Man divorced wife because she chose to abort his child

That doesn't address any of the points I made though. I agree that this kind of decision should be made by both parents in most cases, but where they disagree, I don't see how you can expect a pregnant woman to be forced in to a medical decision by the father (be that carrying to term or abortion).

And being forced to carry a pregnancy to term you don't want to wouldn't be? I'm not in any disagreement that this is a sad situation (though without quite as much rhetorical language about "murder"). None of that creates a viable alternative solution though.

 

Legit. He should also be able to sue for breach of contract, and sue for damages. I bet if you found a really eager lawyer, there might also be criminal charges to bring to bear against the offending wife.

 

A law could be written to protect the rights of the father in cases where the couple was in mutual agreement about having a baby. Such mutual agreement can only be ended by mutually agreeing to abort. If the father does not agree, then the law would require the mother to deliver.

I asked earlier if an active fetus can be surgically transferred to a surrogate mother. Is that possible? If so, then that would be an option which would satisfy both.

 

You still seem to be suck on the idea that forcing the woman to carry to term and give birth is any kind of viable solution to this situation when it simply isn't.

Making a law doesn't deal with the moral and practical issues. I don't see any issues such a law would actually resolve and it would likely create a whole set of it's own. It wouldn't even apply in the OP case since the man accepts that abortion is 100% the woman's choice and so he presumably wouldn't want to force her to give birth. I'd like to think no sane man would.

That certainly isn't possible. Some form of artificial gestation is probably a more realistic direction but even that is nowhere near viable. Regardless, it would still require medical intervention on the mother and therefore require her consent.

 

Its a viable solution in my opinion, but clearly not in yours so we agree to disagree.

 

Just trying to understand why she did an about face like that. As for it being her body, that's true. But the child belongs to both of them as it is a joint venture in the bond of marriage. She should not have the legal right to abort the child without the Fathers/Husbands approval.

 

the post was over a year old and the account no longer active, sounds fake to me

maybe a case of bearing false witness

 

Sorry, but we entered this discussion together so you can't conclude it without my permission.

 

You obviously are trying not to understand what both ways means....you canNOT have a man "say" a woman must gestate but NOT say she must abort.....having a "say" doesn't mean only one option.
Maybe post 49 would help

Gugga duh, I didn't say that I said : it's Totally irrelevant....it still isn't in HIS body...

what you're saying is that since he contributed sperm HE should say what the woman should do with the fetus.....and that just isn't so...


When TF are you going to get over the cave man idea that if a man has sex and/or impregnates a woman he now owns her....that is so backwards, sexist and misogynistic..

 

It is her body, NOT his....he DID NOT BUY HER...he married her.

 

I'll repeat what I said: We are not making any progress here. Just because the woman contributed the egg, doesn't mean only she has a say in killing the baby.

 

OOOHHH really punish that WOMAN!!!


What contract? What "damages" ?

What crime?

 

It is NOT because she contributed the egg it's because she is a person with RIGHTS.....

Marrying and/or impregnating a woman does NOT MAKE HER YOUR PROPERTY!

 

The father has right to defend the life of his child.

Its silly to argue it somehow makes her 'property'. The baby, however, is property of both the father and the mother, and that's the whole point.

 

Yet you believe a woman getting pregnant makes the fetus her property. Hmm...

 

It is not a child until it is born.

A man does NOT have the right to FORCE a woman to gestate...FORCE is what RAPIST'S LIKE

No, it isn't...slave owners controlled their slave's bodies....women are not slaves , they have the right to their own bodies..

NO, it isn't...it's in the woman, it's HERS.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Marrying and/or impregnating a woman does NOT MAKE HER YOUR PROPERTY!

So YOUR heart isn't your property ???

Whose is it???

 

It's the woman's choice to make about the abortion and the man's choice about whether he wants to remain with her after she does it. There's no rule that says he has to be okay with it.

 

Seen it many times. In fact, I think the fundamentalist LDS church is based on keeping women pregnant in order to control them.

 

I don’t think that there’s a debate that he has to be OK with it, but there seems to be some debate over the fact that this man thinks it was his decision to make, and not his wife’s

 

Yah...that seemed a little weird and not human nature.

 

It would be impossible for a foetus to be transplanted once implantation occurs. The placenta actually grows into the wall of the uterus

it is a highly complex structure. Fertilised eggs (a conceptus) pre implantation - yes as it is not uncommon but once implantation occurs the only option would be a full uterine transplantation and I don’t think anyone is even considering how and when you would do that

 

So true!

 

Abusive women are willing to kill their unborn child ...when it's easy and the off- spring is most vulnerable.

If that story was true....which I doubt it was...the woman comes across as a cold socialpath. Willing to kill her child, hurt her husband and dispose of the marriage.

I doubt it's real though....sense some red flags..

 

Well...if the story is true...Because she can't be trusted. She's self centered and selfish. Her priorities are about her and her alone. She has no regard for individual human life. Some people need to stay single.