It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The woman’s right to abortion is not solely, or even primarily, based upon her right to choose not to be a mother after engaging in consensual sexual intercourse. Rather, the right to abortion, as articulated in Roe, derives from the woman’s right to bodily integrity and her privacy interest in protecting her own physical and mental health
In drafting Roe, Justice Blackmun did not turn to any protection for bodily integrity, but rather staked his opinion on “a right of personal privacy.” Still, even as the Court and commentators agonized over the parameters and justification of the “right of personal privacy” in the aftermath of Roe, the federal courts, both high and low, forged extratextual protections for the bodies of American citizens at the mercy of the state in the areas of prisoners’ rights, police assault, and medical treatment.
Originally posted by KrillsAngelWings
If the father does not want the child in his life and does not want to pay child support for the next 18 years all he has to do is sign over his rights and he will be free of any obligations to that child
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved.
"It is true that, in Griswold, the right of privacy in question inhered in the marital relationship. Yet the marital couple is not an independent entity, with a mind and heart of its own, but an association of two individuals, each with a separate intellectual and emotional makeup. If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a personas the decision whether to bear or beget a child."
As recently as last Term, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 , we recognized "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person [410 U.S. 113, 170] as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. "Certainly the interests of a woman in giving of her physical and emotional self during pregnancyand the interests that will be affected throughout her life by the birth and raising of a child are of a far greater degree of significance and personal intimacy than the right to send a child to private school protected in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), or the right to teach a foreign language protected in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)." Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224, 227 (Conn. 1972).
The Georgia statute is at war with the clear message of these cases – that a woman is free to make the basic decision whether to bear an unwanted child. Elaborate argument is hardly necessary to demonstrate that childbirth may deprive a woman of her preferred lifestyle and force upon her a radically different and undesired future. For example, rejected applicants under the Georgia statute are required to endure the [410 U.S. 179, 215] discomforts of pregnancy; to incur the pain, higher mortality rate, and aftereffects of childbirth;to abandon educational plans; to sustain loss of income; to forgo the satisfactions of careers; to tax further mental and physical health in providing child care; and, in some cases, to bear the lifelong stigma of unwed motherhood, a badge which may haunt, if not deter, later legitimate family relationships.
is it really fair that women who work the same job as men, are more skilled at that job, more reliable, more experienced, should get a few dollars less in the workplace
They have the right to keep their pants zipped if they can't step up to the plate.
Originally posted by mayertuck
reply to post by Aeons
So if men see their children as proprety, please explain how NOW and most gender feminists opposed mandatory shared parenting unless there is abuse?
Oh here is the part where you say men are more likely to be abusers. WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLL.
Hate to break it to ya look it up. Custadial MOTHERS are more likely to be abusers than custodial dads.NEXT.
Originally posted by KilrathiLG
reply to post by Aeons
and what about SOME(not all mothers as thats a generalization,and some males problay do this too) who use there children as weapons against there fathers because the woman may have felt wronged in a relationship and deny them even visitation rights all the while while getting money id be happy just to haev a law signed saying if your paying for the childs future you should atleast get access EQUAL access to your half of the DNA with the only exceptions to that being the fatheres who have proven they can not be trusted around there offspring(eitehr they beat the crap out of them molest them or something like that would deny access to there children)
if people care about the rights of the child and the law cares about the rights of the child why are they allowed to be weilded as weapons in divorce hearings,and yes some men do this problay i cant think of a case off hand but that dose in no way mean it dosent occur
Originally posted by Aeons
Your child is a PERSON. Not an extension of you, or the woman you are angry at. A real PERSON. With legal, civil, familial rights and constraints in legal, moral, ethical and existential terms.
Originally posted by Aeons
Are you suggesting that teenage and young women take advantage of teen boys and young men for the purposes of reproduction?