Roe vs Wade

It was January 27th , 1973, this historical case was decided.
 So often things come to a discussion about abortion or its related questions especially in times of political debates during elections times. Here the message was sent to America that it is the pregnant woman's choice to get abortion if she wanted for whatever reason, leaving aside the prevailing medical opinions for abortion to save the life of mother which still is true.
That would also be comparable with the subject of contraception about which I wrote on 29th Feb. 2012 as follows:
   "Every TV host has made some comments about Rick Santorum and started from Obama Administration's 'order' to  supply free contraceptives for all employees etc.
  Well, there is religious freedom upon which USA makes claims to be its main upholder which seems to be clashing here  and then the GOP Presidential candidate Rick Santorum has said some things which are reminiscent of USA's attack on Bin Laden Philosophy.
 May be there is always some religious bias in each President (after all he is a human being and does claim to one or the other religious teaching) which does play at some point or the other during their political and governmental transactions or acts, intentionally or un-intentionally So strictly speaking you cannot really oust religion completely from the politics."
    Then I had also written earlier the position of Catholic teaching regarding this subject.
Whereas such ideas are noble for the betterment of society yet one 'side-effect' of this is increased promiscuity of sexual behavior among the women, as the 'fear' of pregnancy is removed
The contraceptives are freely available and if they fail, you have the choice of freely available termination of pregnancy and no ethical or moral hinderance attached. My earlier note of contraception runs a bit longer
but here it is:
 "That the Catholic teaching is in direct opposition to the Government mandated free supply of contraceptives of all types to all employees is not new and regulation has been imposed with full knowledge which is surprising. It provides excellent opportunity for the GOP "wannabe" candidates for forceful rhetoric as the other questions have limited the number of 'bullets' or arrows to throw on Obama.
 However, this seems rather illogical approach because even though contraceptives are used by Catholic men and women either in open defiance to the Church Rule or in modification and gradual relaxation of the strictness of the rule, Government cannot enforce such "preventive care" as many other "preventive care" methods are NOT regulated or "forced to be free". Dental care, eye-glasses prescription filling, hearing aids are some of the things that come to my mind.
 You may say that these things are options BUT
 Low hearing may put some people out of job, out of social gathering, out of listening to good things including music etc. causing psychological disturbances or mental torture (personal experience)
Poor vision may result in bad accidents, a definite deadly risk- not driving means loss of job or other consequences.
Dental problems. Many diseases originate, get worse etc. due to poor dentition
  I understand the real reason is not contraception as much as it is prevention of AIDS but the same argument can be against contraceptive use (there is no doubt that free availability of contraceptives has increased promiscuity in the society).
 No matter how you see it the objection for the Governmental rule remains more appropriate.
 IMANA (Islamic Medical Association of North America) has its position paper on the subject of abortion and use of contraception. (the Ethics Committee of IMANA)"

Please visit my Urdu blog at http://saugoree-bsc.blogspot.com/