I hope that sarc tag was ate by the dog. A husband paying for the mental anguish of this for a wife is beyond a court.
Precisely my point: If anyone thought I was serious in suggesting it was okay for a husband to have someone hurt his wife, surely they'd call for men in white coats, or worse. But many people think it's perfectly sane and normal to kill an unborn child.
Doesn't anyone see the irony and double standard here? A husband invites a stranger into his home to assault his wife and poeple go bonkers in defense of the wife and in outrage toward the husband. And yet if that woman, or any woman for that matter, invited a doctor into her womb to assault and kill her unborn child, most of those same people would say "hands off her right to an abortion." Why isn't anyone saying "hands off a husband's right to have someone assault his wife"? The answer, of course, is because it's wrong.
Trying to abort a marriage by permitting third party trauma to the spouse is no different than aborting a pregnanacy by permitting third party trauma to the unborn child.
And no one should try distinguishing the two based on motivation or commitment: each involves a victim, and injuring and killing without the knowledge and consent of the victim is wrong, period, no matter what the motivation or commitment (and so is euthanasia, but that's for another day).
A husband paying for the mental anguish of this for a wife is beyond a court.
If I may paraphrase, a mother paying for the physical suffering of an abortion and death for her unborn child is beyond a court. (Which reminds me, now that Justice Blackmun has gone on to his reward, I wonder how his soul is getting treated these days? As Woody Allen said, eternity is a long time, especially towards the end.)