US Supreme court have overturned Roe V Wade

[Electro1980]

smn159 said:

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

And you’re doing exactly that. Arguing that anything that doesn’t agree exactly with your viewpoint must be the polar opposite. Everyone believes their viewpoint is automatically the reasonable middle ground. Everyone faster than me is a lunatic, everyone slower is an idiot. You are falling for exactly that trap.

[InitialDave]

paulguitar said:

Do you mean that it's getting worse in the states, or that I am part of a 'death cult'?

Hah!

I meant that it sounds like exactly the kind of thing I'd expect them to say, and yes, they seem to be getting worse.

[vetrof]

Carl_Manchester said:

buggalugs said:

Looking to be educated here

Reading the judges comments they’re not making any statement about the right and wrong of abortion. They’re just saying that the 14th amendment doesn’t provide you with a legal basis for it which having quickly googled the 14th amendment I’d be inclined to agree with.

This opens the way for individual states to decide, turning abortion into a big voting issue. Or for someone to get a plain and simple ‘abortion is legal now’ law on the books if possible.

I don’t exactly see this as the US turning into a taliban state?

It shouldn't do but Rowe Vs Wade did provide a standard to adhere to albeit, imperfect, it wasn't just about making abortion legal it also set out the three phases of pregnancy and a minimum bar for stated to adhere to.

That's why I think leaving this change until the 1st January would have been better as it at least allows time for each state politician to lay out their arguements and let the people vote on them in november.

What's happened here is a bit of a legal cliff edge.

Seems like a lot of people don't really understand what has just happened.
I haven't seen anyone show where in the constitution that abortion is a right. As far as I am aware the States are supposed to decide laws for themselves as much as possible.

The blame for the current situation lies at the feet of generations of weak legislators who have had 50 years to get this sorted. Using the judiciary to defacto create laws is always a precarious situation.

[paulguitar]

InitialDave said:

paulguitar said:

Do you mean that it's getting worse in the states, or that I am part of a 'death cult'?

Hah!

I meant that it sounds like exactly the kind of thing I'd expect them to say, and yes, they seem to be getting worse.

Phew...

[gregs656]

vetrof said:

Seems like a lot of people don't really understand what has just happened.
I haven't seen anyone show where in the constitution that abortion is a right. As far as I am aware the States are supposed to decide laws for themselves as much as possible.

The blame for the current situation lies at the feet of generations of weak legislators who have had 50 years to get this sorted. Using the judiciary to defacto create laws is always a precarious situation.

The constitution is quite clear that not all the rights granted by it are numerated.

[smn159]

Electro1980 said:

smn159 said:

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

And you’re doing exactly that. Arguing that anything that doesn’t agree exactly with your viewpoint must be the polar opposite. Everyone believes their viewpoint is automatically the reasonable middle ground. Everyone faster than me is a lunatic, everyone slower is an idiot. You are falling for exactly that trap.

Go on then, describe what might be a 'middle ground' view.

You're trying to draw a false equivalence between a fundamentalist view which say that all abortion is wrong under any circumstances on one side and every other view on the other.

It's disingenuous.

[AdamT]

vetrof said:

Seems like a lot of people don't really understand what has just happened.
I haven't seen anyone show where in the constitution that abortion is a right. As far as I am aware the States are supposed to decide laws for themselves as much as possible.

The blame for the current situation lies at the feet of generations of weak legislators who have had 50 years to get this sorted. Using the judiciary to defacto create laws is always a precarious situation.

Interesting overview from this guy which corresponds with you point quite well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQNq-I6HTp0&t=...

[vetrof]

gregs656 said:

The constitution is quite clear that not all the rights granted by it are numerated.

Any chance of a link or a quote of the relevant section? Genuine query.

[gregs656]

vetrof said:

Any chance of a link or a quote of the relevant section? Genuine query.

The 9th amendment

'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'

[vetrof]

gregs656 said:

The 9th amendment

'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'

Thanks.

It seems to imply that certain rights 'retained by the people' (as in granted by/to the people ie in individual states) cannot be taken away via interpretation of the constitution not that the constitution can confer rights via interpretation.
My point still stands that the whims of individual justices are no proper basis for creating legislation.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

I struggle to see how anyone can think it's right that in many states, it'll now be easier to get an AR-15 than an abortion.

[gregs656]

vetrof said:

Thanks.

It seems to imply that certain rights 'retained by the people' (as in granted by/to the people ie in individual states) cannot be taken away via interpretation of the constitution not that the constitution can confer rights via interpretation.
My point still stands that the whims of individual justices are no proper basis for creating legislation.

There are quite a few interpretations of the 9th amendment.

Depending on which side you're on, Roe or Dobbs could be considered to be judges creating legislation. Where is the basis in the Constitution for Alito's 'history test' etc etc

IMO the problem comes from the political nature of justice in the US, it's a pretty rotten system.

[dudleybloke]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I struggle to see how anyone can think it's right that in many states, it'll now be easier to get an AR-15 than an abortion.

They will be arming foetuses next.

[vetrof]

gregs656 said:

..."fair enough comments"...

IMO the problem comes from the political nature of justice in the US, it's a pretty rotten system.

Seems we basically agree about the root cause of the issue.

[Electro1980]

smn159 said:

Go on then, describe what might be a 'middle ground' view.

You're trying to draw a false equivalence between a fundamentalist view which say that all abortion is wrong under any circumstances on one side and every other view on the other.

It's disingenuous.

No, I’m saying it’s a complicated issue where there are two camps shouting down everyone who disagrees. Just as you are doing. For a start you keep referring to religious fundamentalists, which firstly is an emotive pejorative, and secondly completely fails to understand the issue around the judgment which, for many, is not about abortion but about states rights.

[ATG]

voyds9 said:

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 ruling

What next, forced medication, food rationing, enforced rest or exercise

That's not part of the ruling. And even if it had been, it is completely normal. Almost no rights are uncontested. One person's rights almost always encroach on someone else's, and as has been pointed out more than a few times, the fact that you can't just choose to abort pregnancies after <insert your country's number here> weeks reflects that. Countries with (in my opinion sensible) liberal abortion regulations routinely start curtailing a woman's autonomy in order to start protecting the unborn child as the pregnancy progresses.

[ATG]

paulguitar said:

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.

The irony is that Christianity can quite fairly (and inoffensively) be described as a death cult, not in the sense that they are all suicidal, but that it is a cult in a broad sense and that its central myth is focussed on death.

[MC Bodge]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I struggle to see how anyone can think it's right that in many states, it'll now be easier to get an AR-15 than an abortion.

It's (the US) god's will

[Ridgemont]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I struggle to see how anyone can think it's right that in many states, it'll now be easier to get an AR-15 than an abortion.

As an aside on this one, I am intrigued about Kavanaugh’s contributing opinion on the decision.
Kavanaugh appears to have been the key swing vote and his opinion laid out his decision but a key observation: that it does not preclude women travel to states that allow abortion. This seems sensible?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-24...

I mean, I have generally split on abortion. It should be available but to a very specific date in pregnancy.
But then I understood for example Ireland’s position within the EU on the same subject. I was pleased that they changed that stance 4 or so years ago, as it avoided the ludicrous situation of having to travel to the U.K. for one. But that was Ireland’s choice. If Kavanaugh holds to the line he illustrated then those in states inclined to ban will surely seek an alternative state to travel to. Again not optimal but hardly the introduction of Gilead? And one the EU seemed content with for a long period? Or am I missing something?

[InitialDave]

Electro1980 said:

not about abortion but about states rights.

I notice it isn't their rights to, for example, give women a free cupcake on the second Tuesday of the month, or anything like that.