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.
Hodos said:
. It just so happens that the law tends to be very good at teaching behaviors
Click to expand...
I agree. So, if the law require husband’s signature, the wife must inform him. Hopefully, he will defend both the child and his wife from abortion
.
 
francisca.chapter3 said:
DNA test, I suppose?
Click to expand...
I don’t know if that’s even possible to do in the first trimester. Or if it’s even safe to do it later om in the pregnancy.

This can also be a huge violation of her privacy right, because you would be forcing the husband to be aware of her affair…and of course making her take an invasive test because of that law.

Anyway, I hope you see how impractical this would play out in real life.

Unmarried fathers would also be insisting for the right to their children, while government officials would say husbands get that right because they have a legal right to the woman’s body.

Which like I said earlier makes no sense unless one is willing to make him consent to all sorts of things the woman does.
 
Last edited:
QwertyGirl said:
40.png
francisca.chapter3:
DNA test, I suppose?
Click to expand...
On a 3 week old pregnancy?
Click to expand...
I do not know about the technical detail of it. If it is not possible now, probably for the future?

At least the principle of it first: to acknowledge that the fetus has the right to life from legitimate marriage of the parents-- with assumption they are the parents. And if so, how to protect this right without offending womans privacy right
 
Lea101 said:
This can also be a huge violation of her privacy right, because you would be forcing the husband to be aware of her affair
Click to expand...
You are right in this, I suppose

Or, it may be possible to do DNA test without the husband knowing about it first. Again, I am not sure about the technical detail. The technical of DNA test will probably be solved over time.
 
Last edited:
francisca.chapter3 said:
to acknowledge that the fetus has the right to life from legitimate marriage of the parents-
Click to expand...
This is a dangerous zone. Fetuses have the right to live. Unmarried parents or not. Circumstances surrounding the fetus doesn’t grant rights or take them away. A legitimate marriage does not and should not grant the right to life on children.

Hence, this is something neither pro choice or pro life advocates should want.

Of course, law and politics (and even the immorality of abortion aside) aside, I do think fathers should have some sort of say. It doesn’t make much sense for fathers to have 0 say and get insulted and mocked for it when they want the baby. However, if a father doesn’t want a child, he is forced to pay child support. He apparently doesn’t have financial autonomy.

Maybe that’s the place where this idea is coming from. But I just don’t think legislation about this is the way to go.
francisca.chapter3 said:
Or, it may be possible to do DNA test without the husband knowing about it first
Click to expand...
It’s not possible to do a paternity test that soon, and I don’t know how it can be done without him knowing. It’s a breach of ethics since someone would be stealing DNA and testing it. You need consent for all of this.
 
Last edited:
Lea101 said:
This is a dangerous zone. Fetuses have the right to live. Unmarried parents or not.
Click to expand...
Legitimate marriage is recognized by the law. Therefore it becomes easier to push the law to recognize the fetus right.

Unmarried parents may commit adultery offending the lawful marriage, therefore it is harder to push the law to recognized that right of a fetus whose existance in conflict with what the law is trying to uphold
 
Aquinas11 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thankyou so much for this information
 
I would just support it because it would probably decrease the number of abortions. I would even support a law requiring my neighbor across the road to consent to all abortions. The more people that have to consent, the less abortions.
 
It’s just not effective and allows the father to go through with the abortion. It’s not a good rule and is likely harder to give the father the right to have say on the women, than for the fetus to have the right to live.
 
I don’t believe in abortion, but I also don’t believe a woman should have complete right to kill a man’s child without consulting with him. It took two to create the child why should it be only be one who gets to decide to kill it? Saying “it’s her body” well she should of thought about that before she had sex with the man.
 
Melbourne said:
Saying “it’s her body” well she should of thought about that before she had sex with the man.
Click to expand...
It is her body. The man owns his body too. Their body is entrusted to them by God. It is not up to the woman how the man should treat his body.

This is why Roe v Wade is a needed law: to protect womens privacy from men who think they have access to them without having to marry them.

But I suppose a husband is part of a womans privacy, based on sacrament of marriage (which the couple give to each other: they are no longer two, but one and inseparable). Even civil law state this privacy too (1965 Griswold v. Connecticut case).
 
Last edited:
Melbourne said:
It took two to create the child why should it be only be one who gets to decide to kill it?
Click to expand...
If the two decide it is okay to abort it is that okay? I assume you would think not, so this isn’t good logic.
 
I think I would only consent to a father having a veto right to an abortion. And I wouldn’t limit it to the married.

The law would have to be written in such a way that the man cannot request an abortion.

Also, in unmarried situations, the veto would be part of an automatic request for full custody, which I would want possible for the mother to gain partial custody if she decides she wants the baby later.
 
Last edited:
Lea101 said:
Circumstances surrounding the fetus doesn’t grant rights or take them away. A legitimate marriage does not and should not grant the right to life on children.

Hence, this is something neither pro choice or pro life advocates should want.
Click to expand...
God give life to all. I believe this, yes, regardless the parents marriage status.

However, a child right (based on human law) is under adult custody until he is 18. So the question become how to establish such (human) law if the mom decides on abortion.

We should also remember our law recognize family.

Or shall we declare abortion as murder, so then the state get to decide everything for a family whether to not to abort ANY pregnancy even if it was from rape? Isn’t this the opposite extreme proposed by some prolife, without knowing the consequence of such means to demean the privacy of a marriage.

This does not in anyway teaches that God does not will life for fetus of unmarried parents. This is just a way to let a husband to have a say.
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
Also, in unmarried situations, the veto would be part of an automatic request for full custody, which I would want possible for the mother to gain partial custody if she decides she wants the baby later
Click to expand...
You probably should start another thread for this. It is whole separate discussion because it has different factors at play there.

For married parents it should be much simpler to establish fetus right. This has been on my mind and I wonder why nobody (those prolife movements) have not bring this up yet.
 
francisca.chapter3 said:
For married parents it should be much simpler to establish fetus right. This has been on my mind and I wonder why nobody (those prolife movements) have not bring this up yet.
Click to expand...
Because I think it’s a slippery slope argument. I’m not a lawyer, but my GUESS is that if someone was to make that argument and lose, it COULD make things even worse.

Lawyers always weigh the risks of a negative outcome before deciding to take a case to court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top