When the Supreme Court is petitioned to hear a case, the plaintiff must provide an issue of a Constitutional violation for the Court to judge. In the case of Roe v. Wade, the attorneys for Norma McCorvey (Roe) relied on “privacy” as their issue.
But actual privacy was not really being addressed in Roe v. Wade. The real issue at hand was that the State of Texas had a law that forbade physicians, who also happen to be licensed by the State of Texas, from performing a particular elective medical procedure. A procedure that is also explicitly prohibited by the Hippocratic Oath.
The Texas law prohibiting elective abortion was no more a violation of anyone’s right to privacy anymore than a state law that prohibits gambling. Furthermore, the very act of having to enlist a state-licensed practitioner to perform the procedure should have negated any perception of a privacy issue.
So, as illustrated, the issue of a privacy violation was more or less an excuse put forth by plaintiff’s counsel that was used to justify the Supreme Court hearing the case, and being sympathetic to the politics of the day, the Court agreed to hear the case under that pretext.
Being that the Court agreed to hear Roe under a false pretext, the Court, in effect, circumvented its defined parameters, and enacted a provision that granted relief to a woman’s biological condition.
“As illustrated” - that is laughable. You make a huge logical step - that control over one’s own body, and relationships between oneself and one’s doctor are “no more a violation of … pivacy” than a gambling ban. I guess that’s why gambler-bookie communications are considered privileged under American law.
Actually, the Hippocratic Oath prohibits a physician from giving a woman a pessary to cause an abortion. The Oath also prohibits a physician from removing kidney or bladder stones. And let’s not forget that the Oath starts off by swearing to several ancient gods, shall we?
I believe, though I am not going to search for it now, that the old pessaries that were meant to induce abortions were compounded of such wholesome things as camel dung. And the old laws against abortions were put in place because of the MATERNAL death rate, that is, the lawmakers were more concerned with the health of the woman involved.
The old Hippocratic Oath was meaningful in its time. The more updated oaths will have various differences, which are relevant to OUR time. Here is a link to the first modern HO that I found: NOVA | Doctors' Diaries | The Hippocratic Oath: Modern Version | PBS Notice that it makes no specific mention of abortion, though it was written in 1964.
I generally do. But when I start getting responses that force me to scroll up and down trying to figure out what the heck the person is responding to, I start posting in kind.
There is no data that you are willing to accept is all. Its out there, it just isn’t being gathered by the census bureau or whoever you would be willing to believe.
Since you chose to do that, it is irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Women have the advantage of being able to opt out of a pregnancy.
What equivilant line is that?
Oh please. You want me to feel sorry for women who chose to remain pregnant and then chose to keep the baby? If it’s such an awful thing, why do so many women choose to do it?
Which is why we have adoption. If they don’t “believe” in that either, then its their choice - why should anyone else have to pay for her choice to not “believe” in abortion or adoption?
OK, so what about all the babies sired by those under 18? Why is there some magical age when a man is supposed to be mature, educated and responsible enough to accept your view that intercourse means he might have to pay to raise a baby?
Why would it matter what the percentage is? If handing women money for having babies results in some of those kids being abused or beaten to death, wouldn’t looking into the idea of paying women to have babies be a good idea? You know, “in the best interests of the children”.
What does that have to do with it? Abortion, the morning after pill and any sort of permanent birth control has been under attack for years. Whether or not the people who believe these things are the work of the devil (or whatever it is they believe) are in the majority overall is immaterial given the effect they have had.
Again, it was your choice and you are free to make all of the choices you want that don’t seriously affect anyone else. Advocating no intercourse unless someone is trying to make a baby is affecting others.
I don’t really view putting on a condom as birth control, due to it’s low success rate. If that is the only birth control going on, it would appear to me that the woman is looking to get pregnant or completely without a clue.
Limiting public support to single moms. Not to the children, just taking even more away from the adults.
It is only exaggerations to you because you simply cannot understand the other side. We have all kinds of citizens who cannot defend or provide for themselves, yet children, particularly babies, are the ones we throw the most money at by far. For some reason, the US has become absolutely baby crazy and it seems we cannot have enough taxpayer funded programs to support children. As for obvious and known consequences, that just isn’t true. Intercourse does not always result in pregnancy, and pregnancy doesn’t always result in a baby. If society wouldn’t pay women to have babies, far far more women would be on some sort of reliable birth control until they are actually financially capable of raising a baby. It all boils down to whether or not each individual woman wants a baby, not anything that men are doing.
Shrug. First you say I can’t come up with an alternative, then you insist that I have to make one you think is reasonable.
I have already addressed this, over and over.
Why in the world would you respect and admire someone who made the choice to be supported by the taxpayer? Just because it involved a baby?
I have already addressed this, over and over.
Yet you say that you respect and admire a woman who chose to make a choice to be supported by the taxpayers. That is not holding the woman responsible at all.
Hardly qualifies to be included in this thread.
There is a difference between husband and father. A woman looking for a husband indicates she is not looking to get pregnant until she is married. If she decides to “oops” him to get him to marry her, as far as I’m concerned is deserves whatever happens.
She should be able to believe him, provided he actually said that. However, even if he did say that, it doesn’t fall to her alone to decide when they are going to start having children. So if she gets pregnant and he doesn’t want it right then, or the reality of it makes him realize that he never wants kids, or maybe never with her, why should she be able to say “tough, you’re gonna pay”?
Having children, when, how many and all of that is not something that couples discuss daily or even monthly (except, I supose, those who are having trouble conceiving). People change their minds - why should it only be that the woman is allowed to make the decision of when they are both going to have a child to pay for?
I have trouble believing that most accidental pregnancies are actually accidents. Female birth control is very effective, so except for those women who cannot tolerate any of the 99% ones, how is it that they are “accidentally” getting pregnant? I also think that the “accidental” label is put on pregnancy when they weren’t actively trying but weren’t doing anything much to prevent it either.
Scrolling around thru all of the posts you have made recently trying to find the relevant one is yes, quite a bit of effort.
We already do this, any time kids are taken away by CPS. Children are already living in horrid circumstances, so I really don’t think that phasing out all of the money that women get for having children is really going to make that much difference to the children. They can still get health care thru Medicaid and I believe that food stamps are not age based. Education is free. Plus, it isn’t just welfare that I mean when I say paying women to have children, I also mean forced child support when the parents weren’t married, tax credits, maternity leave and everything else that comes with getting pregnant and popping out kids. This business of trying to pretend that they not only can but deserve to have it all has got to stop.
I doubt there are any - why would any woman admit she had tricking a guy into getting her pregnant? OTOH, there are message boards, websites and chats devoted to ways to “oops” a man.
It definitely isn’t just unmarried women who oops their mate into creating a pregnancy.
The difference is it is a burden that the woman chooses for herself. The man has no choice.
You mean based on the above? On one cite?
I’ve already addressed this, over and over.
They have the choice and men have no choice when it comes to whether or not a pregnancy becomes a child.
It would have been much easier if you had said state park to go camping rather than just go to a park.
That doesn’t even make sense. Because some parents are smart enough to actually have enough money to raise a kid before they have it, you think that all single mothers should have that much money to raise their kid?
Any cites on that?
If you are going to complain about my use of a word, you could at least quote where it was used so I know what you are talking about.
Of course. So?
I see. Telling me, such as in this post here, that my “desire to win the argument gives (you) selective reading comprehension” isn’t rude?
Simply because you don’t take my views seriously doesn’t mean that I am not responding to your points. As for me accusing you of positions you don’t hold, in your very next post you admit that you did that to me.
Actually, that is only part of the relevant question - I think there are plenty of teens that don’t know exactly how females get pregnant, due to the lack of sex ed these days. You know, those that believe that pulling out prevents pregnancy, or that girls can’t get pregnant prior to their first period or during certain “magic” days. The other part of that question is how aware are teens of what a pregnancy and baby really mean - all they ever see are movies like Juno and whatever that TV show with the pregnant teen girl is called. It’s all happily ever after and they just aren’t mature enough to know that it’s fantasy. Noone ever shows them what hell a baby with colic is, what diapers smell like and how many they will have to change, how demanding toddlers are, etc.
At least you admit that it is a logical step. Privileged communications aside, the comparison I was making was a state law prohibiting abortion was a violation of privacy in the same regard that a state law against gambling is a violation of one’s right to privately gamble their own money.
As for privileged communications, that would fall under confidentiality. There’s a difference between confidentiality and privacy. When one enlists a state-liscensed and board-regulated practitioner to perform a proceedure, one leaves the realm of privacy.
For example, if someone accidently shoots themselves in the foot and seeks medical attention, the attending physician is required to report that to the proper authorities. No privacy.
If the only relief one can find for migraine headaches is marijuana, federal law prohibits the physician from prescribing that particular treatment. No privacy.
Sighs. It’s too big a jump to have coherent logic. I know the comparison you were making. And it’s wrong.
All you have shown is something no one denies - that privacy is not absolute, even in the medical arena. That doesn’t show anything else, though. There is a right to freedom of religion, but not to sacrifice a virgin to the moon goddess.
Well, if he said “Let’s not use a condom, I want to have kids/I’ll be there for you if there are any kids,” and then she gets pregnant, he basically is just deciding for both of them what they’re going to do if he gives her the ultimatum of “Abort/put it up for adoption because I’m not supporting it.” That’s just as unfair as a woman who lies about being on the pill.
If you’re against one sided decisions, why not just be against them both? Why so biased in favor of the man?
Probably because I’ve never known any couple in a committed relationship who uses a condom by itself for birth control. To me, responsible adults use a condom to prevent STDs and something far more reliable to prevent pregnancy. So I suppose that when anything is framed with using or not using a condom, I wonder why the hell the woman isn’t on the Pill or an IUD.
Ah. Well, condoms have always been pretty reliable for me, plus the last time I was on the pill, I had nasty side effects. That’s why I’ve often primarily used condoms.
Because the ones that work well aren’t often easy on the body? Men aren’t the only ones who are reluctant to use invasive birth control methods.
Hormonal birth control can have nasty side effects. Not just weight gain, mood swings and minor things like that, but nastier things like strokes and possibly cancer, though they debate the link every other year. IUDs are often hormonal as well, and even with those that aren’t, most doctors are reluctant to give IUDs to women who haven’t had children yet. Some doctors will, but they’re in the minority.
I’ve been having regular sex since…oh, last July, with only condoms, and nothing bad has ever happened. I’m not so good with meds in general. Plus, if I do get a broken one, there’s always Plan B.
For me, the side effects weren’t as bad as the cancer, but rather were yeast infections and no sex drive. And that’s as much as I’m prepared to divulge!
Men aren’t the ones that are going to get pregnant. Neither are men the ones that have the choice to use one of several highly effective birth control methods.
I’m well aware of all of this. I finally got my tubal at 33, and that only because the Pill had effectively driven me insane - well, taking it for 15 straight years had. Doctors are not only reluctant to give women who have never had children an IUD, you basically have to force them into sterilizing such women.
However, all of this is still better than getting pregnant at a time when one cannot afford an abortion, much less to raise a child. I would have never trusted a condom by itself as a method of birth control.
I meant that I doubt that many modern doctors take the old Oath, they take a newer version instead. Do you seriously believe that doctors swear “I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.” today? EVERY MD or OD that I’ve gone to will take a knife in hand if s/he believes it necessary to treat the patient. Now, a doctor might refer a patient to a specialist, but I don’t know of ANY doctors who will refuse to lance a boil or trim off a bit of excess tissue. The old Oath is frequently used on plaques and such, but I’d be VERY surprised to find a modern doctor who took an oath to “Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses.”
