Roe v Wade Being Repealed
Discussion
wisbech said:
Byker28i said:
Historians have pointed out that abortion was legal in the US when the Constitution was written in 1787.
Linky? I know in UK common law abortion wasn't a crime until 'quickening' (the mother being able to feel the baby move - partly due to the practical fact that there was no way to prove in court a woman knew she was pregnant until that time). But if abortion was legal in the US in 1787 it would have been on a state by state (colony by colony) basis, rather than at the federal level. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/scarlet-l...
or
During the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled that colony.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10297561/
There's much more in both articles - but as we can't cut and paste the relevant bits you'll have to read them...
I have posted this in a few threads because the writing has been on the wall for months, this has been a GOP project for decades. I’m glad to see it gain some traction here.
I think around 30 individual states have already made abortion illegal (or practically illegal) over the last 6 months in anticipation of this ruling.
Abortion is the tip of the ice berg, the dominoes could fall quite quickly. Conservative groups will fund promising cases.
I think around 30 individual states have already made abortion illegal (or practically illegal) over the last 6 months in anticipation of this ruling.
Abortion is the tip of the ice berg, the dominoes could fall quite quickly. Conservative groups will fund promising cases.
If it is a 'my body, my choice' argument, why not let termination happen any time prior to birth.
If it is a 'right to life' argument then termination should be illegal at any stage.
It's difficult where to draw the line. You'd think with contraceptives the discussion wouldn't need to happen, unless force or coercion is involved.
If it is a 'right to life' argument then termination should be illegal at any stage.
It's difficult where to draw the line. You'd think with contraceptives the discussion wouldn't need to happen, unless force or coercion is involved.
Type R Tom said:
What I find fascinating about this as there are so many that will fight tooth and nail to protect an unborn baby but the second you are born you are on your own, that includes the parents having a massive bill for that birth!
ACB made a statement recently that because of ‘safe haven’ laws, abortion is redundant. Complete nonsense obviously, but that is one of their arguments. Donbot said:
If it is a 'my body, my choice' argument, why not let termination happen any time prior to birth.
If it is a 'right to life' argument then termination should be illegal at any stage.
It's difficult where to draw the line. You'd think with contraceptives the discussion wouldn't need to happen, unless force or coercion is involved.
It is a bit more nuanced than that as pregnancy includes times when the foetus is little more than a collection of a few cells and times when it would be viable outside the womb if delivered early. If it is a 'right to life' argument then termination should be illegal at any stage.
It's difficult where to draw the line. You'd think with contraceptives the discussion wouldn't need to happen, unless force or coercion is involved.
If a baby were born at 24 weeks and you were then to kill it that would be murder. What then should be the consequences if it is killed in the womb at 24 weeks?
So in reality it is balancing the rights of two human beings, baby and mother, and the ethical question becomes when does a foetus become a human being.
Donbot said:
If it is a 'my body, my choice' argument, why not let termination happen any time prior to birth.
If it is a 'right to life' argument then termination should be illegal at any stage.
It's difficult where to draw the line. You'd think with contraceptives the discussion wouldn't need to happen, unless force or coercion is involved.
Start an argument by defining the terms ... If it is a 'right to life' argument then termination should be illegal at any stage.
It's difficult where to draw the line. You'd think with contraceptives the discussion wouldn't need to happen, unless force or coercion is involved.
If it wasn't such a serious subject I'd rant on how small I find that tactic.
Whatever. A woman's right to decide is the fundamental principle, much else is angry old men telling them they know better.
If you really care create a society where the child will be looked after rather than moaning about someone you'll never meet. But doing something rather than just wanting restrictions requires effort, and many don't like effort and prefer restrictions.
JagLover said:
Donbot said:
If it is a 'my body, my choice' argument, why not let termination happen any time prior to birth.
If it is a 'right to life' argument then termination should be illegal at any stage.
It's difficult where to draw the line. You'd think with contraceptives the discussion wouldn't need to happen, unless force or coercion is involved.
It is a bit more nuanced than that as pregnancy includes times when the foetus is little more than a collection of a few cells and times when it would be viable outside the womb if delivered early. If it is a 'right to life' argument then termination should be illegal at any stage.
It's difficult where to draw the line. You'd think with contraceptives the discussion wouldn't need to happen, unless force or coercion is involved.
If a baby were born at 24 weeks and you were then to kill it that would be murder. What then should be the consequences if it is killed in the womb at 24 weeks?
So in reality it is balancing the rights of two human beings, baby and mother, and the ethical question becomes when does a foetus become a human being.
A baby born at 24 weeks wouldn't normally survive.
I'm not pro or anti abortion, but there is definitely a discussion to be had over the rights of the unborn child and the rights of the parents.
JagLover said:
Donbot said:
A baby born at 24 weeks wouldn't normally survive.
Survival rate of between 60-70% these days I think, but with much greater chance of lifelong disabilities. I will state that there shouldn't be an outright ban on abortion.
speedy_thrills said:
If at a Federal level the law was changed would that not take primacy over State law? My understanding was that Roe v.s. Wade was only based on Constitutional rights in the abscence of positive law at a Federal level allowing abortion.
Yes. Also, not sure this thread will be well served if it becomes a debate about abortion in general.
Donbot said:
That would be with modern care and incubation I assume?
I will state that there shouldn't be an outright ban on abortion.
And I imagine most, including myself, would agree with you.I will state that there shouldn't be an outright ban on abortion.
Pointing out though that there tends to be a nuanced position between "right to life" and "right to choose" that tends to be determined by survivability of the baby. In the UK this is the reason why the abortion time limit is set at 24 weeks except in case of "risk to life, foetal abnormality, or grave physical and mental injury to the woman".
JagLover said:
Donbot said:
That would be with modern care and incubation I assume?
I will state that there shouldn't be an outright ban on abortion.
And I imagine most, including myself, would agree with you.I will state that there shouldn't be an outright ban on abortion.
Pointing out though that there tends to be a nuanced position between "right to life" and "right to choose" that tends to be determined by survivability of the baby. In the UK this is the reason why the abortion time limit is set at 24 weeks except in case of "risk to life, foetal abnormality, or grave physical and mental injury to the woman".
Donbot said:
As medical interventions become more advanced, the time of termination should reduce by that metric. We slowly move towards anti-abortionism.
Not really as close to 95% of abortions are carried out by the time the foetus is 12 weeks. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-...
Late term abortions are tiny as a percentage of the total.
JagLover said:
Donbot said:
As medical interventions become more advanced, the time of termination should reduce by that metric. We slowly move towards anti-abortionism.
Not really as close to 95% of abortions are carried out by the time the foetus is 12 weeks. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-...
Late term abortions are tiny as a percentage of the total.
I'm playing devil's advocate here but there is merit in the pro life argument. People in the US have access to family planning, and who has the right to terminate and at what time is always going to be changing.
MiniMan64 said:
America continues it's slow slide into making the Handmaids Tale an awful reality...
Overturning Roe, if it happens, is a retrograde step in my view. The draft judgment green lights Mississippi’s statute and hands abortion regulation over to the states. It does not provide any guidance on where states should draw the line though. Texas’s abortion law is a lot more oppressive than Mississippi’s - so the next question is whether the SC will uphold that. If it does, there will be a race to the bottom by conservative controlled states to see who can come up with the toughest laws. This though is only a single facet of the march by some American states towards a sort of Christian Jihad: a society run on principles extracted from the Bible allied to a reading of the constitution by reference to the circumstances existing the day it was signed and not a day later.
It’s not a great outlook.
gregs656 said:
speedy_thrills said:
If at a Federal level the law was changed would that not take primacy over State law? My understanding was that Roe v.s. Wade was only based on Constitutional rights in the abscence of positive law at a Federal level allowing abortion.
Yes. Also, not sure this thread will be well served if it becomes a debate about abortion in general.
If the Law in place is defective then it needs to be revisited
If it is not in the remit of the Federal authorities to regulate then it must by default be the responsibility of the individual states
The thread should not be about the rights/wrongs of abortion as an act but of the application of the Laws that regulate the act and which authority has primacy to regulate
BlackWidow13 said:
This though is only a single facet of the march by some American states towards a sort of Christian Jihad: a society run on principles extracted from the Bible allied to a reading of the constitution by reference to the circumstances existing the day it was signed and not a day later
It’s not a great outlook.
...other than amendments about, say, mass gun ownership and carrying on the person, that cannot possibly be, er, amended.It’s not a great outlook.
Religious fundamentalism is often a bad thing. It's based on nothing.
Castrol for a knave said:
That is rather scary and the logical extension to the rules that Texas is trying to impose.roger.mellie said:
Donbot said:
If it is a 'my body, my choice' argument, why not let termination happen any time prior to birth.
If it is a 'right to life' argument then termination should be illegal at any stage.
It's difficult where to draw the line. You'd think with contraceptives the discussion wouldn't need to happen, unless force or coercion is involved.
Start an argument by defining the terms ... If it is a 'right to life' argument then termination should be illegal at any stage.
It's difficult where to draw the line. You'd think with contraceptives the discussion wouldn't need to happen, unless force or coercion is involved.
If it wasn't such a serious subject I'd rant on how small I find that tactic.
Whatever. A woman's right to decide is the fundamental principle, much else is angry old men telling them they know better.
If you really care create a society where the child will be looked after rather than moaning about someone you'll never meet. But doing something rather than just wanting restrictions requires effort, and many don't like effort and prefer restrictions.
Parents want a kid - they have a miscarriage at 12 weeks - both parents gutted. Would you tell them it's not a life?
Couple get pregnant, both want an abortion, kid is aborted at 12 weeks. Similar to a miscarriage, but we'd not say it is "losing a baby" as such, it'd generally be viewed as aborting a bunch of cells and not a life.
Woman gets pregnant, wants to keep the kid. Dad insists on an abortion when he discovers at 12 weeks. Mum's will overrules him, and he has to pay for it and her for the next x years, plus supporting them with all the time and "effort". Is this just about a woman's right to her body? Given we want both parents to support the kid to give them the best chance is it not an option that either parent could get to choose an abortion. Not just for the man's financial impact, but if he doesn't want it there's a much higher risk the kid will be impacted by not being supported (emotionally, time, money). If you say a guy could have just kept it in his pants would you say the same to a female in the example below?
Woman gets pregnant, dad wants to keep it, woman gets an abortion at 12 weeks. Mum's right overrules the dad, even if he was willing to look after it by himself (of course she would have to bear it until it is born).
Edited by NRS on Tuesday 3rd May 16:15
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff