Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Write4U, May 19, 2019.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    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.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

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

    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.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    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?

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

    Suppose she does want him in jail. Can she sue and win?
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    ?? She does. Rape is illegal. Even if it's your wife. You do know that, right?
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

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

    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.
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    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.
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    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"

    Last edited: May 20, 2019
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Yes a woman can sue her husband for assault.

    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?
  12. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    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.
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    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?
    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?
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    In Australia YES


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

    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

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

    Thought a female signed one of the recent laws into effect

    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  15. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    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.
    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.

    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
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
    Write4U likes this.
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Are you saying that rape is the same as abortion? I think you may have a misunderstanding.
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    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;
    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;
    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.
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    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.
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    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.
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    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.
    You seem to be going off into the weeds here.
    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."
    Nor in most of the US, fortunately.
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    No, this was advanced by a former legislator, one of the people who make law.
    And you accuse me of being in the weeds?
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Yes. It is a deplorable thing to say. And that has nothing to do with equating rape to abortion.
    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?
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

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

    Or unfortunately as the case may be.
    This is what we do to out natural environment every day.
    and our use of natural resources is;
    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.

    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.
    Last edited: May 20, 2019

Share This Page