-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should abortions require partner consent?
- Thread starter Rex
- Start date
I agree with both you FTH and with Victor, but I think there is a point to consider that maybe has been ignored uptil now.fromthe heart said:
I am not saying that there should be any hard and fast rules (each one sould be assessed individually), but I am not right in thinking that the pregnant woman will be subject to an abundance of hormones which may well moderate her ability to be objective, and therefore not ideally suited to making the descision without recourse to someone else ?
And if that is so, ought not the partner to be an ideal person with whom to discuss this?
(I am answering the topic as opposed to whether or not there should be abortions; taking the said circustances as hypothetically 'we are already at that stage).
Ãanisty
Well-Known Member
Of course not, but if the father is already gone, what is a woman going to do after that child is born? It's hard to abandon a child when you're the only parent left. Now you're just not any parent either, but a single parent with a single income and in some cases with no family support. So, no matter how you look at it more falls on the woman.pdoel said:
A decision like this should always be well thought out. Most women do consult someone...if not their partner, then a family member or close friend not to mention the consultation they will have with the doctor. I'd like to point out though that getting consultation and getting consent are very different things. Let me ask this. Do you not trust women enough to know their partners? Would a woman not know her own circumstances better than anyone else?
pdoel
Active Member
Well, we could debate that kind of stuff till the cows come home. There's also lots of cases where women get pregnant on purpose to trap a guy. These types of games happen on either side of the coin. It sucks.Ðanisty said:
But, the topic is really about, should an abortion require the consent of the partner.
And yeah, like I said, I really think it should. I don't think you can have it both ways. I don't think the decision should be souly on the woman. The woman decides if she has the baby or not. The woman decides if she has the baby and keeps it or gives it up for adoption. The woman decides (if she has the baby), if the father has to pay child support. I don't think it should be that way.
If the soul responsibility for whether or not the child is born lies on the mother, then I say, in the event the father wants nothing to do with the baby, then that should be his right too. You can't have it both ways.
Buttons*
Glass half Panda'd
Your point? Not everyone sees things this way. Men and women need eachother to procrate, sure, but this passage doesn't mean i belong to anyone, or that i have to obey them.wmam said:
Why should i cater to anyone elses needs, or ask for their consent if i'm the one who is going to carry the baby?
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto YAH.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Messiah is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Messiah, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Messiah is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Messiah, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Buttons*
Glass half Panda'd
its happened in the past.... *shrugs* If people dont learn from history, we're condemned to repeat itFluffy said:I certainly agree with that one fully.
What would sadden me is if any laws were passed based on these kinds of passages because of a belief in the Bible.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain Elohim in their knowledge, Elohim gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of Elohim, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of Elohim, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of Elohim, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of Elohim, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Ãanisty
Well-Known Member
Michel, I truly have no problem with Christians in general. Obviously many Christians believe different things. In fact, I doubt any two believe the exact same thing. I don't have a problem with you. I don't even have a problem with wmam. It's the scripture itself I find offensive.michel said: