or Connect
VeggieBoards › Forums › General Discussion Forums › The Compost Heap › Husband's Permission Required to have Tubes Tied
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Husband's Permission Required to have Tubes Tied - Page 2

post #31 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreeli View Post

sorry, i don't agree. and neither would most of the mothers i know. certainly a man's life is forever altered too, but in very different ways; and society is still set up in such a way that no matter what, a man can pretty much walk away from the kids, and the mother of his kids, whenever he wants. often with very few or no consequences.



That being said, any mother can, too. Most of them just choose not to.



In fact, mothers have more of a way to do that because they can just have an abortion, whereas the guy cannot force an abortion. Not only that, but he can't decide to give the kid away if he doesn't want it, but the mother can choose to give it up for adoption by maintaining that she doesn't know who the father is. And, if she can't give it up for adoption, she can certainly give it to the guy, walk away, and be required nothing more than a nominal monthly fee (and mothers are just as good at dodging child support as fathers are... please don't kid yourself).



Women can divorce their husbands, leave their children behind, etc. I know several people who were basically deserted by their mother(s).



Motherhood is a choice.
post #32 of 71
Wow this is freaking obscene. This issue, like any other issue dealing with reproduction (like abortion) is about human rights first and foremost. I can bet my head that the cretins who signed this idiocy into law were more than likely male. Unfortunately this country's record on human rights tends to be somewhat in line with that of Syria and Libya. Don't believe me? Just look at the records of UN votes.



The religious lunatics need to get it through their thick skulls that human rights MUST come before their stupid book. And while they're at it, they probably should go and re-read it again, as it most surely says do unto others as you'd want done unto you.



Krista: no, men have no rights over the bodies of their partners. If a person wants to have kids and their partner does not then they should find another partner. To suggest that rights exist over another body is to violate basic dignity and integrity of the person whose right is being overriden. That is absurd and wrong. And no, don't get started on the question of abortion and the rights of a child. A fetus is no more a child than a seed is a tree. Potential rights are not equal to actual rights.



On a sidenote, I always get a kick out of all the people who say they are so for human rights, and yet are more than willing to make exceptions. Get it straight folks. Either you are for human rights, and apply them equally to all human beings (including women, including palestinians, including all) or you are against human rights. The right to control your own body is the most basic one of those. Abortion is as much a human rights issue as freedom of thought is a human rights issue.
post #33 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by dk_art View Post

"She wants to get her tubes tied, her husband's signature is required by Ohio law, and he doesn't want to sign."

---------------------



I'd be very curious to know if the same state has laws requiring the wife's signature if the husband wanted a vasectomy.



This was the first thing I thought of when I read this thread. It would be interesting to know if such is the case or not.
post #34 of 71
Well, when it comes to matter with children, those things should be discussed before marriage and decided upon. If I don't want kids at this point, can't guarantee that I ever will, I'm not going to marry someone who definitely or maybe does want kids. It's a no-win situation that will almost inevitably end up in divorce.



That being said, a law requiring a spouse's signature for an operation, assuming the operatee is mentally competent, is absolutely ludicrous. A marriage certificate does not equal power of attorney. Period.



I have heard women saying things about their husbands "allowing" them this and that, and it makes me sick to my stomach. I know it's not always the husband's wording, either. Sometimes the wife makes it seems more authoritative or something. Maybe they think it's sexy when a man tells them what to do. I don't know. I should be a dominatrix.
post #35 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisaLady View Post

In fact, mothers have more of a way to do that because they can just have an abortion, whereas the guy cannot force an abortion. Not only that, but he can't decide to give the kid away if he doesn't want it, but the mother can choose to give it up for adoption by maintaining that she doesn't know who the father is.



Just as a woman can go to court and get an order for paternity testing to prove who the father of her child is, a MAN can get an order from a court ordering the woman to submit to a test to find out if a child is his. Some men may choose not to do this; that's their choice. It depends upon how important the child (potential child) is to them.
post #36 of 71
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe View Post

Here's a comment. I spent some time with Google trying to find this supposed Ohio law and found nothing like it.



I found nothing like this supposed law. The closest thing I found was a requirement for spousal consent if a married woman is to receive artificial insemination, and there are other consent laws relating to medical procedures for the mentally ill, the retarded, and the like.



Now, it's possible that I just missed it or it is too new to be in the statute books yet. If anyone on VB can find me the text of the law, I'd be very interested to look at it.



But as of now my tentative conclusion is that this whole thread is based on a hoax.



Oh no, I would never do anything like that!! Never, ever, ever. Period!



It has crossed my mind that my friend may be confused or misinformed, but this is what she believes to be true, and it's what she told me and some other friends ... I will question her about it further when I see her -- probably tomorrow.



Thank you Joe for taking the time to try to look up some info; I lack both skill and time to be as good a researcher as I ought to be.



BTW I hope it's NOT true!!





ETA: Whatever the legal specifics turn out to be, they certainly have some tough marital issues to address.
post #37 of 71
A society where individuals do not have complete control over their own bodies is not free.
post #38 of 71
hi.



it appears that this law is in effect in two states. please see my earlier post in the thread where i link to the article that talks about this. however, reading closely, you will see that it requires spousal consent for voluntary sterilization. so yes, it would apply to men wanting vasectomies, too.



it is true that there are mothers who can and do leave their children. however the cultural stigma attached to child abandonment makes it such that a woman who admits to this is looked upon far more harshly than a man is. why is that? if this is really about fair play, why is it that a man can cop to having many children, often by different women, and not be involved in their lives and hardly have anyone blink an eye. try to imagine the same scenario, only replace the man with a woman. the idea of a mother abandoning her children, well...my god, what a horrible woman. does she have no soul?



it's not a level playing field, at all, by any means. therefore it's really not fair to try and generalize this as something that is equal and shared between the sexes. not yet. maybe not ever.
post #39 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnyk View Post

Oh no, I would never do anything like that!! Never, ever, ever. Period!



It has crossed my mind that my friend may be confused or misinformed, but this is what she believes to be true, and it's what she told me and some other friends ... I will question her about it further when I see her -- probably tomorrow.



Thank you Joe for taking the time to try to look up some info; I lack both skill and time to be as good a researcher as I ought to be.



Thank you for your comments, sunnyk.



Let me try to clarify my comments. I did not mean them as a personal attack on sunnyk. I believe that her friend told her this, and I have no reason to doubt that the friend was serious and sincere in her beliefs. But it is possible that those beliefs are mistaken.



I am just skeptical that such a law exists in Ohio. I think if there really were such a law an internet search would have turned up information about it easily. But instead, I found nothing. That just doesn't jibe.



Thalia lives in Ohio and says she has never heard of such a law. And she is intelligent and knowledgable. So again, this doesn't jibe.



I would at least expect to find newspaper articles or editorials about the law, feminist websites denouncing it, etc. Instead--nothing.



So, show me this law. Where is it in the Ohio Revised Code?



I guess I'm "from Missouri" on this one. Show me. I'm a skeptic, a doubting Thomas.



I also think that if Kreeli is correct and there are two States (out of 50) that have such laws, then the solution is just to travel to a different state for the procedure. Yes, that would be unfair and burdensome, but a lot less unfair and burdensome than being saddled with extra, unwanted children.
post #40 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by cactus View Post

Wow this is freaking obscene. This issue, like any other issue dealing with reproduction (like abortion) is about human rights first and foremost. I can bet my head that the cretins who signed this idiocy into law were more than likely male. Unfortunately this country's record on human rights tends to be somewhat in line with that of Syria and Libya. Don't believe me? Just look at the records of UN votes.

*snort*

UN votes? *cackle*

Do you really, really want to make yourself look silly this early on in your VB tenure? If so, feel free to start another thread where you explain how the US is as bas as Syria. Please.



Quote:
And no, don't get started on the question of abortion and the rights of a child. A fetus is no more a child than a seed is a tree. Potential rights are not equal to actual rights.



Well, uh, see, what you state as fact is actually somehwat more a matter of opinion. Do you really think there is much difference between a 8 1/2 month fetus and a newborn infant other than a change of address?



Quote:

On a sidenote, I always get a kick out of all the people who say they are so for human rights, and yet are more than willing to make exceptions. Get it straight folks. Either you are for human rights, and apply them equally to all human beings (including women, including palestinians, including all) or you are against human rights. The right to control your own body is the most basic one of those. Abortion is as much a human rights issue as freedom of thought is a human rights issue.



I get a kick out of people who try and wrap themselves into moral absolutes, have numerous faliings of their own, and then gallop around the track on their moral high-horse showing their backsides like some kinda modern day Lady Godiva. Get it straight folks - all rights are societal constructs, and what exactly equals "human rights" is actually, get this!, determined by humans.
post #41 of 71
BTW, I gotta back Joe up on this one. I know some doctors require a spouse's signature for certain reproductive procedures (believe it or not, often for malpractice protection), including vasectomies. I was not aware of it being a law currently enforced in any state at this time.
post #42 of 71
[QUOTE=Tame



Well, uh, see, what you state as fact is actually somehwat more a matter of opinion. Do you really think there is much difference between a 8 1/2 month fetus and a newborn infant other than a change of address?







i can sort of see the point...a fetus has no rights till it is viable outside the womb...an 8 1/2 month fetus IS viable....therefore it has all the right of a newborn infant...a 12 week embryo is not.....
post #43 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandiemac View Post

[\\



i can sort of see the point...a fetus has no rights till it is viable outside the womb...an 8 1/2 month fetus IS viable....therefore it has all the right of a newborn infant...a 12 week embryo is not.....



And that is where I get confused on this whole issue. To me, it seems that a fetus after a certain point should be recognized to have certain "rights", yet the problem becomes - where and how do we draw that line?
post #44 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

And that is where I get confused on this whole issue. To me, it seems that a fetus after a certain point should be recognized to have certain "rights", yet the problem becomes - where and how do we draw that line?





uh huh....i think the line HAS to be drawn at viability. you cn't give rights to a non sentient being and let's face it a 12 week fetus is not a sentient being for all intents and purposes it's brain function is rudimentary at best since it is not developed. it cannot live outside the womb and cannot draw a breath..... IMHO i don't see where else to draw the line.
post #45 of 71
Tell the guy if he wants a boy, let him carry it for 9 months.
post #46 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

Well, uh, see, what you state as fact is actually somehwat more a matter of opinion. Do you really think there is much difference between a 8 1/2 month fetus and a newborn infant other than a change of address?



That is correct, I fully agree with you. I therefor would suggest that not only should abortion be fully legal, but a really good argument can be made that in the case of a severely deformed child being borned, euthanasia after birth should be legal. A lot of very severe deformaties can occur during the birthing process as a result of mistakes made by the doctors -- and it really should be up to the family to decide whether they should have another healthy child that would otherwise not be born, if the deformed one is kept. Adoption is out of the question in a lot of these cases, as no one generally would want to adopt a severely retarded child.



This is probably by far the most extreme of any viewpoints I hold, when put in light of what most society believes. However I go with facts, not feelings or emotions. There is no difference at birth, it is only a gray line we drew in the sand.



Quote:
Originally Posted by tame View Post

Get it straight folks - all rights are societal constructs, and what exactly equals "human rights" is actually, get this!, determined by humans.



Again, we agree. Without a society which desires to confiscate rights, there would be no need for "rights" -- they simply would not exist. It is very much a social construct. Every human right that we have today has been taken by force from oppressive governments.



The basis for the idea of human rights is a shaky one -- there has to be a basis from which human rights come from. Most organizations and individuals simply claim issues as being human rights, without any reason beyond saying "this I claim for myself".



Without society every man would be completely free. I believe that rights aren't given the government -- they are surrendered to the government by the people. That is govenment is not a source of rights. Government draws its power from the consent of the governed -- if we do not consent to something, the right is ours to keep. If the government attempts to take the rights by force, then it deserves to be overthrown. The american government is coming closer and closer to that point as it goes closer and closer to fascism.



Now given all that essentially human rights boil down to rights which we simply do not want to give up. Government only rules with consent from the governed, and I choose to withdraw my consent to a certain extent on issues such as control over abortion, euthnasia, and a number of other issues.
post #47 of 71
MODERATOR NOTE: Can we all stay on topic? Especially the abortion stuff. We have pages and pages of abortion debate elsewhere. It tends to go on for ever and get ugly.
post #48 of 71
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

BTW, I gotta back Joe up on this one. I know some doctors require a spouse's signature for certain reproductive procedures (believe it or not, often for malpractice protection), including vasectomies. I was not aware of it being a law currently enforced in any state at this time.



Ah, so perhaps it is simply her doctor's policy, possibly for insurance purposes, and she simply took that to mean that it is "a legal thing."



In that case, while it is not state law, she still finds herself in need of her husband's permission -- with her current doctor, that is.



She could go to another doctor; I wonder how prevalent such policies are, though?
post #49 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by kristadb View Post

I do believe that he has as much say in the matter as her, however.



essentially, the ohio law encodes this cultural value that, apparently, the people of ohio agree with. apparently, the people of ohio believe that fathers have equal say in reproduction, and therfore have a stake in the reproductive organs and uses thereof of their wives. therefore, to protect this right, they developed a consent law in which the husband must consent to the procedure before the wife can have the procedure.



this law basicly says that husbands have "shares" or "partial ownership" (so to speak) of their wives bodies. Effectively, it says that his desires for her body, legally speaking, outweigh her own--removing her ability to choose as quickly as a veto power. I do not find it fair, or right, that a husband's opinion in this matter can override a wife's--Her body, her reproductive organs belong to him.



this also allows for a great deal of cruelty to women. Even if she refuses sex, that doesn't mean that he won't take it, and that he won't succeed in impregnanting her in this way. A good friend of mine, and three of her brothers, are all the products of marital rape (two concieved after divorce). He rape her into submission to his will to have children--since his will to have children is legally allowable and protected since she cannot have the surgery without his consent while they are married--extending the power of her husband completely over her body and her sexuality.



my body is my own, and i will ultimately be the one who decides what happens to it--not my husband. while i agree that it is fair for a wife to take her husbands opinions on the matter into consideration (and likely, she does), it is a private matter between husbands and wives, not a legal matter. Likewise, i do not think that my husband's reproductive opinion (regarding pregnancy) is equal to my opinion because, as kreeli said, it changes HER so very deeply and fundamentally whereas his body is entirely unchanged through the process.



i believe that this is a gross infringement on a women's physical, sexual, and reproductive rights. i believe that the law is unjust, and that fathers do not have "equal say" over their wives bodies. Equally, a woman does not have "equal say" over the bodies of their husbands if he does, or doesn't, want to get a vasectomy. And similarly, they do not have "equal say" in reproduction, because, quite frankly, her body and her life is the one most greatly impacted--his share is, ultimately, not equal, and therefore his say is not equal.



Truly, this law is absolute madness that further oppresses women. even my husband is angry about it!
post #50 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoebird View Post

essentially, the ohio law encodes this cultural value that, apparently, the people of ohio agree with. apparently, the people of ohio believe that fathers have equal say in reproduction, and therfore have a stake in the reproductive organs and uses thereof of their wives. therefore, to protect this right, they developed a consent law in which the husband must consent to the procedure before the wife can have the procedure.



...





I am still skeptical that any such Ohio law exists and is presently in force. Please assist me by providing a citation to the alleged law and quoting its exact text. I've given the URL of the Ohio Revised Codes in my post above in this thread.
post #51 of 71
i found the old law (pre-1950 repro ;aws) on lexus--but it didn't have direct language, rather a list of states who did have such laws. i'm still doing a search (though not key word) on the recent laws.



i think it may be a "legal" thing for malpractice, as i did find it in a suggestions section of a malpractice lawyer. i'll check the revised code--and i'll need to check the case law related to relevant reproductive law. That part is trickier, and i tend to use the library (i prefer the texts). Since i won't go to the library for a few more days, it'll be a while. i think i'll make it to the law library at the school on sunday (assuming it doesn't snow here).



i'll try to find the code. I also sent an email to my repro rights teacher. she's sending along a few artcles related.



(off topic to tame: the "line" regarding fetal viability is drawn by the individuals in the state who elect officials to legally draw that line. relevant case law: Planned Parenthood v Casey--1994 i believe.)
post #52 of 71
As someone who hasn't had children but is trying to conceive, I agree with Kreeli and Zoebird that the man does not have equal say in this. After finding out as much as possible I don't want to subject myself to more than two pregnancies... and really, would prefer only one. It sucks more out of a woman's body than most people realise. Women who have children age far worse than women who have never had children. It affects us in a fundamental way, and men have NO right to force it upon us. As Life said, if he wants a boy, he should carry it himself. And if he can't, then he has no say.



When it is a person's right to govern their own body I definitely do NOT believe in equality. A person's body (male or female) is their own. No one else can tell them what to do with it. And unfortunately, only women can carry children. But that does not mean she becomes a baby-carrier and gives up her rights over her own body. Yes, men are treated unfairly. But they have no right to govern a woman's body.
post #53 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoebird View Post

(off topic to tame: the "line" regarding fetal viability is drawn by the individuals in the state who elect officials to legally draw that line. relevant case law: Planned Parenthood v Casey--1994 i believe.)



I know how it is drawn legally. My comment was in relation to how people within a society reach that conclusion.

However, with Roe v. Wade in effect, the line can only be drawn so far back. From what i remember when I read the decision, there is no room for a state legisltaure to pass a law stating viability begins at conception.
post #54 of 71
You've GOT to be kidding. I refuse to believe this is true. Ack.



lesbianism is looking better and better....sorry to make light of your friend's dilemna....



I too think they should work it out. But did they not ever discuss his 'need to sire a man child' before they married? This would seem like a good discussion to have had before tying the knot in Ohio. Thank you for reminding me that if I do ever decide to do that again, I'll be checking out our state laws first to find out if my future spouse can take a branding iron to my a&*.



B
post #55 of 71
Before anyone else pops too much of a gasket, some doctors require wives to sign before their husbands get a vasectomy.
post #56 of 71
I'm not blowing a gasket . I'm simply stating a very strong opinion that I don't think anyone else should have the final say over something I've chosen to do with my own body.



Having said that I do understand there is definitely a serious breakdown in communication when the state needs to step in and get you to discuss with your spouse your conjoined reproductive future. I mean I do know that this is the reason for having this law. So that nobody gets cheated out of parenthood.



Still, it's wrong wrong wrong to try and push parenthood on a person who doesn't REALLY want to be a parent. Parenting is hard work even if you love doing it. And children are way too important in my opinion to be raised by people who aren't all that interested in having them.



That's all.
post #57 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreeli View Post

but i'm confused. don't ALL major surgeries require a signature from the patient's next-of-kin?



No, and why would this be the case?
post #58 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

Before anyone else pops too much of a gasket, some doctors require wives to sign before their husbands get a vasectomy.



i don't agree with that either. poor dudes.
post #59 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkjobsluder View Post

No, and why would this be the case?



yeah, i was confused. i was mixing this up with the "next-of-kin" signature required if some kind of emergency procedure needs to be done on a patient who is unable to approve it for themselves.
post #60 of 71
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

Before anyone else pops too much of a gasket, some doctors require wives to sign before their husbands get a vasectomy.



I would find that equally disturbing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Compost Heap
VeggieBoards › Forums › General Discussion Forums › The Compost Heap › Husband's Permission Required to have Tubes Tied