Abortion in marriage.

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.