Do you support mandatory spousal consent for abortions?

[opebo]

This person has no control over your body. What is this? The 1700s?

This is exactly what I mean when I say we need to change the paradigm around which we look at this issue.

I think that if you allow somebody to impregnate you and create a new life inside your body, you have effectively given up some degree of control over your body in that process.

That is idiotic, dazzleman.  The impregnator only has control if he is provided with political power (force) over the impregnated. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, the biological fact is that the male and female are seperate individuals, and he only has control of her body in the way you desire by the use of force.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I certainly agree that there should be no state interference in domestic issues such as 'child support'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, they characterize the issue correctly, dazzleman.  You just propose that men be allowed to control women once they impregnate them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, not at all, dazzleman, but rather of the society as a whole, in that poors have a condition imposed upon them which makes the rearing of any child a hopeless proposition.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Biology has nothing to do with this issue, you sill ass.  If we were acting according to our evolved biology all males would be doing as I do - inseminate and run.

[DanielX]

First off, I oppose the 'her body - her choice' paradigm, as the fetus is not a part of her body; otherwise we'd all technically be a part of the body of the first human female and not be individuals.

I oppose the 'mandatory spousal consent' bit because I, unlike most people of a more libertarian bent, oppose elective abortions in the first place. If a safe and reasonable procedure existed to transfer a fetus to an artificial womb, I would support such a procedure (as the womb, etc. are part of the woman's body, and under normal circumstances are subject to her will). However, terminating the fetus for "convenience" reasons is at best morally questionable, not terribly wise from a health perspective (its hardly a risk-free procedure), and not a good idea from a societal perspective (most of the developed world has birth rates that are too low, rather than too high; the short-term price of raising additional children will pay off as there will be more workers to support children and retirees).

if any abortions are to be allowed (probably early-term ones, when the fetus is not developed much and might be considered no more 'human' than a chicken egg), then the spouse should at minimum be informed beforehand (unless the spouse agrees it is not neccesary in their marriage contract). In any case, its not a federal government responsibility-  morals legislation, such as it is, falls to state and local governments.

[Virginian87]

Of course not.  Some people here may accuse me of being a chauvinist pig on account of my views of the traditional family structure, but this is ridiculous. 

As usual, I believe that abortions should be first-trimester only, and only in cases of rape, sexual violence, or some other kind of emergency. 

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Allow abortions only for rape, incest and life of the mother.

[Reignman]

Hell no.

Although I wouldn't mind a law informing spouses.

[Smash255]

No.

I think NCLIB made a great point regarding the type of the relationships that those who would choose not to inform their husband about, are not healthy relationships and potentially abusive relationships.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I can't find myself supporting this.  I can understand that the husband should have a say, but I can't get over those one or two cases where the woman could be put into danger by being forced to inform her husband. 

Also, husbands don't have to birth the child and so many men just leave their wives.  If we have spousal consent, and the husband says no, then if he leaves at some time during the child's upbringing, there should be severe punishment for him.  It's not fair that a man can say no to abortion and then just jump the next train out and leave the woman high and dry with a baby to feed.

At the same time, I do support stricter controls on abortion.  Partial birth abortions should be illegal, and we should actively look to reduce abortion numbers by offering other alternatives.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Absolutely (R)--it's their kid too!

[AkSaber]

No (R).

[SPC]

Parentalconsent on CONCEPTION, not abortion.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Parentalconsent on CONCEPTION, not abortion.

This thread's about spousa consent not parental consent.  Except in cases of marital rape or adultery, I think we can safely assume sousal consent for conception in most cases.

[tik 🪀✨]

A husband is in charge of his wife in all circumstances, this is a given. Therefore, not only should the father need to give consent, but the woman should not be given any power in the choice at all. While under the influence of pregnancy a woman is incapable of making a rational decision. Anyone who says otherwise either has an adorable fascination with personal rights or is just too thick to realize it takes two people to create a baby, and without the father that baby would just have been automatically purged like garbage.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

For married couples, I'll have to vote yes

[Ebowed]

For married couples, I'll have to vote yes

Do you support the husband forcing the wife to get an abortion, too?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I 100% agree with Dazzleman, but as a technical answer to the question -
No (R)

[nclib]

For married couples, I'll have to vote yes

Why should married women have fewer rights than unmarried women?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For married couples, I'll have to vote yes

Why should married women have fewer rights than unmarried women?

So unmarried women should also expect alimony when their relationship ends?  They should by default be able to make decisions about their unmarried partner's health care when that partner is incapacitated?

Marriage is a contract that provides mutual benefits and responsibilities to both partners. If a woman doesn't like the terms of the contract, no one is forcing her to enter into it, or preventing her from crafting a different one.

[nclib]

Women do not give up control of their bodies when they get married.

[jerusalemcar5]

No, I oppose sexism and fascism.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Yes, sometimes ppl who are stupid need their spouse to guide them, and if there spouse they are crazy, so obviously if they disagree they are not crazy (transitive property )

Yeah, Dems aren't buying that

[Gabu]

Yes, sometimes ppl who are stupid need their spouse to guide them, and if there spouse they are crazy, so obviously if they disagree they are not crazy (transitive property )

Sometimes I really wonder if you have a "correct English on/off switch", because I didn't understand a single word of that statement.

Regarding the topic at hand, no, I don't.  While it is certainly a valid argument that the child is also the father's child, it is also the case that the father is not the one who must go through childbirth, which I consider more important.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Yes, sometimes ppl who are stupid need their spouse to guide them, and if there spouse they are crazy, so obviously if they disagree they are not crazy (transitive property )

Sometimes I really wonder if you have a "correct English on/off switch", because I didn't understand a single word of that statement.

Regarding the topic at hand, no, I don't.  While it is certainly a valid argument that the child is also the father's child, it is also the case that the father is not the one who must go through childbirth, which I consider more important.

See I put that post together in 15 seconds, to correct all the mistakes would certainly tack on another 30 seconds

[Gabu]

See I put that post together in 15 seconds, to correct all the mistakes would certainly tack on another 30 seconds

Given that that would take it from "not readable" to "readable", it's probably worth your while, given that there's not much point in posting something that no one can understand.

[NewFederalist]

Given that there's not much point in posting something that no one can understand.

It happens all the time around here!