Abortion and Marriage

[jcrawford]

What if abortions were kept legal within the reproductive and privacy rights granted in marriage only, and then only with consent of both spouses? If singles want either a child or an abortion, they would have to get parental consent or married, or would be considered married by the state, in either eventuality.

This way, all reproductive decisions would be made privately, by the parties concerned, and would be no one's else's business at all.

How would that play out in different scenarios, from a Christian or non-Christian POV?

[McCulloch]

Why require the consent of both spouses? Why should an abusive male spouse be able, by force of law, compel his wife to carry to term a pregnancy she had no desire for?

If singles want either a child or an abortion, they would have to get parental consent or married, or would be considered married by the state, in either eventuality.

So if a pregnant single woman could not get parental consent to have a child, she would be forced against her will to have an abortion or have a shotgun wedding? You really know how to take human rights two steps backwards.

How about having all reproductive decisions made privately, by the woman with whomever she chooses to make the decision with? Other than the decision to get pregnant, which involves the willing participation of a male.

[juliod]

What if abortions were kept legal within the reproductive and privacy rights granted in marriage only, and then only with consent of both spouses?

In the general case, people have the individual right to seek medical care without other people's consent. Other people only come into it if you are unable to make your own decisions. Power-of-attorney and all that.

But it is perfectly possible for a christian community to create such a system among themselves. Each member could contract with the church authorities to grant the church power over medical (or other) decisions. This authority could be backed up by granting the church the power to sieze wages, savings, property and real estate.

So in this case, if a woman chose to have an abortion without the consent of her husband or guardians, the church could take away all her money, housing, belonging, and garnish her wages for the rest of her life. You can't physically stop her from having an abortion, but you can make it impossible for her to live a normal life afterwards. (And of course this system would only apply to people who choose to sign up for it in the first place.)

(The same system would also stop a man with a wife and family from running off with some skinny blond whore. The church would have the pre-existing power to take his car, property, and wages for the support of his abandoned family.)

DanZ

[jcrawford]

Why require the consent of both spouses? Why should an abusive male spouse be able, by force of law, compel his wife to carry to term a pregnancy she had no desire for?

An exemption could be granted if the wife was able to substantiate and prove that claim in court. Course, the judge could grant either party a divorce after the abortion.

If singles want either a child or an abortion, they would have to get parental consent or married, or would be considered married by the state, in either eventuality.

So if a pregnant single woman could not get parental consent to have a child, she would be forced against her will to have an abortion or have a shotgun wedding? You really know how to take human rights two steps backwards.

I'm just not as concerned about your human rights as I am about the parental rights of Jewish, Christian and Islamic fathers.

How about having all reproductive decisions made privately, by the woman with whomever she chooses to make the decision with? Other than the decision to get pregnant, which involves the willing participation of a male.

Maybe in an atheistic or secular marriage. Not in Jewish, Christian and Islamic marriages though.

[jcrawford]

What if abortions were kept legal within the reproductive and privacy rights granted in marriage only, and then only with consent of both spouses?

In the general case, people have the individual right to seek medical care without other people's consent. Other people only come into it if you are unable to make your own decisions. Power-of-attorney and all that.

Why should American men be forced to pay for some unwanted "medical care" that some atheistic secular abortionist provided their Jewish, Christian and Muslim wives?

But it is perfectly possible for a christian community to create such a system among themselves. Each member could contract with the church authorities to grant the church power over medical (or other) decisions. This authority could be backed up by granting the church the power to sieze wages, savings, property and real estate.

So in this case, if a woman chose to have an abortion without the consent of her husband or guardians, the church could take away all her money, housing, belonging, and garnish her wages for the rest of her life. You can't physically stop her from having an abortion, but you can make it impossible for her to live a normal life afterwards. (And of course this system would only apply to people who choose to sign up for it in the first place.)

(The same system would also stop a man with a wife and family from running off with some skinny blond whore. The church would have the pre-existing power to take his car, property, and wages for the support of his abandoned family.)

DanZ

If it is perfectly possible for a christian community to create such a system among themselves, why can't the greater Christian community do the same thing in a Jewish, Christian and Islamic state?

They could even make it illegal for their wives to visit atheistic and secular abortionists without their knowledge and consent.

[ENIGMA]

What if abortions were kept legal within the reproductive and privacy rights granted in marriage only, and then only with consent of both spouses?

In the general case, people have the individual right to seek medical care without other people's consent. Other people only come into it if you are unable to make your own decisions. Power-of-attorney and all that.

Why should American men be forced to pay for some unwanted "medical care" that some atheistic secular abortionist provided their Jewish, Christian and Muslim wives?

Because you agreed to sign up a joint bank account with your wife and because she decided to pay for it.

If it is perfectly possible for a christian community to create such a system among themselves, why can't the greater Christian community do the same thing in a Jewish, Christian and Islamic state?

You can, just simply find a sympathetic contract lawyer (or enough sympathetic people to split the cost to pay a non-sympathetic contract lawyer) to draw up the contracts to that effect and get both people in the marriage to sign.

Good luck with that.

They could even make it illegal for their wives to visit atheistic and secular abortionists without their knowledge and consent.

Only if the wives in question signed the contract that is drawn up to that effect.

Again, good luck with that.

[McCulloch]

How about having all reproductive decisions made privately, by the woman with whomever she chooses to make the decision with? Other than the decision to get pregnant, which involves the willing participation of a male.

Maybe in an atheistic or secular marriage. Not in Jewish, Christian and Islamic marriages though. ... If it is perfectly possible for a christian community to create such a system among themselves, why can't the greater Christian community do the same thing in a Jewish, Christian and Islamic state?
They could even make it illegal for their wives to visit atheistic and secular abortionists without their knowledge and consent.

There are no Jewish, Christian or Islamic states in North America. Our secular (religiously neutral) states make laws that apply equally to all. If your particular religous group wishes to make laws that create further restrictions on those people who are willing members of your religious group, you are free to do so. Knock yourselves out. You want to create your own Christian State, go ahead. Let us know how it goes.

[jcrawford]

Our secular (religiously neutral) states make laws that apply equally to all.

I don't know about up there in Canada now, but down here in NY State, they allow secular Jews and atheistic abortionists to practice their art on the wives and daughters of white and black American Christians and Muslims without their knowledge and consent.

[Cathar1950]

jcrawford wrote:

...they allow secular Jews and atheistic abortionists to practice their art on the wives and daughters of white and black American Christians and Muslims without their knowledge and consent.

I don't believe I am reading that. What could you ever mean by "secular Jews and atheistic abortionists"?
Do you no the background and religion of doctors performing abortions?
How many are white or how many of those doctors are black?
If they have the consent of daughters and wives they don't need anyone else.

[micatala]

If singles want either a child or an abortion, they would have to get parental consent or married, or would be considered married by the state, in either eventuality.

I really must thank you John for so often providing the barrel, the fish, and the gun all at one fell swoop.

Warning: Sarcasm alert is in effect for the rest of this post.

So, if I am reading this right, two single people end up producing an offspring, and they are de facto married. Do they need parental consent to do this, or can the state do it without their permission, even if the two are only 15?

Now, if we suppose these two, call them A and B, are married, what happens if A and C produce offspring, and then B and D produce offspring. Even though A and B are already married, this was only an accident of their producing offspring first. Really, we should dictate that the other couples marry as well.

So, now A is married to C and B, and B is married to A and D. This means we will now have to make polygamy legal. In fact, we would greatly expand even the traditional forms of polygamy (where one man has several wives is the most traditional of course), because we could end up with A marrying B who marries C who marries D, who then marries A. My, my, my, the mathematical combinatorial possibilities are truly endless.

Of course, their would be a dark side. If father A engages in incest with daughter B, now the father would be married to the daughter and the mother. Perhaps this is OK for the greater good that your scenario embodies??

Then, shouldn't we get back to your concern about Jews, Muslims and blacks? Can we let the Jews marry the Muslims, or the CHristians marry the blacks without their other spouses or fathers or mothers or cousins or pastors permissions?

Of course, since we don't want to make American men pay for medical care that their wives want but the men don't, we will have to go speeding past the implementation of a national health care system straight to an international one. The French atheists can pay for the abortions of the Jewish Americans, who can pay for the abortions of the Christian Canadians, who can pay for the abortions of the Saudi Arabian Zoroastrians (who of course should have lots of money from the oil they have and the kids they don't have).



On the other hand, maybe it would be better just to outlaw both marriage and abortion. This should completely take care of the problem.


End of post. Sarcasm warning has been allowed to expire.