• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should a pregnant wife inform her husband if she is having and abortion?

Should a pregnant wife inform her husband if she is having and abortion?

  • Yes, he has a right to know its his child too

    Votes: 24 80.0%
  • No, its her body not his

    Votes: 6 20.0%

  • Total voters
    30
I have been seriously considering this, I can't really find a way that anyone would know if indeed a husband was notified, other then signing off on it, and that would indeed be a permission slip?:confused:

It may well be impossible, any thoughts?
 
aps said:
Where does it end? If the husband secretly wants to have a vasectomy, should he have to inform his wife? Morally yes, legally no.
To expound on that thought...a personal anecdote. My step-father was married once before he married my mom 15 or so years ago. He had two children from his previous marriage. Two children he originally didn't want. They discussed and had agreed on not having children but his wife at the time changed her mind and went off of the pill without telling him. Bam, there was the first kid. After that, they only had relations when he was wearing a condom. Well, she wanted a second kid, so out came the needle and she made holes in the condoms. After that, snip-snip down vasectomy lane (and a divorce not too much further down the road too).

And while the pill and condom are not foolproof measures, circumventing them without consent of both parties knowledge is morally reprehensible. As would a woman getting an abortion behind her husband's back. The point still remains that I don't see why the law should get involved in either of these cases.
 
Deegan said:
I have been seriously considering this, I can't really find a way that anyone would know if indeed a husband was notified, other then signing off on it, and that would indeed be a permission slip?:confused:

It may well be impossible, any thoughts?

Well, his signature wouldn't be giving her permission but rather acknowledging that he is aware that his wife is going to have an abortion.

That just seems weird to me. "Honey, will you sign on the dotted line to acknowledge that I am having an abortion?" Yikes.
 
shuamort said:
To expound on that thought...a personal anecdote. My step-father was married once before he married my mom 15 or so years ago. He had two children from his previous marriage. Two children he originally didn't want. They discussed and had agreed on not having children but his wife at the time changed her mind and went off of the pill without telling him. Bam, there was the first kid. After that, they only had relations when he was wearing a condom. Well, she wanted a second kid, so out came the needle and she made holes in the condoms. After that, snip-snip down vasectomy lane (and a divorce not too much further down the road too).

And while the pill and condom are not foolproof measures, circumventing them without consent of both parties knowledge is morally reprehensible. As would a woman getting an abortion behind her husband's back. The point still remains that I don't see why the law should get involved in either of these cases.


Exactly. While it might not have been the best thing for the relationship, it's nothing that the gov should be getting involved in.

Although it's good for us here at DP that she went that route....:smile: :lol:
 
aps said:
Well, his signature wouldn't be giving her permission but rather acknowledging that he is aware that his wife is going to have an abortion.

That just seems weird to me. "Honey, will you sign on the dotted line to acknowledge that I am having an abortion?" Yikes.

Yes, but without it, I'm assuming the abortion would be on hold, I guess I am changing my postion after that careful consideration.
 
shuamort said:
To expound on that thought...a personal anecdote. My step-father was married once before he married my mom 15 or so years ago. He had two children from his previous marriage. Two children he originally didn't want. They discussed and had agreed on not having children but his wife at the time changed her mind and went off of the pill without telling him. Bam, there was the first kid. After that, they only had relations when he was wearing a condom. Well, she wanted a second kid, so out came the needle and she made holes in the condoms. After that, snip-snip down vasectomy lane (and a divorce not too much further down the road too).

And while the pill and condom are not foolproof measures, circumventing them without consent of both parties knowledge is morally reprehensible. As would a woman getting an abortion behind her husband's back. The point still remains that I don't see why the law should get involved in either of these cases.

That is appalling. I posed that example because I have a friend whose husband had a vasectomy without telling her and all this time, she was wondering why she couldn't get pregnant. She felt utterly betrayed.

shaumort, I think a woman going off the pill without consulting her partner is reprehensible too.
 
Deegan said:
Yes, but without it, I'm assuming the abortion would be on hold, I guess I am changing my postion after that careful consideration.

Good point. What if he refuses to sign?
 
aps said:
Good point. What if he refuses to sign?

Well, I was going to ask to change my vote, but the wording does not imply, "by law" so I'm safe, if my wife were to read this anyway.:shock:
 
Deegan said:
Well, I was going to ask to change my vote, but the wording does not imply, "by law" so I'm safe, if my wife were to read this anyway.:shock:

You're right. I should change my vote. I said no, but I was thinking only in the "legal" sense. Morally, I think a woman should tell her husband, and I would think less of a woman who did it behind her husband's back (whether it was his or not because if it's not his, then she is even more despicable).
 
Deegan said:
I think the state should be able to decide, they obviously did in Penn. Still, how would you decide, if never informed, it really does seem an important decision to me, but I guess that's just me.

I think I would be devestated if my wife was pregnant and had and abortion without telling me about it..........
 
Navy Pride said:
I think I would be devestated if my wife was pregnant and had and abortion without telling me about it..........

So would I, but we just can't legislate moral values, not as I see it.:(
 
Deegan said:
So would I, but we just can't legislate moral values, not as I see it.:(


We legislate it all the time...........Can you say Abortion, capotal punishment?
 
Navy Pride said:
We legislate it all the time...........Can you say Abortion, capotal punishment?

Explain how this would be done, without infringing on a womans rights, and I may agree. As it stands, I can't agree with this.
 
aps said:
Good point. What if he refuses to sign?

Well sadly at least in my mind abortion is legal........He could not stop her.......
 
Deegan said:
Explain how this would be done, without infringing on a womans rights, and I may agree. As it stands, I can't agree with this.

It couldn't be done because abortion is the law....I wish it wasn't but don't get me started on that my friend..........
 
Navy Pride said:
It couldn't be done because abortion is the law....I wish it wasn't but don't get me started on that my friend..........

I can really only concern myself with my own, close inner circle, this is all I can do, and I am more then satisfied with that reality.;)
 
Navy Pride said:
And your recourse is if she does not legally have to tell you?

Just bite the bullet and lose the child you helped to create?
If your relationship with your wife is so poor that she is not telling you, then that is to bad. You don't own her, she never have to tell you anything else whatsoever, so she certainly don't have to tell you about an abortion either. Is she required to tell you about what she bought at the store, whether she has had her tubes tied or not, whether she secretly meets her lover every afternoon? She is not required to tell her ANYTHING.

These are private family matters. If you can't trust your wife or she not you, that is NOT the business of the Government. If you can't trust her and can't live with that, then you have to get a divirce. That's all. The Government has NO business with that much intrusion into private lives; that is pure fascism.
 
Deegan said:
This is a very difficult situation to decide, but I would have to agree with Judge Alito on this, where he dissented on the recent case brought before him. He decided that there was not an undue burden put on the woman to notify the spouse, and I would have to agree. She made the decision to get married, now certain responsibilities come with that agreement IMHO.
Does she have a legal duty to report it to him if she takes a lover or have an affair? Do YOU have such a duty to him? There is no undue burden in merely telling, so why don't we have a law to that extend? How about if she spends more than what she earn, does she have a legal; right to report this to you? Or if she decides to get a haircut, do you have a legal right to know? What if she eats luch every day at arestaurant instead of excersizing as she told you, does she have a legal right to tell you?

Why is it, in the republican world of Government control of women, that the state needs the powers of a Fascist Government in order to control women?

I think a man deserves to know whom he has chosen to spend his life with, and this decision could change the relationship drastically. It is not a permission slip, it is simply a notification, and that is not a lot to ask.
yes, it is. It implies that you have a right to know, that you have ownership of her life. You sure don't have a legal right to notify HER of anything, yet you want Government legal rights to control her? Yes, that is still fascism, not to mention good old republican misogynistic oppression of women to attemt ensalvement as property of the man. Yes, it is as disgusting as the rest of the conservative demeaning attempt at controlling women and oppress them.

So tell me, what duties should you have to legally inform her about? Should you have a LEGAL duty to inform her if you went to the bar and drank with friends, f.ex.?

Or is it only that you hypocritically want HER to have such duties to report to her "master" who owns her?
 
aps said:
Good point. What if he refuses to sign?

It doesn't matter. It's not a consent issue, its a notification issue. If she tells him, then she's free to do what she pleases (If this were proposed and passed as a law).
 
aps said:
Well, his signature wouldn't be giving her permission but rather acknowledging that he is aware that his wife is going to have an abortion.

That just seems weird to me. "Honey, will you sign on the dotted line to acknowledge that I am having an abortion?" Yikes.
And if he then refuse to sign, she can't have the abortion. yes, then it becomes a defacto permission slip.

And voila, the fundies have reached their goal of oppressing women, of having men control and opppress them in the best misogynistic theocratic fashion. It is pure and unbridled fascism, that's what it is, this push of Government control in people's private lives.
 
Navy Pride said:
I think I would be devestated if my wife was pregnant and had and abortion without telling me about it..........

I would be devastated as well, mostly because of the broken trust. That doesn't mean there should be a law instituted to prevent my wife from breaking my trust.
 
aps said:
You're right. I should change my vote. I said no, but I was thinking only in the "legal" sense. Morally, I think a woman should tell her husband, and I would think less of a woman who did it behind her husband's back (whether it was his or not because if it's not his, then she is even more despicable).
The question asks if he has a RIGHT to know. That makes it a legal requirement.

The question is asking if she legally is required to notify him. read it carefully.
 
steen said:
The question asks if he has a RIGHT to know. That makes it a legal requirement.

The question is asking if she legally is required to notify him. read it carefully.

No it does not, I have a feeling you only read what you want to read.:confused:

Now why don't you take your own advice here sir?
 
RightatNYU said:
It doesn't matter. It's not a consent issue, its a notification issue. If she tells him, then she's free to do what she pleases (If this were proposed and passed as a law).
Which means that she can just claim that she told him. After the fact, it becomes a "she said/he said" issue
 
steen said:
Does she have a legal duty to report it to him if she takes a lover or have an affair? Do YOU have such a duty to him? There is no undue burden in merely telling, so why don't we have a law to that extend? How about if she spends more than what she earn, does she have a legal; right to report this to you? Or if she decides to get a haircut, do you have a legal right to know? What if she eats luch every day at arestaurant instead of excersizing as she told you, does she have a legal right to tell you?

Why is it, in the republican world of Government control of women, that the state needs the powers of a Fascist Government in order to control women?

yes, it is. It implies that you have a right to know, that you have ownership of her life. You sure don't have a legal right to notify HER of anything, yet you want Government legal rights to control her? Yes, that is still fascism, not to mention good old republican misogynistic oppression of women to attemt ensalvement as property of the man. Yes, it is as disgusting as the rest of the conservative demeaning attempt at controlling women and oppress them.

So tell me, what duties should you have to legally inform her about? Should you have a LEGAL duty to inform her if you went to the bar and drank with friends, f.ex.?

Or is it only that you hypocritically want HER to have such duties to report to her "master" who owns her?


While you might have a good argument, the addition of the word fascist doesn't really add much, and makes your posts seem much more alarmist.
 
Back
Top Bottom