India: Impregnate your wife or face the music

[Page]

Yet another reason we should all be committed to a secular society.

[Bluelight-R006]

I just assumed from those there living in poor conditions. I thought they may have gotten used to it after a long time.

Yeah, the immune system doesn’t work that way.

Always thought it did

Thanks for the heads up.

[Kowani]

Yeah, the immune system doesn’t work that way.

Always thought it did

Thanks for the heads up.

Sadly, no. On an individual level, with some viruses. But that requires you to survive those viruses in the first place, and they can’t be major ones.

Smallpox was not good in Europe, but the plague for Amerindians, yeah?

[Galloism]

Yet another reason we should all be committed to a secular society.

It's worth note that the judge appeared to cite no religious basis for this, but the internationally recognized right to control your reproduction.

The basis of this ruling is entirely secular.

[Rojava Free State]

Yet another reason we should all be committed to a secular society.

It's worth note that the judge appeared to cite no religious basis for this, but the internationally recognized right to control your reproduction.

The basis of this ruling is entirely secular.

The basis of the ruling is basically modern feminism. Women's rights matter more than men I guess.

[Thepeopl]

The judge said: go have marital counselling, fix a appointment with a iv clinic and only if unreasonable refusal, than face the music.

So the man is ordered to talk to his wife, with a mediator. Visit a ART clinic to see what chances they have to successfully create a child via IVF and than give consent to sperm donation or have valid argumentation why he cannot proceed.

Fyi, donating sperm is not the same as cutting of your finger. More spit in a cup or trim a fingernail.
Also, the woman is 35 year old and only has 1 child with her husband.

So my guess is that if the husband can find any healthy Male friend who would donate the sperm, the court will rule this as acceptable.
The judge just took in consideration that the Indian society isn't open for single divorced women to have an other child.

[Galloism]

The judge said: go have marital counselling, fix a appointment with a iv clinic and only if unreasonable refusal, than face the music.

So the man is ordered to talk to his wife, with a mediator. Visit a ART clinic to see what chances they have to successfully create a child via IVF and than give consent to sperm donation or have valid argumentation why he cannot proceed.

Fyi, donating sperm is not the same as cutting of your finger. More spit in a cup or trim a fingernail.
Also, the woman is 35 year old and only has 1 child with her husband.

This isn't the same as "spit[ting] in a cup". Children are a major mental, emotional, physical and financial investment for decent people. One they should be allowed to make, but not forced to make.

And keep in mind this child, once born, will have a personality, rights, and a whole existence - one he's forced to be a part of.

Men are not made of stone. This stuff matters.

[Gormwood]

It's worth note that the judge appeared to cite no religious basis for this, but the internationally recognized right to control your reproduction.

The basis of this ruling is entirely secular.

The basis of the ruling is basically modern feminism. Women's rights matter more than men I guess.

India is far from being Feministan.

[Aclion]

The basis of the ruling is basically modern feminism. Women's rights matter more than men I guess.

India is far from being Feministan.

“Reproductive right is closely and directly related to women. But, in the patriarchal society in India, the majority of women lack the decision-making power,”
Sorry, when judges are sentencing men to rape because muh patriarchy it's feministan.

It's worth note that the judge appeared to cite no religious basis for this, but the internationally recognized right to control your reproduction.

The basis of this ruling is entirely secular.

The basis of the ruling is basically modern feminism.

Which is basically a religion. Point goes to Page.

[Gormwood]

India is far from being Feministan.

“Reproductive right is closely and directly related to women. But, in the patriarchal society in India, the majority of women lack the decision-making power,”
Sorry, when judges are sentencing men to rape because muh patriarchy it's feministan.

And the gang rape problem are because of feminism too I forgot.

[Galloism]

“Reproductive right is closely and directly related to women. But, in the patriarchal society in India, the majority of women lack the decision-making power,”
Sorry, when judges are sentencing men to rape because muh patriarchy it's feministan.

And the gang rape problem are because of feminism too I forgot.

Well, to focus on the court in question instead of overall problems facing India, it appears to be the same judge who gives this keynote address, introduced as a women’s rights activist and founder of the Swayam Siddha foundation which is tasked with empowering women in India.

Perhaps a focus entirely on women’s issues to the complete exclusion of men’s wasn’t such a hot idea after all.

[Page]

Yet another reason we should all be committed to a secular society.

It's worth note that the judge appeared to cite no religious basis for this, but the internationally recognized right to control your reproduction.

The basis of this ruling is entirely secular.

It may be nominally secular but it is religion responsible for putting procreation on a pedestal. If not for the influence of religion which imposes tremendous social pressure to marry and breed, no one would ever come to the conclusion that reproductive rights mean you have a right to force someone to procreate against their will.

[Ors Might]

It's worth note that the judge appeared to cite no religious basis for this, but the internationally recognized right to control your reproduction.

The basis of this ruling is entirely secular.

It may be nominally secular but it is religion responsible for putting procreation on a pedestal. If not for the influence of religion which imposes tremendous social pressure to marry and breed, no one would ever come to the conclusion that reproductive rights mean you have a right to force someone to procreate against their will.

It doesn’t follow that in a secular society reproduction wouldn’t be encouraged in some form. Nor does it follow that a secular society would be inherently better at respecting bodily autonomy than non-secular ones.

[Cekoviu]

India is far from being Feministan.

“Reproductive right is closely and directly related to women. But, in the patriarchal society in India, the majority of women lack the decision-making power,”
Sorry, when judges are sentencing men to rape because muh patriarchy it's feministan.

The basis of the ruling is basically modern feminism.

Which is basically a religion. Point goes to Page.

"Anything I don't like is a religion" no. 190035

[Aclion]

"Any moral movementI don't like that substitutes science for dogma and includes a conception of sin is a religion"

[Page]

It may be nominally secular but it is religion responsible for putting procreation on a pedestal. If not for the influence of religion which imposes tremendous social pressure to marry and breed, no one would ever come to the conclusion that reproductive rights mean you have a right to force someone to procreate against their will.

It doesn’t follow that in a secular society reproduction wouldn’t be encouraged in some form. Nor does it follow that a secular society would be inherently better at respecting bodily autonomy than non-secular ones.

Secular societies are better at respecting bodily autonomy.

Marital rape is still allowed in many theocracies but is illegal in almost every secular society.

Theocracies have amputation of limbs and the death penalty as punishment for crimes, most secular societies have abolished the death penalty.

Religious societies have extremely harsh punishments for personal drug use, while secular countries are trending toward decriminalization or legalization.

Some theocracies outright allow some forms of domestic violence, secular countries do not.

It is much more difficult to obtain contraceptives in religious societies than in secular ones.

I think I've provided enough examples. Religion is the death of bodily autonomy.

[Aclion]

It doesn’t follow that in a secular society reproduction wouldn’t be encouraged in some form. Nor does it follow that a secular society would be inherently better at respecting bodily autonomy than non-secular ones.

Secular societies are better at respecting bodily autonomy.

Marital rape is still allowed in many theocracies but is illegal in almost every secular society.

Theocracies have amputation of limbs and the death penalty as punishment for crimes, most secular societies have abolished the death penalty.

Religious societies have extremely harsh punishments for personal drug use, while secular countries are trending toward decriminalization or legalization.

Some theocracies outright allow some forms of domestic violence, secular countries do not.

It is much more difficult to obtain contraceptives in religious societies than in secular ones.

I think I've provided enough examples. Religion is the death of bodily autonomy.

By theocracies do you mean Muslim countries?

[Farnhamia]

"Any moral movementI don't like that substitutes science for dogma and includes a conception of sin is a religion"

*** Warned for malicious quote-editing ***

Pretty simple, really, if you want to "fix that" for someone to make a point of your own, you leave their words intact but use strike-through or some other way of indicating the change. You don't just change it.

[The Ferret Lands]

India:

Maharashtra: Court lets woman have baby with estranged hubby

Swati Deshpande | TNN | Updated: Jun 23, 2019, 0:49 IST

MUMBAI: In a rare plea before a family court, a 35-year-old woman caught in a divorce battle sought a second child with her estranged husband. She pleaded for conception through restoration of conjugal relations or in-vitro fertilisation before her biological clock times out.
In an order this week, the court cited international laws and treaties on personal autonomy and reproductive health to back her “reproductive rights” as being the “basic civil rights of a human being”. The court directed the couple to head for consultation with a marriage counsellor on June 24 and fix a meeting with an IVF expert within a month.

The husband opposed the plea as being illegal, an illusion and against social norms. But holding her request for her husband to donate his sperms for artificial insemination as a “legitimate, eugenic choice of hers” the court directed the couple to an assisted reproductive technology (ART) expert. The husband’s consent for ART is crucial.

Court backs woman’s plea, sends couple to ART expert

The estranged couple has been asked to go for “clinical consultation about the prospect and success of the (ART) procedure in their case”. The doctor has to submit a confidential report to the court later.

“A key aspect of personal autonomy are reproductive rights, which entail rights to make sexual and reproductive decisions,” the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development had said in its steering 1984 document that first defined the term reproductive health. Family Court Judge Swati Chauhan in Nanded invoked its salutary value in the woman’s case.

The judge observed the issue of reproductive rights is “emotionally debatable and gender intricate” and can generate legal and social complications and consequences. The court, though, added it can only hold that the woman has a right to reproduce and is entitled to exercise it but acknowledged that law has limitations. The husband’s consent for ART is crucial.
The couple, both professionals, have a minor child. The husband, who is based in Mumbai, had filed for divorce alleging cruelty by her in 2017 and she approached a court in Nanded for restitution. But while both petitions were pending, she also approached the Nanded family court in 2018 with an application to have another child with him. Her plea, said her lawyer Shivraj Patil, is that since she is 35, her fertile years are limited and she wants a second child to be a sibling to her first and support her in her old age.

The husband opposed her plea questioning its permissibility, legality and her intentions. He refused to have any more children with her, even through ART. “No spouse can be compelled to have conjugal relations directly or indirectly, without free consent,” his lawyer argued.
The woman cannot be faulted for her request, said the court. The husband’s consent is crucial though. The court observed that since both petitions are pending, her plea to have a second child through restoration of conjugal rights cannot be considered. Also, in any case, the judge observed, no court can ever enforce or compel any person to execute an order of restitution.
The judge, though, clarified that in this case “seeking ART procedure is neither in breach of any law nor is it violating any social written or unwritten norms. Moreover, the petitioner is ready to incur the full responsibility of the proposed child”.

Her assertion to raise the child doesn’t curtail its right to claim maintenance, said the court holding that thus the woman’s declaration is not against public policy. The order said, “The respondent may refuse ART by not giving his consent. But by unreasonable refusal he may expose himself to the legal and logical consequences which may follow.”

“Reproductive right is closely and directly related to women. But, in the patriarchal society in India, the majority of women lack the decision-making power,” the court observed.
The husband has to give monthly maintenance for their child who lives with her but the court had rejected her maintenance plea since she earns.

Judge Chauhan, in her order, said within its limited powers, the court can only hold that “she has a right to reproduce and that she is entitled to exercise it.” The judge also said, “Not allowing a fertile woman to procreate is like compelling her to sterilize. To curb or to curtail reproductive right may have a subtle and devastating demographic outcome.’’ The wife undertook to withdraw a criminal case of cruelty she has filed against her husband if he agrees to ART.

Bolding mine.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cit ... p&from=mdr

Unsurprisingly, I am extensively outraged. The judge literally cited “reproductive rights” to tell someone that if they fail to reproduce that she will punish them with “legal and logical consequences” of that decision, which is a threat to throw the book at him in the divorce if he doesn’t fold and reproduce under compulsion said threat.

He has reproductive rights too - namely to not do so.

She may have a right to reproduce, but she has no right to reproduce with any particular man.

I’m also exceptionally suspicious regarding her criminal case of cruelty. Female abusers often turn to the law to act as proxies for furthering their abuse and control over their victim. The notion that she would attempt to get the court to force him to reproduce, after already being estranged, is very indicative of an abusive partner.

Reproductive coercion is a very common tactic among abusers. This just smells bad.

Regarding judges threatening men to reproduce under threat of punishment, what say ye NSG?

This sounds awful! I feel so bad for that poor man.

[Grinning Dragon]

India:

Maharashtra: Court lets woman have baby with estranged hubby

Swati Deshpande | TNN | Updated: Jun 23, 2019, 0:49 IST

MUMBAI: In a rare plea before a family court, a 35-year-old woman caught in a divorce battle sought a second child with her estranged husband. She pleaded for conception through restoration of conjugal relations or in-vitro fertilisation before her biological clock times out.
In an order this week, the court cited international laws and treaties on personal autonomy and reproductive health to back her “reproductive rights” as being the “basic civil rights of a human being”. The court directed the couple to head for consultation with a marriage counsellor on June 24 and fix a meeting with an IVF expert within a month.

The husband opposed the plea as being illegal, an illusion and against social norms. But holding her request for her husband to donate his sperms for artificial insemination as a “legitimate, eugenic choice of hers” the court directed the couple to an assisted reproductive technology (ART) expert. The husband’s consent for ART is crucial.

Court backs woman’s plea, sends couple to ART expert

The estranged couple has been asked to go for “clinical consultation about the prospect and success of the (ART) procedure in their case”. The doctor has to submit a confidential report to the court later.

“A key aspect of personal autonomy are reproductive rights, which entail rights to make sexual and reproductive decisions,” the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development had said in its steering 1984 document that first defined the term reproductive health. Family Court Judge Swati Chauhan in Nanded invoked its salutary value in the woman’s case.

The judge observed the issue of reproductive rights is “emotionally debatable and gender intricate” and can generate legal and social complications and consequences. The court, though, added it can only hold that the woman has a right to reproduce and is entitled to exercise it but acknowledged that law has limitations. The husband’s consent for ART is crucial.
The couple, both professionals, have a minor child. The husband, who is based in Mumbai, had filed for divorce alleging cruelty by her in 2017 and she approached a court in Nanded for restitution. But while both petitions were pending, she also approached the Nanded family court in 2018 with an application to have another child with him. Her plea, said her lawyer Shivraj Patil, is that since she is 35, her fertile years are limited and she wants a second child to be a sibling to her first and support her in her old age.

The husband opposed her plea questioning its permissibility, legality and her intentions. He refused to have any more children with her, even through ART. “No spouse can be compelled to have conjugal relations directly or indirectly, without free consent,” his lawyer argued.
The woman cannot be faulted for her request, said the court. The husband’s consent is crucial though. The court observed that since both petitions are pending, her plea to have a second child through restoration of conjugal rights cannot be considered. Also, in any case, the judge observed, no court can ever enforce or compel any person to execute an order of restitution.
The judge, though, clarified that in this case “seeking ART procedure is neither in breach of any law nor is it violating any social written or unwritten norms. Moreover, the petitioner is ready to incur the full responsibility of the proposed child”.

Her assertion to raise the child doesn’t curtail its right to claim maintenance, said the court holding that thus the woman’s declaration is not against public policy. The order said, “The respondent may refuse ART by not giving his consent. But by unreasonable refusal he may expose himself to the legal and logical consequences which may follow.”

“Reproductive right is closely and directly related to women. But, in the patriarchal society in India, the majority of women lack the decision-making power,” the court observed.
The husband has to give monthly maintenance for their child who lives with her but the court had rejected her maintenance plea since she earns.

Judge Chauhan, in her order, said within its limited powers, the court can only hold that “she has a right to reproduce and that she is entitled to exercise it.” The judge also said, “Not allowing a fertile woman to procreate is like compelling her to sterilize. To curb or to curtail reproductive right may have a subtle and devastating demographic outcome.’’ The wife undertook to withdraw a criminal case of cruelty she has filed against her husband if he agrees to ART.

Bolding mine.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cit ... p&from=mdr

Unsurprisingly, I am extensively outraged. The judge literally cited “reproductive rights” to tell someone that if they fail to reproduce that she will punish them with “legal and logical consequences” of that decision, which is a threat to throw the book at him in the divorce if he doesn’t fold and reproduce under compulsion said threat.

He has reproductive rights too - namely to not do so.

She may have a right to reproduce, but she has no right to reproduce with any particular man.

I’m also exceptionally suspicious regarding her criminal case of cruelty. Female abusers often turn to the law to act as proxies for furthering their abuse and control over their victim. The notion that she would attempt to get the court to force him to reproduce, after already being estranged, is very indicative of an abusive partner.

Reproductive coercion is a very common tactic among abusers. This just smells bad.

Regarding judges threatening men to reproduce under threat of punishment, what say ye NSG?

This is horseshit. Forcing a person to impregnate a woman isn't reproductive rights, it's reproductive slavery.
The judge is an idiot, and the guy needs to appeal.

[Chestaan]

It doesn’t follow that in a secular society reproduction wouldn’t be encouraged in some form. Nor does it follow that a secular society would be inherently better at respecting bodily autonomy than non-secular ones.

Secular societies are better at respecting bodily autonomy.

Marital rape is still allowed in many theocracies but is illegal in almost every secular society.

Theocracies have amputation of limbs and the death penalty as punishment for crimes, most secular societies have abolished the death penalty.

Religious societies have extremely harsh punishments for personal drug use, while secular countries are trending toward decriminalization or legalization.

Some theocracies outright allow some forms of domestic violence, secular countries do not.

It is much more difficult to obtain contraceptives in religious societies than in secular ones.

I think I've provided enough examples. Religion is the death of bodily autonomy.

What have any of these examples got to do with this case? There is no evidence that this judgement is based on religious argument.

[Thepeopl]

The judge said: go have marital counselling, fix a appointment with a iv clinic and only if unreasonable refusal, than face the music.

So the man is ordered to talk to his wife, with a mediator. Visit a ART clinic to see what chances they have to successfully create a child via IVF and than give consent to sperm donation or have valid argumentation why he cannot proceed.

Fyi, donating sperm is not the same as cutting of your finger. More spit in a cup or trim a fingernail.
Also, the woman is 35 year old and only has 1 child with her husband.

This isn't the same as "spit[ting] in a cup". Children are a major mental, emotional, physical and financial investment for decent people. One they should be allowed to make, but not forced to make.

And keep in mind this child, once born, will have a personality, rights, and a whole existence - one he's forced to be a part of.

Men are not made of stone. This stuff matters.

And I wholeheartedly agree with you. And if the husband can articulate this to the judge, it wouldn't be unreasonable refusal. So no consequences.

Till 2018 the Indian husband had to give permission to an other man to sleep with his wife. The man who slept with a married woman without permission, could be legally prosecuted.

So if the man in this strange court case gives his consent to his wife sleeping with an other man/ be inseminated with an other man's sperm and he provides a healthy consenting Male to do so, the judge will not be able to force the husband to donate sperm. The article head is really misleading.
The husband is not forced to have sex/ donate sperm. He is ordered to talk to his wife with mediation and make an appointment with a fertility clinic to explore the chances of a successful IVF treatment.

[Diopolis]

She already has a kid. There's no need to force the husband to give her another one.

[Galloism]

It's worth note that the judge appeared to cite no religious basis for this, but the internationally recognized right to control your reproduction.

The basis of this ruling is entirely secular.

It may be nominally secular but it is religion responsible for putting procreation on a pedestal. If not for the influence of religion which imposes tremendous social pressure to marry and breed, no one would ever come to the conclusion that reproductive rights mean you have a right to force someone to procreate against their will.

Are you sure no one would?

We have pretty good evidence of that absolutism not being the case.

[Galloism]

:?:

This isn't the same as "spit[ting] in a cup". Children are a major mental, emotional, physical and financial investment for decent people. One they should be allowed to make, but not forced to make.

And keep in mind this child, once born, will have a personality, rights, and a whole existence - one he's forced to be a part of.

Men are not made of stone. This stuff matters.

And I wholeheartedly agree with you. And if the husband can articulate this to the judge, it wouldn't be unreasonable refusal. So no consequences.

Till 2018 the Indian husband had to give permission to an other man to sleep with his wife. The man who slept with a married woman without permission, could be legally prosecuted.

So if the man in this strange court case gives his consent to his wife sleeping with an other man/ be inseminated with an other man's sperm and he provides a healthy consenting Male to do so, the judge will not be able to force the husband to donate sperm. The article head is really misleading.
The husband is not forced to have sex/ donate sperm. He is ordered to talk to his wife with mediation and make an appointment with a fertility clinic to explore the chances of a successful IVF treatment.

First, you just said he no longer has to consent to it in 2019. Then you say needs to consent to it. Which is it?

Second, why should HE be the one who has to provide a willing father? Isn't that her responsibility?

Third, the notion that if he "unreasonably refuses" to be forced into parenthood by the state over a child that's not even conceived of yet he will be punished is absolutely ludicrous. The reasonable basis already exists and the judge is aware of it. It applies to every man and woman who has ever lived in all of human history. The notion that it needs to be explained to her means she has absolutely no concept of human rights, and should not pontificate on them.