American bombshell? Roe vs. Wade....

[PK99]

I haven't followed the whole thread, but this comment from another place by a US poster makes a sound point:

"The Dobbs opinion, doesn't make any claim on the rights of unborn children; all it does is acknowledge that abortion isn't actually enshrined anywhere in the constitution as it is currently written and gives the power back to the legislatures to establish law (something they could have done any time within last 50 years).
Basically what the court just did is reaffirm that they are only to interpret established laws and judge validity based on the constitution, and not to act as a legislative body by establishing new laws (which is what was done in Roe v. Wade)."

The Democrats had opportunities to enshrine Abortion Rights in Federal Law or better still an Amendment to the Constitution - especially early in Obama's first term. They failed to do that.

 

[winjim]

I haven't followed the whole thread, but this comment from another place by a US poster makes a sound point:

"The Dobbs opinion, doesn't make any claim on the rights of unborn children; all it does is acknowledge that abortion isn't actually enshrined anywhere in the constitution as it is currently written and gives the power back to the legislatures to establish law (something they could have done any time within last 50 years).
Basically what the court just did is reaffirm that they are only to interpret established laws and judge validity based on the constitution, and not to act as a legislative body by establishing new laws (which is what was done in Roe v. Wade)."

The Democrats had opportunities to enshrine Abortion Rights in Federal Law or better still an Amendment to the Constitution - especially early in Obama's first term. They failed to do that.

It's almost like it might be a bad idea to structure your entire society around the supposed infallibility of a document written three hundred years ago by a bunch of old racist sexist blokes.

It's also almost like it might be a bad idea to have that document interpreted by a bunch of partisans appointed for life by someone whose interests a particular interpretation of said document might be said to favour in the short term.

See I look over there and see massive problems with their having a written constitution, and then I look over here and see massive problems with our not having one...

 

[mudsticks]

I haven't followed the whole thread, but this comment from another place by a US poster makes a sound point:

"The Dobbs opinion, doesn't make any claim on the rights of unborn children; all it does is acknowledge that abortion isn't actually enshrined anywhere in the constitution as it is currently written and gives the power back to the legislatures to establish law (something they could have done any time within last 50 years).
Basically what the court just did is reaffirm that they are only to interpret established laws and judge validity based on the constitution, and not to act as a legislative body by establishing new laws (which is what was done in Roe v. Wade)."

The Democrats had opportunities to enshrine Abortion Rights in Federal Law or better still an Amendment to the Constitution - especially early in Obama's first term. They failed to do that.

And the SCOTUS knew exactly what would happen when they gave that power back to the legislatures..

So all legal, previous administrations, or even constitutional argument aside they knew exactly what they were doing, what the consequences would be, and that they didn't have to have done that.

But they did it anyway.

 

[Bromptonaut]

The Democrats had opportunities to enshrine Abortion Rights in Federal Law or better still an Amendment to the Constitution - especially early in Obama's first term. They failed to do that.

Federal Law, even if Obama had both houses in his first term, would be a tall order and subject to reversal by Trump.

What would have been needed to amend the Constitution? Would something as controversial as abortion have had a snowball's chance of approval by both houses AND the requisite votes in State Legislatures?

 

[Bazzer]

Apologies for the thread divert from the womens' rights of Roe, but as I understand it, if they are basing decisions on the constitution, or deeply rooted in history, then at least in Justice Thomas' firing line there are a handful of established decisions: married couples right to contraception; same sex activity; the right of same sex couples to marry.
It isn't hard to envisage religious groups mobilising in certain states to try to secure trigger laws if they get wind of a case on one of these issues, heading towards the SC.
Although I would imagine there may be less interest for the SC judges using the criteria in Roe if asked to re-examine the right to mixed marriages, given Justice Thomas's own marriage.

 

[winjim]

Apologies for the thread divert from the womens' rights of Roe, but as I understand it, if they are basing decisions on the constitution, or deeply rooted in history, then at least in Justice Thomas' firing line there are a handful of established decisions: married couples right to contraception; same sex activity; the right of same sex couples to marry.
It isn't hard to envisage religious groups mobilising in certain states to try to secure trigger laws if they get wind of a case on one of these issues, heading towards the SC.
Although I would imagine there may be less interest for the SC judges using the criteria in Roe if asked to re-examine the right to mixed marriages, given Justice Thomas's own marriage.

AIUI there are already laws such as in the state of Texas criminalising gay sex, they just can't be enforced since they for the time being are overriden by a SC ruling. And someone made the point that interpretation of the constitution in cases like this depends on how you frame the question. So for example there is no constitutional protection specifically for gay sex, but there is constitutional protection for privacy in the bedroom. That's something that could easily be twisted to fit a homophobic agenda. It's all a house of cards, see the arguments over the placement of a comma in the second amendment.

 

[Unkraut]

In the case of abortion I'm still thinking about the harm and good the possible choices do to all involved. It is clear to me that a complete ban on contraception and termination is firmly on the side of harm.

Contraception is a different issue, but I think abortion may give temporary relief to women in a very difficult situation, but am unconvinced in the long term it doesn't always do harm. The misery that so many women go through when the 'you were exercising a right' line doesn't cut it anymore with their conscience.

What gives you or anyone else the right to override my choices over what happens to my own body.?

Not the issue. I would sum it up like this since I would define abortion as the taking of innocent human life:

i) It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being

ii) Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being

iii) It follows therefore that abortion is wrong

To justify abortion you have to show that no. 2 is wrong. You have to de-humanise the unborn - use language like foetus or removing pregnancy tissue or termination. If you don't believe you are human from conception onwards, then when do you become human? Viability? Birth? Is a baby before birth any less human than one just born?

The 'clump of cells' argument might have worked years ago, but is virtually untenable with modern technology and the pre-birth pictures that adorn fridges these days.

Actively defend the rights of others less able, to defend their own.

Precisely - to defend the right of the unborn to life itself. There is nothing more basic than that. That right doesn't depend on whether the person isn't yet fully developed or not.

Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; ensure justice for those being crushed. Yes, speak up for the poor and helpless, and see that they get justice.

Waiting to see how Unkers defends the indefensible is another matter.....

Laws have been enacted in the States to allow abortion up to birth and as far as I know without needing a reason. In the case of very late abortions if the baby survives it is illegal to try to save it. It is either left to die or actively killed. How could this ever be justified? It is blatant infantacide. Indefensible, to use your word. You cannot remotely claim the mother is exercising her right to bodily autonomy. In the same hospital they may be using the latest technology to save a baby born very prematurely, and nobody talks about trying to keep a foetus alive. It's incoherent.

This topic is inevitably and probably hopelessly polarised, because in an American context you have evangelicals and other social conservatives opposed to abortion as it breaks a moral absolute - you shall not kill, and on the other side those who seem to want no moral restraint on their behaviour at all. There is no room for compromise. Either one side is right or the other.

 

[newfhouse]

Either one side is right or the other.

Well you got that bit right.

 

[mudsticks]

Contraception is a different issue, but I think abortion may give temporary relief to women in a very difficult situation, but am unconvinced in the long term it doesn't always do harm. The misery that so many women go through when the 'you were exercising a right' line doesn't cut it anymore with their conscience.

Not the issue. I would sum it up like this since I would define abortion as the taking of innocent human life:

i) It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being

ii) Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being

iii) It follows therefore that abortion is wrong

To justify abortion you have to show that no. 2 is wrong. You have to de-humanise the unborn - use language like foetus or removing pregnancy tissue or termination. If you don't believe you are human from conception onwards, then when do you become human? Viability? Birth? Is a baby before birth any less human than one just born?

The 'clump of cells' argument might have worked years ago, but is virtually untenable with modern technology and the pre-birth pictures that adorn fridges these days.


Precisely - to defend the right of the unborn to life itself. There is nothing more basic than that. That right doesn't depend on whether the person isn't yet fully developed or not.

Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; ensure justice for those being crushed. Yes, speak up for the poor and helpless, and see that they get justice.

Right , glad we've got that cleared up.

My right to own my own body, totally is the issue.

But you do believe that an clump of cells has more right to it than I do.

Good to know about fundamental beliefs 👍🏼

You also seem to 'think' you know how I or any other woman will think or feel about decisions we have made in the future.

That's very clever of you..
Some might say extremely arrogant even, but there we are.. No big surprise there.

If a woman is truly miserable about having to have a termination that could otherwise be a healthy pregnancy and live birth, and which doesn't threaten her own physical or mental well being..

Well then we might look at and fix the societal issues that are forcing her to go through with that in the first place, mightn't we.??
.
Such as having this decision to terminate forced upon her by a coercive partner - or family
Sadly there's plenty of them around..

Or poverty, lack of available childcare
Society being 'disapproving of her circumstances..

'Funnily' enough The same church that will thunder against safe termination of pregnancy will also look down on 'unmarried mothers'' and tell them they are are somehow 'fallen'

It's almost as if your system is set up to keep us 'in the wrong' one way or another isn't it..??

Almost as if it's all set up to try to keep women 'in their place'
Well guess what, some of us, are not choosing to submit to your systems of control any more.


Of course you'll only ever have had penetrative sex with your wife for the purposes of procreation .

Lucky Mrs Unkeaur 🙄

Anything else is plain wrong..
Against the will of God right??

In your eyes, human sexual relations aren't about mutual pleasure; bonding; for fun; or building relationships are they ?
Solely for the purposes of making babies..

Again - lucky Mrs Unkraut..

Do bear in mind that some forms of contraception don't actually prevent an egg being fertilised, they just prevent it being implanted in the womb .

As we know, even if available, and used well no contraceptive in is 100% reliable

But oh yeah the SCOTUS will be coming for contraceptives soon .

And all the other loving partnerships which can also be sexual, but aren't approved of by your church ..they're all 'wrong' too..

What a horrible horrible place fundamentalist religions such as yours have brought us to, to believe that other people's loving relationships are 'wrong' .


So much misery inflicted, in so many ways upon humans in the name of this supposedly 'righteous' and judgemental God ..

The control, the abuse, the shaming, the pain, the suffering, the death..

All in the name of this 'God'.

Utterly grim..


Meanwhile, away from the 'supernatural' I've had an idea for some super smart tech development needed that might help to sort this issue ..



Whenever a guy who doesn't believe in the full autonomous bodily rights of woman has sex with a woman he could as easily become pregnant against his will ..
Anytime anywhere, randomly, no ifs no buts, I'm sure a little gestational sack can be implanted in there somehow .

At term, they can just cut the baby out .

I mean never mind the effect on his body .
He's just a host for it right?
So what if his body, or mind gets wrecked in the procedure.??

Who cares?
.
That will be OK right?? ..

I'm sure some clever tech bods can work this one out .

just like they have with varying success on severely prem babies.

Or would my idea, like safe termination technology be somehow 'against the will of your religion'

Hmmn, this approval or disapproval ot tech is a bit selective isn't it..??

Tl;dr

Keep yr bollix to yself, all of em ..

 

[mudsticks]

It's almost like it might be a bad idea to structure your entire society around the supposed infallibility of a document written three hundred years ago by a bunch of old racist sexist blokes.

It's also almost like it might be a bad idea to have that document interpreted by a bunch of partisans appointed for life by someone whose interests a particular interpretation of said document might be said to favour in the short term.

See I look over there and see massive problems with their having a written constitution, and then I look over here and see massive problems with our not having one...

We could have a written constitution that is subject to regular updates in the light of new developments .

Would that really be so difficult??

 

[theclaud]

If abortions make Unkraut so sad, I recommend that he simply doesn't have one. Meanwhile, in the real world, sadness is just one possible emotion involved in having an abortion - it's not an inevitable one, and rarely an over-riding one. Whilst few would find the experience of abortion in itself joyous, relief is probably the most obvious emotional response, and is anything but temporary - abortion is literally life-saving for many women, dramatically life-improving for most who choose it, and at the very least misery-mitigating for those whose lives are already the most difficult. But of course those aren't the lives that matter to forced birthers. Liberation from the misery and torture of unwanted pregnancy and forced birth is a public good, enabling more joy in the lives of women, men, and children.

 

[mudsticks]

If abortions make Unkraut so sad, I recommend that he simply doesn't have one. Meanwhile, in the real world, sadness is just one possible emotion involved in having an abortion - it's not an inevitable one, and rarely an over-riding one. Whilst few would find the experience of abortion in itself joyous, relief is probably the most obvious emotional response, and is anything but temporary - abortion is literally life-saving for many women, dramatically life-improving for most who choose it, and at the very least misery-mitigating for those whose lives are already the most difficult. But of course those aren't the lives that matter to forced birthers. Liberation from the misery and torture of unwanted pregnancy and forced birth is a public good, enabling more joy in the lives of women, men, and children.

I suggested same policy of not personally doing a thing that one doesn't feel comfortable with earlier .

Oddly it fell on deaf ears..

 

[theclaud]

I suggested same policy of not personally doing a thing that one doesn't feel comfortable with earlier .

Oddly it fell on deaf ears..

It's deeply disingenuous stuff - abortion emphatically does not make women miserable, whilst the denial of reproductive autonomy does. So please can forced birthers stop pretending to care about women's emotional wellbeing?

 

[theclaud]

May I take this opportunity to recommend Pro by Katha Pollitt? A comprehensive argument for abortion as a social good, and an absolute banger.

 

[mudsticks]

It's deeply disingenuous stuff - abortion emphatically does not make women miserable, whilst the denial of reproductive autonomy does. So please can forced birthers stop pretending to care about women's emotional wellbeing?

It's so pervasive isn't it..
That a termination is 'always' 'such a hard choice' for a woman .
(Currently lacking facility for italics, so these '' have to do instead..


That a woman , who a few weeks earlier freely chose to use contraception, which failed.
Or was impregnated by some means beyond her control, is suddenly wracked with indecision when she is faced with an unwanted pregnancy.. .

Thing is, this guilting, and shaming of women and their bodies and minds, by patriachal controlling society, is soo pervasive, that I wouldn't be surprised if some women ended up feeling guilty and ashamed, for 'not' feeling ashamed or guilty for having a safe termination, of her own choosing..

As you say 'as if' these people who are often ignorant even of the workings of a womans body, give a flying feck about their mental well-being ...

The idea is risable, or it would be, if it didn't have such damaging consequences...

May I take this opportunity to recommend Pro by Katha Pollitt? A comprehensive argument for abortion as a social good, and an absolute banger.

View attachment 1504

You may indeed .

Will anyone take you up on the offer??

Remains to be seen.