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

[Hodos]

But the law might prevent some babies from being killed.

First, I highly doubt that such a law would ever be passed, so I don’t agree with that assessment. Second, we need to be careful about the principles that we enshrine in our law. It just so happens that the law tends to be very good at teaching behaviors. So for example, years ago, there were no laws about using seatbelts or carseats. People didn’t give a lot of thought to the dangers of have unrestrained persons in their cars during an accident. Today though it is almost unfathomable to put a child in a car because the law has taught us and reinforced in us that the safety of ourselves and our children when we are driving is important. You get my point, I am sure. Enshrining a law wherein the value of the life of the child is subject to the whim of the mother or father is a mistake. It actually reinforces the patterns of thinking and behaviors that are leading to the use of abortion as birth control, that there is no inherent value in the life of the child apart from whether the mother and/or father decide that it has value. That is why I would be opposed to such a law. I think the states of Missouri and Georgia and Alabama have it right. Enshrined in their anti-abortion laws is the explicitly stated principle that an unborn child is a life that deserves protection under the law, this is regardless of someone else’s view of convenience.

 

[PetraG]

Yes.
Or, as the legal saying goes: Hard cases make bad law.

 

[Inquisitor85]

Oh my word, where to start with this one?

No, the whole premise is flawed. You’d effectively be asking the state to enforce a pregnancy against a person’s wishes. The problem is twofold, firstly the man has no “skin in the game”, his body isn’t on the line, there’s no risk to his health, no increased risk of dying due to complications in pregnancy or childbirth why should he get to FORCE someone to carry his child to term.

Secondly let’s say that it’s an abusive relationship, it’s hardly unheard of for an abuser to impregnate their partner in order to force them into a continued relationship. I’m sure we can all see the issues with your “solution” there.

 

[Lifeisbeautiful3]

Many abortions stem from lack of community support and financial fears. Incentives influence behavior. Not that we would ever ‘pay’ for someone to have a baby, but imagine how many people would carry a baby to term and raise the child or offer for adoption if there were ready community support and financial incentive to do so. Disgusting, for sure. But probably not untrue.

 

[pnewton]

Of course I support the right of a man to protect his child from death. Abortion is not a decision a woman makes about her body, but a decision a woman makes about their body, her and the baby. A person doesn’t have two heads, four lungs, eight limbs, etc. There are two people with a shared body, their body.

 

[skelly]

This thread points out how Roe v Wade was not a well thought out decision on the part of the Supreme Court of the United States. If a woman has a baby and she knows who the father is then she certainly can take his money for the material support of the child regardless of his contribution to the decision whether or not to abort the child or to have a marriage with the mother. This is logical and lawful based on the rights of the child. This is the battle between rights of mother/father/child. That’s why we as a society have cooperated with God’s institution of marriage. Now that we no longer by law and society cooperate with God’s natural marriage we can no longer apply justice consistently on any of these cases and more often the child is discriminated against in the case of abortion, divorce, remarriages, surrogacy, same sex couple adoptions and so on.

 

[Annie]

Wow, imagine if we had a rule that there had to be a commitment between two people having sex so if a child was conceived…

Oh, wait, we once had that rule! And now we are all more free without it!

 

[DarkLight]

And if the woman says no? Does the father still not get a choice for his child?

Secondly let’s say that it’s an abusive relationship, it’s hardly unheard of for an abuser to impregnate their partner in order to force them into a continued relationship. I’m sure we can all see the issues with your “solution” there.

A woman could have some good reasons here to reject a marriage.

 

[Aquinas11]

The question is whether Roe V Wade is / is not violated if this is done.

It’s about upholding the right to life of a fetus conceived within legitimate marriage, without violating Roe V Wade. Is this possible? Because to topple Roe V Wade altogether is hard to do.

If the marriage is recognized by the law, the child’s life should theoretically becomes a right recognized by the law .

Am I right in this?

Please feel free to brainstorm. Any post opinion is appreciated

I am no lawyer and know nothing about law. What I write above comes from reading and listening other people’s opinions plus some bible reading and also private revelation I should say.

I’ll answer legal question you’re asking

The answer is yes, the law requiring husband consent on abortion would be consistent with Roe.

Why? Because Roe is based on “right to privacy”

Where did “right to privacy” come from? 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut case. What did that case involve? Law that banned contraception. The Griswold court created the “right to marital privacy” and reasoned the law banning contraception violates “right to marital privacy” since it violates right of martial couples and their privacy in terms of what they do in privacy of their bedroom. That was foundation of the “right to privacy” used in Roe. So clearly a law that involves both husband and wife in the decision of the abortion would be even more consistent with “right to marital privacy” than if just one is involved in decision.

 

[farronwolf]

Until the courts rule, or an amendment is made determining that life begins at conception this will never take place.

Imagine if a married couple had to ask each others permission to get a tattoo, piercing, whether or not to take medicine for health reasons, or to fight an illness. Not going to happen. Those are all things that have no business being decided by a court.

I understand and fully agree that once there is conception, the man should have equal rights to protect or destroy the life that was created as a result of the two sets of chromosomes combining and making a separate, independent life. However that isn’t the case.

Does it make sense that someone can be charged with murder by committing fetal homicide, and abortion is legal? No, but that is the case.

Currently the privacy of a woman is the deciding factor. I don’t see that changing any time without a Constitutional Amendment which establishes that life begins at conception. Would that create a whole new set of problems, and a completely new set of precedents that would need to be established, absolutely.

 

[Rhubarb]

No. Gross.

We did away with coverture. A long time ago.

 

[DarkLight]

No it doesn’t, but it does mean that framing it as just about marital rights is a terrible idea. As is making it so neither woman nor child can get support without marriage.

If you can’t un-pregnant someone we’re going to need a system that does a bit more than tell people they should be married.

 

[Dolphin]

The ends of possibly less abortions does not justify the means of sexism and oppression

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

No, since we already have proposed laws that restrict abortions and if they pass this is unnecessary and gives pro-choice activists a chance to play victim.

 

[Anicette]

I support that men can say no to abortion, because it is their child and it is pro life.

I don’t support that men can force an abortion on a woman.

I don’t support that a man can mandate his wife to not abort/or to abort if her life is at a serious risk.

i support the choice of a woman to give her child to adoption, maybe without anyone knowing her name, even if the father that no longer live with her disagree.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

Thankyou all for your response.

I probably should clarify that the law cannot be used by a husband to drag his wife to abortion clinic.

A husband consent to abortion will have to appear in his signature on the abortion form-- which previously requires only one signature (the woman’s signature only), but now requires two signatures (if the woman is married), in order the clinic perform the abortion.

I will try to respond not to each post but to some of the ideas here

 

[francisca.chapter3]

I don’t support abortion at all, so any laws that doesn’t restrict it would have my disapproval by default. Plenty of women are usually pressured to abort by the fathers, too.

Also, most people who abort (if im not mistaken) are unmarried. So the law would have to extend to fathers, including rapists. This wouldn’t sit well for most people.

If you were to make a law just for husbands, I guess you would have to justify why married fathers have a right to their child’s life and not unmarried.

It is harder for the law to establish the right for a man to have a say about a woman’s body if they are not married.

In fact what we are trying to discuss here is to establish a husband’s right to have a say about his child without offending his wife’s privacy right

I agree to the poster who say that a man has a right to say “marry me, and I will take care of you and your child”. A man cannot just merely “feel sad”, he has to be willing to marry the woman and raise the child, in order to have a say, I suppose, otherwise its too much to give some man to have a say about a woman’s body whom he is not even willing to marry.

 

[Lea101]

It is harder for the law to establish the right for a man to have a say about a woman’s body if they are not married.

? So now the law is about having a say over a woman’s body.

Well that’s the thing isn’t it. Because husbands don’t have a legal right to their wife’s body. Wives don’t need consent from their husbands if they want their wisdom teeth removed. It’s not harder or whatever like that. They don’t and shouldn’t have legal rights over the woman’s bodies like that. Now, one could butt in here and say ‘abortion is different, this is about taking a life!’.

Which then brings us to this: Should it be legal for parents to consent to their child’s murder?

In fact what we are trying to discuss here is to establish a husband’s right to have a say about his child without offending his wife’s privacy right

Ok, now it’s the right to their child. Like I said earlier, abortion was legalised because of arguments relating to bodily autonomy. It would be a contradiction to say that abortion is legal, but they need consent before they can do it.

Because if you can’t do something without the consent, you no longer have the autonomy. So now it becomes about whether a father should have the right to consent to the child’s death or not.

This is then tricky because obviously we would say that’s ridiculous because everyone has a right to life, even fetuses with fathers who want them dead.

While I believe there are some Republicans who tried to pass similar laws, I think this law is something both pro lifers and choicers should be confused about.

 

[QwertyGirl]

A husband consent to abortion will have to appear in his signature on the abortion form-- which previously requires only one signature (the woman’s signature only), but now requires two signatures (if the woman is married), in order the clinic perform the abortion.

A fabulous way to deter even more couples from marrying!

 

[Lea101]

A husband consent to abortion will have to appear in his signature on the abortion form-- which previously requires only one signature (the woman’s signature only), but now requires two signatures (if the woman is married), in order the clinic perform the abortion.

What’s stopping women from lying and saying that the husband is not the father of the child?