It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New law lets husbands sue to stop wives having abortion

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: angryproctologist

Growing old is not fun alone.


Tell me about it


But settling for someone just for the sake of it, often is the same as growing old alone.




posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: savemebarry

So true, don't pull the trigger on something like that unless it "feels" right.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 11:01 PM
link   
I don't understand the need for this law.

First of all, this is America: anybody can sue anybody over anything. Get a lawyer, present a case, the case is (theoretically) judged on its merits.

I don't know much about abortions, but this law seems to be targeted at a particular type of abortion. Because of that, the lawsuits will be time sensitive. If another type of abortion is available, the woman could do that and this law wouldn't really apply.

If another type of abortion is not available, then the plaintiff would lose the lawsuit because Roe v. Wade says the woman has the right to get an abortion if she chooses.

I don't see where this law changes anything.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

I would imagine this is about small incremental steps.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Next up, men should be able to sue to force wives to have an abortion.
edit on 2/7/2017 by Alien Abduct because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: intrptr

Not sure, is there still a saline solution that is used to "burn" the baby?


After six months of pregnancy, is there a rash of this in Arkansas?

YES. Bill Clinton says that "rednecks" are responsible.

Oh yah, Its Bill's state. That explains it...

And it's run by Republicans. Small wonder the new law controlling a woman's body gets passed.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Seems like a logical argument.

I don't think any law maker is going to go record with that, could be wrong.

I think this new law is more about baby steps with a particular goal in mind.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Or is it granting the father rights on his offspring?

Things can get murky real quick.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 03:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: angryproctologist

Growing old is not fun alone.

It's not too bad if you have hobbies and drugs.

(Speaking from experience.)



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah

If a man wants a vasectomy, he needs his wife's permission.
You serious, or yanking? If serious, that's the biggest load of utter BS I've ever heard next to this law. I didn't need permission from mine to have my tubes tied, but he needs my permission to get snipped? WTF?




Admittedly I am going back a lot of years but I had to get written

permission from my then husband to have a contraceptive device implanted.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

The married couples need marital therapy, otherwise don't get married if you can't decide on having a baby TOGETHER.
This law seems to cause possible discord in a marriage...so yay, the possibility of more kids getting to experience their parents not getting along and possibly divorcing.
This law doesn't seem to help marriage...the thing you enter into 50/50...? sharing assets and...making joint decisions..?



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 05:12 AM
link   
a reply to: eletheia

oh wow, that's totally backwards! That's so wrong.

Bring back the Vikings God (Odin) Please! Viking Women would have chopped of a guys gonads back then, going back a bit further haha. Seriously One imbalance isn't merit to allow another with the opposite effect.

The world is messed up.

The Matrix is about to implode! (soon i hope)


edit on 8-2-2017 by LuXTeN because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 05:22 AM
link   
requiring spousal consent has already been decided to be unconstitutional by the supreme court. I don't think this will hold up in a challenge, even with trump's nominee seated on the court.
besides, the way most lawsuits go, the fetus could be in preschool before the judge made a decision.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 05:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
requiring spousal consent has already been decided to be unconstitutional by the supreme court. I don't think this will hold up in a challenge, even with trump's nominee seated on the court.
besides, the way most lawsuits go, the fetus could be in preschool before the judge made a decision.


Thank goodness I married a good one who wouldn't kill my baby without consent (Really she's anti abortion so she wouldn't anyway..) What kind of world do we live in?



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 05:49 AM
link   
I am totally against this. Totally. If the fetus would grow in a test tube, then absolutely both must have a say. However it grows in the woman's belly.
For NINE long months, a creature is growing inside someone, using resources, causing awful side effects like feeling nauseous, aches and pains, moodswings stops the mother from doing what they normally could, changes her eating habits and lets not forget that pregnancy is not 100% safe for everyone. Plus the woman can even get post natal depression, whcih can lead to her demise.

Normal symptoms alone include breast tenderness, swollen feet, heartburn, frequent urination etc. More dangerous is pre-eclampsia, which causes high blood pressure and can lead in rare cases to DEATH.

Basically by letting the man have a say in this, they allow a woman who doesn't want to go through all of this to put their wellbeing, normal behaviour and even their life at risk.

Now, as a hypochondriac and someone who suffers from anxiety AND who was pregnant once but lost the baby, I can tell you that the 4 month I was pregnant were the worst of my life. I didn't want to be pregnant, I feared being pregnant, I feared death and used to wake up sweating at night with extreme fear.

It was so bad that when I lost the baby I was actually relieved. Another 5 month of pregnancy would have killed me, maybe not literally [but there was a possibility] but mentally for sure. As for the aftermath...I am not a well person and this could have really fecked up my whole life!

A woman isn't just an incubator you can force to live like that for the best part of a year. There are consequences to pregancies.

Just as a thought experiment, imagine the woman has mental issues or unknown health issues and she really doesn't want to be pregnant. Can anyone FORCE her to go through HELL?
What if she dies?
Will the male go 'meh', at least I've got the baby?

Isn't that murder [with torture]?

It is far too big a physical torture to leave it up to some guy who, lets face it, could make another baby in seconds if he really wanted to. So NO, this isn't right. The woman whose body is at stake has the last word.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Hecate666

I was also wondering that, if the pregnancy goes terribly sideways and the mother ends up dead....
should the father be subject to charges of manslaughter?



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: WUNK22

As long as they both want the same thing. Once they no long do it's all up to the woman.
Sorry but that's the bottom line.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

No he doesn't. Any more than if a woman wanted her tubes tied.
Where do you live ?
What if he's not married? He has to wait and ask his wife's permission?



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 06:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Hecate666

I was also wondering that, if the pregnancy goes terribly sideways and the mother ends up dead....
should the father be subject to charges of manslaughter?


If there were known medical implications defining the risk for it then yes. If not then obviously no. If you work for me and i send you out to do a job and out of the blue a storm rises and you get struck and killed by lightning then that is also not manslaughter. You could only make that case in any sort of capacity if the risk of that storm rising were known by me.


edit on America/ChicagovAmerica/ChicagoWed, 08 Feb 2017 06:24:53 -06001720172America/Chicago by everyone because: typo



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: everyone

there is always a risk, in every pregnancy... so, I guess my next question would be just what amount of risk do you think the husband should have the right to demand his wife should accept. not just the risk of death, but also of being impaired for the duration of the pregnancy. and, if she becomes impaired, if she is told to stop her normal activities by the doctor, does he also have the right to demand she stops doing those activities that she sees as responsibilities? if you answer if yes, then does he have the responsibility to take over these activities himself, or hire someone to do them?




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join