Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not surprising the constitution was written when women had little to no rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
But even then most of the colonies operated under British Common Law and abortion prior to quickening was not illegal.
It was only around the 1860's that laws started popping up making it illegal.........prompted by doctors(all male) who felt midwives were undercutting their practices.
Only slaves were forced to carry pregnancies to term for more slaves.
The right want's to return all women to chattel slavery.
And yet ... Gender equality and women’s representation
A brief from the Susan B. Anthony List and 79 women serving as state legislators around the country highlights the increasing number of women who hold elective office in state governments. “Because of the substantial changes that even a minority of women bring to a legislative body, there is no longer a need — if there ever was — for this Court to assume that women cannot adequately protect their own interests through state political processes,” the brief argues. It notes that many state laws restricting abortion, including the Mississippi law, were sponsored by women. “Because women can now advance their own policy preferences in legislatures throughout the Nation, the Court can and should give greater deference to state legislators’ judgments about how to regulate abortion within their states’ borders.” We read all the amicus briefs in Dobbs so you don’t have to
it seems someone doesn't want women to have a voice at all.
But even then most of the colonies operated under British Common Law and abortion prior to quickening was not illegal.
It was only around the 1860's that laws started popping up making it illegal.........prompted by doctors(all male) who felt midwives were undercutting their practices.
Only slaves were forced to carry pregnancies to term for more slaves.
The right want's to return all women to chattel slavery.
This is mostly true. Most Americans have no idea how modern anti-abortion laws came into being in the first place. The article below talks about some of it. It's worth a read.
Oh I get it. I know why the law is the way it is. It would be terrible for the children if the dad didn't want to support them. But it's still better than having their head drilled, which is what the mother can decide to do.
If abortion is legal (and I think it should be), then we have to give the father a "choice" too. I understand that will put a burden on the state, but it's only fair. It should be a legal "choice" for the father as to whether or not he wants to commit to raising a child for 18 years. I'm not talking about this from an ethical or moral perspective, I'm only talking about the law and how the law treats these cases.
Personally, I believe that EVERY father should support their children and anyone who doesn't is a piece of garbage. But law should give them a choice, especially if they declare their unwillingness to be a parent while the child is still in the womb. If a guy uses birth control during a one-night-stand and it fails, should he be saddled with raising a child with a woman he hardly even knows for 18 years? Why does she get a "choice" and he doesn't? That's not good law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
Life is messy. Laws cannot always fix that. An understanding ahead of time between two people about what will happen if a child is conceived is not the law's business and even if it were enforcing it would be impossible.
However, centuries of human tradition and law expects the father to support his child and more recently mother's to support them as well.
The state as the wallet of last resort is always going to extract every last penny it can from both parents wallets before it opens it's own.
And if the law remains a Federal one, then the States are paid Federal dollars and that's where we are at. Who's paying for people's mistakes?
I've never advocated anything other than having each state regulate abortion, as is their Constitutional Right via the Constitution's Article 1 Section 8 and the 10th Amendment.
Again, if states can restrict 2nd Amendment Rights, and they do (even red states do), they can also restrict any perceived right to abortion.
I agree with your position 100%. Btw, even if Roe is "overturned", that transfer power back to local government is the end result. In effect, SC would be stating properly) it is not under federal jurisdiction to make those decisions. People can then elect local leaders they are aligned with on this, and other issues.
So why did this need to become a Constitutional issue? It seems to me people were doing just fine without the added input from the Supreme Court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spot
Well, lot's of things have become constitutional issues that weren't in 1788. Science and technology have created legal and moral dilemmas that simply didn't exist back then. As our understanding of the World evolves, our understanding of how we employ the law to achieve equality and justice has to evolve with it.
Even our founders, who were really quite ignorant of what we'd call science nowadays, knew that. Hence they allowed for constitutional amendments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spot
Well, lot's of things have become constitutional issues that weren't in 1788. Science and technology have created legal and moral dilemmas that simply didn't exist back then.
As well as, what didn't exist in 1973:
"Three physicians and the Catholic Association Foundation write that advances in science have “painted an intimate portrait of the fetus and its humanity” and therefore the court’s viability framework is outdated." We read all the amicus briefs in Dobbs so you don’t have to
We're no better off today, than they were in 1788 with our knowledge, or so it seems.
And if there is money in it for the States, they will leave this issue with the Federal courts to decide. That part's a given.
So why did this need to become a Constitutional issue? It seems to me people were doing just fine without the added input from the Supreme Court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
Doctors in the mid 1800's started lobbying for laws to protect their incomes from midwives and other medical practictioners. Some moralizers allied with them to pass laws.
And yet it didn't hit the Supreme Court's lap until 1973 ... That's a big gap in there. With tonics aiding in abortions throughout history past --- it seems to me, this was never a moral issue, but a financial one instead. And that's how the Federal government ended up in our bedrooms, there is money in it.
It was never about women's reproductive rights --- that much has always been evident.
The average child support in America is $400 a month. That's not even a week of daycare, much less food, clothing, medical care, toiletries, furniture, baby-proofing, etc. Men can absolutely walk away from most financial obligation.
Men can walk away from lost wages or job loss due to pregnancy. Men's careers aren't impacted negatively by pregnancy, so they don't lose wages over the long term the way that women do.
Men can walk away from adverse health impacts of pregnancy and post-partum, including death. They can walk away from lifelong medical bills as the result of pregnancy. They have no financial obligation to support a woman they got pregnant, only minimal obligation to a baby.
Men can walk away from supporting a woman logistically or financially on bedrest during or after pregnancy.
Men can walk away from childcare, other than weekends (and many men walk away from even that much) when they can get to be the "fun" parent.
When people say they want men to have a say in pregnancy, do they also want men to have a responsibility in financial matters? A relatively noncomplicated pregnancy for me would be at least $50,000 in lost wages, medical bills, and other pregnancy-related costs. Yes, that's with insurance. It is likely that I would need bedrest due to past medical complications, which would increase that cost more. Because FMLA is only 3 months, and bedrest + recovery can be longer than that, I may lose my job. Would the father be legally obligated to replace half of my wages, including retirement and other benefits, during maternity leave (which, whether or not you give up a child for adoption, is a necessity for recovery) or potential job loss? Would he be responsible for half of my medical bills?
Men may want half the say, but they certainly don't want half the full responsibility.
A woman can actually kill a man's unborn child against his will and that's fine though, right?
I'm sorry, but unless a man gets to decide whether or not a woman has an abortion, then a woman doesn't get to decide whether or not a man has a child. Equal rights under the law should come with equal protection under the law. For all the reasons you list, I am all for women having a choice, but I am also all for men having a choice.
This isn't a moral position. It's a legal one. Morally, I think every man and woman should support their children. Legally, I just don't think the government should be saying one gender can kill them and the other gender has to abide by whatever "choice" the woman makes.
How very odd that you believe that a baby is "punishment' and those who create such a life are "punished" with caring for it.
First, I didn't mention either of those topics in the post you replied to. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of those who want to ban abortion while at the same time criticizing women for getting pregnant and not wanting to provide assistance when the new mother struggles.
As to punishment, there are women who would consider having to care for a baby punishment. Having an unplanned baby frequently changes the life course for the woman, who may have to drop out of college and get a menial job. Those women's lives are essentially destroyed, and society suffers because they never reach their potential. I realize you think the only reason women is exist is to serve men and be a receptacle for their sperm, but that's not reality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
