Abortion: Should she tell her husband?

[Kinoko]

I think displaying the wrongness of it would be if your husband is physically pregnant and can have the abortion without your permission. I think that's his right. Of course your situation terrifies me because he's got control over -my- body.

[Tiki]

...because he's got control over -my- body.

More specifically, your child's body.

I'm not really sure what to add without beating a dead horse... I agree in saying that husbands should know - not because I'm a man myself, but because it's just as much one partner's child as it is the other.  Responsibilities vary between the two sexes, but neither the woman nor the man should be able to make a choice like this without the other at least knowing about it.

2ma2 did a fantastic job of saying this... "..He's got a bloody right to know."

[RickJ]

Well, I think I'll add my two cents.  There are two posibilities;  either the father of the child shares responsibility for it with the mother or he doesn't.   The goverment has seen fit to involve themselves in this via child support and other laws to make the father share responsibility for any kids he co-produces.  So why wouldn't the father have a 50% say in it?   I've read all of the reasons above about abusive partners etc but there are laws to handle those things.   

If you believe that the mother has the right to make all the decisions then under the law she should bear full responsibility and not expect anything from the father.  If you think the law should obligagte the father to provide financial support then he should have a say.   I don't think you can have it both ways.

[Kinoko]

I agree with you there, I don't think men should be forced to pay support if they have no contact with the child...

[SSH]

So if a man rapes a woman who proceeds to have the child, he shouldn't have to pay child support if the woman doesn't want him to see the child? Or a husband who becomes abusive to the woman or child....

The trouble is with these situations is that there's always counterexamples to any dogmatic generalised statement

[Kinoko]

Well, yes, what I made there was a general statement.

[Vince Twelve]

Getting involved in this kind of conversation is probably a bad idea, but since this is about legislating whether or not a woman has to have the husband's approval to have an abortion and not about whether or not abortions should be legal, I'll add my two cents...

In a healthy loving relationship a woman is always going to inform her husband about a pregnancy and involve him in the decision before terminating a pregnancy.  If she doesn't tell him, there's something wrong with that relationship and it's probable that such a relationship would not be an ideal setting for a child.

The fact is, there's no reason for such a thing to be legislated.  It's a serious issue, yes.  But it's just not something that any federal government should be forcing upon its citizens when there are so many exceptions in which the woman has very good reason not to tell her husband.  Denying this woman a doctor-assisted abortion because her exception is not one of those outlined in the vaguely-worded law is not a good option.

Laws that prevent women from having safe abortions only lead to more coat-hanger back-alley abortions.  Sorry for that image, but it's true.

[aussie]

I agree with a lot of the previous posts in regard to abortion. I believe it's wrong because the one killed is the kid, and nobody is taking his/her opinion into account.

Ok, there are specific circumstances that may add strong emotional aspects to the mother's choice, but the kid has certainly done nothing wrong.

Having said that...

With regard to the legislation bit, I believe couples have a right to cut it out in whichever way they please. Surely, I feel an abortion is important enough for a couple to talk things over, but each couple is a whole different story.

[Layabout]

Abortions should be compulsary for under 21s. If you don't you should be jailed. I'm sorry if this seems sick, but there are way to many 14 year olds having babies in the uk.

[Becky]

Abortions should be compulsary for under 21s. If you don't you should be jailed. I'm sorry if this seems sick, but there are way to many 14 year olds having babies in the uk.

As much as it's someone's choice to have an abortion, it is fully their choice to have the child too, and at 18 some couples are ready and prepared to be responsible parents.

Prevention is better than cure.  Better sex education would prevent teenage pregnancies, not mass abortions.

[Afflict]

Abortions should be compulsary for under 21s. If you don't you should be jailed. I'm sorry if this seems sick, but there are way to many 14 year olds having babies in the uk.

Well then the legal age to have sex should go up too, however I believe when your 18 its fine go nuts "no pun"
But at the age of 14 the father and mother should both be legaly charged. Cause its still illegal so both should I dunno be charged with rape or something.

Their parents too should be, strung up cause they leave their children to get up to these things!
What can a 14 year old ever know about life as a parent and how can she ever argue with her child
to say no you cannot do this or that when she is that young! Not to even mention the father which was
probably of legal age and ran away.

[Tiki]

But at the age of 14 the father and mother should both be legaly charged. Cause its still illegal so both should I dunno be charged with rape or something.

Dictionary.com
"Rape

   1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
   2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
   3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice."

Doesn't seem to fit there

[Mr Jake]

Actually, I'm 99.9% sure that rape means forcing someone into doing something. The sexual thing is just an evolution of it, so, technically, it does fit!

[Helm]

co·er·cion


rape is definately sexual

[Snake]

I haven't read to the end of the discussion yet, I will, but I stopped when I read this:

...but at the end of the day, it's the womans body, it's her choice.

It's also the man's baby.
It should be a mutual decision. The woman shouldn't just turn around and abort their son or daughter without consulting the husband/boyfriend.

They were partners in the whole goddamn sex shit so they should be partners in the fuckin abortion option.

--EDIT--
Depending on the situation of course:
Rape, one night stand...


--Snake

[Kweepa]

[EDIT] I'm talking nonsense now.

[MillsJROSS]

While I see no reason for their to be a law about the issue. It is as much a guys right to know, whether his wife is pregnant, and is deciding to get an abortion. What if I got married and then decided to have a vivisection, without telling my wife. It's my body...but wouldn't it affect the relationship, if I didn't tell her, and she is trying to have a baby? Yes, we don't live in a perfect world, and there will always be people who don't fit in this category. But a women should definately let the guy know. Especially, a couple who is married.

The right or wrongness of abortion isn't really part of the question, so I won't go into it.

-MillsJROSS

[TheYak]

It seems like a poor idea.  As much as I think the father should know and that the woman should tell him that she's having the procedure, there are too many problems with it. 

First, as mentioned - Government regulation seldom tends to be the best way to go about ensuring something is done properly. 

Second - I don't think the male should have 100% veto capability in the matter,  and putting this decision into effect would cause just that.  If the law requires notification, how is verification of this made?  Is there a call the father has to make?  Paper to sign?  Summons to answer?  If verification is required, the father simply needs to avoid it to effectively give a veto to an abortion decision.  If no verification is needed, then the law's unenforceable and has no bearing.

[Haddas]

This was a much easier matter 200 years ago.

[shbaz]

This was a much easier matter 200 years ago.

Yeah, back then they could just kill the woman altogether and there was no way to prove fatherhood so women could often be written off as harlots while the fathers retained their public standing.

But at the age of 14 the father and mother should both be legaly charged. Cause its still illegal so both should I dunno be charged with rape or something.

You're confused. Statutory rape is when an adult sexually abuses a minor who may or may not know any better. The ages of consent vary from 14-18 in the United States. If two minors have sex it isn't a crime, they don't know any better. If an adult has sex with a minor it is a crime, the minor was taken advantage of. Why in the hell should two kids be charged with rape for having sex during the period of their life where they have less control over their sexual urges than they ever will in their future? Do you think they should also be charged for masturbation, etc? It's just unreasonably stupid.