• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should women have the right, as they do now, to decide whether or not to use birth control pills?

Should women have the right, as they do now, to decide for themselves whether or not to use birth co

  • Total voters
    132
DifferentDrummr said:
You don't cultivate a fruit tree just because you can. Once there are enough trees to supply all the fruit that people need, it makes no sense to grow more.
Click to expand...

Neither do you grow a fruit tree with the intention of not growing fruit.
 
Lursa said:
Sure you do. They are beautiful in flower.
Click to expand...

The point I was making was that his analogy didn't really work. He was arguing that you stop growing trees once you don't have a need for them, which is like saying that when you don't need children, you don't need sex to be fruitful. I was saying that if you don't want what the tree produces, you don't grow a barren tree (contraception), you just don't grow the tree at all.

But yes, your retort was a good one, so thank you for helping me to explain myself better.
 
phattonez said:
The point I was making was that his analogy didn't really work. He was arguing that you stop growing trees once you don't have a need for them, which is like saying that when you don't need children, you don't need sex to be fruitful. I was saying that if you don't want what the tree produces, you don't grow a barren tree (contraception), you just don't grow the tree at all.

But yes, your retort was a good one, so thank you for helping me to explain myself better.
Click to expand...

Most people dont have sex because they need (or want) children.

Most people have sex because they enjoy it.

People have sex many many many many times more often than when they are trying for child.

Why do people continue to have sex when the woman is already pregnant? Is that wrong?

Thanks for helping clarify my point better.
 
phattonez said:
The point I was making was that his analogy didn't really work. He was arguing that you stop growing trees once you don't have a need for them, which is like saying that when you don't need children, you don't need sex to be fruitful. I was saying that if you don't want what the tree produces, you don't grow a barren tree (contraception), you just don't grow the tree at all.

But yes, your retort was a good one, so thank you for helping me to explain myself better.
Click to expand...

That's in no way analogous to what I said, which was (in your analogy) that if the fruit isn't needed, growing a barren tree doesn't "belittle" the practice of growing trees.
 
Lursa said:
Most people dont have sex because they need (or want) children.

Most people have sex because they enjoy it.

People have sex many many many many times more often than when they are trying for child.

Why do people continue to have sex when the woman is already pregnant? Is that wrong?

Thanks for helping clarify my point better.
Click to expand...

That's actually a fascinating question. I find Augustine on this point to be far more consistent:

St. Augustine said:
For, although it be shameful to wish to use a husband for purposes of lust, yet it is honorable to be unwilling to have intercourse save with an husband, and not to give birth to children save from a husband. There are also men incontinent to that degree, that they spare not their wives even when pregnant.
Click to expand...

But then there's this by Pope Pius XI:

Pope Pius XI said:
Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved
Click to expand...
 
DifferentDrummr said:
That's in no way analogous to what I said, which was (in your analogy) that if the fruit isn't needed, growing a barren tree doesn't "belittle" the practice of growing trees.
Click to expand...

Growing a barren tree is also a waste of time, which is why people don't intentionally do it.
 
Risky Thicket said:
As the nation may well face the reversal of Roe v. Wade additional concerns are being expressed, one is birth control. Frankly I hadn't thought about it but I suppose it is a logical concern. Is it a logical concern?

The question then is: Should women have the right, as they do now, to decide for themselves whether or not to use birth control pills?
Click to expand...

Good evening Risky, hope you're well.

As I understand it, perhaps wrongly, Roe v Wade imagined and codified a US constitutional right to unlimited access to abortion which has, over time, been modified to incorporate government restrictions related to the believed scientific data around viability of a fetus surviving. It was a convoluted opinion, based on some invented privacy right, that becomes even more convoluted the minute any restriction is enforced. It was a political decision, long before it's time, and even its strongest proponents on the court, like Ginsberg, agree. It never should have been legislated from the Supreme Court bench.

As a result, it's always been a decision without basis in law and thus subject to eventually being overturned and left to the political/legislative arena where it belonged.

As for the question in your poll, the prevention of pregnancy is entirely a woman's choice and will never, ever be legislated away.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Good evening Risky, hope you're well.

As I understand it, perhaps wrongly, Roe v Wade imagined and codified a US constitutional right to unlimited access to abortion which has, over time, been modified to incorporate government restrictions related to the believed scientific data around viability of a fetus surviving. It was a convoluted opinion, based on some invented privacy right, that becomes even more convoluted the minute any restriction is enforced. It was a political decision, long before it's time, and even its strongest proponents on the court, like Ginsberg, agree. It never should have been legislated from the Supreme Court bench.

As a result, it's always been a decision without basis in law and thus subject to eventually being overturned and left to the political/legislative arena where it belonged.

As for the question in your poll, the prevention of pregnancy is entirely a woman's choice and will never, ever be legislated away.
Click to expand...

Contraceptives were explicitly outlawed for a pretty long period in this nation's history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws

By the way, the much maligned right to privacy was invoked in this decision. So it would make sense (and I would love to see this) that if Roe v Wade is overturned because there is no actual right to privacy, that Griswold v Connecticut would also have to be overturned.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Good evening Risky, hope you're well.

As I understand it, perhaps wrongly, Roe v Wade imagined and codified a US constitutional right to unlimited access to abortion which has, over time, been modified to incorporate government restrictions related to the believed scientific data around viability of a fetus surviving. ...
Click to expand...

Roe vs wade took the woman and her doctors right to,privacy and the states right to protential life into concideration.

Roe determined that the state could take a compelling interest at the point of viability and ban abortions except when the woman’s life or irreparable damage to a major bodily function would occur if the pregnancy continued.
 
phattonez said:
Contraceptives were explicitly outlawed for a pretty long period in this nation's history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws

By the way, the much maligned right to privacy was invoked in this decision. So it would make sense (and I would love to see this) that if Roe v Wade is overturned because there is no actual right to privacy, that Griswold v Connecticut would also have to be overturned.
Click to expand...

And the right to privacy regarding child rearing and sending your child to a religious school instead a private school would be overturned.
 
minnie616 said:
And the right to privacy regarding child rearing and sending your child to a religious school instead a private school would be overturned.
Click to expand...

What Supreme Court case would that be?
 
minnie616 said:
And the right to privacy regarding child rearing and sending your child to a religious school instead a private school would be overturned.
Click to expand...

That doesn't have anything to with privacy rights, nor Roe nor Griswold nor related cases.

This is a big swing and miss for you.
 
phattonez said:
What Supreme Court case would that be?
Click to expand...

Pierce vs Society of Sisters ( 1925) see the list of Right to privacy precedents below:



I would also like to point out that several right to privacy precedents were set before Roe v Wade.
The more precedents, the harder it is to overturn a SC ruling.

It will be extremely hard to overturn Roe without also striking down the precedents of right to privacy cases before Roe including right to privacy regarding child rearing rights , such as the right for parents to send their children to private or religious schools instead of public schools.

The following Surpreme Court decisions would most likely would become dismantled if Roe v Wade were overturned and that is not going to happen.


Weems v. United States (1910)
In a case from the Philippines, the Supreme Court finds that the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" is not limited to what the authors of the Constitution understood under that concept.

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
A case ruling that parents may decide for themselves if and when their children may learn a foreign language, based upon a fundamental liberty interest individuals have in the family unit.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.

Olmstead v. United States (1928)
The court decides that wire tapping is legal, no matter what the reason or motivation, because it is not expressly prohibited in the Constitution. Justice Brandeis' dissent, however, lays the groundwork for future understandings of privacy.

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
An Oklahoma law providing for the sterilization of people found to be "habitual criminals" is struck down, based on idea that all people have a fundamental right to make their own choices about marriage and procreation.

Tileston v. Ullman (1943) & Poe v. Ullman (1961)
The Court refuses to hear a case on Connecticut laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives because no one can demonstrate they have been harmed. Harlan's dissent in Poe, however, explains why the case should be reviewed and why fundamental privacy interests are at stake.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Connecticut's laws against distribution of contraceptives and contraceptive information to married couples are struck down, with the Court relying on earlier precedent involving the rights of people to make decisions about their families and procreation as a legitimate sphere of privacy.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Virginia law against interracial marriages is struck down, with the Court once again declaring that marriage is a "fundamental civil right" and that decisions in this arena are not those with which the State can interefere unless they have good cause.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
The right of people to have and know about contraceptives is expanded to unmarried couples, because the right of people to make such decisions exists due not simply to the nature of the marriage relationship. Instead, it is also due to the fact that it is individuals making these decisions, and as such the government has no business making it for them, regardless of their marital status.

Roe v. Wade (1973)
The landmark decision which established that women have a basic right to have an abortion, this was based in many ways upon the earlier decisions above. Through the above cases, the Supreme Court developed the idea that the Constitution protects a person's to privacy, particularly when it comes to matters involving children and procreation.[/QUOTE]
 
phattonez said:
That's actually a fascinating question. I find Augustine on this point to be far more consistent:



But then there's this by Pope Pius XI:
Click to expand...

It's not really 'in' question. The simple answer is, people continue to have sex without the intent of reproduction because it's an amazingly pleasurable thing to share with someone.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with doing that.
 
phattonez said:
Growing a barren tree is also a waste of time, which is why people don't intentionally do it.
Click to expand...

Of course it's not. A fruit tree not providing fruit still blooms beautifully. Just ask WA DC or Japan, who value their flowering cherries...no fruit but pleasure that brings tourism.
 
minnie616 said:
Pierce vs Society of Sisters ( 1925) see the list of Right to privacy precedents below:


I would also like to point out that several right to privacy precedents were set before Roe v Wade.
The more precedents, the harder it is to overturn a SC ruling.
Click to expand...

Minnie...the only 'sources' he has are ancient repressed Catholic guys. That's what 'he' recognizes as the authority.

Not SCOTUS.
 
Lursa said:
It's not really 'in' question. The simple answer is, people continue to have sex without the intent of reproduction because it's an amazingly pleasurable thing to share with someone.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with doing that.
Click to expand...

I think I asked you this is another thread, but if you could take medicine that would make you throw up after a meal with no physical side effects, would you be in favor of that?
 
Lursa said:
Minnie...the only 'sources' he has are ancient repressed Catholic guys. That's what 'he' recognizes as the authority.

Not SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Can we cut it with the personal attacks. They impede a serious intellectual debate.

And you're right, I'd rather look to philosophers than judges for the answers to moral questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom