Quote:
Originally posted by HelloKitty22
Just because you're married doesn't mean you give up your right to make independent medical decisions. You think this covers "reproduction." Does that mean if you have a vasectomy your wife should be informed beforehand? or what if your wife wants to buy birth control pills? Should the pharmacist have to call you before he dispenses the pills? or what if you want to buy condoms? or viagra for that matter? Where does it stop? Being married does not mean you are the other person's keeper. You don't have the right to be notified of or to approve of your spouses medical choices.
Everyone has the right to make individual choices about their own medical care, even if their spouse doesn't agree with it. Do you want your wife to be able to supersede your decision not to have life saving medical treatment?
Obviously, it is the ideal that all couples would discuss their medical treatment and choices with each other regarless of whether it concerns reproduction or life saving treatment. But the fact is it is not the GOVERNMENT's place to force that discussion.
That is what all this stuff is about. Roe doesn't say abortion is good or morally right. It says the government shouldn't decide for a woman whether she should have one.
|
As Rudey said, those things are all beside the point. You are raising issues completely unrelated to the topic at hand -- whether or not a husband has the right of notification (note: he still doesn't get any decision making power, just notification) when his wife has an abortion.
I made a public policy argument stating that if his wife is a hoebag and gets preggers outside of the relationship, he is most likely being exposed (or runs a risk of being exposed) to STD's and the like.
Someone (maybe you?) made the argument that he might be abusive, and this might make him mad, to which I replied, she needs to get a TRO and a divorce if he's abusing her, not to mention seeking criminal charges. I think women that allow their husbands to beat them and their children are contributing to their children's abuse and should be held at least partially responsible (but that's another issue).
Let's stick to the issues that have already been raised without raising these
ad absurdium hypotheticals.