Roe v Wade: US Supreme Court overturns constitutional right to abortion [Official]

Original post by SHallowvale

PRSOM. Can't say I'm surprised by the total disregard religious conservatives have for freedom, women, bodily autonomy and consent.

Reply 63

brjf

18

Original post by SHallowvale

PRSOM. Can't say I'm surprised by the total disregard religious conservatives have for freedom, women, bodily autonomy and consent.

That is of course your opinion based on a set of preconceived beliefs

Reply 64

Original post by brjf

That is of course your opinion based on a set of preconceived beliefs

It's my opinion based on the arguments made by 'pro-life'-ers and the many debates / discussions I've had about this topic on this very forum.

Reply 65

Original post by imlikeahermit

I'll remember this next time you say something I disagree with. :wink:

Reply 66

brjf

18

Original post by SHallowvale

It's my opinion based on the arguments made by 'pro-life'-ers and the many debates / discussions I've had about this topic on this very forum.

Not all ‘pro-lifers’ are as you conceive them to be, you’re talking to the ones most vocal and twisting your own image of them in your mind

Reply 67

Trinculo

What I don't understand is why so many pro-death people on this forum seem to be pretending that the US is some kind of authoritarian patriarchal state. Pretty much every country in Europe currently has more restrictions on abortion than the US.

By their rationale, the countries within the EU must largely be destroying women's bodily autonomy, and must all be analogues of Gilead.

The Mississippi case which is at the heart of this current US Supreme Court case concerns the state of Mississippi restricting abortion to before 15 weeks. We have heard from the pro-death camp how this is inhuman and disgusting.

France caps abortion on demand to 14 weeks, and Germany to 12. Sweden to 18. Switzerland to 12.

So let's hear it. Are all these countries tyrannical and backward? Why are there no protests in the streets every single day outside the embassies of these nations? Why are pro-deathers not screaming and tearing out their hair at the oppressive policies of the evil, ultra-right wing hellholes that are France, Germany, Switzerland and Sweden?

Incidentally, in the Palestinian Authority, which the same people seem so very fond of and are so quick to wave the flags of - abortion is prohibited under almost all circumstances.

Reply 68

Original post by brjf

Not all ‘pro-lifers’ are as you conceive them to be, you’re talking to the ones most vocal and twisting your own image of them in your mind

I was specifically referring to 'pro-lifers' who are also religious conservatives. I'm aware it's a generalisation and there will be exceptions to that. My view of these people is based on what they say and discussions I've had with them. If you take issue with that then that's their fault... not mine. xD

Reply 69

Original post by Trinculo

What I don't understand is why so many pro-death people on this forum seem to be pretending that the US is some kind of authoritarian patriarchal state. Pretty much every country in Europe currently has more restrictions on abortion than the US.

By their rationale, the countries within the EU must largely be destroying women's bodily autonomy, and must all be analogues of Gilead.

The Mississippi case which is at the heart of this current US Supreme Court case concerns the state of Mississippi restricting abortion to before 15 weeks. We have heard from the pro-death camp how this is inhuman and disgusting.

France caps abortion on demand to 14 weeks, and Germany to 12. Sweden to 18. Switzerland to 12.

So let's hear it. Are all these countries tyrannical and backward? Why are there no protests in the streets every single day outside the embassies of these nations? Why are pro-deathers not screaming and tearing out their hair at the oppressive policies of the evil, ultra-right wing hellholes that are France, Germany, Switzerland and Sweden?

Incidentally, in the Palestinian Authority, which the same people seem so very fond of and are so quick to wave the flags of - abortion is prohibited under almost all circumstances.

What pro-birthers want to do is ban abortion outright, not just restrict it to 12, 14, etc, weeks. There are at least 10 US states with laws that will automatically ban abortion outright if Roe vs Wade is overturned. That's the difference. A country like France might have restrictions after 14 weeks, but prior to that abortion is still legal.

Are France's, Germany's, etc, limits on abortion tyrannical, backwards, etc? Personally I think they are, but compared to the US they pose far less risk to women seeking abortions than what is currently happening in the US. They certainly don't warrant as much attention and outrage as a total ban on abortion.

Reply 70

Rakas21

I personally support the pending ruling. I have no issue with states deciding their own abortion policy much as they do in the EU today.

With regards to abortion I don't much care for the religious pro life attitude but I do have several reservations..

1) Second abortions should be prohibited. Actions have consequences and people should not abregate self responsibility to the state.

2) I believe in parternal rather than maternal consent. Essentially I find the idea of a woman unilaterally aborting my child to be offensive and so I believe men should have a month from the woman declaring intent to object.

3) Despite rhetoric to the contrary, it is demographically bad to reduce the native birth rate. It encourages ethno-cultural change and reduces the future size of the labour force. It is societally bad.

Essentially I object to the current free for all

(edited 1 year ago)

Reply 71

Trinculo

Original post by SHallowvale

What pro-birthers want to do is ban abortion outright, not just restrict it to 12, 14, etc, weeks. There are at least 10 US states with laws that will automatically ban abortion outright if Roe vs Wade is overturned. That's the difference. A country like France might have restrictions after 14 weeks, but prior to that abortion is still legal.

Are France's, Germany's, etc, limits on abortion tyrannical, backwards, etc? Personally I think they are, but compared to the US they pose far less risk to women seeking abortions than what is currently happening in the US. They certainly don't warrant as much attention and outrage as a total ban on abortion.

So you don't think Roe should be overturned?

Reply 72

Original post by Trinculo

So you don't think Roe should be overturned?

Yes, I think abortion should remain legal.

Reply 73

Trinculo

Original post by SHallowvale

Yes, I think abortion should remain legal.

So you disagree with not only Supreme Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but also the plaintiffs in the Mississippi case?

Reply 74

nulli tertius

Original post by SHallowvale

What pro-birthers want to do is ban abortion outright, not just restrict it to 12, 14, etc, weeks. There are at least 10 US states with laws that will automatically ban abortion outright if Roe vs Wade is overturned. That's the difference. A country like France might have restrictions after 14 weeks, but prior to that abortion is still legal.

Are France's, Germany's, etc, limits on abortion tyrannical, backwards, etc? Personally I think they are, but compared to the US they pose far less risk to women seeking abortions than what is currently happening in the US. They certainly don't warrant as much attention and outrage as a total ban on abortion.

America has disappeared down this rabbit hole where one side will not support abortions even where the mother's life is in peril and the other will not countenance any restriction on abortion because judges are incapable of creating compromises; there are only winners and losers and to give ground to the other side is a sign of weakness in the fight.

One of the most important provisions of the Steel Act was the conscience clause that no medical professional could be compelled to participate in an abortion but the woman concerned had to be referred to someone who would. The absence of a similar conscience clause from the religious discrimination provisions of the Equalitiy Act has caused virtually all the trouble over that Act in the last 20 years.

Reply 75

Rakas21

Original post by SHallowvale

Yes, I think abortion should remain legal.

That's not strictly what it's about though. Do you believe that the EU should dictate the social policy of its states? All it does it put the choice to the individual state and electorate in those places.

Reply 76

Napp

22

The country with no social safety net worth a damn, no real personal rights outside of owning guns, no parental leave and no minimum wage that can be considered anything but a cruel joke. Lets be honest, this is neigher particularly unexpected, out of line nor overly novel for the various rights Americans seem intent of depriving themselves of.
Then again, many countries arent much better, a fair few de jure have this right but de facto make it incredibly hard to access, seeing multiple doctors, shrinks etc.
Its a shame, particularly in that its a grossly sexist one that benefits no one outside of religious nutters (and only on a 'moral' level then) but as i said, it is just one more box for them to tick on odious laws. Which does rather nicely segue into the various users here who always harp on about how we should all abide by the law no matter what, politely ignoring that many laws are unjust, unpopular and un-useful in the extreme to put it mildfly. After all, on this one, would anyone with a functioning moral compass really find someone guilty (if you were on a jury) of getting an abortion for a fetus they couldnt realistically look after (the rubbish about giving it to an orphanage/adoption being a rather *****y excuse peddled by those who know nothing of the system).

An immoral 'legal' finding if ever there was one. They might be right in that abortion shouldnt be a 'rioght', per-se, (few things should be considered a right in of themselves) however that shouldnt give them the right to let states run by nutters remove access for them.

A shame, one that isnt going to be reversed for a generation or two unless a load of judges 'accidentally' fall off a few cliffs...

Reply 77

Original post by Trinculo

So you disagree with not only Supreme Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but also the plaintiffs in the Mississippi case?

I care less about the specifics of the case than what rights they give people. I see Roe vs Wade as protection from pro-birthers, which is why I support it remaining.

Original post by Rakas21

That's not strictly what it's about though. Do you believe that the EU should dictate the social policy of its states? All it does it put the choice to the individual state and electorate in those places.

As above.

Reply 78

Original post by nulli tertius

America has disappeared down this rabbit hole where one side will not support abortions even where the mother's life is in peril and the other will not countenance any restriction on abortion because judges are incapable of creating compromises; there are only winners and losers and to give ground to the other side is a sign of weakness in the fight.

One of the most important provisions of the Steel Act was the conscience clause that no medical professional could be compelled to participate in an abortion but the woman concerned had to be referred to someone who would. The absence of a similar conscience clause from the religious discrimination provisions of the Equalitiy Act has caused virtually all the trouble over that Act in the last 20 years.

Sorry, I'm not sure what your point is...? :confused:

Reply 79