NationStates Jolt Archive

I have learned many things on NS that have helped me refine my views on things, for example I am no longer for civil unions, and have crossed over to advocating gay marriage (as long as the govt. doesn't force the church to perform them)

I have also realized that I am pro-choice (because although I believe that abortion is wrong, I realize that it is needed in a very limited set of circumstances)

but I don't want to talk about those, what I want to talk about is Spousal Notification in abortion.

Are you for or against?

Why?

Please make your arguements as clear as possible, because I am sick today and my brain isn't working well.

I want to talk about is Spousal Notification in abortion.

Are you for or against?

Why?

Please make your arguements as clear as possible, because I am sick today and my brain isn't working well.Tough call. I'm very much for letting people decide what they want to share with others.. But I would want to know.

Is this really an issue though?

I have learned many things on NS that have helped me refine my views on things, for example I am no longer for civil unions, and have crossed over to advocating gay marriage (as long as the govt. doesn't force the church to perform them)

I have also realized that I am pro-choice (because although I believe that abortion is wrong, I realize that it is needed in a very limited set of circumstances)

but I don't want to talk about those, what I want to talk about is Spousal Notification in abortion.

Are you for or against?

Why?

Please make your arguements as clear as possible, because I am sick today and my brain isn't working well.
This is a question too that argue over sometimes with myself

As a male I would want to know (even though I am pro choice) if I had a kid or was going to have one and I would like for there to be able to be some dialog between me and the potential mother about the situation.

I think that in most cases the responsible thing would be for the female to discuss this with the male BUT I shy away from taking away the females medical privacy. Its her body and ultimately her choice, I would feel wrong forcing her to make a decision to share this sort of thing with the male when unlike medical personnel is not bound by practice to secrecy


MAYBE if they made it illegal for the male to share this information beyond the two of them without her consent it would make it a bit better.


Here is a question for you though what if they are not married? What if it was just a one night stand? What if she does not know who the father is? What if it was rape? (just asking cause I dont know all the answers myself)

'SPousal' notification is kind of misleading as it's a one-way street. Because unless the husband is using knockout gas on his wife, and taking her limp form to the clinic and performing an abortion on her, there really isn't any way for the husband to have an abortion without notifying the wife.

So the real question here is does a WOMAN have the right to have an abortion without notifying the father of the child beforehand? Does marriage change that?

Well, much like my position on abortion itself, I think it's a despicable and selfish thing to do. I'd like to see such deception by omission be discouraged. But ultimately, that decision is the woman's. She cannot be forced to be a baby incubator against her will. Period.

I have learned many things on NS that have helped me refine my views on things, for example I am no longer for civil unions, and have crossed over to advocating gay marriage (as long as the govt. doesn't force the church to perform them)

I have also realized that I am pro-choice (because although I believe that abortion is wrong, I realize that it is needed in a very limited set of circumstances)

but I don't want to talk about those, what I want to talk about is Spousal Notification in abortion.

Are you for or against?

Why?

Please make your arguements as clear as possible, because I am sick today and my brain isn't working well.


Against. Plenty of domestic violence cases I've seen involve a pregnant woman who wants to end her pregnancy.

I'm sick too, so you'll have to forgive me if I'm not terribly coherent :(

I think this is a difficult one. On the one hand, it takes two to make a baby. It was his 'fault' that his wife is pregnant - to some extent it then follows that it's his responsibility too. If it's his responsibility, does he not have a right to know about what the wife intends to do about her pregnancy?

On the other hand, though, a husband is not the one that will have to carry and give birth to the child, and in all probability, he's not the one that's going to have to look after it either. Pregnancy, and in the majority of cases, child-rearing is usually such a female-orientated thing that it would seem sometimes like the husband should have no say.

I think it depends what the couple in question want. Obviously, the husband can't take the pregnancy over from the woman, but is the man prepared to stay at home and look after the kids? If so, then I think he should have some say in whether or not the pregnancy continues. If, however, he wants to have his cake and eat it, I'd say sod off.

But it's hard to prove any of these things of course.

Tough call. I'm very much for letting people decide what they want to share with others.. But I would want to know.

Is this really an issue though?
There are some states that are trying to pass spousal notification laws, and I know a senator in my state is trying to draft a law, I figured I should try to figure out which side of the fence I am on before it becomes an issue here.

Against. Plenty of domestic violence cases I've seen involve a pregnant woman who wants to end her pregnancy.
what if there was a clause that if she feared for her saftey that the law could be bypassed?

Against. Plenty of domestic violence cases I've seen involve a pregnant woman who wants to end her pregnancy.
True that deffinatly

I'm sick too, so you'll have to forgive me if I'm not terribly coherent :(

I think this is a difficult one. On the one hand, it takes two to make a baby. It was his 'fault' that his wife is pregnant - to some extent it then follows that it's his responsibility too. If it's his responsibility, does he not have a right to know about what the wife intends to do about her pregnancy?

On the other hand, though, a husband is not the one that will have to carry and give birth to the child, and in all probability, he's not the one that's going to have to look after it either. Pregnancy, and in the majority of cases, child-rearing is usually such a female-orientated thing that it would seem sometimes like the husband should have no say.

I think it depends what the couple in question want. Obviously, the husband can't take the pregnancy over from the woman, but is the man prepared to stay at home and look after the kids? If so, then I think he should have some say in whether or not the pregnancy continues. If, however, he wants to have his cake and eat it, I'd say sod off.

But it's hard to prove any of these things of course.
to be clear, I am only speaking about notification, not consent. Even if the husband didn't want the abortion, the wife woudl still have the right to get one. The whole spousal consent thing is a completely different subject.

This is just an extention on my pro-choice views: The woman's body - her choice to decide whom to tell.

And what would notification do anyway? Those who want to tell their husbands are going to tell them, anyway, and those who won't, well, what happens when we do tell the husbands? It's not like they can stop her from doing it. The only reason I see for notification is to attempt to force women into telling their un-cooperative husbands so that they have time to, through various means, attempt to stop her. And, there we come into the realm of there actually being a reason for why the woman wouldn't want to tell her husband in the first place.

This is just an extention on my pro-choice views: The woman's body - her choice to decide whom to tell.

And what would notification do anyway? Those who want to tell their husbands are going to tell them, anyway, and those who won't, well, what happens when we do tell the husbands? It's not like they can stop her from doing it. The only reason I see for notification is to attempt to force women into telling their un-cooperative husbands so that they have time to, through various means, attempt to stop her. And, there we come into the realm of there actually being a reason for why the woman wouldn't want to tell her husband in the first place.
that is very interesting.

My first inclination was that it wasn't any of the government's business whom she decided to tell or not tell.

Then I started thinking about if I was male if I would want to know or not.

and then I got all confused.

anyway you make a really good point.

that is very interesting.

My first inclination was that it wasn't any of the government's business whom she decided to tell or not tell.

Then I started thinking about if I was male if I would want to know or not.

and then I got all confused.

anyway you make a really good point.
I look at it like this--if I'm in a healthy relationship and my girlfriend decides she needs to get an abortion, we're going to talk about it anyway, so this isn't as issue. It's the women in unhealthy relationships who have to worry.

Besides, there's the whole issue of whether or not the spouse is the father of the child to deal with (Momma's baby, Daddy's maybe). Does the government really need to be that deeply involved in private relationship issues?

Against. Her body is nobody’s business but her own, for whatever reason. I would venture to guess that these laws might conflict with medical privacy laws, too, but it’s been a while since I’ve looked at HIPAA stuff, so I don’t know that for a fact.

I don’t think it’s necessarily a good position from a relationship standpoint, but since we’re talking about legal issues and a medical procedure, that’s my position.

to be clear, I am only speaking about notification, not consent. Even if the husband didn't want the abortion, the wife woudl still have the right to get one. The whole spousal consent thing is a completely different subject.OK. They are certainly different issues, but there's a bit of a murky overlap too. I take it you mean some sort of legislation that makes notifying the husband compulsory?

If so, I'd say that on a personal level it's probably morally right that a wife inform her husband that she is getting an abortion; surely one rather important part of marriage is not having secrets. However, since morality is such a subjective concept, it's not always a good idea to actually legislate on that basis. Therefore, it should be a personal decision in which the state should not be involved.

Against. Her body is nobody’s business but her own, for whatever reason. I would venture to guess that these laws might conflict with medical privacy laws, too, but it’s been a while since I’ve looked at HIPAA stuff, so I don’t know that for a fact.

I don’t think it’s necessarily a good position from a relationship standpoint, but since we’re talking about legal issues and a medical procedure, that’s my position.
I work with HIPAA stuff on a daily basis ... but I deal with medical data storage so the portions that I use dont cover all of this sort of situation


But one would assume that if they were going to make a law that they would also try to get HIPAA take that into account

No legal need to tell, even a spouse - agree with Fass, it shouldn't be up to the govt. to force someone to pass on personal information to someone else.

Couplesthat are close will likely share stuff like this anyway, those that aren't... well, maybe they've got a good reason not to. Choice of conscience, not legislation :)

Does the government really need to be that deeply involved in private relationship issues?
yeah, like I said my first thought was that it wasn't a government issue at all. (but I think that about most things, so I thought I should delve deeper.)

Wow, I can't believe that someone is trying to make this mandatory. There is a moral obligation but it should never be required. A person's medical history is private.

so what is the POINT of having a legal mandate to tell a husband that his wife is having an abortion?

in the vast majority of cases, pregnancy is a couple's issue. when the wife is pregnant, the husband knows immediately. if there is some need of abortion, its a decision made by both partners. in these "friendly" cases, there is no need for a law, the husband will be right there to support her through this terrible experience.

hmmmmm

so in what circumstances would a woman get pregnant, keep it from her husband, and get an abortion while never informing him?

im pretty sure you can think up all those scenarios from the woman who has no idea where her husband IS to the woman who is terrified that her husband will kill her when he finds out. and all cases inbetween.

if you think THOSE cases warrant the clinic informing the husband that his wife had an abortion or is planning an abortion, then you support the law. thats who it is for.

so what is the POINT of having a legal mandate to tell a husband that his wife is having an abortion?

in the vast majority of cases, pregnancy is a couple's issue. when the wife is pregnant, the husband knows immediately. if there is some need of abortion, its a decision made by both partners. in these "friendly" cases, there is no need for a law, the husband will be right there to support her through this terrible experience.

hmmmmm

so in what circumstances would a woman get pregnant, keep it from her husband, and get an abortion while never informing him?

im pretty sure you can think up all those scenarios from the woman who has no idea where her husband IS to the woman who is terrified that her husband will kill her when he finds out. and all cases inbetween.

if you think THOSE cases warrant the clinic informing the husband that his wife had an abortion or is planning an abortion, then you support the law. thats who it is for.The point is pretty obvious--it's a way to control women's reproductive abilities, and it's a way to chip away at the ability of women to get abortions.

what I want to talk about is Spousal Notification in abortion.

Are you for or against?

Why?
I'm somewhat conflicted over this, primarily because I'm male, I suppose. It would hurt me deeply had my spouse ever elected to have an abortion without first talking with me about it. Yet I firmly believe that even the appearance of having to get someone else's "approval" would be to impose yet another impediment to the right of those who bear children to make the final decision on whether to have one or not.

Ideally, a marriage or long term relationship should be close enough and strong enough that the partners would discuss an issue this important before any decision would be made ... and without any legal intervention or requirements at all. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world and many relationships are far from ideal themselves.

In the final analysis, I must come down on the side of a woman's right to choose whether to have a baby or not, free from any restraint or requirement. I don't like it ... not at all, but in all fairness, that's what I have to choose. :(

I don't think that spousal notification should be mandatory. The man has no more input on this decision than the woman deems he should have.

Now I do believe that if the woman goes through with the pregnancy, the man should be notified as soon as possible. The man must be given ample opportunity to adjust to his side of the pregnancy, whether it be to adjust his financial situation or to seek a paper abortion (which I also strongly support).

Against, it's a medical procedure. Medical treatment should always be confidential.

Anyway I can't see this effecting the vast majority of people. And if the wife feels she has to keep this from the husband, there is probably very good reason to anyway. Let her be the gatekeeper of her own privacy. Not the legislature.

what if there was a clause that if she feared for her saftey that the law could be bypassed?
As long as she could merely assert it, and not have to prove it.

If you force her to prove it, it's going to be as difficult (or impossible) to get as a protective order - which are very difficult to come by in most states.

In some states, the woman has to have already been hospitalized by a previous attack. Because of that, a lot of women, in order to prove their husband or boyfriend is a threat, have to wait until they get killed.

to be clear, I am only speaking about notification, not consent. Even if the husband didn't want the abortion, the wife woudl still have the right to get one. The whole spousal consent thing is a completely different subject.
After thinking this through, it's perfectly obvious this isn't something the health services should get involved in in any way. If the woman isn't either threatned or completely deranged, she'll tell her partner about it.. And if she is, well then, why risk forcing something on her?

And is really is an extention of the adortion debate, after all, if the woman in question feels she needs an anonymous abortion, then why turn the process into a legal circus that might easily either make her seek out someone with a rusty coathanger, or force her into a court case?

I think of it this way (which most likely has already been shared earlier):

If you aren't sharing the fact that you are having an abortion with yoru spouse, you probably have a pretty good reason not to. Obviously the relationship isn't too good if you can't share somethign so important. I bet in most cases it isn't shared for fear of being hit, and in others I bet it is because of cheating.

Should she inform her husband (or even the father, if she is unmarried, unless she has reason to fear him)? Yes, absolutely, of course. I think he has a right to know.

I would even go so far as to say that, morally, she *should* listen to his point-of-view on the subject and seriously consider it. If he tells her he doesn't want her to abort and he will take responsibility for the child - adopt it from her as it were - she should consider that. If he tells her he dosesn't want anything at all to do with it, even if she is considering continuing the pregnancy, she needs to know that.

Would I legislate that she *must* tell him? Absolutely not. I wouldn't legislate that any more than I would legislate that she must tell him her entire sexual history, although I think that is important information for couples to share. In the end it is her decision whether or not to abort, and her decision who to share her medical decisions with, whether I agree with her decision or not.

I do agree, however, that anyone in a healthy marriage wouldn't have this problem. It would be something they would discuss, one way or another.

hmm...well, as a male, I would want to know. I would want to be a part of that decision.

However, I don't think it should be required that I'm notified. If whomever I marry decided to have an abortion without alerting me, I would have to have the faith that they had done it for a specific reason...I'd probably be hurt by them not telling me, but yeah. It shouldn't be required that they tell me. As said before, their body, their choice.

but I don't want to talk about those, what I want to talk about is Spousal Notification in abortion.

Are you for or against?

Why?

Please make your arguements as clear as possible, because I am sick today and my brain isn't working well.
I was surprised that this is even an issue. I am in favour of the potential mother advising the potential father that there is that potential, and, by extension, that a decision has been made to remove that potential. Ultimately, of course, it is her decision, and I would stand firmly against society making rules on this issue. It's just the right thing to do.

As to why... The potential mother is facing a choice of fates: to continue her life's direction as it is, relatively unchanged, or adopt an entirely new direction in becoming a parent. The father can and should have the same opportunity to face the same decision, having an important role to play if the choice is for her to become a parent. Plus, she should not have to go through making this decision alone, unless that is what she wants.

There seems to be a widespread acceptance of the idea that the father of this developing child, who is the legal spouse of the mother of the developing child; does not have an equal right to know, let alone participate in the decision-making of the continued exsistence of the child. We're to hold him accountable but deny him not only input but knowledge? I favor having safe medical procedures available for those seeking abortions but definately feel that ending the life of their developing child is a joint decision for a married couple. She needs to tell him; and if she can't/won't then the facility should not perform the procedure.

... She cannot be forced to be a baby incubator against her will. Period.

A baby incubator? A BABY INCUBATOR??? Exactly how offensive were you trying to be?

There seems to be a widespread acceptance of the idea that the father of this developing child, who is the legal spouse of the mother of the developing child; does not have an equal right to know, let alone participate in the decision-making of the continued exsistence of the child. We're to hold him accountable but deny him not only input but knowledge? I favor having safe medical procedures available for those seeking abortions but definately feel that ending the life of their developing child is a joint decision for a married couple. She needs to tell him; and if she can't/won't then the facility should not perform the procedure.

So marriage = slavery?

So marriage = slavery?
no, marriage does not equal slavery

So marriage = slavery?
If she doesn't tell him, then it's not a marriage that they have. They might as well be "just friends".

no, marriage does not equal slavery
marriage= joint decision-making

If she doesn't tell him, then it's not a marriage that they have. They might as well be "just friends".
see, I tell my husband everything, every decision is a joint decision. I don't understand marriages where that isn't the case, I just don't understand giving the government that much power over your life either though. I tell my husband everything because I love him, I don't think the govt should have any say in my relationship.

A baby incubator? A BABY INCUBATOR??? Exactly how offensive were you trying to be?How is that offensive?

see, I tell my husband everything, every decision is a joint decision. I don't understand marriages where that isn't the case, I just don't understand giving the government that much power over your life either though. I tell my husband everything because I love him, I don't think the govt should have any say in my relationship.Exactly; such issues should be discussed as part of a loving couple, but things that go on in the personal/private sphere, so long as they are not dangerous or whatever, have nothing to do with the government and therefore shouldn't be legislated upon.

no, marriage does not equal slavery

Then a man cannot take over a woman's body and force her to carry a pregnancy to term.

And since there is no way to make the decision 50/50, the final decision is entirely hers. He can have no legal right to make it, regardless of how much we may think he has a moral right to be a part of it.

see, I tell my husband everything, every decision is a joint decision. I don't understand marriages where that isn't the case, I just don't understand giving the government that much power over your life either though. I tell my husband everything because I love him, I don't think the govt should have any say in my relationship.
the government doesn't have a say in your relationship (well, yeah it does, but that's a whole other thread) but in this case it's whether or not it has a role in the abortion of a married couple's child, and what that role should be.

Then a man cannot take over a woman's body and force her to carry a pregnancy to term.

And since there is no way to make the decision 50/50, the final decision is entirely hers. He can have no legal right to make it, regardless of how much we may think he has a moral right to be a part of it.
I think I'd argue it the other way-- he may have a "legal" right as co-parent but not a "moral" right, since she bears the child.

There seems to be a widespread acceptance of the idea that the father of this developing child, who is the legal spouse of the mother of the developing child; does not have an equal right to know, let alone participate in the decision-making of the continued exsistence of the child. We're to hold him accountable but deny him not only input but knowledge? I favor having safe medical procedures available for those seeking abortions but definately feel that ending the life of their developing child is a joint decision for a married couple. She needs to tell him; and if she can't/won't then the facility should not perform the procedure.
perhaps you should think this through a little bit more.

naturally in a good marriage there is no question of a wife informing her husband, he would have been in on the decision from the start

but marriage is a legal contract that exists independantly of the quality of the relationship of the people involved. so what about bad marriages...those are the only ones that would actually be affected by this law.

if a woman is married but hasnt seen her husband in 3 years, must she inform him about the abortion that has nothing to do with him?

if she is running from an abusive relationship, must she tell her abuser?

if she had an affair?

if her husband is an alcoholic slacker whose manhood in invested in his ability to father child after child and she knows they cant afford to feed another child?

if she has a "GOOD REASON" can she be treated as an adult who is able to make adult decisions about her own body??

How is that offensive?
It was kinda offensive to me, but then I realized that LG said it and decided he wasn't trying to offend.

It is offensive to women who have been pregnant because we feel it devalues us as people, like we are nothing more than baby machines. (at least that's what I think they meant by offensive)

I get offended easily though in abortion discussions (my hormones never did straighten out after the 2nd kid) when they talk about babies being "cancer" or "parasites" or "lumps of cells" because when I was pregnant my baby was very real, it was my child. I try to remember though that not everyone was/is as emotionally invested in pregnancy as I was when I was pregant, and that they aren't putting down my kids now. (but it's difficult to hear people talk like that anyway)

the government doesn't have a say in your relationship (well, yeah it does, but that's a whole other thread) but in this case it's whether or not it has a role in the abortion of a married couple's child, and what that role should be.
I know what the case is, I started the thred.

I don't believe that the government has the right to make a law about whether or not a couple has to discuss something (see that, I decided :D)

This is just an extention on my pro-choice views: The woman's body - her choice to decide whom to tell.

And what would notification do anyway? Those who want to tell their husbands are going to tell them, anyway, and those who won't, well, what happens when we do tell the husbands? It's not like they can stop her from doing it. The only reason I see for notification is to attempt to force women into telling their un-cooperative husbands so that they have time to, through various means, attempt to stop her. And, there we come into the realm of there actually being a reason for why the woman wouldn't want to tell her husband in the first place.


Though I'm usually a huge fan of your well written posts, in this case I have a small thing to add... in the case the woman is a lunatic who'd rather hurt her man/boyfriend/whatever with not telling him and breaking the news afterwards purely in the interest of hurting him, notifying the male part before the actual procedure would in many cases be more fair, since both the man and the woman were involved in the conception. It's a tricky question to me, I've sadly been in above mentioned situation and it still disgusts me, but on the other hand I'm opposed to any limitations to personal freedom aslong as it doesn't hurt others... this is a fine line though, its always hard to make "moral" laws, since there is no legal definition on exactly what is "moral"... in the end I must say its up to the woman... or no, she should share... or wait... yes... no... arrrrgh... I just don't know!

I think I'd argue it the other way-- he may have a "legal" right as co-parent but not a "moral" right, since she bears the child.

The idea of "parental rights" don't come into play until the child is born.

If abortion is legal (which it is), then allowing a father a legal say-so in the decision gives him rights over the woman's body - the very definition of slavery.

I know what the case is, I started the thred.

I don't believe that the government has the right to make a law about whether or not a couple has to discuss something (see that, I decided :D)
Um ... joint ownership. :p

Um ... joint ownership. :p
we are talking about babies..........not drugs............lol sorry, my cold meds are making me silly.:p

It is offensive to women who have been pregnant because we feel it devalues us as people, like we are nothing more than baby machines. (at least that's what I think they meant by offensive)I agree that the idea that women - whether they've been pregnant in the past or not - are simply baby machines is deeply offensive. I think maybe I've misinterpreted this one - Qwystyria was probably offended as (s)he didn't realise LG was (probably) being ironic. My mistake, and my apologies for it.

perhaps you should think this through a little bit more.

naturally in a good marriage there is no question of a wife informing her husband, he would have been in on the decision from the start

but marriage is a legal contract that exists independantly of the quality of the relationship of the people involved. so what about bad marriages...those are the only ones that would actually be affected by this law.

if a woman is married but hasnt seen her husband in 3 years, must she inform him about the abortion that has nothing to do with him?

if she is running from an abusive relationship, must she tell her abuser?

if she had an affair?

if her husband is an alcoholic slacker whose manhood in invested in his ability to father child after child and she knows they cant afford to feed another child?

if she has a "GOOD REASON" can she be treated as an adult who is able to make adult decisions about her own body??
I think she should always be treated as an adult (assuming she is one) and always be allowed to make personal decisions about her body. I agree with you that the cases above indicate some of the mitigating circumstances where notification requirements could be waived or curtailed. In reading through the initial responses in just struck me how much everyone was buying into "the man is only the sperm donor" philosophy.

I agree that the idea that women - whether they've been pregnant in the past or not - are simply baby machines is deeply offensive. I think maybe I've misinterpreted this one - Qwystyria was probably offended as (s)he didn't realise LG was (probably) being ironic. My mistake, and my apologies for it.

I think LG was making the very point you are making here - that viewing women simply as baby machines is offensive. Unfortunately, that is exactly what people are doing when they start talking about forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term. People often seem to forget that real women are involved when we discuss this issue.

I think she should always be treated as an adult (assuming she is one) and always be allowed to make personal decisions about her body. I agree with you that the cases above indicate some of the mitigating circumstances where notification requirements could be waived or curtailed. In reading through the initial responses in just struck me how much everyone was buying into "the man is only the sperm donor" philosophy.

I haven't seen a single post that even came close to suggesting that.

Care to point one out?

Indeed, just about every post has pointed out that a woman *should* discuss this issue with her spouse/boyfriend/etc. unless there are circumstances that make this impossible or dangerous. Just about every post has made it clear that the man should *not* be seen as simply a sperm donor. However, when it really comes down to it, if that's how the woman in question looks at it and she thinks she doesn't need to discuss it with him, it is her right to do so.

we are talking about babies..........not drugs............lol sorry, my cold meds are making me silly.:p
I was speaking of property, not babies or drugs! :p

I think she should always be treated as an adult (assuming she is one) and always be allowed to make personal decisions about her body. I agree with you that the cases above indicate some of the mitigating circumstances where notification requirements could be waived or curtailed. In reading through the initial responses in just struck me how much everyone was buying into "the man is only the sperm donor" philosophy.
i know what you mean, the devaluing of fatherhood as being just "the sperm donor" is disturbing.

anyway. the only time the law would be NEEDED is when there are just those extenuating circumstances. why else would a married woman not tell her husband? there isnt any sense to have a law that would only be in effect when there would be reason to override it.

I know what the case is, I started the thred.

I don't believe that the government has the right to make a law about whether or not a couple has to discuss something (see that, I decided :D)

Glad to have helped. Actually, i'm pretty much a Libertarian and would be deeply opposed to this much government intrusion into someone's personal life, regardless of the issue. But, abortion being such a hot button, it did get the fur flying.

Perhaps I mis-read the issue, but I thought it was Spousal Notification, which is notifying the spouse, not seeking his approval (i.e. Spousal Consent).

... when it really comes down to it, if that's how the woman in question looks at it and she thinks she doesn't need to discuss it with him, it is her right to do so.
And ... if a man truly cares about a woman, he will step back and let her make that decision on her own unless she asks him to get involved. It's called mutual respect and trust.

How is that offensive?

Being pregnant isn't just about being a human petri dish, y'know. You don't just kinda grow a baby. Anyone who wants the baby would find being called a "baby incubator" offensive. If they want to get rid of it, that might be a term they'd use.

Perhaps I mis-read the issue, but I thought it was Spousal Notification, which is notifying the spouse, not seeking his approval (i.e. Spousal Consent).

No, you're right. One person brough in spousal consent, but it wasn't in the original post.

Being pregnant isn't just about being a human petri dish, y'know. You don't just kinda grow a baby. Anyone who wants the baby would find being called a "baby incubator" offensive. If they want to get rid of it, that might be a term they'd use.

And since the post referred specifically to a woman who *didn't* want to continue her pregnancy, what exactly is the problem?

Glad to have helped. Actually, i'm pretty much a Libertarian and would be deeply opposed to this much government intrusion into someone's personal life, regardless of the issue. But, abortion being such a hot button, it did get the fur flying.
thank you.

actually though Fass helped me more than anyone (sorry guys) and the fact that Fass and I agree on something is both hilarious and frightening:p




*don't get too scared though Fass, I am sure we can find something to disagree about soon...........

I have learned many things on NS that have helped me refine my views on things, for example I am no longer for civil unions, and have crossed over to advocating gay marriage (as long as the govt. doesn't force the church to perform them)

I have also realized that I am pro-choice (because although I believe that abortion is wrong, I realize that it is needed in a very limited set of circumstances)

but I don't want to talk about those, what I want to talk about is Spousal Notification in abortion.

Are you for or against?

Why?

Please make your arguements as clear as possible, because I am sick today and my brain isn't working well.


Here is the problem with spousal notification: it's only real purpose is to try to intimidate women. I know, you can make a million arguments about morality, but in the end, spousal notification has no teeth. It isn't spousal permission, even if the husband is against it, a woman can still have an abortion. Spousal notification is the new face of pro-lifers. It is a little law that is designed to intimidate some women, and annoy/harass the others. It has no real purpose other than to enforce a moral action which has no real effect on society or commerce.

I know, alot of people will argue that the husband has a right to know that "his" child is being aborted. This simply isn't true, there is no constitutional right to have that kind of information and even if there was, it would be trumped in any legal competing rights argument. While I agree that the right thing to do would be to inform your husband, I don't think it should be the law.

Finally, there is the enforcement question. The vast majority of spousal notification laws require only a stipulation (a women signs a form saying she either told her husband or didn't have to). Stipulations like that are basically unenforceable, they are a symbol. Do we really need to clog up our legislatures and our courts with a battle over a law that is really nothing more than a symbol of a legislature's stance on being honest? C'mon here, we have more important things to worry about.

Here is a question for you though what if they are not married? What if it was just a one night stand? What if she does not know who the father is? What if it was rape? (just asking cause I dont know all the answers myself)

Spousal notification only has a hope of working constitutionally with legal spouses. On more than one occasion courts have ruled spousal notification to be an undue burden on a women's right to have an abortion, anything more grandiose (like notifying all fathers) would definately be stricken down. See, spousal notification works because in many states any child of a married couple is presumed to be the child of that couple.

Well, much like my position on abortion itself, I think it's a despicable and selfish thing to do. I'd like to see such deception by omission be discouraged. But ultimately, that decision is the woman's. She cannot be forced to be a baby incubator against her will. Period.

*gawks* A sensible position on NS?! I'm pleasantly shocked.


There seems to be a widespread acceptance of the idea that the father of this developing child, who is the legal spouse of the mother of the developing child; does not have an equal right to know, let alone participate in the decision-making of the continued exsistence of the child. We're to hold him accountable but deny him not only input but knowledge? I favor having safe medical procedures available for those seeking abortions but definately feel that ending the life of their developing child is a joint decision for a married couple. She needs to tell him; and if she can't/won't then the facility should not perform the procedure.

Why? No, honestly. If I was in the situation I'd want to know, but so what? I don't have to carry a parasite for 9+ months, I don't have to deal with the medical problems and the complications, I don't have to buy new clothes or take time off from work. Ok, so I don't like it, life sucks heres a helmet.

What people often seem to miss is that these laws are not about what they do. These laws are about restricting an already difficult process. Finding an abortion provider is not always an easy task, deciding to do it is never easy, and every hurdle put in the way is another chance that the abortion won't happen. It's harassment. These kinda of laws are about trying to do through the back door what you couldn't through the front. They're about finding a loophole in the right to choose. At their core, they are dishonest.

A baby incubator? A BABY INCUBATOR??? Exactly how offensive were you trying to be?

Can you think of a better way to describe a women who is forced to be pregnant when she has no interest? The idea should offend because it is offensive. Women are not merely incubators, that is why these laws are so odious, that is why attacks on the right to choose are so offensive. They degrade women at a basic level, they make women nothing more than the vessel through which the next generation is born, her own consent not withstanding. Honestly, some days I am shocked that Planned Parenthood clinics haven't formed their own militia, and others I really think it'd be better if they did.

no, marriage does not equal slavery

In the absence of consent and freedom, yes, yes it does.


I think I'd argue it the other way-- he may have a "legal" right as co-parent but not a "moral" right, since she bears the child.

You'd lose. It doesn't matter how he feels or how much responsibility he takes, in the end, he doesn't have to undergo any medical procedures or accept any health risks, she does. If she isn't willing, thats the end.


I get offended easily though in abortion discussions (my hormones never did straighten out after the 2nd kid) when they talk about babies being "cancer" or "parasites" or "lumps of cells" because when I was pregnant my baby was very real, it was my child. I try to remember though that not everyone was/is as emotionally invested in pregnancy as I was when I was pregant, and that they aren't putting down my kids now. (but it's difficult to hear people talk like that anyway)


That is the difference. For you, it was a child, it was something you wanted. For others, it is not. For many women, a pregnancy is just a bundle of health risks. YOUR child was yours, you decided that you wanted it, you decided that you wanted to have that child. Not all pregnancies are "'cancer" or "parasites" or "lumps of cells,'" but neither are they all children. That important distinction stems from the mother, as it should.


I think she should always be treated as an adult (assuming she is one) and always be allowed to make personal decisions about her body. I agree with you that the cases above indicate some of the mitigating circumstances where notification requirements could be waived or curtailed. In reading through the initial responses in just struck me how much everyone was buying into "the man is only the sperm donor" philosophy.


Hell, before the child is born were even less than that, legally. As a man, I am nothing that the mother does not allow me to be up until that child is born. From there, a paternity test can be done and all the rights of a parent come into play, but not before that point. It isn't my body and I don't get a say. It doesn't matter what the moral thing is, it doesn't matter what I want, the woman has ALL the power and that is the only way for it to be withing the existing framework of our society. I might not like it, but thats the only way to keep freedom on it's feet. Welcome to the other side of the social contract.

Over and over you seem to be confusing what is moral or right and what is legally permissable. I don't think you'd find much argument that a woman has a very deep moral obligation to inform her husband (unless he's abusive). What we are discussing isn't whats moral, but what is legal. We are discussing the minimum, the worst case scenario. More than that, we are discussing how much power the government should have and what the limits of that power should be. The government does not exist to enforce every moral oblligation and social nicety, the power it would have to wield for that would be antithetical to freedom.

It seems pretty clear that few people are buying into this spousal notification thing. There is no practical need for such a law and no practical outcome other than to intimidate women or delay getting an abortion (until it's too late to get one? I guess that would be the idea). I believe that any such laws would be observed by token papers (the afore-mentioned stipulations) and eventually, they would be struck down in court. Regardless of whether you're pro-choice or anti-choice, these laws fall apart on other privacy rights, in this case, medical privacy.

Let's say the worst happens and abortion is outlawed in the US. It does not automatically follow that medical privacy would also become outlawed, and therefore, the government cannot force a woman to share her medical information with anyone except under limited circumstances and with strict confidentiality rules. This would certainly include a spouse who is not bound by confidentiality rules. And if a spouse can claim some right to medical records, then why shouldn't any of the other parties who try to get access to medical records, such as employers and cops. Laws that would erase medical confidentiality in re abortion, could also be used to undermine all medical confidentiality laws and regulations.

this is what I just posted in another thread, and I think it explains my position more clearly than my other post

It is the womans choice, first...last...always.

Now, we are talking about marriage. therefore, if you have an actual marriage where both people love and respect each other, then the man should have a say. It will be half his responsibility for the next 18+ years, he deserves to have his opinions and feelings considered. However, if she really wants one, and after considering his feelings still wants one, it is her option to have one anyway.

If it is never mentioned to the partner, he is not considered, the relationship is abusive, it was created in an affair...any reason I can think of that a woman would hide this kind of thing from her partner really, then probably not mentioning the baby and getting an abortion is the least of the issues in that relationship. If a woman can choose to have an abortion, then she is capable of deciding whom she tells and when. That is not the governments decision, it is hers. She is an adult, treat her as such. With any luck, she understands that she is an adult and her actions won't only effect her and will consider her partners opinion.

Welcome to marriage...its compromise...not one party imposing their will on the other (and this applies in both directions in this case)