To first do no harm? I think this would be an excellent addition to the swearing in ceremony...
2007-07-19 05:44:27 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Dead, abortion was already legal before Roe...Roe just made it so you couldn't deny safe medical care to women. And abortion is part of the safe medical care for women...since it endangers women's lives.
2007-07-19 06:31:25 · update #1
sorry, maddtexan, you just made the block list. Didn't even try to answer the question.
2007-07-19 06:33:55 · update #2
No, because the hippocratic oath says a lot more than "first do no harm".
POTUS already swears an oath to defend the constitution, and to see that the laws are faithfully enforced. Since something cannot be a harm (in a legal sense) if allowed or required by law, then following and enforcing the laws already covers it.
The problem is, we have a Commander in Sheik who willfully violates the laws whenever he feels like it, and thus betrays both his oath of office and his constitutional obligations. Since he's already willing to ignore the oaths he's sworn, adding another redundant oath won't help.
2007-07-19 05:49:28 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The problem is not with taking oaths. The President already takes an oath on entering office to uphold the Constitution and while that oath is *very* straightforward, some acting Presidents still find ways to break and openly violate that oath, usually by screwing with the distinction between wartime and peacetime powers.
The problem is that the system in place, the one method by which a sitting President *can* be punished for breaking the Oaths of Office, namely impeachment, now depends on the most *corrupt* body in office. It depends on the will of a Congress that *has no will* and that *has no spine* if Big Business says no. Simply put, Congress has by and large become a Millionaire's club wherein *sucking up to lobbyists* is way more important than either the Constitution or the will of the People (as expressed by voting citizens).
These days, a President can get impeached for *getting a bl*wj*b*, but not for attempting to sell our ports to an Arab Nation (specifically Dubai, of the United Arab Emirates) that was most likely the *second biggest* accomplice to the atrocity of 9-11, right after Saudi Arabia.
We can Impeach over illicit sex, but not over open and flagrant attempts at treason. In plain English. -_-
Does this not strike you as a clear and present sign that the current system as it stands is broken? Or does Fox News still own your brain?
Just asking....
2007-07-19 05:59:06 · answer #2 · answered by Bradley P 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd settle for requiring doctors to follow it, first
Specifically that part that says: "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy"
This was brushed aside in 1973, when in Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Oath as a guide to medical ethics and practice
2007-07-19 05:51:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
teamless bear:
It is basically the same oath, without the obey lawful orders of those appointed over me.
Bradley:
Bush didn't try to sell the ports to Dubai. The U.S. government doesn't own the ports, they are privately owned, and what's the difference between Dubai owning ports on the east coast and China owning ports on the west coast?
And Clinton wasn't impeached for illicit sex, he was impeached for perjury, obstruction of justice, subourning perjury, and contempt of court, and only recieved a punishment of loosing his law license for five years.
2007-07-19 05:59:54 · answer #4 · answered by madd texan 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He should take an oath that he promises to tell the truth, nothing but the truth, and always the truth.
And acknowlede that he will have to step out of office, if a national referedum of citizens finds him guilty of lying.
2007-07-19 05:49:15 · answer #5 · answered by me 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Let's get real here, dude! make every freaking politician take an oath like that....Mr. Bush is doing NO harm to this country. It's your damn Congress that isn't doing anything, BTW!
2007-07-19 05:53:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Would it make a difference? He's pretty much wiped his feet on the Oath of Office he's already taken twice.
2007-07-19 05:48:30 · answer #7 · answered by Fretless 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He hasn't. And the "do no harm" part o the Hippocratic Oath didn't sink in for those docs in the UK who tried to bomb London and the Glasgow Airport, did it?
2007-07-19 05:47:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I got a better idea: Why don't we have a Congress that simply holds him to the oath he actually does take: To "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Then again, maybe Bush really is doing that "to the best of my ability." Which, rather than a crime, would be a tragedy.
2007-07-19 05:47:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
The people that are suppose to abide by it forget it as soon as the last word leaves their lips.
What do you think could have been accomplished by making Bush take it
2007-07-19 05:52:29 · answer #10 · answered by From Yours Trully 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋