US Supreme court have overturned Roe V Wade

[Randy Winkman]

MC Bodge said:

InitialDave said:

That's a fair point when both options are roughly equal, but in cases such as this, there isn't really much equivalence.

If you think abortion is wrong, but abortion is legal, you are unaffected other than knowing other people are doing it. No one is dragging you off and forcibly aborting your baby.

If you think abortion is acceptable, but it is illegal, you may very much be adversely affected by this if you need/want one. You are forced to do something. That could be having a child. It could be an illegal abortion. It could be travelling hundreds of miles to get one. It could be dying.

See also being gay, being trans, marrying someone of a different race.

The ban it and permit it "sides" are not equivalent.

Correct.

Giving people the choice is not the polar opposite of "pro-life" (which is a ridiculous term anyway)

And one that a BBC radio presenter has been criticised for using.

https://pressgazette.co.uk/amol-rajan-pro-life/

Anyway, just to record that I'm on the side of those that are baffled by how some can suggest that removing womens choice is pro-democracy. The logical aim of democracy would surely be to spread power down as far as possible towards individual level. Doing the opposite surely isn't democratic.

[Carl_Manchester]

Randy Winkman said:

The logical aim of democracy would surely be to spread power down as far as possible towards individual level. Doing the opposite surely isn't democratic.

it is but the view from the left will be that poor people are too thick to vote the right way on important issues such as this and therefore need to be told what their rights are rather than relying on them getting out and actually voting.

[Randy Winkman]

Carl_Manchester said:

Randy Winkman said:

The logical aim of democracy would surely be to spread power down as far as possible towards individual level. Doing the opposite surely isn't democratic.

it is but the view from the left will be that poor people are too thick to vote the right way on important issues such as this and therefore need to be told what their rights are rather than relying on them getting out and actually voting.

"The left"? Anyway, the BBC have now been told off by a Tory MP for not saying "pro life".

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tory-mp-atta...

[gregs656]

Randy Winkman said:

"The left"? Anyway, the BBC have now been told off by a Tory MP for not saying "pro life".

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tory-mp-atta...

Anti-abortion is more accurate.

[NRS]

InitialDave said:

NRS said:

The issue with that is the majority may disagree with the other countries, in which case should they be made to have rules which no one agrees with?

That's a fair point when both options are roughly equal, but in cases such as this, there isn't really much equivalence.

If you think abortion is wrong, but abortion is legal, you are unaffected other than knowing other people are doing it. No one is dragging you off and forcibly aborting your baby.

If you think abortion is acceptable, but it is illegal, you may very much be adversely affected by this if you need/want one. You are forced to do something. That could be having a child. It could be an illegal abortion. It could be travelling hundreds of miles to get one. It could be dying.

See also being gay, being trans, marrying someone of a different race.

The ban it and permit it "sides" are not equivalent.

Unless of course you believe life starts at conception, which is what the other lot think. In which case they view it like allowing murder, which I think almost everyone would agree is wrong (I’m not saying it is, just what they think). That’s why they push for it so hard, it’d be like the law saying murder is allowed, many of us would protest that. Again I’m not saying it is right, there is complexity on what we call life (tell an expecting parent who had a miscarriage it was just a lump of cells and not alive - but it’s also clear it is completely dependant on the mum).

That’s the issue - one lot count it as murder (and they do believe that, it’s not just a phrase to many), one lot view it as the mum’s body and choice. There is no middle ground really.

[Jockman]

NRS said:

Unless of course you believe life starts at conception, which is what the other lot think. In which case they view it like allowing murder, which I think almost everyone would agree is wrong (I’m not saying it is, just what they think). That’s why they push for it so hard, it’d be like the law saying murder is allowed, many of us would protest that. Again I’m not saying it is right, there is complexity on what we call life (tell an expecting parent who had a miscarriage it was just a lump of cells and not alive - but it’s also clear it is completely dependant on the mum).

That’s the issue - one lot count it as murder (and they do believe that, it’s not just a phrase to many), one lot view it as the mum’s body and choice. There is no middle ground really.

Good attempt at tight rope walking !!

[TwigtheWonderkid]

When anti abortionist claim abortion is murder, surely what they mean is it should be murder. In other words, the law should be changed to make it unlawful, so abortion becomes an unlawful killing. But if abortion is lawful, it cannot by definition be murder, as murder is unlawful killing. Surely murder is a legal term, not a moral one?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

NRS said:

That’s the issue - one lot count it as murder (and they do believe that, it’s not just a phrase to many), one lot view it as the mum’s body and choice. There is no middle ground really.

The existing UK system is the middle ground. It's a woman's choice, up to a certain point in the pregnancy, after which is no longer is. I don't think many pro choicers believe a woman should be able to say, after 40 weeks and on her way to the delivery suite, "I've changed my mind, abort my baby".

[Electro1980]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

The existing UK system is the middle ground. It's a woman's choice, up to a certain point in the pregnancy, after which is no longer is. I don't think many pro choicers believe a woman should be able to say, after 40 weeks and on her way to the delivery suite, "I've changed my mind, abort my baby".

Even then we have rules around what is and is not acceptable. It is never a matter of entirely the mothers choice as some seem to claim. For example there is the time limit, which is not absolute and can be extended for some reasons. Equally there are limits on reasons for an abortion. For example an abortion on the basis of sex is illegal in the U.K.

[andy_s]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

The existing UK system is the middle ground. It's a woman's choice, up to a certain point in the pregnancy, after which is no longer is. I don't think many pro choicers believe a woman should be able to say, after 40 weeks and on her way to the delivery suite, "I've changed my mind, abort my baby".

Isn't that the essence of why RvW was 'bad law', it didn't define an upper term limit?

Crazy how both sides are howling across the chasm of reasonable solution.

[anonymous-user]

andy_s said:

Isn't that the essence of why RvW was 'bad law', it didn't define an upper term limit?

Wiki summarises Roe better than I can: “The Court resolved these competing interests by announcing a pregnancy trimester timetable to govern all abortion regulations in the United States. During the first trimester, governments could not regulate abortion at all, except to require that abortions be performed by a licensed physician. During the second trimester, governments could regulate the abortion procedure but only for the purpose of protecting maternal health and not for protecting fetal life. After viability, which includes the third trimester of pregnancy and the last few weeks of the second trimester, abortions could be regulated and even prohibited, but only if the laws provided exceptions for abortions necessary to save the "life" or "health" of the mother.”

Roe was criticised jurisprudentially because the reasoning started with the right to privacy in the 14th Amendment and built from that a right to an abortion. I’m so doing it imposes a federal law governing abortion on all the states, limiting their freedom to legislate as they pleased on the matter.

ETA: there is information here https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/w... about which states permitted late term (third trimester or post viability) abortions and in what circumstances; I assume that’s all prior to the latest decision, but it’s not 100% clear.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 28th June 23:09

[andy_s]

BlackWidow13 said:

andy_s said:

Isn't that the essence of why RvW was 'bad law', it didn't define an upper term limit?

Wiki summarises Roe better than I can: “The Court resolved these competing interests by announcing a pregnancy trimester timetable to govern all abortion regulations in the United States. During the first trimester, governments could not regulate abortion at all, except to require that abortions be performed by a licensed physician. During the second trimester, governments could regulate the abortion procedure but only for the purpose of protecting maternal health and not for protecting fetal life. After viability, which includes the third trimester of pregnancy and the last few weeks of the second trimester, abortions could be regulated and even prohibited, but only if the laws provided exceptions for abortions necessary to save the "life" or "health" of the mother.”

Roe was criticised jurisprudentially because the reasoning started with the right to privacy in the 14th Amendment and built from that a right to an abortion. I’m so doing it imposes a federal law governing abortion on all the states, limiting their freedom to legislate as they pleased on the matter.

Cheers!

[NRS]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

When anti abortionist claim abortion is murder, surely what they mean is it should be murder. In other words, the law should be changed to make it unlawful, so abortion becomes an unlawful killing. But if abortion is lawful, it cannot by definition be murder, as murder is unlawful killing. Surely murder is a legal term, not a moral one?

True.

TwigtheWonderkid said:

NRS said:

That’s the issue - one lot count it as murder (and they do believe that, it’s not just a phrase to many), one lot view it as the mum’s body and choice. There is no middle ground really.

The existing UK system is the middle ground. It's a woman's choice, up to a certain point in the pregnancy, after which is no longer is. I don't think many pro choicers believe a woman should be able to say, after 40 weeks and on her way to the delivery suite, "I've changed my mind, abort my baby".

I don't think almost any would agree with that. We believe it is the middle ground, but if you believe life begins at conception then there is no middle ground. That's the issue. It's either "killing a baby" (their view), or not. We wouldn't say it is ok to kill some people, we'd say it was wrong. Of course an irony is many of them would be happy to have the death sentence on certain types of crime, whereas we'd say it was wrong in a civilised society. Not to mention euthanasia which they'd be against, but which quite a lot of other people wouldn't be, given the person has chosen it (but which is still illegal in a lot of places).

[TwigtheWonderkid]

There is no biblical justification for believing life begins at conception.

Genesis 2:7 says life begins at the first breath. This is backed up by the catholic church who will not baptise a stillborn baby. Exodus 21 22:25 says an unborn child is not a person. And Deuteronomy 18:24 says life is not sacred.

It gets worse for the God Squad, as not only is there no biblical evidence for life beginning at conception, but it appears God is a fan of abortion.

Kings 8:12 - God will open up pregnant women. Isiah 13:18 - God will kill unborn babies. Hosea 9 10:16 God will destroy babies in the womb and finally we get to Hosea 13:16 - God will dash infants into pieces and rip open pregnant women.

And of course, you have all the pregnant women drowned in the great flood, plus you have the killing of the first born in Egypt, the ultimate late term abortion.

[smn159]

Religious societies always look to keep women in their place and impose control over them.

I expect that there will be moves to keep girls from going to school next to 'protect the family'

[XCP]

smn159 said:

Religious societies always look to keep women in their place and impose control over them.

I expect that there will be moves to keep girls from going to school next to 'protect the family'

Agreed. And it always seems to be men at the top of these religions.

[Tankrizzo]

smn159 said:

Religious societies always look to keep women in their place and impose control over them.

I expect that there will be moves to keep girls from going to school next to 'protect the family'

Oatmeal on point again this morning:

https://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion

[anonymous-user]

smn159 said:

Religious societies always look to keep women in their place and impose control over them.

I expect that there will be moves to keep girls from going to school next to 'protect the family'

I read a very interesting article regarding the importance of the adoption of Christianity by post Roman immigrants to Britain (Anglo Saxons, Vikings etc). Apparently pagan religions were no good for controlling a large underclass society, as they emphasised the importance of the individual, whereas Christianity emphasised the importance of working hard/humbleness in this life to be rewarded in the next. Denigration of women's importance as equal partners in society formed part of that.

Regardless of legalise the upshot of this ruling is regressive, it makes having an abortion harder (rarely an easy choice for any woman anyway) and places more power in the hands of the notoriously right wing Christian hegemony who appear to run many states, especially in the Bible Belt.

[vaud]

Newarch said:

I read a very interesting article regarding the importance of the adoption of Christianity by post Roman immigrants to Britain (Anglo Saxons, Vikings etc). Apparently pagan religions were no good for controlling a large underclass society, as they emphasised the importance of the individual, whereas Christianity emphasised the importance of working hard/humbleness in this life to be rewarded in the next.

Plus lots of big expensive churches to remind you how great god is and how insignificant you were (mighty cathedrals where you can donate money before returning to your hovel)

[MC Bodge]

Jon Ronson's Radio prog about the issue of abortion in the "US culture wars". It's not as long-standing as you may think.