Do you support mandatory spousal consent for abortions?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 03:49:18 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Do you support mandatory spousal consent for abortions?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Do you support mandartory spousal consent for abortions?
#1
Yes (D)
 
#2
No (D)
 
#3
Yes (R)
 
#4
No (R)
 
#5
Yes (I/O)
 
#6
No (I/O)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 54

Author Topic: Do you support mandatory spousal consent for abortions?  (Read 7127 times)
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 14, 2006, 12:33:54 PM »
« edited: October 14, 2006, 12:46:26 PM by © Boss Tweed »

Some "Democrats" even said yes to this in that other thread.  It's membership revocation time.
Logged
TomC
TCash101
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,973


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2006, 12:40:08 PM »

Notification? Yes. Consent? No.

But on second thought, no, I want the government out of it. Morality should dictate her notification, not law.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2006, 12:41:02 PM »

I don't see PP v. Casey being overturned anytime soon (even though it should be), so what's the argument?
Logged
Everett
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,552


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2006, 12:46:00 PM »

Consent? Hell no.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2006, 01:17:14 PM »

Well, a lot of those people tend to be pro-torture too. I guess forced pregnancy is a special kind of torture. Suppose the woman is raped by her seperated husband.
Logged
adam
Captain Vlad
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,922


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -5.04

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2006, 01:35:37 PM »

No (R).
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2006, 01:52:21 PM »

A child comes from both a mother and a father.  Fathers should have equal rights, as well as equal responsibilities.

This is possible, of course, only in stable marriages.  That should be the ideal.

In the real world, all sorts of things get screwed up.  But I think we should stop pretending that child-bearing and child-rearing arrangements outside of stable marriages are just as good as those within stable marriages.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2006, 02:34:57 PM »

A child comes from both a mother and a father.  Fathers should have equal rights, as well as equal responsibilities.

This is possible, of course, only in stable marriages.  That should be the ideal.

In the real world, all sorts of things get screwed up.  But I think we should stop pretending that child-bearing and child-rearing arrangements outside of stable marriages are just as good as those within stable marriages.

So your answer is...
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2006, 02:39:25 PM »

A child comes from both a mother and a father.  Fathers should have equal rights, as well as equal responsibilities.

This is possible, of course, only in stable marriages.  That should be the ideal.

In the real world, all sorts of things get screwed up.  But I think we should stop pretending that child-bearing and child-rearing arrangements outside of stable marriages are just as good as those within stable marriages.

So your answer is...

Hah, honestly, this is one of the few issues about which I am highly ambivalent.  I could arrive at either answer, depending upon the angle from which I look at it.

I think we need to change the paradigm around which we think of these issues, and that was more my point.  The actual yes or no answer concerns me less than the context with which society views these situations.
Logged
Speed of Sound
LiberalPA
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,166
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 14, 2006, 02:40:39 PM »

This person has no control over your body. What is this? The 1700s?
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 14, 2006, 02:43:37 PM »
« Edited: October 14, 2006, 03:28:04 PM by dazzleman »

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.

I think that's just a biological fact, and all the feminazi marches in the world can't change that.

I'd also say that it's ideologically unacceptable to me to take a position that says a father has full responsibility to raise and support his child, while denying him any say over whether that child can be born.  I think that position is fundamentally unjust and discriminatory against men.

This issue is really about who pays the price when people who are supposed to make responsible choices fail to do so.  The whole 'rights' bullsh**t that the feminists put out is just a red herring.

Looked at in that broader context of responsibility and the bests interest of all parties, including the unborn child, unrestricted abortion may still be the best option, but if it is, that is for a totally different reason, one that would be a damning indictment of the adults involved.

In any case, feminism can't change biology, try as it might.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 14, 2006, 03:54:25 PM »

No. It cannot be black and white like this; I think he has a right to know and his interests must be taken into account, but I cannot see how it could ever be workable for him to have an effective veto over the abortion itself. We cannot police what happens in the home and the decisions taken by the couple or the individual within the relationship.
Logged
The Dowager Mod
texasgurl
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,973
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.48, S: -8.57

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 14, 2006, 03:58:49 PM »

Hell no.
Logged
Joel the Attention Whore
Joel
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 467


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 14, 2006, 04:36:10 PM »

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.

I think that's just a biological fact, and all the feminazi marches in the world can't change that.

I'd also say that it's ideologically unacceptable to me to take a position that says a father has full responsibility to raise and support his child, while denying him any say over whether that child can be born.  I think that position is fundamentally unjust and discriminatory against men.

This issue is really about who pays the price when people who are supposed to make responsible choices fail to do so.  The whole 'rights' bullsh**t that the feminists put out is just a red herring.

Looked at in that broader context of responsibility and the bests interest of all parties, including the unborn child, unrestricted abortion may still be the best option, but if it is, that is for a totally different reason, one that would be a damning indictment of the adults involved.

In any case, feminism can't change biology, try as it might.

Wow!  Well said! 
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 14, 2006, 04:50:06 PM »

No.

I'd also say that it's ideologically unacceptable to me to take a position that says a father has full responsibility to raise and support his child, while denying him any say over whether that child can be born.  I think that position is fundamentally unjust and discriminatory against men.

Would you seriously advocate giving husbands a sort of "veto" power over a woman who chooses to continue with her pregnancy?
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 14, 2006, 05:21:49 PM »
« Edited: October 14, 2006, 05:57:46 PM by dazzleman »

No.

I'd also say that it's ideologically unacceptable to me to take a position that says a father has full responsibility to raise and support his child, while denying him any say over whether that child can be born.  I think that position is fundamentally unjust and discriminatory against men.

Would you seriously advocate giving husbands a sort of "veto" power over a woman who chooses to continue with her pregnancy?

It's an issue that needs to be explored.  Some people have advocated absolving men of legal responsibility for children they want aborted, but which the mother won't abort.  I can't say I'm prepared to support this.

But at the same time, what if a man is ready and willing to raise HIS child?  Should the mother be able to kill his child?  I think I mentioned earlier that perhaps if the father is willing to accept full responsibility for the child, the mother could be prevented from having an abortion.  I don't see how this is different from not allowing a woman to be forced into an abortion by the baby's father, unless you don't think that men deserve equal status as parents.

I can tell you one thing; if my wife ever had an abortion without my consent, she'd be my ex-wife very quickly.

You're really saying that fathers should have all the responsibilities, but none of the rights, of parenthood.  I just can't agree with this.

I realize that often, the man in this type of situation is scum.  Often, the woman is too.   Practically speaking, many of these kids are better off being aborted than being born to these awful people, who have exhibited not a shred of responsibility, but just think about their own selfish needs and scream about their 'rights' in shrill tones.  It's not an easy issue.  But I do know that the status quo is unacceptable.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 14, 2006, 05:22:43 PM »


^^^^^^^^^
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 14, 2006, 05:33:34 PM »

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.

I think that's just a biological fact, and all the feminazi marches in the world can't change that.

I'd also say that it's ideologically unacceptable to me to take a position that says a father has full responsibility to raise and support his child, while denying him any say over whether that child can be born.  I think that position is fundamentally unjust and discriminatory against men.

This issue is really about who pays the price when people who are supposed to make responsible choices fail to do so.  The whole 'rights' bullsh**t that the feminists put out is just a red herring.

Looked at in that broader context of responsibility and the bests interest of all parties, including the unborn child, unrestricted abortion may still be the best option, but if it is, that is for a totally different reason, one that would be a damning indictment of the adults involved.

In any case, feminism can't change biology, try as it might.

Wow!  Well said! 

Thanks man. 

It's good to see a guy who doesn't feel obliged to buy into politically correct feminist bulls*%t as a penance for the thousands of years that we have oppressed women (yes, I know how oppressive it is to show at Bloomingdale's while your husband is working Tongue). 

And from Massachusetts, no less.  There's hope for our little corner of the world after all.
Logged
TomC
TCash101
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,973


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 14, 2006, 05:56:35 PM »

Does she get to tell him when he has his vasectomy, too?
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 14, 2006, 06:03:40 PM »
« Edited: October 14, 2006, 06:06:55 PM by nclib »

Absolutely not. I'm all for equal rights and responsibilities for fathers, but the obvious biological differences here cannot be ignored. It's her body and whether or not the child is born has a bigger impact on her than on the father (even after the child is born, the father probably will expect her to do more than half the childrearing). I know you (dazzleman) said earlier that feminists can't change biology, but the fact is that anti-feminists can't either.

As an aside, a potential law enforcing notification would only affect a minority of women, since most women in healthy relationships would discuss abortion with their husband anyway. The minority of women that would be affected would primarily be women in abusive/unequal relationships.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 14, 2006, 06:18:46 PM »

Conversely, if the biological father wants a legal abortion to be performed and the mother does not, why should that father be required to pay child support? 

I do support this idea.  If the marriage partners are in such extreme disagreement over such an issue, then they probably are better off if they are divorced, in which case the mother is free to do as she wishes.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 15, 2006, 06:53:10 PM »

No. Just because the two people are married shouldn't give the spouse veto power.

Now, if you are asking about the consent of the father, well, if the father is willing to take 100 percent legal responsibility for the child, with the mother signing away all rights and responsibilties, then I'd lean in favor of that. Still problematic, of course, but I do generally agree with what Dazzleman and others have said about the idea that the two parents should have at least roughly equal rights.

Though I certainly wouldn't require the father to be notified. If he's not in the mother's life and isn't aware of what she's about to do, that's his own fault for taking off and he should have absolutely no right to stop her from having an abortion. Simply being the biological father shouldn't necessarily in and of itself give him equal rights, he has to be willing to take responsibility as well.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 15, 2006, 08:02:05 PM »

Marriage involves giving up total self control.  It's part of the contract.  That said, if it involved the health of the mother, it should be just her choice.  What I am talking about is elective abortions, assuming that they are even legal in the first place.
Logged
Colin
ColinW
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,684
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 15, 2006, 08:20:02 PM »

Consent? No way.
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,554
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 16, 2006, 07:54:49 AM »

Yes, and because they'll never get it men shouldn't have to pay child support. They should be able to choose not to have a child.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 15 queries.