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?

[Cephus]

Not to secular women in public schools or in reproductive rights in marriage though.

When you can get pregnant, you can have equal rights to abortion, just like women can have a right to a vasectomy when they grow testicles. Or weren't you aware that men and women have different biologies?

[McCulloch]

Jcrawford just wants to re-claim, re-establish, re-assert and reinforce equal (not special) rights for all US Christian, Jewish and Muslim men.

Equal to whom? Right now US Christian, Jewish and Muslim men have equal rights to all other men in the US.

Not to secular women in public schools or in reproductive rights in marriage though.

Your claim is that Christian, Jewish and Muslim men do not have equal reproductive rights to secular women.
Firstly, what does religion have to do with it. Would it not be just as valid to claim that men do not have equal reproductive rights to women? Christian, Jewish and Muslim men have equal reproductive rights to all other men, don't they? And secular women have equal reproductive rights to all other women, don't they? But you keep bringing religion into it. Are you advocating that a law be brought in that would somehow equalize the reproductive rights of men of monotheist religions with non-religious women? And you think that such a blatantly religious and sexist discriminatory law would pass a constitutional challenge? Nonsense.
Secondly, is there a concept of "reproductive rights" in US Constitutional law? Is there any legal precept that states that this form of equality should be recognized? Do you wish that laws be passed that would compensate for the natural inequality of reproductive rights which you, presumably, believe were put in place by the Creator?

[micatala]

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

I just thought I would point out that this is exactly the position the pro-choice lobby takes.

[jcrawford]

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

I just thought I would point out that this is exactly the position the pro-choice lobby takes.

Hardly. So-called "pro-choicers" don't want married men and fathers, or parents of minors involved at all, and say it is none of their concern and have no rights in the matter at all, as if atheistic and secular abortionists have vested rights in the fetus that parents and grandparents don't have.

What a travesty of justice perpetrated on Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Hispanics and African American men by atheistic and secular abortionists.

[McCulloch]

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

I just thought I would point out that this is exactly the position the pro-choice lobby takes.

Hardly. So-called "pro-choicers" don't want married men and fathers, or parents of minors involved at all, and say it is none of their concern and have no rights in the matter at all, as if atheistic and secular abortionists have vested rights in the fetus that parents and grandparents don't have.
What a travesty of justice perpetrated on Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Hispanics and African American men by atheistic and secular abortionists.

The difference seems to be who the concerned parties in the case of an abortion request are. Under the current law, the concerned party is the woman who wishes to end a pregnancy. In jcrawford's imagination, the woman's husband, lover, rapist, father, priest, bishop, pastor, church elder, imam, rabbi, brother and male cousin all somehow have a stake in her pregnancy and should be involved in the decision, if any of them are Jews, Catholics, Protestants or Muslims of Hispanic or African ancestry when the abortionist is atheist or secular.

[jcrawford]

Hardly. So-called "pro-choicers" don't want married men and fathers, or parents of minors involved at all, and say it is none of their concern and have no rights in the matter at all, as if atheistic and secular abortionists have vested rights in the fetus that parents and grandparents don't have.

What a travesty of justice perpetrated on Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Hispanics and African American men by atheistic and secular abortionists.

The difference seems to be who the concerned parties in the case of an abortion request are. Under the current law, the concerned party is the woman who wishes to end a pregnancy. In jcrawford's imagination, the woman's husband, lover, rapist, father, priest, bishop, pastor, church elder, imam, rabbi, brother and male cousin all somehow have a stake in her pregnancy and should be involved in the decision, if any of them are Jews, Catholics, Protestants or Muslims of Hispanic or African ancestry when the abortionist is atheist or secular.

Obviously, your thoroughly secular law only recognizes and protects the so-called vested interests and rights of atheistic and secular abortionists.

Better to have a political and social imagination than to march lock step to the tune and drumbeat of secular and atheistic socialism.

Look what atheistic and secular socialism did in Europe and to the world in the last century.

[jcrawford]

When you can get pregnant, you can have equal rights to abortion, just like women can have a right to a vasectomy when they grow testicles. Or weren't you aware that men and women have different biologies?

Thanks for the comic relief, Cephus. As usual.

[micatala]

Hardly. So-called "pro-choicers" don't want married men and fathers, or parents of minors involved at all, and say it is none of their concern and have no rights in the matter at all, as if atheistic and secular abortionists have vested rights in the fetus that parents and grandparents don't have.

A false and unsubstantiated assertion.

I have never heard a pro-choice advocate say this. My guess is that if you actually asked a pro-choice advocate, instead of simply making up an opinion on behalf of them without their consent, you would find that they have no problem with the spouse or partner being involved in discussions on the decision, as long as the woman is free to make the decision with whatever input and consultation she deems necessary.

There is a difference between 'no involvement' and 'the woman making the final decision.'

[jcrawford]

Hardly. So-called "pro-choicers" don't want married men and fathers, or parents of minors involved at all, and say it is none of their concern and have no rights in the matter at all, as if atheistic and secular abortionists have vested rights in the fetus that parents and grandparents don't have.

A false and unsubstantiated assertion.

I have never heard a pro-choice advocate say this. My guess is that if you actually asked a pro-choice advocate, instead of simply making up an opinion on behalf of them without their consent, you would find that they have no problem with the spouse or partner being involved in discussions on the decision, as long as the woman is free to make the decision with whatever input and consultation she deems necessary.

There is a difference between 'no involvement' and 'the woman making the final decision.'

Yes, and parents had to fight hard against the atheist and seccie abortionist organizations to get parental consent for their daughters in those states which grant now them. There still is no law in any state requiring either paternal notification or consent of the father, whether he is married or not.

Father doesn't know best after all. Momma does.

Where have all the male chauvinists gone?
Replaced by feminazis, every one.

[micatala]

You will get no argument from me that parental notification laws are reasonable, as long as they have a clause to protect girls who might be the victims of incest or some other form of parental abuse.

The reason, of course, for parental notification laws is that we assume that minors are not as responsible and competent as adults to make certain decisions. Are you arguing that women of all ages are not as responsible or competent as 'other adults?'

I would suggest we separate the issue of acknowledgement and consent. Certainly, it would be easier to make a case that the husband should be informed about an abortion, than to argue that he has a right to veto the procedure.

I would be glad for the male chauvinists to be gone. To bad they all aren't. I didn't think that feminazis existed except in the imagination of Rush Limbaugh.