Rick Reuben wrote:

Marsupialized wrote:If my wife gets pregnant it's 100% her decision on how to proceed.

Is she allowed to change her mind without telling you? What if you married a woman because you wanted kids, you successfully started a pregnancy, and then, 3 months in, after you had told friends and family the good news, you came home to learn that she killed it without consulting with you? You still accept that the decision was made without your input?

Yep.

I mean, something like that might cause someone to think to themselves 'Man, this woman I married seems to be really insane. Do I wanna stay married to her?'
But as far as the act, it's her decision. When it comes to her body and things growing in it, no man anywhere should feel they should ever have any sort of right or place telling her what they want her to do with it. Who do you think you are?
That goes for her husband, father, priest, assholes on the supreme court, presidential candidates, everyone.
Oh, you are her husband, so you are somehow going to bark orders at her about her decisions about her own body? That's your body too? You own her now that you married her? What, are we fucking muslims? I do not own my wife, nor do I desire to.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Marsupialized wrote:If you get a woman pregnant, you have to abide by her decisions as how to proceed. End of story.

I used the word 'wife' and not 'woman' for a reason. I didn't ask about what happens after a one night stand. I'm asking about an intentional impregnation of a wife. It's your opinion that a wife can unilaterally terminate a planned pregnancy without discussing it with the husband? Just for the sake of argument: if the husband is the only earner in the marriage, can he just decide to sell a car he bought for his wife without any discussion, or cancel all her credit cards? It's his income, just like it's her womb, right?

Because a woman owns herself, but a husband owns his wife.

Fuck that noise.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Marsupialized wrote:
Oh, you are her husband, so you are somehow going to bark orders at her about her decisions about her own body?

Yeah, but a fetus is not 'her body'- obviously, a woman was not born with a fetus already in her, like an organ. It's a separate entity that requires a male's contribution. If it was her appendix, then sure, there is no reason for anyone to have input on whether it is destroyed. But the reason why the courts are involved is because it is a separate life, carried in a woman's womb, and therefore is considered a separate individual by law.

The question is, when? After 3 months? At conception? There's no such thing as 'possession' of another human by a human. You can't make another individual your property, not legally. This is why courts must be involved, to determine when a fetus is first afforded protection from murder, as all individuals are. If you don't set those parameters, then it's a free for all. You can't just say, 'If it's in the womb, it's the woman's property'. A baby can leave the womb at seven months and live on its own with some help. If you say that the baby is the woman's property until nine months are up, then a baby can be born prematurely and tossed in a dumpster and there are no laws covering it.

I seriously do not want to get involved in a heated abortion debate.
I will say it's absolutely retarded to assume that if no laws are passed saying not to do it, scores and scores of women will just start hurling their babies into dumpsters after giving birth prematurely.
Come on, man.

Ok, you must pass a law. You want definitions. The law should be before a doctor gives an abortion he must do an examination and if it turns out the baby is at a point it could survive on it's own no abortion will be allowed. If there's no way it could survive on it's own, it's the woman's decision. It's part of her body till it could survive on it's own without her. Then it could be considered a person with rights and protected legally.

Marsupialized wrote:The law should be before a doctor gives an abortion he must do an examination and if it turns out the baby is at a point it could survive on it's own no abortion will be allowed. If there's no way it could survive on it's own, it's the woman's decision. It's part of her body till it could survive on it's own without her. Then it could be considered a person with rights and protected legally.

I think that's pretty much the way the laws are now. Abortions are illegal after the 2nd trimester, aren't they?

I believe that in certain special cases, abortions ought to be allowed up to the point of, say 35 years of age.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Marsupialized wrote:Ok, you must pass a law. You want definitions. The law should be before a doctor gives an abortion he must do an examination and if it turns out the baby is at a point it could survive on it's own no abortion will be allowed.

Agreed. We need a law. So you retract your previous statement?

marsupialized wrote:When it comes to her body and things growing in it, no man anywhere should feel they should ever have any sort of right or place telling her what they want her to do with it. Who do you think you are?

That goes for her husband, father, priest, assholes on the supreme court, presidential candidates, everyone.

I said YOU want a law. YOU are demanding laws be enacted, not me. I was trying to come up with something that made sense.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Kayte wrote:Fuck that noise.

Are people unable to accept that a man contributes to a baby? The bigger question is: What kind of wife would refuse to allow her husband input into a decision about abortion- especially since he helped create the baby?

Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Some people are separated
Some people don't subscribe to your bullshit misogynist puritan proscription of marriage and sex
Some husbands trust their wives to make the right decisions for herself and have the fucking sense to not try to control her
Some wives are being abused by their husbands and can't escape, and don't want to bring a child into that fucked up environment.

The point is, all the abortion legislation is kind of saying "well MY wife or MY daughter wouldn't do that and I can't imagine what kind of fucked up whore would so it should be illegal". And this is what you're saying too.

You honestly think that unless there is a law stating a woman is not allowed to get an abortion super late term there will be just a huge crush of women trying to abort 8 1/2 month old fetuses?
There will not be, I assure you.

In your scenario you're treating the woman like she is your personal baby making machine. In your scenario, the woman is your property and also the fetus is your property. Of course in that situation anyone would feel upset and want to know why the change of heart suddenly, and maybe seeking therapy would be a good idea. But why do you want to take away that option from an obviously emotionally disturbed person who is in even more pain because YOU'RE TREATING HER LIKE PROPERTY.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Marsupialized wrote: YOU are demanding laws be enacted, not me.

So you do not want laws? You want the baby to be considered the woman's property for all nine months, and no penalties for termination at any point?

What if she goes into labor right at nine months on the dot, and then, when the baby is partially out, she has a crackhead hit it with a sledgehammer for $20 bucks? Was the baby still her property?

Yeah, you are right...and what if a unicorn came over and ate the remains afterward?

I want no laws regarding abortion, you are right. The number of cases I would personally find disturbing, late term shit and whatnot would be a very small number no matter what laws you pass.
The same number of chicks would throw their newborns down garbage chutes as they do right now, no matter what laws you pass.
Most would have their abortion as soon as they found out they were pregnant, just like they do now. No matter what laws you pass.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Johnny 13 wrote:If there were to be an abortion, there would be discussion, not surprise.

Right. You agree with me that the husband is entitled to have input into the decision.

That is not exactly what I am saying. I don't believe it should be a legal right, but I expect that within a relationship there should be some discussion, or what is the reason for coupling long term. I almost made the point that Mandrioid did about it being good policy to know what everyone thinks about unintended pregnancy before sex occurs.

I am not invested in embryos, and if a woman I chose to have a baby with pulled a surprise abortion out of nowhere, either to punish me, or for whatever reason, I would consider that to be a bullet dodged. I would not want to be in a life long relationship with someone who would be that unstable. I can't think of a single woman I know of who would do it like that, and I think the example in uncharitable to women. If a woman has an abortion, and the guy is complaining about it, I don't have to think very hard about how he has done this to himself. All he has to say is "If you get pregnant, I would like you to keep the baby, and I will do my part". If a woman does not see that happening, I would bet money that she will tell him so.

After she is pregnant is the wrong time to be closing barn doors. Especially ones the man had no complaints about opening.