’s right to not have her uterus inspected.
There is trade off between a child’s right to life, and a women’s right to privacy over her body. The proposal to allow a husband greater control over his wife’s body is a trade off in the wrong direction. It is simply not a viable strategy toward promoting the child’s legal interest in life.
Last edited:
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
There’s hardly a difference.A husband is not the same as “anybody”
L
Lea101
Guest
When you say you don’t want women to be coerced by anybody, anybody literally means anyone who would coerce her.
F
francisca.chapter3
Guest
I think, to require husband’s signature does not automatically give consent to inspect her uterus. Should husband refuse to give his consent for abortion, she retain her right of privacy, which is to live with herself in peace and nothing is done to her and her uterus and fetus. Nobody is given consent to inspect her.To put it bluntly, abortion is only going to be outlawed when the unborn child’s right to life is found to be more legally compelling than a women’s right to not have her uterus inspected
Last edited:
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Might as well skip the husband and outlaw abortion.Should husband refuse to give his consent for abortion, she retain her right of privacy, which is to live with herself in peace and nothing is done to her and her uterus and fetus. Nobody is given consent to inspect her.
Last edited:
R
runningdude
Guest
That is fundamental misunderstanding of the law surrounding abortion. “Inspect her” is a legal fiction, a hypothetical scenario that is consider obviously intrusive. From this obviously intrusive conclusion, it is further concluded that a women must have a great deal of autonomy to make medical decisions without undo interference from others to protect her privacy from intrusion. This includes intrusion from her husband.I think, to require husband’s signature does not automatically give consent to inspect her uterus. Should husband refuse to give his consent for abortion, she retain her right of privacy, which is to live with herself in peace and nothing is done to her and her uterus and fetus. Nobody is given consent to inspect her.
Until the child’s right to life is found more compelling that a women’s right to make certain medical decisions, abortion will remain legal. Any purported legal action that does not directly further the child’s right to life will be futile in outlawing abortion.
Last edited:
F
francisca.chapter3
Guest
In otherwords, to overturn Roe v Wade, will outlawing abortion completely, but at the same time, opens to “woman’s uterus inspected by state” in order to protect fetus right to life by the state.This expectation of privacy was expanded by the US Supreme Court to preclude the state from checking to see whether a fetus was still in a women’s uterus or not, which is the logic by which abortion became legal nationwide under Roe v Wade.
I wonder whether this scenario is what we want.
R
runningdude
Guest
In order to ban abortion, you need to verify that a women does not receive an abortion. This potentially involves looking into her medical history, which would intrude on her privacy.In otherwords, to overturn Roe v Wade, will outlawing abortion completely, but at the same time, opens to “woman’s uterus inspected by state” in order to protect fetus right to life by the state.
There is a real and inherit conflict between a child’s right to life and a women’s right to privacy.
F
francisca.chapter3
Guest
And would you rather to take away that privacy, knowing the world out there begin to snoop on everybody’s concurrent location, locatin history, search history, youtube watch history, buying habits, health spending, tax, emails, contacts and so on?There is a real and inherit conflict between a child’s right to life and a women’s right to privacy.
Would you trust the state to treat your woman as if she’s her own child enemy? I would not allow any strangers to have power over my own
house.
And if a man want to have a say, marry the woman in order to enter into marriage privacy where logically a husband share custody of the children of that marriage. Otherwise he cannot enter that boundary of womans privacy.
Last edited:
S
Sarcelle
Guest
How about for those unmarried women?
What if the father wants to keep the baby and support it, even raise it by himself if need be?
He’s no less a father than a married man.
What if the father wants to keep the baby and support it, even raise it by himself if need be?
He’s no less a father than a married man.
Last edited:
F
francisca.chapter3
Guest
There will be no change for unmarried woman. Everything remain the same like now.How about for those unmarried women?
An unmarried man want to raise his child alone, separated from the woman? This is unlikely to happen.What if the father wants to keep the baby and support it, even raise it by himself if need be?
There will be no change for unmarried man and woman. Yes, they are no less a father and a mother.He’s no less a father than a married man.
The law is about giving a say to husbands though, not to unmarried men.
Last edited:
S
Sarcelle
Guest
Why is it unlikely to happen?An unmarried man want to raise his child alone, separated from the woman? This is unlikely to happen.
The number of single fathers is on the rise, so yes, it is likely to happen. Some of them are single due to being divorced or widowed while there are some who are unmarried.
F
francisca.chapter3
Guest
The fetus is inside the woman, and the man want the fetus and raise it alone after birth? It is up to the woman. She can give it to him after birth.
They are unmarried. He has no say. He may as well forget his own words three months later he found another girl.
I hope you get the difference between married and unmarried.
They are unmarried. He has no say. He may as well forget his own words three months later he found another girl.
I hope you get the difference between married and unmarried.
Last edited:
Q
QwertyGirl
Guest
There will be no change for unmarried woman. Everything remain the same like now.
[/
That is an interesting way to encourage couples to not marry. Not sure why you would want to do that, though. They will still live together and have sex and babies.
Last edited:
R
runningdude
Guest
I hope you realize how misandric a statement that isThey are unmarried. He has no say. He may as well forget his own words three months later he found another girl.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.