Abortion in marriage.

So here's one I was wondering about.

While I'm a yes voter and believe that a woman can do as she wishes, what do you think is potential fall out of the woman (wife in this instance) having or not having an abortion if the other spouse preferred the opposite.

Would it be a marriage breaker for you if your wife had an abortion of a child you desperately wanted, or didn't have one and locked you into raising a child you were not ready for?

As for myself? I honestly don't know what it would do for me

randomname2005

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So here's one I was wondering about.

While I'm a yes voter and believe that a woman can do as she wishes, what do you think is potential fall out of the woman (wife in this instance) having or not having an abortion if the other spouse preferred the opposite.

Would it be a marriage breaker for you if your wife had an abortion of a child you desperately wanted, or didn't have one and locked you into raising a child you were not ready for?

As for myself? I honestly don't know what it would do for me

Good question. I don't know and hopefully won't be in the situation. If kids weren't discussed before some partners might never know

Woden

While not always possible I understand but generally I think you shouldn't be blind sided in your relationship by this events like this from my perspective.

If you've got to the point of marriage i'd expect to have had conversations about having or not having children already and what to do in the event that said pregnancy was wanted not wanted by one or more parties. Or what you would do in the event of complications in the pregnancy.

Woden

Woden wrote: »

While not always possible I understand but generally I think you shouldn't be blind sided in your relationship by this events like this from my perspective.

If you've got to the point of marriage i'd expect to have had conversations about having or not having children already and what to do in the event that said pregnancy was wanted not wanted by one or more parties. Or what you would do in the event of complications in the pregnancy.

You could but there could be many reasons not to at a point in time

Already have children, too old, too young, economic, health etc

Woden

Yes but you should still have or have had a conversation about what you would or wouldn't do in the event of another pregnancy. It's only prudent from my perspective to go through the what-if scenarios

Woden

Woden wrote: »

Yes but you should still have or have had a conversation about what you would or wouldn't do in the event of another pregnancy. It's only prudent from my perspective to go through the what-if scenarios

Well assume most people don't do that.

Also again circumstances change, people discuss something agree it, not discuss again and something happens in the interim, so the question relates to the wife (of either gender spouse) making a solo decision on the matter

DEFTLEFTHAND

It would end the relationship for me.

I wouldn't be capable of being intimate what that person anymore. I would be physically repulsed by them.

Calhoun

Woden wrote: »

While not always possible I understand but generally I think you shouldn't be blind sided in your relationship by this events like this from my perspective.

If you've got to the point of marriage i'd expect to have had conversations about having or not having children already and what to do in the event that said pregnancy was wanted not wanted by one or more parties. Or what you would do in the event of complications in the pregnancy.

This i think is the right answer, before my wife and i could move forward in our relationship we had to have this type of conversation regarding kids ect.

However if it was something that they wanted to do at a later point i would expect a conversation about it, just like if i wanted to get a vasectomy a good relationship is all about partner and communication. I don't see any situation where i would not speak to my wife about something so important.

Defunkd

I wouldn't marry without sussing out our compatability regarding children and i'm aware that sex can result in pregnancy no matter what device or method is used, so in that sense i'm ready to accept parenthood every time i get freaky. I wouldn't take kindly to anyone endangering the life of a child of mine - no matter how big or small that child is.

heretothere

Delete my post if the rules state women can't post in here - the thread came up on the log in page.

Very interesting question. Whilst I agree with everyone that both spouses should be entering on the same page and both might firmly have decided they never wanted kids. I think it's perfectly reasonable to change your mind once you see that little blue line.

jimmycrackcorm

What exactly is the relevant of being married? Shouldn't the debate be about the significance of the father?

The only point about marriage in this context of the referendum is to highlight yet again that unmarried father's have no rights before or after birth.

Calhoun

heretothere wrote: »

Delete my post if the rules state women can't post in here - the thread came up on the log in page.

Very interesting question. Whilst I agree with everyone that both spouses should be entering on the same page and both might firmly have decided they never wanted kids. I think it's perfectly reasonable to change your mind once you see that little blue line.

There is no such rule.

Things can change at a later point but you both still need to talk before making a decision. If the woman decides to keep it at that stage the man needs to consider if he should or shouldnt have had a vasectomy to be sure.

heretothere

heretothere wrote: »

Delete my post if the rules state women can't post in here - the thread came up on the log in page.

Very interesting question. Whilst I agree with everyone that both spouses should be entering on the same page and both might firmly have decided they never wanted kids. I think it's perfectly reasonable to change your mind once you see that little blue line.

Open to all.
You see that is the thing, no plan survives contact with the enemy and all that.


If a couple decide to have kids in 5 years but 6 months later that line appears and there is a difference of opinion then



(and lads this is a hypothetical so less of the "Well we have our entire life planned out and nothing changes that"...)

jimmycrackcorm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

What exactly is the relevant of being married? Shouldn't the debate be about the significance of the father?

The only point about marriage in this context of the referendum is to highlight yet again that unmarried father's have no rights before or after birth.

Relevance is that it is much more difficult to divorce than simply break up, in general

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

There is no such rule.

Things can change at a later point but you both still need to talk before making a decision. If the woman decides to keep it at that stage the man needs to consider if he should or shouldnt have had a vasectomy to be sure.

Ah for **** sake. The guy could simply be the one wanting to keep the child also.


What is it with this site at times, you throw out a simple enough querey for debate and people invent every possible scenario to avoid answering that simple question.


Life is not simple, people change their minds, accidents happen, circumstances change.
Christ it can be frustrating at times

Calhoun

Deleted User wrote: »

(and lads this is a hypothetical so less of the "Well we have our entire life planned out and nothing changes that"...)

Nobody has their life planned out but pointing out that communication is a key part of a healthy relationship.

If you cannot communicate serious things as a couple then something is really wrong with your relationship and on that basis alone you should probably re-evaluate.

Calhoun

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah for **** sake. The guy could simply be the one wanting to keep the child also.


What is it with this site at times, you throw out a simple enough querey for debate and people invent every possible scenario to avoid answering that simple question.


Life is not simple, people change their minds, accidents happen, circumstances change.
Christ it can be frustrating at times

Hold the **** up, your a yes voter so you know what i am saying is true. There is a responsibility on both adults to communicate with each other before moving forward.

If things have changed for the man and not the woman, and hypothetically she wants to abort it. Then he has to either accept it or leave but do realize if he does leave its him who has changed what he wants out of life.

AfterLife

[Deleted User] wrote: »

or didn't have one and locked you into raising a child you were not ready for?

This could happen to me. I really don't want kids. As we hit our mid 30's I'm not really sure if I could advocate for an abortion if that's not what she wanted. I also don't think I could walk away. So bully for me I suppose.

We're both yes voters and have been together since we were 16.

the_syco

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I would be physically repulsed by them.

Because they got raped, or because they got the abortion?

fits

A lot of abortions are carried out on married women who already have children. I think that’s the biggest cohort. I’m sure there is conflict over these things. But you need to make these decisions as a couple. A woman might have all sorts of reasons why she may not continue pregnancy.

listermint

Why does the conversation have to be about abortion, it could be about your spouse taking 10 grand out of a joint account and spending it on goods and services without a conversation.

These types of questions are fundamental to communication in relationships and taking the other person's opinion and coming to an agreement.

If communication doesn't work and you don't actually discuss things in general then a relationship can't really work abortion or not marraige or not

I think the open question is narrow and flawed. For what purpose I really don't know.

How about a thread where I can't communicate with my other half they don't take my opinion on anything..... See what the answers would be.

DEFTLEFTHAND

the_syco wrote: »

Because they got raped, or because they got the abortion?

Had an abortion with my child.

RobAMerc

this doesn't have to be about abortion, this is about 1 member of a couple doing something the other doesn't want.
Couples need to come to a solution together, if both are intransigent on any topic it will cause issues and ultimately lead to problems with the marriage.

Addle

Watch/read Revolutionary Road if you want to know the effect of abortion not being legal on a marriage.

Tell me how

Calhoun wrote:

Nobody has their life planned out but pointing out that communication is a key part of a healthy relationship.

If you cannot communicate serious things as a couple then something is really wrong with your relationship and on that basis alone you should probably re-evaluate.

I think you're very naive if you don't realize how people and circumstances change over time.

And also, that people even within relationships/marriage always have reasonable balanced conversations.

I also think the conversation should be extrapolated for those not married to consider the "right to choose" of both parties.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah for **** sake. The guy could simply be the one wanting to keep the child also.


What is it with this site at times, you throw out a simple enough querey for debate and people invent every possible scenario to avoid answering that simple question.


Life is not simple, people change their minds, accidents happen, circumstances change.
Christ it can be frustrating at times

There's nothing wrong with the site, there's a lot wrong with the way you asked your question, so much wrong with it that you avoided answering it yourself by saying you don't know what you'd do, and now you're complaining because people are thinking about the potential possibilities and going beyond the scope and limitations of your question. It sounds to me like you just want to hear answers that suit you tbh, but as you say yourself - life isn't that simple.

I can't answer the question the way it's phrased in the opening post. I read over it and over it and over it again, and I still don't get what you're asking. I don't understand it. I can't give you a definitive answer to a hypothetical scenario!

Tell me how

One eyed Jack wrote:

I can't answer the question the way it's phrased in the opening post. I read over it and over it and over it again, and I still don't get what you're asking. I don't understand it. I can't give you a definitive answer to a hypothetical scenario!

You can't understand this question?

Deleted User wrote:

Would it be a marriage breaker for you if your wife had an abortion of a child you desperately wanted, or didn't have one and locked you into raising a child you were not ready for?

Don't know if that's the OP's fault.

It is a very deep question in terms of an individual's answer but it is fairly valid given the current conversation.

Experience_day

listermint wrote: »

Why does the conversation have to be about abortion, it could be about your spouse taking 10 grand out of a joint account and spending it on goods and services without a conversation.

These types of questions are fundamental to communication in relationships and taking the other person's opinion and coming to an agreement.

If communication doesn't work and you don't actually discuss things in general then a relationship can't really work abortion or not marraige or not

I think the open question is narrow and flawed. For what purpose I really don't know.

How about a thread where I can't communicate with my other half they don't take my opinion on anything..... See what the answers would be.

You are comparing ending a life (having children is an integral part of lots of peoples relationships) to taking money out of a joint account? wut...

If you can't see why it could be an issue, you might take yourself down to the Doctor and see if you can get a late autistic diagnosis?

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

It is a very deep question in terms of an individual's answer but it is fairly valid given the current conversation.

I thought that it was a fairly straightforward question, with potentially large ramifications.

I don't know, people just like to argue I guess

BarryD2

Can't see any issue. It's the woman who has to carry and bear the child, so it should always be her decision to do what's best for her. I'm inclined to the view that women are wiser around these matters than men and their judgement should be trusted. If the marriage can't survive that, well that's the way of it.

Calhoun

Tell me how wrote: »

I think you're very naive if you don't realize how people and circumstances change over time.

And also, that people even within relationships/marriage always have reasonable balanced conversations.

I also think the conversation should be extrapolated for those not married to consider the "right to choose" of both parties.

No I understand people's situation change over time but as I said above if the couple had originally agreed they didn't want kids and the man in this situation as described above changed his mind then should he force his partner to give birth ?

Also I am calling out that one person changing their mind over time is allowed but they have to understand that they are the own changing their mind and not their partner, so you cannot hold it against your partner for staying true to their original standpoint.

One eyed Jack

Tell me how wrote: »

You can't understand this question?

Don't know if that's the OP's fault.

Even you missed the question in the first paragraph! The first question is an open ended question and that would have been fine on it's own to allow debate and discussion, but the second question narrows it down to the personal, and gives only two choices that I don't particularly care for either one. It's not an either/or situation.

It is a very deep question in terms of an individual's answer but it is fairly valid given the current conversation.

It's not a deep question, the answer is obvious - the man isn't given a choice either way in terms of whether or not a woman makes choices for herself that he agrees with. That happens in all relationships in all kinds of circumstances. Sometimes they're dealbreakers, sometimes they're not, sometimes people compromise, sometimes they don't.

I dunno, I'm separated and I'm the primary custodian of our child so I dunno where the OP gets the idea that a marital separation isn't much easier than your wife or your girlfriend having an abortion. They are a yes voter so I guess for them it is easier when they haven't been in that situation.

It's easy to have principles when the question is only a hypothetical one, we all imagine ourselves doing the right thing and coming off smelling of righteousness and roses, but reality is often far more complex, because of context.

Rezident

This happened to me. Not a deal breaker in terms of the relationship or the marriage, you can't make someone do something they don't want to. Devastating at first but over time you can come to terms with it. Still comes back to haunt me every year when it would have been her birthday but life is for the living so you can only support your partner afterwards. The psychological side effects can clearly last a long time but time is the great physician.

My partner is voting yes, I agree with repealing the 8th but not blanket abortions for babies up to 3 months when they have a heartbeat and everything, it should only be used in exceptional cases. Abortion is clearly a bad thing, you would not want someone you love to go through it, I can assure you. I'm voting no.

Calhoun

BarryD2 wrote: »

Can't see any issue. It's the woman who has to carry and bear the child, so it should always be her decision to do what's best for her. I'm inclined to the view that women are wiser around these matters than men and their judgement should be trusted. If the marriage can't survive that, well that's the way of it.

Oddly this is the other side of the coin and basically implies men should not have an opinion in these type of scenarios. You could imagine if in this scenario the woman kept the baby would you do any child rearing or would that be a decision for the woman.

ebbsy

I would leave it up to the Mrs.

Sonics2k

Calhoun wrote: »

Oddly this is the other side of the coin and basically implies men should not have an opinion in these type of scenarios. You could imagine if in this scenario the woman kept the baby would you do any child rearing or would that be a decision for the woman.

I don't think it says men should have no opinion, merely that ultimately the choice is the woman's to make.

Anyone who says a mans opinion in this doesn't count is a total prick.

eviltwin

Happened to us, we were both in agreement about it so it hasn't had any lasting impact on the relationship.

If we had wanted different things it would have been the end.

Calhoun

Sonics2k wrote: »

I don't think it says men should have no opinion, merely that ultimately the choice is the woman's to make.

Anyone who says a mans opinion in this doesn't count is a total prick.

Well i read it as a sexist comment that basically implied men aren't copped on enough to make decisions regarding kids and just leave it to the little woman and sure it be grand.

listermint

Experience_day wrote: »

You are comparing ending a life (having children is an integral part of lots of peoples relationships) to taking money out of a joint account? wut...

If you can't see why it could be an issue, you might take yourself down to the Doctor and see if you can get a late autistic diagnosis?

It's clear the point of the post went right over your head. I guess you can't account for other peoples intelligence. Some folks are dropped on their heads.

Has an impact

witchgirl26

I know a couple (in the UK) that were in this situation somewhat. He was booked in for the snip as they'd decided no more kids, got sick just before it so op didn't go ahead and the wife got pregnant between the original op date and the rescheduled one. Despite having decided they didn't want more kids together, he was more on the side that now it had happened that it was a sign. It was a really tough one for them as they already had 2 kids and she knew they couldn't afford to raise another child. It would have meant changing houses (the current wasn't big enough for 5 people, was only just for 4), changing cars, work wouldn't have been viable with childcare costs for one of them and they'd need to find the extra money to raise a 3rd. Someone suggested they could have the child adopted but how to you explain that to a 5 and 3 year old? After a few weeks, they did decide to have an abortion but it was reluctantly on the husbands side. That said, they agreed that they wouldn't ever use it in an argument against each other and that they were united on the final decision. I think if you can't do that, then there's a problem.

One eyed Jack

Sonics2k wrote: »

I don't think it says men should have no opinion, merely that ultimately the choice is the woman's to make.

Anyone who says a mans opinion in this doesn't count is a total prick.

That's what actually confuses me about the opening post. The OP says they're a yes voter and believes women should have the choice over whether or not they choose to have an abortion, implying that they would respect their wifes choice to have an abortion, but then they say they're not sure what they would do, which implies that they wouldn't respect that their wife was making a choice for herself.

Essentially the OP answers their own question - if their wife makes a decision that they disagree with, they're not sure they would stay. That would be the most obvious answer for anyone, regardless of the circumstances, which is why I wasn't sure why the OP thought that if their wife chose to have a child, the man was "locked into raising a child they didn't want". Men aren't obliged to do that, so it's not simply a question of one or the other in two completely different circumstances.

For example, if my wife were to become pregnant now, why would I have any say whatsoever in what she chose to do? I don't. If she chose to give birth, I would be the legal guardian of that child even though I'm not the biological father. The OP implies that there would be some malicious intent on the part of a wife who would go against their husbands wishes, and I think the preface of their argument isn't just insulting to men, it's insulting to women. I know my wife well enough to know that even though we didn't work out as a couple, she would never automatically expect me to raise another mans child, so I wouldn't be locked into anything.

I could choose to raise another mans child, and I wouldn't have a problem with raising another mans child because as far as I'm concerned it's not the childs fault they're in that situation. That's not the same thing obviously as asking what I would do if my wife were to have an abortion. That's her own business, no matter how badly I wanted children, and I did, I wanted six, but that doesn't give me the right to feel wronged in some way if my wife has an abortion.

If you were to ask any woman would she stay with her husband who forced her either to have an abortion against her will, or forced her to give birth against her will, what do you imagine the answer would be? It's obvious that the most likely answer would be 'not if I had any choice in the matter'. That's the obvious answer to the OP's question too, there's no dilemma there, it's simply a question of what would you do if someone did something you didn't agree with. Some people would leave, some people would stay, it's really not as difficult a moral dilemma as the OP is making out.

Tell me how

One eyed Jack wrote:

Essentially the OP answers their own question - if their wife makes a decision that they disagree with, they're not sure they would stay. That would be the most obvious answer for anyone, regardless of the circumstances, which is why I wasn't sure why the OP thought that if their wife chose to have a child, the man was "locked into raising a child they didn't want". Men aren't obliged to do that, so it's not simply a question of one or the other in two completely different circumstances.

But men are obliged to, financially speaking.

Whatever about the enforcement of this rule but a man cannot legally decide to absolve himself from that responsibility.

One eyed Jack

Tell me how wrote: »

But men are obliged to, financially speaking.

Whatever about the enforcement of this rule but a man cannot legally decide to absolve himself from that responsibility.

That's not a responsibility solely restricted to men, it also applies to women just as much that they would have to financially support their children in the event of a separation or divorce.

Tell me how

One eyed Jack wrote:

That's not a responsibility solely restricted to men, it also applies to women just as much that they would have to financially support their children in the event of a separation or divorce.

Yes. That is the case, but your point was men are not obliged to raise a child.

From the moment of conception, men have no choice in taking responsibility.

One eyed Jack

Tell me how wrote: »

Yes. That is the case, but your point was men are not obliged to raise a child.

From the moment of conception, men have no choice in taking responsibility.

Yeah, my point was that men are not obliged to raise a child, and you made the point that men are legally obliged to provide financial support. I'm assuming you know that they are only obliged to provide financial support if it is determined that they are indeed the father of the child or children, and I'm assuming you know that a married man is automatically assumed to be the father of any children his wife has by virtue of the fact that they're married, because you brought up the position of unmarried fathers earlier in the thread, when that scenario didn't come within the scope of the OP's question, and then you suggested I was somehow at fault for not understanding what the OP was asking. You presented a completely different scenario!

You're wrong in suggesting that men have no choice in taking responsibility from the moment of conception. They absolutely do, and the fact is that there are men who don't take any responsibility for their children's welfare. Personally, I would like to see the issue of financial support tied to access, but the Courts treat them separately because they make their determinations on what is in the childs or children's best interests, not what is or isn't in the best interests of the parents, and maybe that's what the OP was driving at when they included the possibility that the child's parents who were married were of the same sex. I dunno because the opening post was confusing enough already :pac:

Tell me how

^^^
I'm out. I'm not trying to decipher this train of thought.

One eyed Jack

Tell me how wrote: »

^^^
I'm out. I'm not trying to decipher this train of thought.

It's really simple - in the case of unmarried parents, a man isn't automatically assumed to be the father, and therefore isn't required to pay to maintain a child, nor are they "locked in to raising a child they didn't want".

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's really simple - in the case of unmarried parents, a man isn't automatically assumed to be the father, and therefore isn't required to pay to maintain a child, nor are they "locked in to raising a child they didn't want".

What bloody nonsense are you spouting now? Honestly like.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What bloody nonsense are you spouting now? Honestly like.

TMH's point is that unmarried men are obligated to pay maintenance for their children. My point is that they aren't automatically obligated to pay anything, because unlike married men, unmarried men aren't automatically assumed to be the father of the child.

Wibbs

The polling stations have opened so we're locking this thread until the results are in. Thanks to all for their contributions.