Man divorced wife because she chose to abort his child

YUP! All that's TRUE!!! Congratulations !!!!!!!


Thank you for admitting women are humans!!!!!

 

I know there is no legal requirement to get fathers consent, but maybe there should be. This kind of scenario is very rare, which is why I think its made up. Practically all abortions are done to unmarried women, or married where both husband and wife make the decision together (not in good financial situation, health risks like diabetes, have too many kids already, doctors recommendation, baby has Downs syndrome etc).

 

I think Abortions should require both adults to consent specially if married. I read this story in complete disgust. I would divorce her too. Worthless woman in my opinion. Had no care for the life in her nor her marriage. Literally a worthless human.

 

Women don't need to use their body to please men.


LOL, I love how when WOMEN do what they want it's "domineering""...

If the husband got HIS way would it be "domineering????

 

This is the first time I have to say you are 100% right. Hats off to you.

 

Why ? Because she won't breed ??

 

She chose to breed. Then she backtracked on a joint decision and her marriage. Yes, she’s worthless. Specially as a partner.

 

Could be that she cheated on him and fears that it is someone elses baby...possibly another race/color.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Uh, "tell her to have the baby" ?

It's HER choice.......he has no right to "tell " her to do anything.

I agree the story is probably made up...

No, slavery has been abolished.
Just because a man marries, impregnates, or has sex with a woman it does NOT mean he owns her...that's a very antiquated idea..

Why should a woman lose her basic human rights because she had sex??

The OP is made up to make an attempt at a point...it failed...

There are many married women who have abortions....there are all kinds of scenarios but it boils down, as always, to women have rights.

 

Ya, so?

Anyone can make up a million scenarios

Women still have a right to their own bodies.

 

OH GOSH! NO one has ever done THAT before ..especially men !!

If that's your opinion, Then don't marry her..

 

I didn’t say her partner isn’t entitled to be angry and want a divorce, did I?

 

I didn't say anything about owning her. She wants to terminate his baby, so..... If the story was true, they could have worked it out the way I described: Have the baby, and let the father raise the kid, and she can go back to living her life without the burden of being a parent.

Because the child is as much his as it is hers, so maybe he should be heard.

 

I'm sure if she had the option of allowing him to carry and give birth to the baby, then raise it, she would have.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
No, slavery has been abolished.
Just because a man marries, impregnates, or has sex with a woman it does NOT mean he owns her...that's a very antiquated idea.

But you posted:
Pro_Line_FL said: ↑
I know there is no legal requirement to get fathers consent, but maybe there should be."""


If a woman needs a man's consent that means he owns her....PEOPLE shouldn't need consent to have medical procedures.




And they could've worked it out any number of ways but the PREGNANT ONE decides.

Sure he can be heard depending on each individual couple's wishes....but that doesn't mean he can stop her from aborting OR FORCE HER to abort....see, it can go two ways...

Again, the pregnant one decides...the FETUS is hers..

 

LOL, I bet he would've got an abortion...

 

someone said it on the internet?

 

No, it does not. There are many things which require consent, and it never boils down to anyone owning anyone else.

That is your opinion, so we'll have to agree to disagree. The baby inside her is also the fathers flesh and blood, so he should have some say in killing the baby.

Is it possible to transfer the fetus to a surrogate woman?

And also his flesh and blood.

 

man divorces woman... proving she made the right choice (if the story is even true and not some made up nonsense by an anti-choicer)

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
If a woman needs a man's consent that means he owns her....PEOPLE shouldn't need consent to have medical procedures.

NOT in this case....If a woman needs a man's consent that means he owns her

It is about HER OWN body...she needs no consent from the father.

So YOU say that if a father tells his pregnant wife to have an abortion she has to !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????????????????????

Sure it is possible...but it's the PRGENANT ones CHOICE.

So YOU say that if a father tells his pregnant wife to have an abortion she has to !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????

JUST OMG!


The woman's body is NOT the father's....it's hers and hers alone...

 

Of course not. It requires her consent too.

Never said that.

The baby is also the fathers flesh and blood. Do you disagree?

 

Your "too" ? So why need the father's at all???

YES, you DID....you insist the father has a say....you just don't like the fact that he then could "say" have an abortion.

Can't have it both ways..

Totally irrelevant....it still isn't in HIS body...

But that statement """The baby is also the fathers flesh and blood""" shows you insist he has a right to tell the woman what to do.




Hard to convince someone who thinks women are too stupid to make their own decisions and need that FatherGod "man" to help them...

 

I already did. I dont think we are making any progress here.

Both parties giving consent is pretty much the opposite of having it both ways.

The fetus is his flesh and blood. Not sure how anyone can disagree with that.

 

You skip over the "have the baby" step a little too lightly there (actually, you skip over all the steps in your plan too lightly, but lets stay on topic). It isn't as if pregnancy and birth is a walk in the park at the best of times yet you're suggesting a woman who has already expressed severe and unresolved concerns about it to be forced to carry the pregnancy to term by her (soon to be ex) husband?

Nobody is saying fathers shouldn't be heard, only that they can't realistically have a veto. The fundamental fact that makes this such a difficult issue is that the fetus is inside the mother's body and so anything that happens involving the pregnancy directly impacts the mother too. On that basis, the only viable conclusion is that the mother has to have the final say on what happens regarding her health (outside exceptional circumstances where the mother is fundamentally incapable of making such a decision). It isn't a perfect solution, but only because there isn't one.

 

They made the decision to have a baby together, so maybe the decision to kill the baby should also be made together.

Losing a child is a traumatic experience and its makes it even worse when the killing is done by the mother and in "in your face" manner with full protection of the law. The father has to sit in the sidelines and watch his child being murdered. IMO, this should change.