Abortion

[Write4U]

If a woman does not have a right to abort an unwanted child, she should have the right to sue her husband for assault when he forces her to have sex with him on the premise he has a right as her husband.

The courts will be overloaded with lawsuits and that will end the abortion enforcement in a hurry.

 

[Tiassa]

If a woman does not have a right to abort an unwanted child, she should have the right to sue her husband for assault when he forces her to have sex with him on the premise he has a right as her husband.

So, it's true I'm reading this in an American context, but your if is already in effect, regardless of abortion law.

The courts will be overloaded with lawsuits and that will end the abortion enforcement in a hurry.

To again apply the American context, I wouldn't even know where to begin with that sentence. Let's try: They are not, already, and therefore won't be; furthermore, no, even if somehow they were, that would not bring the outcome you describe.

Remember, there is history, here. We can track this arc, at the very least, to 1879 and P. T. Barnum. Yes, really. Conservatives are still pissed off about losing that one eighty-five years later, and fifty-four years later, despite Griswold, Roe, and Casey, here we are. Go back to the 2012 election, when Mitt Romney waffled on Blunt-Rubio; this is a perpetual conservative thing.

American society can correct the statutes and structures, but we cannot undo the damage of Republican cruelty, which, in turn, is the point. The people who get hurt by this are not, to Republicans, any measure of cost, but, rather, the rewards of conscience and satisfaction.

 

[Write4U]

To again apply the American context, I wouldn't even know where to begin with that sentence. Let's try: They are not, already, and therefore won't be; furthermore, no, even if somehow they were, that would not bring the outcome you describe.

Can a wife sue a husband for sexual assault if he doesn't not beat her, but uses a non-violent strategy to compel her?

Example;

LeAna: “You had me until you said a woman waking up to her husband having sex with her wasn’t rape. She said no. She did not consent. That’s rape. Of course, she doesn’t want to throw her husband in jail. That doesn’t make it any less a rape. You said rape happens with someone you don’t know. I knew my rapist. Is that any less rape since I knew him? You can say no to sex in marriage. A man isn’t going to be hurting too bad after missing sex one time. That’s not depriving him of anything.”
https://thetransformedwife.com/is-marital-sex-solely-based-upon-whether-or-not-there-is-consent/

Note the hint of guilt emerging in this woman's tale.

Suppose she does want him in jail. Can she sue and win?

 

[billvon]

If a woman does not have a right to abort an unwanted child, she should have the right to sue her husband for assault when he forces her to have sex with him on the premise he has a right as her husband.

?? She does. Rape is illegal. Even if it's your wife. You do know that, right?

 

[Write4U]

?? She does. Rape is illegal. Even if it's your wife. You do know that, right?

It depends on what you consider rape, no
What does the bible have to say about that?

Wil Gafney, in The Huffington Post, writes that "rape is normative in the Jewish and Christian scriptures" and that "While we as women and men decry rape and rape culture in civil society, we must not neglect its roots in our sacred texts and the ways in which it contributes to theologies of the human person, gender and God. It is clear to me that biblical tradents were not able to envision a world in which rape was not normative."

In a piece for AlterNet, Valerie Tarico writes that a literal interpretation on the Bible on the topic was "disturbing" and argued that "the Bible never teaches that women should have a choice about sex", that "Male-female relationships in the Bible are determined by a property ethic", and that "the Bible is loaded with divinely sanctioned rape babies."

and

Gerda Lerner has suggested that because the Hebrew Bible takes for granted Lot's right to offer his daughters for rape, we can assume that it reflected a historical reality of a father's power over them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_Hebrew_Bible

AFAIK, a lot of Americans still practicethe OT. I have known several families who were "conservative" theists.

And of course there is Islam, which seems a little prejudicial towards women's rights.

Scary people, IMO.

 

[billvon]

It depends on what you consider rape, no

That's easy. When you have sex with someone against their will.

What does the bible have to say about that?

Heck, the Bible gives _instructions_ on how to do it. (And how to kill gays, how to sell slaves etc.) Fortunately no one takes all the Leviticus stuff seriously any more.

 

[Write4U]

That's easy. When you have sex with someone against their will.
Heck, the Bible gives _instructions_ on how to do it. (And how to kill gays, how to sell slaves etc.) Fortunately no one takes all the Leviticus stuff seriously any more.

Tell that to the women who will be facing 99 years in prison for having an abortion.

Ask yourself, is aborting a fertilized egg during menstruation a form of "manslaughter?

Well, I'll let George Carlin tell the tale. He does it best.

and a little lesson in the "sanctity of life"

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes a woman can sue her husband for assault.

What does the bible have to say about that?

This is in the Politics forum. Id what the Bible says really what you want to talk about? Or do you want to talk law?

 

[Jeeves]

Couple of problems: Rape, or sexual assault, is difficult to prove, especially between married people.
For a criminal charge, she'd probably need to show physical damage - and even then, she'd be taking a chance on the police, and making herself a target for revenge. The law is one thing - life on the ground is another.
Lawsuits are expensive; most people have neither the money nor the time.
What is she supposed to be suing for? The money she'd get in a divorce, at a fraction of the cost, with a better probability of success.
What's the experience like for any existing children? If she wins? If she loses?
Plus the unwanted baby, that she still can't abort and has to share with its father.

 

[Write4U]

Yes a woman can sue her husband for assault.

Will she win if she gets pregnant and is forced to carry a child conceived that way, when the husband declares he will support the child?

This is in the Politics forum. Is what the Bible says really what you want to talk about? Or do you want to talk law?

Who creates law? Why is it that the abortion lawmakers are all men? IMO, that is tantamount to rape on all women.
Remember, women have no choice but to carry a baby, conceived in any manner, to term. That's gender rape.

How do we begin a court case? In Muslim countries religion is law. In parts of the US religion is law also.

How is it that the SCOTUS can declare Roe v Wade as the law of the land and in individual states this ruling is completely ignored? Politics or Law?

 

[Michael 345]

Can a wife sue a husband for sexual assault if he doesn't not beat her, but uses a non-violent strategy to compel her?

In Australia YES

Suppose she does want him in jail. Can she sue and win?

YES

Problematic if she does not press charges as others are not likely to do so on her behalf

Tell that to the women who will be facing 99 years in prison for having an abortion.

As I heard it she will not be charged for having abortion
Doctor yes for performing 99 years
Self performed (coat hanger - morning after pill) How would anyone know??? Especially the pill because it very problematic if even pregnant

Ask yourself, is aborting a fertilized egg during menstruation a form of "manslaughter?

Perhaps Involuntary Manslaughter ??? (there is no control) as in your car goes postal, not your fault, kills someone

Why is it that the abortion lawmakers are all men?

Thought a female signed one of the recent laws into effect

How is it that the SCOTUS can declare Roe v Wade as the law of the land

My understanding is because it is a ruling from the Supreme Court and takes precedence over states laws

States cannot make laws overriding Federal laws

The current laws have nothing, repeat nothing, to do with law making. Designed to be challenged so can be jacked back up to the Supreme Court

 

[RainbowSingularity]

If a woman does not have a right to abort an unwanted child, she should have the right to sue her husband for assault when he forces her to have sex with him on the premise he has a right as her husband.

The courts will be overloaded with lawsuits and that will end the abortion enforcement in a hurry.

slight but notable correction
if the state forces her to have the baby, she can sue the state for emotional damages and cost of care of the child.
additionally...
the mother should be able to sue the state for the lack of equitable cost of raising the child that is equal to the average cost of raising a child.
suing the state for the above difference that the sate is unable to force to take off the father while also paying for the paternity test and carrying legal financial liability to fund the mother, her lost earnings, and the full childs national mean cost of living and housing and school and life style.

there should be president for lack of equal care of life for the children to sue the state for not providing equal education and health care and housing for poor children equal to the mean wealth child.
the state shows a direct accountable financial lower value of human life of poor children.
any child born of a disability will allow the parents to sue the state for lost earnings and lost future earnings as they are required to be full time carers.

additionally given that most states have death penaltys...
there shoudl be room to sue the state for removing the right to life for declaring a death penalty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Alabama

Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the U.S. state of Alabama.

Alabama has the highest per capita death penalty rate in the country. In some years, its courts impose more death sentences than Texas, a state that has a population five times as large.[1] However, Texas has more executions per capita.

where does it say the state has the right to take away life ?
banning the process of abortion conflicts with the states ability to become the owner of life.
the state can not own life
im sure that is against the constitution

 

[billvon]

Tell that to the women who will be facing 99 years in prison for having an abortion.

Are you saying that rape is the same as abortion? I think you may have a misunderstanding.

 

[Write4U]

Are you saying that rape is the same as abortion? I think you may have a misunderstanding.

Rape, a violent invasion of privacy with a secondary burden of 9 months pregnancy and 18 years of child rearing, constitutes a right to abortion by the victim, IMO. Instead;

Rape is punished by a maximum of fifteen years' criminal imprisonment. Rape is punished by a maximum of twenty years' criminal imprisonment in certain aggravating factors (including victim under age of 15). Rape is punished by a maximum of thirty years' criminal imprisonment where it caused the death of the victim.

But when the victim aborts, she gets to go to jail for murder or being a accomplice to murder, where the doctor can get 99 years for performing the abortion. The rapist who commits a murder during the rape gets 20 years?????

I call that insult upon injury.

As far as law is removed from religion;

"To the bill's many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians' deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God," Ivey said in a statement after signing the ban into law.

Yes, until they are born and the child becomes a burden on society. Then life begins to lose value in a hurry and you're on your own.

 

[billvon]

Rape, a violent invasion of privacy with a secondary burden of 9 months pregnancy and 18 years of child rearing, constitutes a right to abortion by the victim, IMO.

Nope. The right to an abortion has nothing to do with rape. Shame on you for trying to equate them to advance your political agenda.

 

[Write4U]

Nope. The right to an abortion has nothing to do with rape. Shame on you for trying to equate them to advance your political agenda.

Oh, are you saying the act of rape cannot eventually require an abortion? Is the woman able to "shut her reproductive organs down" when she is raped? Women never get pregnant from rape?
AFAIK, rape involves intercourse and intercourse often involves pregnancy.

Only biblical Mary was spared, she was raped by God and produced Jesus. Praise Mary.
Shame on theists for advancing a biblical agenda!

Nowhere in nature is abortion forbidden. In fact abortion is used in the natural evolutionary processes of all species.
OTOH, humans use war to practice population control. i.e. murder for gain.

A country can wage war and sacrifice living humans in the "just cause" of self-defense. But a woman does not have the right to make a sacrifice in the "just cause" of self-defense of her body? By what law is that forbidden? Not natural law, that's for sure.

Riddle me that one.

 

[billvon]

Oh, are you saying the act of rape cannot eventually require an abortion?

No. I am saying it is not equivalent to an abortion, which was your original implication. Consensual sex may also result in an abortion; doesn't mean consensual sex is the same either.

Is the woman able to "shut her reproductive organs down" when she is raped? Women never get pregnant from rape?

You seem to be going off into the weeds here.

Nowhere in nature is abortion forbidden. In fact abortion is used in the natural evolutionary processes of all species.

Well, nowhere in nature is murder forbidden. Same for pooping in public. Infanticide (eating babies) isn't forbidden either. Doesn't mean those are good ideas, nor should you try to argue that all those things should be legal "because nature."

A country can wage war and sacrifice living humans in the "just cause" of self-defense. But a woman does not have the right to make a sacrifice in the "just cause" of self-defense of her body? By what law is that forbidden? Not natural law, that's for sure.

Nor in most of the US, fortunately.

 

[Write4U]

You seem to be going off into the weeds here.

No, this was advanced by a former legislator, one of the people who make law.

Former Missouri Congressman Todd Akin went on MSNBCThursday morning to try to explain his much-maligned commentsfrom 2012 in which he said abortions wouldn’t be necessary for rape victims. “If it’s legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down,” he told a St. Louis TV station in 2012.

And you accuse me of being in the weeds?

 

[billvon]

No, this was advanced by a former legislator, one of the people who make law.

Yes. It is a deplorable thing to say. And that has nothing to do with equating rape to abortion.

And you accuse me of being in the weeds?

Again, yes. "Going into the weeds" means straying farther and farther from your claim and getting on shakier and shakier ground. It would be like me bringing up pro-abortion activist Eileen Janezic to prove that people who are pro-abortion are murderers, and that therefore they are worse than rapists.

That would be pretty silly, eh?

 

[Write4U]

No. I am saying it is not equivalent to an abortion, which was your original implication. Consensual sex may also result in an abortion; doesn't mean consensual sex is the same either.

Right and who is usually responsible for causing an unwanted pregnancy? Not the woman.

Well, nowhere in nature is murder forbidden. Same for pooping in public. Infanticide (eating babies) isn't forbidden either. Doesn't mean those are good ideas, nor should you try to argue that all those things should be legal "because nature."

Of course not. But abortion is a natural way of population growth control, no?

That is the human dilemma, no. But if you want to look at the unnatural things we do, we really don't do a crack up job insuring the evolutionary progress of mankind, do we?

Nor in most of the US, fortunately.

Or unfortunately as the case may be.
This is what we do to out natural environment every day.

Population in the world is currently (2018-2019) growing at a rate of around 1.07% per year (down from 1.09% in 2018, 1.12% in 2017 and 1.14% in 2016). The current average population increase is estimated at 82 million people per year.

and our use of natural resources is;

ENVIRONMENT
1,987,795 Forest loss this year (hectares)
2,676,110 Land lost to soil erosion this year (ha)
15,481,524,243 CO2 emissions this year (tons)
4,586,755 Desertification this year (hectares)
3,742,937 Toxic chemicals released in the environment this year (tons)

Now consider what will happen when at 1 % growth rate any population will double in 70 years, a single lifetime. And now we are going to increase the growth rate, to speed up the population doubling time?

We may find ourselves in the same predicament as China, which had to curtail the number of children any family could raise, on threat of heavy penalties and removal of the newborn from it's parents.

With China's new fast growing economy this law was recinded, but there is no way that even a 1 % growth rate is sustainable over a few generations.

Double the population every 70 years. Today 7 billion --> 14 billion --> 28 billion --> 56 billion in just 210 years.

You think that is sustainable? We have a choice, we can voluntarily control birth rates or nature surely will do it for us and that may be unimaginable horrible as compared to having an abortion.

Albert Bartlett might have been another obscure physics professor had he not put together a now famous lecture entitled "Arithmetic, Population and Energy" in 1969. The lecture, available broadly on the internet, begins with the line: "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."

The logic is surprisingly simple and irrefutable. Exponential growth, which is simply consistent growth at some percentage rate each year (or other time period), cannot proceed indefinitely within a finite system, for example, planet Earth.

The fact that human populations continue to grow or that the extraction of energy and other natural resources continues to climb does not in any way refute this statement. It simply means that the absolute limits have not yet been reached.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/...-message-about-exponential-growth-to-the-end/

And for those who wish to become aware of the real problem facing mankind, here is Prof. Bartletts full lecture on the effects of the "exponential function" as it pertains to humans.