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: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


nominees (soon)



nominee




posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

there's only one seat open at the moment...
trump is replacing conservative scalia with another conservative..
the makeup of the court will be basically the same. this law will not pass the court's scrutiny.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
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.


How is it fair that it's all up to the woman, when she clearly knew the consequences when they were having sex? This is more of a moral issue. The father has just as much say as a woman does when it took them both to conceive the baby.

What if the couple became separated, and the father wanted to keep his child? You're telling me it's ultimately up to the woman?



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

she's the one who is taking the total hit of the pregnancy healthwise??
I just love how some seem to think that having a baby is so easy, healthy, and safe..
it comes with risks, it comes with a slew of side effects, some of which might end up being felt lifelong.
and, this law doesn't have an exception for spousal rape, so you can't be sure that the women chose to have the sex..



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

she's the one who is taking the total hit of the pregnancy healthwise??
I just love how some seem to think that having a baby is so easy, healthy, and safe..
it comes with risks, it comes with a slew of side effects, some of which might end up being felt lifelong.
and, this law doesn't have an exception for spousal rape, so you can't be sure that the women chose to have the sex..




My question was very simple.

If a couple both had sex, both knowing the consequences, ends up getting pregnant and then ends up getting a divorce. Does he not have a say?

I can understand rape cases and all the other variables but my question was rather simple. If everything is fine and the only reason the woman didn't want the baby was for selfish reasons, that's still OK?



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: WUNK22

If a man wants a vasectomy, he needs his wife's permission.


Incorrect. A man does not need his wife's permission to have a vasectomy, but Dr.'s will usually suggest it so you are less likely to regret the decision, but there is no legal obligation requiring a man to get his wife's permission. In fact, as far as the law reads he can tell his Dr. That he doesn't want to tell his wife and the physician cannot say anything because it would be a HIPAA violation and VERY illegal.

Also comparing a vasectomy to an abortion is intellectually dishonest. A woman having her tubes tied is a closer analogy to a vasectomy.
edit on 8-2-2017 by redhorse because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Nope wrong, then it's up to the courts to decide, when we have bottom lines we have anarchy. When that happens it never end well for the women. Look at any Muslim nation.a reply to: Sillyolme



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I hate to point out the obvious but if a husband is at a point where he has to sue his wife to keep a child that marriage is already over.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Selfish reasons?

Like?



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

So a law that will turn marry woman into human incubators they want it or not.

Are we still in the US? or now we are giving husband the rights to take away their wives freedoms to abortion.

Interesting.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   
A WIN for father's rights if signed!



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: WUNK22

No I'm not wrong. No man can tell a woman she has to have a child. None. Ever.
The court has already made the decision .

What does religion have to do with this other than moral dogma? Don't bring fairytales into it.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

There is a justice that is very frail. If she doesn't retire, she may expire on the bench.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Abortions are not risk free either, especially to the baby.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: redhorse

In the courts that may be true, try telling a doctor he has to legally do a very SENSITIVE surgery to your super duper sweet little berries.

You first.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

You seem to ignore the man's rights, you must have over looked that.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

My friend, husband have rights within the marriage, but sometime we have husband that are nothing but that, a husband by law, because beside that they serve no other purpose.

I live in the south, I see how the crap rolls down when it comes to husbands or fathers that are nothing but irresponsible and good for nothing, I can not imagine a man like that dictating if their wife should have another child or not.

Hell not



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Selfish reasons?

Like?


Maybe a bitter divorce and she wants nothing to do with him? You realize this premise is quite common and happens already?



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: redhorse

In the courts that may be true, try telling a doctor he has to legally do a very SENSITIVE surgery to your super duper sweet little berries.

You first.


The context of the entire thread, your entire thread in fact, is that men can LEGALLY sue their wives, force them by the law to have a child, (and I suppose the reverse may be true if this precedent is set as well). You set a vasectomy as a comparison by falsely claiming a man needs his wife's permission, and the implication was that this is legally an obligation, by the initial context of legality and the use of the word "need" within that context.

You are playing weasely games with your dialogue at worst or are simply unable to admit that you were wrong at best. Are we talking about legal avenues or not? You are comparing apples and oranges to try to bolster your argument and blurring the line between legal context and moral context.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: seasonal

My friend, husband have rights within the marriage, but sometime we have husband that are nothing but that, a husband by law, because beside that they serve no other purpose.




If one have such a husband, maybe its time to consider a divorce?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join