Should A Womans Womb Be Considered Shared Property During Pregnancy?

Originally posted by queenofsheba
I disagree, even if the child is conceived out of love. If that is a "shared womb" or property of the husband, what would happen if the woman had complications that would endanger her life if the pregnancy were to go full term? Is that womb his property and his alone, where only he can make that decision over whether his wife lives or his child's? I would imagine there is law written on this already. I am certainly not someone who has expertise in the area of law but this whole topic makes me really think.

edit on 25-6-2011 by queenofsheba because: add line

Hmm. The woman came first. Therefore she has the free-will to abort the unwanted life form when medically necessary to save her life. It's too bad our current bio-technology doesn't support devoloping fetuses outside the womb. That would have solved the "shared womb" issue in this instance.

Originally posted by queenofsheba

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by queenofsheba

 

If that is a "shared womb"

Is that womb his property and his alone

I don't think that you quite understand the concept of "Share"

The only ones I ever "shared" my womb with were my babies who grew in it, who were brought to life in it. Those babies are the only ones I ever "shared" my womb with. Certainly not my husband.

edit on 25-6-2011 by queenofsheba because: add line

No. You've shared the womb with your husband when you were having sex to make a baby.

Besides, even if you really only shared your womb with your baby, that baby has male DNA so technically you are sharing your womb with your husband since the baby has his DNA.

reply to post by Jepic


My husband never shared the womb with me, our child did, but not him. Different people. Completely different individuals who share DNA but not him in there, nope, he was in his mom's womb, though. Not mine.

Funny, funny boys....

just out of curiosity, the people proposing that a womb should be considered shared property... are you suggesting that a woman should be forced to carry and birth a child against her will so that the man can have the baby? would you provide any sort of compensation to the woman for forcing her to go through the whole ordeal of carrying and birthing a child? i've never been pregnant, but im quite sure its a very life changing experience and you have to reconstruct your life accordingly to accommodate the pregnancy. that would turn a persons life on its head. or perhaps the men should be compensated for not being able to have the child? or just that if abortion should be allowed regardless of what the man wants then the man should not have to pay any child support or be a legal parent to the child if he wants? im just wondering what you all propose as a solution here.

I am sick to death of you psycho people trying to argue a woman's rights to her own body away.
You will never be able to control another human being and force them to do what you think is best.
You will also never be able to opt out of paying child support purely because the government doesn't want to pay for your mistakes.

If a man or the government tried to force me to carry a child against my will, I would kill myself. I'm sure many women would do the same.
What if she has a secret abortion? How will you prove she didn't just miscarry?

You want a baby? Find a lovely woman who wants to carry one for you.
You don't want a baby? Wear a condom or push for a safe effective male pill.
These are your options until an artificial womb is created.

Shared property - the most ridiculous thing I have heard in my life.

there is a very strong line between a couple planning a baby together and a haphazard conception.

Its not that long ago that most men would run a mile if a baby was conceived 'haphaardly' suddenly today all men want to be fathers. But is it for some, fewer jobs about and something to do? That might sound cruel, but that is the scenario today for many. Do not get wrong, what I am saying, my son was basically entrapped, but today I can put my hand on my heart and say he is a fabulous father, he works, provides and certainly learned from his own father's generation's errors.

If a man demands a women rents or allows him temporary rights over her womb and I agree with the penis argument, will he take 100% care for a baby or, if he forces her to keep a baby because he wants it, will he expect her to give up her world, or a part of it to fit in with his mothercare arrangements. Its a difficult one.

I would say though that no one on this board I bet has failed to see the neglected kids, the ones shabbily dressed, or poshly dressed that walk home slowly with their head down. At least if a kiddy starts out minus the above rows we will see less of the little neglected ones.

Also men need to realise that OK you are now a Dad and not with the Mother of your child, but will the next woman in your life want your kid you had with another? Unlikely for many so its a big decision and more of a sacrifice than realised?

I reap grain, grid it, get flour, then leavening comes, then I oven it, then we get a cute bread. I write a text, then is corrected, later edited, then sent to print, then published, we get a cute book. I generate a big-head fast-moving seed, shot it on a woman's flower, it scores, then it's fed, protected, grown, then is given birth, we get a cute child.

Of course not!

The issue of shared ownership of a womb works both ways. Say the mother wants to have the baby, if it's shared then the guy can make her get an abortion. That's a slippery slope that the govt. just needs to stay out of all together. Just let the woman decide what she want's to do. It's her body that get's tore up.

My question would be, If the man does receive the right, yet the woman still goes ahead and does it anyways... what would be the punishment? A fine? A charge? Would they go to prison for murder?
In that case, I would say no... Woman's body, woman's choice... and yes I'm female, but no I'm not a feminist what so ever.

To have a guy force a woman to give birth to a child she doesn't want, just doesn't sit well with me...

Originally posted by Dr Expired
reply to post by HarmonicNights

 

It is interesting to read others are perhaps counting the cost of the growing legion of dead that never were ouside the womb.
I may be wrong but it ironic that the Christian West has oversaw the mass culling of Gods Children by virtue of encouraged Mass Abortion?

It really does make a dent in the child trafficking and slave trade and that will get a lot of people up in arms. Where will we get the bodies for sale?
Where are we going to get those unwanted children if we excise every unwanted conception from the womb? Let's be practical people and think about someone other than yourself for just a moment.
There are people who need to exploit the unfortunate and the unwanted, and people in line to buy them.
Propagate and I mean propagate and do not stop for anything. Propagate until you are side by side like sardines in a can.

reply to post by pikypiky




No more than when an idea is shared between two people does one own a part of the others brain.
I never understood why in a world where war is so popular is early termination of a pregnancy to save a woman's life so abhorrent?

Every 90 seconds a woman dies in pregnancy.

There is such a double standard when it comes to the definition and value of a human life.

Originally posted by Dr Expired
With so many stories one hears about men having been trumatised by a Partners decision to terminate a life created by both Partners, against the mans wishes, the question should be asked perhaps...."Should a womans womb be considered Shared Property During Pregnancy?

And I do not mean that a womans body is a mans property at any time, just that for legal reasons the womans womb should be whilst life created by a man and a woman is within the womb.

If one thinks about it clearly and logically, it makes acute sense.

Once a child is born the Father and the Mother are Legally entitled to parent the newborn, but at any time before birth ( at least up to 28weeks now I believe from conception) a woman can kill the developing life without regard to the mans wishes.
Yet the man if the woman allows the developing life to set foot in the outside world, the man is fully legally responsible for that new life...its an illogical situation surely?

I totally think its unfair,and woman use this very much to their advantage. It isn't fair that a man has no say to what is legally his ,even if it is being carried in another body. If its his after the birth ,and he needs to pay child support, it should be considered his before birth as well, therefore having some say in the outcome of the pregnancy.

reply to post by pikypiky


A woman's womb is already shared. Are you wanting to bring in a third party?

Originally posted by gabby2011

Originally posted by Dr Expired
With so many stories one hears about men having been trumatised by a Partners decision to terminate a life created by both Partners, against the mans wishes, the question should be asked perhaps...."Should a womans womb be considered Shared Property During Pregnancy?

And I do not mean that a womans body is a mans property at any time, just that for legal reasons the womans womb should be whilst life created by a man and a woman is within the womb.

If one thinks about it clearly and logically, it makes acute sense.

Once a child is born the Father and the Mother are Legally entitled to parent the newborn, but at any time before birth ( at least up to 28weeks now I believe from conception) a woman can kill the developing life without regard to the mans wishes.
Yet the man if the woman allows the developing life to set foot in the outside world, the man is fully legally responsible for that new life...its an illogical situation surely?

I totally think its unfair,and woman use this very much to their advantage. It isn't fair that a man has no say to what is legally his ,even if it is being carried in another body. If its his after the birth ,and he needs to pay child support, it should be considered his before birth as well, therefore having some say in the outcome of the pregnancy.

It is not as if they cannot have a child when they both are ready.

It is not as if they cannot have a child when they both are ready.

I agree that that is the best way to bring children in this world , but so many women, get knocked up knowing the man isn't ready to have a child, yet they are demanding child support, and calling him a dead beat dad if he isn't involved with their child.

Also, it doesn't seem fair to me, that woman can make the choice NOT to bring a child into the world after she is impregnated, and the man has no choice.

Of course the best scenario is for both people to be ready ,and wanting a child...duh..that goes without saying.

reply to post by Pilot


Ok because a penis cradles a baby, get off it femm bot. Good job at making at not making a point.

reply to post by Bee2010

I am sick to death of you psycho people trying to argue a woman's rights to her own body away. You will never be able to control another human being and force them to do what you think is best. You will also never be able to opt out of paying child support purely because the government doesn't want to pay for your mistakes.

How utterly hypocritical of you. You do not believe a woman should be controlled and told what to do with her body?..what about a man? does he have no say on what is to happen to his life.

Typical selfish response..".I can have a baby if I want to and you have to pay up....its my choice, and your choice is null and void.

I think the babies fate should have to be decided on by both parents. A man cant legally force a women to get an abortion so why should it be the other way around?

Originally posted by Bee2010
I am sick to death of you psycho people trying to argue a woman's rights to her own body away.
You will never be able to control another human being and force them to do what you think is best.



You will also never be able to opt out of paying child support purely because the government doesn't want to pay for your mistakes.

Your statement is riddled with hypocrisy. you say "you will never be able to control another human being and force them to do what you think is best" and immediately say "you also will never be able to opt out of paying child support".

It basically says "you will not tell me what to do but i will tell you what to do".

Do you really feel that its ok for you to claim that no one can control another human being and then immediately make the statement that human beings will be controlled?

reply to post by Dilligaf28




I know...I pretty much said the same in my previous post to yours. And she calls others pathetic and psycho??

Sorry bee...you're the one acting psycho here