US Supreme court have overturned Roe V Wade
Discussion
Rufus Stone said:
BlackWidow13 said:
Who fact checks the fact check checkers? 
Even before using a bias checker, it was plain as day to me that your site is plainly a site with a very particular bias, masquerading as educational. No surprise that it’s largely anonymous (save for a reference to a serviced office in Dublin, which I’d bet a fair amount is nothing more than a postbox). Nor that its endorsements come from rural Irish secondary schools.
Ntv said:
They are permitted in cases of medical necessity. As I have said above. Otherwise they are banned, or illegal, if you prefer.
The issue is in stating they are banned, without including the clarification that they are only permitted after a certain point on grounds of medical necessity.Doing this gives a false depiction of the situation.
This is not pedantry, it is a very important distinction which has a fundamental impact on women's rights and access to medical treatment.
Ntv said:
InitialDave said:
Ntv said:
We do. We ban abortions other than under limited circumstances - principally grave risk to the mother. Abortions for reasons other than these limited circumstances are banned after 24 weeks. They are against the law.
They are not banned. They are not against the law.They are permitted.
That permission carrying a requirement of medical necessity does not change this.
Welcome to pendants' corner. The apostrophe will have pleased you.
They are permitted in cases of medical necessity. As I have said above. Otherwise they are banned, or illegal, if you prefer.
NRS said:
BlackWidow13 said:
Personally I hope that this decision results in the destruction of the GOP in the midterms.
However, I suspect that too a large part of America has lurched towards the evangelical Christian Right, and as many voters who are appalled by this decision, there will be a similar number willing to vote to endorse it.
I was wondering this too. I wonder if it will lead to people moving between states more, resulting in a even clearer division between red and blue states? It might be the best for all, if the country splits and you can choose which one you want to live in, instead of the country tearing itself apart in all directions. However, I suspect that too a large part of America has lurched towards the evangelical Christian Right, and as many voters who are appalled by this decision, there will be a similar number willing to vote to endorse it.
A big concern as I understand it is that outlawing abortion in a state won’t eliminate it. It will remove it from the remit of qualified medics and medical facilities, and push it into the shadows where women die from poorly performed non-sterile procedures.
Ultimately it becomes a money issue, as wealthy women will travel out of state to get an abortion whereas poorer ones won’t have that option. And in America a money issue translates directly to a race issue: the former group will be predominantly white and the latter predominantly not white.
BlackWidow13 said:
NRS said:
BlackWidow13 said:
Personally I hope that this decision results in the destruction of the GOP in the midterms.
However, I suspect that too a large part of America has lurched towards the evangelical Christian Right, and as many voters who are appalled by this decision, there will be a similar number willing to vote to endorse it.
I was wondering this too. I wonder if it will lead to people moving between states more, resulting in a even clearer division between red and blue states? It might be the best for all, if the country splits and you can choose which one you want to live in, instead of the country tearing itself apart in all directions. However, I suspect that too a large part of America has lurched towards the evangelical Christian Right, and as many voters who are appalled by this decision, there will be a similar number willing to vote to endorse it.
A big concern as I understand it is that outlawing abortion in a state won’t eliminate it. It will remove it from the remit of qualified medics and medical facilities, and push it into the shadows where women die from poorly performed non-sterile procedures.
Ultimately it becomes a money issue, as wealthy women will travel out of state to get an abortion whereas poorer ones won’t have that option. And in America a money issue translates directly to a race issue: the former group will be predominantly white and the latter predominantly not white.
If this is against the wills of the majority of a state there will be a big kickback in the midterms, either through GOP voters not turning out (can't vote Dem, but against this major issue so just abstain), or some of the swing voters actively voting against them. It's hard to say with what we see in Europe (generally pro-Dems) but I wonder if it might give a big kicking to the Republicans as a result.
BlackWidow13 said:
A big concern as I understand it is that outlawing abortion in a state won’t eliminate it. It will remove it from the remit of qualified medics and medical facilities, and push it into the shadows where women die from poorly performed non-sterile procedures.
Yes, exactly this.Electro1980 said:
... nothing more than an attempt to shut down any discussion. The fact is that most people don’t want to have a reasonable discussion about a complex issue. They want a reductive argument where you are either right or wrong.
This ^ a thousand times over.Complex issues don't reduce to sound-bites, so when one hears the "debate" reduced to competing sound-bites, both sides sound completely unconvincing and or course neither side will succeed in convincing the other that their point of view holds any value. If you want to strike a compromise or even convince someone that you are in fact right, you'd better put forward some sensible arguments to justify your own perspective and listen properly to what people who disagree with you say. Fingers in ears while spouting baloney isn't convincing or constructive.
Rufus Stone said:
BlackWidow13 said:
Who fact checks the fact check checkers? All starts to make sense..
ATG said:
Electro1980 said:
... nothing more than an attempt to shut down any discussion. The fact is that most people don’t want to have a reasonable discussion about a complex issue. They want a reductive argument where you are either right or wrong.
This ^ a thousand times over.Complex issues don't reduce to sound-bites, so when one hears the "debate" reduced to competing sound-bites, both sides sound completely unconvincing and or course neither side will succeed in convincing the other that their point of view holds any value. If you want to strike a compromise or even convince someone that you are in fact right, you'd better put forward some sensible arguments to justify your own perspective and listen properly to what people who disagree with you say. Fingers in ears while spouting baloney isn't convincing or constructive.
I find abortion further on in gestation to be an utterly horrible thing to have to do but understand that it's sometimes necessary. So I'm for it, but not FOR it, if you understand where I'm coming from.
I would rather government intervention was not to ban this but to do what it can to nurture a society where there's simply less need for abortion.
Jeanboi said:
ATG said:
Electro1980 said:
... nothing more than an attempt to shut down any discussion. The fact is that most people don’t want to have a reasonable discussion about a complex issue. They want a reductive argument where you are either right or wrong.
This ^ a thousand times over.Complex issues don't reduce to sound-bites, so when one hears the "debate" reduced to competing sound-bites, both sides sound completely unconvincing and or course neither side will succeed in convincing the other that their point of view holds any value. If you want to strike a compromise or even convince someone that you are in fact right, you'd better put forward some sensible arguments to justify your own perspective and listen properly to what people who disagree with you say. Fingers in ears while spouting baloney isn't convincing or constructive.
I find abortion further on in gestation to be an utterly horrible thing to have to do but understand that it's sometimes necessary. So I'm for it, but not FOR it, if you understand where I'm coming from.
I would rather government intervention was not to ban this but to do what it can to nurture a society where there's simply less need for abortion.
No about of rational debate is going to sway these people.
smn159 said:
Opposition to any abortion comes largely from religious fundamentalists.
No about of rational debate is going to sway these people.
Yes.No about of rational debate is going to sway these people.
There is no middle ground to be had. Any "debate" you get into over age of foetal viability serves no purpose other than to bog things down and distract from the core issue of women's rights and medical care.
Jeanboi said:
+1 ATG.
I find abortion further on in gestation to be an utterly horrible thing to have to do but understand that it's sometimes necessary. So I'm for it, but not FOR it, if you understand where I'm coming from.
I would rather government intervention was not to ban this but to do what it can to nurture a society where there's simply less need for abortion.
Unfortunately a large part of the anti abortion groups are also anti contraception and anti sex Ed.I find abortion further on in gestation to be an utterly horrible thing to have to do but understand that it's sometimes necessary. So I'm for it, but not FOR it, if you understand where I'm coming from.
I would rather government intervention was not to ban this but to do what it can to nurture a society where there's simply less need for abortion.
smn159 said:
Opposition to any abortion comes largely from religious fundamentalists.
No about of rational debate is going to sway these people.
No amount of rational debate is going to sway either side. We have two camps, one screaming “all life is sacred” and the other “it’s just a clump of cells”, both with little understanding of the science. Anyone in the middle gets dismissed and labelled as evil and a member of the opposing “side”.No about of rational debate is going to sway these people.
BabySharkDooDooDooDooDooDoo said:
Kermit power said:
It's fundamentally different.
Can you choose whether to have the vaccine, yes or no?
Can women in some states choose whether to have an abortion, yes or no?
“Have the injection or lose your livelihood and be unable to provide for yourself and your family as you’ll be banned from working or leaving the country” (as seen in the USA and Canada). Can you choose whether to have the vaccine, yes or no?
Can women in some states choose whether to have an abortion, yes or no?
“You can’t have an abortion because we’ve decided you cannot have one” (as will happen in multiple states)
In both situations the state is taking choice away. By coercion or law, the right to choose what happens with your body is removed. Again, I find both situations repulsive.
I can see why some of the covid ultras are finding it a bit uncomfortable. Do they realise quite how hateful and disrespectful they’d become towards other people?
I've just spent a while googling, and the most I've been able to find is that in certain States, you're excluded from working in health and social care settings if you're unvaccinated. Individual companies may have their own policies, but that's not state-mandated.
I also can't find anything to suggest that unvaccinated American citizens are banned from leaving the country?
ATG said:
And to nail the point home, this means that "what someone does with their own body" is therefore NOT just up to them. The unborn child's interest is considered as well as the mother's interest. That was the point originally being discussed.
And that is probably the scariest part of the rulingWhat next, forced medication, food rationing, enforced rest or exercise
InitialDave said:
There is no middle ground to be had. Any "debate" you get into over age of foetal viability serves no purpose other than to bog things down and distract from the core issue of women's rights and medical care.
I made a comment on Twitter earlier that was not directly related to Roe vs Wade but was less than 100% positive (albeit perfectly polite and respectful) about trump. I got a reply, which was this:'Youre in a sick death cult that thinks men can have babies. Your opinions mean less than vomit.'
This sort of thing is not particularly uncommon. A lot of people stateside are less than balanced, and that seems to be getting very much worse.
Electro1980 said:
No amount of rational debate is going to sway either side. We have two camps, one screaming “all life is sacred” and the other “it’s just a clump of cells”, both with little understanding of the science. Anyone in the middle gets dismissed and labelled as evil and a member of the opposing “side”.
Rubbish.What the US had with Roe v Wade was essentially a middle / compromise position based on a balanced view of the rights of the foetus and the wellbeing of the mother.
Only one camp is now dismissing any argument from the 'middle' in favour of an absolutist approach
paulguitar said:
I made a comment on Twitter earlier that was not directly related to Roe vs Wade but was less than 100% positive (albeit perfectly polite and respectful) about trump. I got a reply, which was this:
'Youre in a sick death cult that thinks men can have babies. Your opinions mean less than vomit.'
This sort of thing is not particularly uncommon. A lot of people stateside are less than balanced, and that seems to be getting very much worse.
That sounds about right, yes. 'Youre in a sick death cult that thinks men can have babies. Your opinions mean less than vomit.'
This sort of thing is not particularly uncommon. A lot of people stateside are less than balanced, and that seems to be getting very much worse.
InitialDave said:
paulguitar said:
I made a comment on Twitter earlier that was not directly related to Roe vs Wade but was less than 100% positive (albeit perfectly polite and respectful) about trump. I got a reply, which was this:
'Youre in a sick death cult that thinks men can have babies. Your opinions mean less than vomit.'
This sort of thing is not particularly uncommon. A lot of people stateside are less than balanced, and that seems to be getting very much worse.
That sounds about right, yes. 'Youre in a sick death cult that thinks men can have babies. Your opinions mean less than vomit.'
This sort of thing is not particularly uncommon. A lot of people stateside are less than balanced, and that seems to be getting very much worse.
smn159 said:
Electro1980 said:
No amount of rational debate is going to sway either side. We have two camps, one screaming “all life is sacred” and the other “it’s just a clump of cells”, both with little understanding of the science. Anyone in the middle gets dismissed and labelled as evil and a member of the opposing “side”.
Rubbish.What the US had with Roe v Wade was essentially a middle / compromise position based on a balanced view of the rights of the foetus and the wellbeing of the mother.
Only one camp is now dismissing any argument from the 'middle' in favour of an absolutist approach
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff