Man divorced wife because she chose to abort his child

But it's not up to the woman to have them or not...?

 

,Where did you come up with that silliness...???

 

Of course the parents can decide to not have kids.

I quoted the link. Read it.

 

Uh, you believe they have no choice....

""""Children are generally regarded, legally and morally, as the property of their parents. It is considered normal for adults, and especially parents, to dictate to children what they should believe, what they should want, and how they should act. As children develop into adults, they have little experience with actual compassion"""


....but it doesn't explain why ....and all children don't grow up with little experience in compassion unless their parents told them women don't count and have no rights...

 

Sorry but since I believe in reincarnation all that would have happened is that my birth would have either been delayed or I would have been born to someone else.

 

I believe the same, but some I guess do not believe their God would do that, I wonder what they think their God would do to the fetus?

 

Cue Monty Python’s fabulous “Every Sperm is Sacred!

 

Given the fact that “God” is the prolific abortionist around…

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar...ertilised eggs, around,the time of the menses.

 

Looks like another attempt to change the topic.
Bowerbird, I am more than happy to discuss this, if you start a separate thread (you can even leave the link here).
But I suspect your intent is just to deflect.

 

It is an abortion thread and my response was about abort so no, I will NOT refrain from posting data ans statistics about what is described in medical texts as “natural” abortion

 

No, it sounds weird because the unsupported opinion on that random website is wrong.

If children were considered property, we could swap, sell or destroy them freely. Legally and morally, children are a responsibility. They have their own rights (and responsibilities as they get older) and it is the primary role of parents (or any other carer, short or long term) to support those rights in their care and development.

And yes, that does contribute to making abortion such a difficult issue.

 

Why is that any different than you pretending a fetus has a right to life in the first place and that it is somehow separate from it's mother while it is a connected dependent part of her body?

 

The definition they gave (and the use of 'generally regarded') explained it quite clearly in what sense they are considered "property".

 

It is her body. But it is their child. It is a joint venture, agreed upon beforehand, and sealed by conception. As such, it can't be undone without joint approval at the very least, if at all.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
It is her body, NOT his....he DID NOT BUY HER...he married her.

There is NO "child"..

There is NO SIGNED CONTRACT.

She owes him NOTHING.

It is HER body, ALL OF IT...not his...

He can no more force her to gestate than he can force her to give him a kidney.

It's a very caveman mentality that says if a man has sex with a woman he owns her....very backwards and primitive, sexist and misogynistic...


If it's his then why doesn't HE have to suffer through 9 months of pregnancy and the pain involved, the permanent physical effects, the job loss involved, the financial loss, the agony of child birth


GEE MEN sure like to take the easy way out and leave the women to be strong and pay the price of his 20 seconds of pleasure so they don't have to.....weaklings...

 

Yes, and that definition is wrong. Dictating how a child should behave, want or even believe isn't the equivalent of claiming any kind of ownership (it isn't necessarily good, just not ownership). After all, there are plenty of examples of people who seek to dictate what other adults do or believe, and sometimes the legitimately do have that right to an extent, but that isn't claiming ownership of those other people either.

The site you linked appears to be presenting that exaggerated misrepresentation to create an impression of conventional methods of child raising as being bad and wrong and help present a moral distinction between that and the concepts they're trying to sell.

 

I guess we'll see how it shakes out. It's my understanding that the Husband will divorce her if she aborts their child.

 

Sounds like you see them more of a public responsibility rather than private one. IMO children are parents responsibility and they have authority over them, and in that sense their 'property'. Of course that does not mean they can sell them like old furniture.

 

I think everyone has a level of responsibility for everyone else in our society (adult or child) but clearly parents have a specific and extensive responsibility and related authority over their children.

I just don't see any valid purpose in bringing the word "property" in to this at all and the only actual purpose is to create a false impression to support a particular socio-political position (be that "and it's bad, so our method of raising children is better." or "so fathers should be able to veto abortions.").

 

True.

I don't believe this is an abortion issue. Clearly, it is a marriage issue. The couple in question have gigantic disagreement on what they want their future to be like.

There are lots of differences within marriages that end up leading to the marriage being dissolved. Maybe their shouldn't be, but that's a very different topic.

One big one is finances - not necessarily irresponsibility, but perhaps the question of working for a better tomorrow vs. enjoying the money one has at present.

 

It doesn't matter what you believe happens to you after you die....the fact is...and the point that I made...is that you would be dead if YOU were killed as a six week gestation unborn child.

Fyi...its not ok to kill just because a person believes in reincarnation.

 

It appears that no government interference was necessary. Both made decisions o their own. That is how it should be.

 

Because it is a separate person and does have the right to life. That is just a scientific and moral fact. I am not pretending that this unborn person isn't somehow dependant on the mother. It's just that in this situation it doesn't matter. Do you get to invite a person in your home and then a moment later kill them because you no longer wanted them there? No, you have to wait until they leave and are able to do so.

Same with this child. She didn't have to keep it after it was born and tie her life to it forever. She could have given it away to the father. While still arguably immoral to make a commitment to your child and then abandon it to another person, it is considerably more immoral to kill them because you want nothing to do with them.

 

No it isn't and no it isn't. It WILL BE a separate person in the future, once born. But you can't be separate when you're connected to the mother's body, dependent upon her body for literally every atom of nourishment and building matter(gotta build the body out of something) it will receive from the moment of conception until the moment of birth. You. Can't. Be. Separate. When. You. Live. Inside. Someone's. Body.

And morality has nothing to do with facts whatsoever, it is entirely subjective. The only fact you can cite when it comes to morality is that the concept of morality exists. That's it.

Nope, you're just ignoring it. And your analogy fails, like all tend to do, because it uses a born person. A born person is an individual recognized by society(including the government) both formally and informally. That is not the same as a connected dependent fetus that lives inside it's mother.

Yes, she could have given birth and put it up for adoption, that was indeed an option she had. You can grapple with how her choice meshes with your personal morality without pretending it's not her choice to make though. Nobody said you had to like it or agree with it.

 

If you think because you are holding hands with someone or swapping spit with someone, you are now one person, there is really no way we are going to have an rational debate about this.
At 2months,It's a separate person with it's own DNA, brain, experiences, and heart. End of debate.