Would you support it if the Civil Law Give Right for Husband to Consent to/ Forbid Wife's Abortion

Based on the principle, we as Christ followers, we do not believe that we own our body. Our body is the temple of God. So, even if we decides that our life is not worth living, suicide is not an option, simply because we do not own our body neither our life. Both body and life belongs to God, therefore, euthanasia, suicide cannot be permitted, despite my own body & my own life.

Following this principle, one may argue that roe v wade got it wrong. A woman does not own her body. It belongs to God. But then the same with man. His body belongs to God too. This argument then goes around to health care issue: who decide for my body in terms of health care? Ofcourse I decide for myself because God entrust this body to me. So we go back to euthanasia & suicide: can I decide to commit those on the ground “God has entrusted my life and my body to me” ? No, the bible say we cannot do those to anybody including ourselves, without inciting the wrath of God.

So the question becomes, is it true “my body my decision” ? Well, it is quite scary to entrust a womans body to anybody but herself. The answer to that has to be “yes, a woman decides for herself for her own body”. This is under woman’s privacy right. Nowadays we do not want to violate any privacy right. It is crucial right to protect.

So now, we are left with one question: would you support it if the civil law give right for the husband to consent to/ forbid the wife from aborting pregnancy conceived within legitimate marriage?

The civil argument would be: the child conceived within legitimate marriage automatically possess the right to life protected by civil law as the consequence of the legitimate marriage of the parents. Aborting the life is a breach of the law.

Would this means to breach a womans privacy right?


Men can be hurt by abortion too.


Thankyou for your answer.

However it is not about man’s hurt feeling here. Everybody is hurt in difficult situation I am sure.

The question is whether Roe V Wade is / is not violated if this is done.

It’s about upholding the right to life of a fetus conceived within legitimate marriage, without violating Roe V Wade. Is this possible? Because to topple Roe V Wade altogether is hard to do.

If the marriage is recognized by the law, the child’s life should theoretically becomes a right recognized by the law.

Am I right in this?

Please feel free to brainstorm. Any post opinion is appreciated

I am no lawyer and know nothing about law. What I write above comes from reading and listening other people’s opinions plus some bible reading and also private revelation I should say.

It’s not just a hurt feeling. It’s the man’s son or daughter that is being taken away.
You think that’s just a hurt feeling?

Both parents bring life into the world, neither truly has the right to kill their child, but if we’re going to talk about the right to choose, then why can the woman unilaterally choose to kill the man’s baby if he disagrees. In a marriage particularly I think this should be a thing.


I don’t support abortion at all, so any laws that doesn’t restrict it would have my disapproval by default. Plenty of women are usually pressured to abort by the fathers, too.

Also, most people who abort (if im not mistaken) are unmarried. So the law would have to extend to fathers, including rapists. This wouldn’t sit well for most people.

If you were to make a law just for husbands, I guess you would have to justify why married fathers have a right to their child’s life and not unmarried.


In a society where marriage is viewed as important, this would be no problem. But we don’t live in such a society anymore.

I mean…i hold the opinion that you have a right to your child regardless of marriage status. It’s almost irrelevant when we’re talking about the death of your child.

1 Like

Oh yeah, I totally agree. I would say though that in a society where marriage is in it’s proper place, the law would be written with marriage in mind, while also being applicable outside of it.

Unmarried fathers have a right. They have a right to say, Marry me and I’ll take care of you and the child. No responsibility, no rights.


Absolutely disagree. Another example of the Victorian rule of men having power over women. The courts would shoot it down in an instant.


Ah get out of it! Abortion is the taking of an innocent baby’s life. It’s nothing to do with control over women. Liberal nonsense.
Why should a man not be able to stay the execution of his own child.


No. Because I don’t believe Husband or Wife has the authority to kill what God has created. Either a life has value or it doesn’t. Obtaining consensus to commit murder doesn’t erase the value that is inherent in the life of the child. Nor does obtaining consensus or failure to obtain consensus to keep the child provide value. This kind of civil law completely misses the point and teaches something about the value of life that is at odds with the Truth. We don’t get to make that decision.


NO because its not “her own body” since “her body” is defined by her DNA within her cells and the baby has its own unique DNA within its own cells.

Your other question is false since its based on the above false premise.


But the law might prevent some babies from being killed.


Unmarried fathers are still fathers. Unmarried mothers are still mothers.

Married fathers are not more responsible for their children than unmarried fathers. If you have a child, you’re responsible, period. Now, you can choose to marry the woman you knocked up, but it doesn’t and shouldn’t grant you more responsibility over your child. Even the Church doesn’t force couples to have shotgun weddings and they’re allowed to have valid marriages with other people.

One caaan make a case saying that fathers who have been out of the kid’s life shouldn’t have legal responsibilities, but it would be irrelevant in this case. Since the baby is unborn and if a dad doesn’t want to be involved, he can just consent to the abortion. Which is often the reality for many women right now (when fathers pressure them to abort or else they would leave).

Yeah I agree.

I guess that’s the issue here, isn’t it? Abortion is legal because of bodily autonomy and all of that nonsense. It would be a contradiction to say, abortion is okay and legal…but you need the father to consent to the killing. The arguments in favour of this and abortion falls apart, since it’s now ‘parents have the right to get rid of their child’ vs ‘women should have a say in what goes on in their bodies’. I disagree with both of course but nobody would accept the former.

So my answer is no. I won’t support that. Mainly because I think even fathers don’t have the right to kill their children. If you ask me if I believe _____ should have the right to consent to the murder of ______, I would still say no. Because the murder is wrong.

This isn’t necessarily a pro life view because as I sad earlier, all lives regardless of the circumstances leading to conception is deserving of the right to live. A legitimate marriage, rape, a one night stand, whatever. The life resulted in these situations are all equal.


Possibly. But we both acknowledge that there are probably men out there who are the ones who coerce the abortions.

Also, I don’t know how practical the law is since there are cases where the father is not known. A woman who wants an abortion can also simply say that she doesn’t know who the father is. In cases of rape, that’s even worse.

I generally favour the idea of restrictions (eg late term abortion bans) but not all methods to reduce abortion are equally good.


Right, this.

And bodily autonomy is a legitimate principle. It may be misapplied in the case of abortion. But it’s a true baseline principle nonetheless.

Such a law would only strengthen the idea that these laws are a result of paternalistic control over women, rather than genuine concern for children.


Yes, definitely.

No, I would not support such a law. If one holds that abortion is the taking of an innocent life, then no one has standing to give consent for one, not even the woman who is pregnant nor the father of the child. If that is not what it is, then no one ought to have standing to veto a person’s personal medical decisions, not even a spouse.

Roe v. Wade is based on the idea that government has limited jurisdiction to protect a child’s right to life, because until that child can realistically survive without the body of his or her mother the government must also respect the mother’s right to her own bodily integrity. It is not a matter of “I’m his/her mother, I can do what I want” such that the father could also say “I’m his/her father, I have a say in this.”

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.