Topic: [report]Rov V Wade overturned[confirmed] - page 2. (Read 838 times)

According to NYTimes it's more than that.

Yes, far better to reduce the bodily autonomy of half the population to less than that of a corpse. (Glossing over your very transparent appeal to emotion and the fact that a fetus at 20 weeks does not have a brain which is capable of consciousness, feeling, thought, or pain.)

So I'm sure you'll agree it is equally wrong of the Supreme Court to over rule local governments on other contentious issues like gun control? And that this ruling just yesterday was therefore obviously wrong?

Right, because this was definitely only about overturning a bad law. That's why many Republicans are now coming out and calling for nationwide bans.

And you see no issue with a biased and religiously driven Supreme Court overturning decades of precedent because of individual political leanings?

In the words of the dissent:

5 states (TX, OK, LA, KY, SD) already have. There are at least 8 more (ID, UT, WY, ND, MO, AR, MS, TN) which will do at some point over the next 30 days. That's already a quarter of states and the ruling is only a few hours old.

Pretty fucked up path we seem to be going down. 

Clarence "MAGA" Thomas is all but begging to be given the chance to abolish more rights like same sex marriage, same sex sex, and the right to contraception in his concurring opinion.

This is a victory for the conservatives and religious right groups after about 50 years of legal war. This ruling was orchestrated by Donald Trump when he nominated three conservative justices (Neil Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett) to the Supreme Court. This judgment has triggered massive protest in different states in the US but its game over. But pro-abortion groups would keep fighting for their course through other legal options available. But this landmark ruling would really affect mostly poor Americans that might not be able to afford transport and other expenses to abortion friendly states.

The leaked draft was, in fact accurate, and Row was overturned today.

The question of abortion's legality will go back to the states.

It is my understanding that the vast majority of abortions (~92%) occur in the first trimester (12 weeks), and I don't think many states will ban abortions this early. Presumably, most of the remaining 8% will happen earlier.

God forbid a "clump of cells" at 20 weeks can't be sucked out of a vacuum and have its brains poked out with a stick anymore in some states. California and New York will be systematically ramping up abortions, don't worry. It's not gone.

For a country of 300+ million, a contentious issue like abortion should've just gone to the local government in the first place. Roe v. Wade was bad law, from one the liberal justices herself - https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/

One of the issues with liberal interpretation of constitutional text is that you get to legislate from the judicial system, law be damned.

Well, I called it:


These are the laws allowing access to contraception and same sex relationships and marriage. Republicans just won't be happy until they have cameras in your bedroom and control over every aspect of your lives.

What a tragic day for America, Americans, and women everywhere.

The argument you made was "The US is one of only three countries that allow for abortions past 24 weeks", which I have proven is incorrect. Further, if you now want to make the argument that (some states in) the US, China and North Korea are the only places which allow for elective abortion past 24 weeks, then that is incorrect too, as you can see from the quote I provided above for Canada.

And again, the argument you made was that you "really don't see any valid argument as to why late-term abortions should be allowed". I provided a valid argument. Of course they are edge cases: Global data show that somewhere around 1% of abortions take place beyond 20 weeks and fewer than 0.1% beyond 24 weeks.

Sounds like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment, but regardless, here is the only passage in which the Bible actually mentions abortion:
So far from condemning or banning abortion, the Bible recommends it if the woman has been unfaithful.

All of the examples you cite allow for abortions in only limited circumstances. In the US, it is possible to have abortions for elective reasons. The two are not comparable.

You are referring to edge cases. Most late-term abortions do not meet this criteria. I also understand that there was language inserted into the bill that recently failed in the Senate that used "health complications" as a loophole that would effectively legalize abortions up to the moment of birth for elective reasons.

Any exception that allows for late-term abortions would need to meet a very high standard, such as the requirement that new information was discovered that was impossible to have been known prior to the threshold cutoff, and there being a substantial risk to the lift of the mother.

As a moral issue, performing a late-term abortion because there is a risk of health complication for the mother is doing something that is guaranteed to end a baby's life that merely reduces the risk to the mother's life, when it was not certain that the mother was going to die from the pregnancy.

The constitution has a means to be amended if there is the will of the people to amend it. If there is insufficient voter support to amend the consitutition, the only reasonable conclusion is that the people who are governed by the constitution have not consented to changing the consitutition.

This is a controversial question. Though Countries differ and States have different opinions on the said Topic. Let me start from the Biblical Allusion.

I believe most of the articles, sections and sub-sections in the Constitution are from the HOLY BOOKS, THE BIBLE AND THE QURAN. And these Holy Books prohibit abortion, because God told Abraham to multiply the world. So in the process of the Multiplication, the population became increase and the Economic resources could not equally distributed to all the citizens. So to reduce the population is to tell the citizens to do abortion.

Even at this, US Constitution will not Force citizens to do abortion, but for willing people in the various States.

Aye, that's all well, and good. However, and this is where it becomes a little bit confusing, and there really in my opinion isn't a right answer, but what if you're using birth control, protection, but you don't want to permanently tie the tubes or cut the important parts? No contraception is 100% effective, meaning that there's a small chance you might fall pregnant, and while most contraception is effective in the >95% range, that 1-5% chance is actually very large when you consider the amount of people. According to this:
that's a huge figure, and even if you take in 1% of that figure, that's like hundreds of thousands of potential unwanted pregnancies. That's huge, and those people were taking responsibility, and trying to avoid it.

While, I will definitely admit this is a rather moral grey area, I do tend to go along the lines of  what o_e_l_e_o was alluding too , and when the conscious specifically develops. I'm most definitely pro choice, up until that point. That amount of time, is usually enough for people to get an abortion without too many issues. However, the issue which a lot of people don't talk about (mainly because it's a horrible thought) is those stuck in abusive relationships, which might not be able to get an appointment to actually get it done before then, which I don't know the answer too, but it's an horrible thought that this very likely is happening.

You could argue that there's a way to up that protection even further by both partners using protection, and taking medication i.e the women takes birth control, and the man uses a condom. That would effectively bring that protection level up, however there will still be instances of unwanted pregnancy, despite taking that due diligence.

Unless, you're insisting that those that don't want children, commit to a period of celibacy, which could very well bring up its own problems. I'll leave that for another day, though.

I could not have said it better. I mean, literally can't.

This is just not true. Most Western countries allow abortion beyond 24 weeks in specific circumstances. Here are a handful I know off the top of my head:

New Zealand:
So it's perfectly fine for a woman to die from health complications as a result of her pregnancy?

So if it didn't exist in Philadelphia, 1787, then it's fair game?

The US is one of only three countries that allow for abortions past 24 weeks. The other two countries are China and North Korea.

As a moral issue, I really don't see any valid argument as to why late-term abortions should be allowed (dito with post-birth abortions). I understand the argument for earlier term abortions, and in most places, the support for early-term abortions is likely strong enough such that early-term abortions will remain legal.

As a constitutional issue, there is no basis to guarantee the "right" to have an abortion. There is a litany of other issues that the states use their police powers to regulate regarding behaviors that people do in their own homes and what people do in their doctor's office.

I don't have a clear position on this either. I am an atheist, so the moral objections of religious type on this subject do not go with me and I do not agree that it is 100% a matter of "my body my choice" because if we consider that in your body you carry a life it is no longer a matter of your own.

I also see hypocrisy in this on the part of conservative and religious people, because they are against abortion but, historically, there have been quite a few cases where they took their daughter to have an abortion in a place where it was legal, or even illegal, for getting pregnant before marriage. And let alone if the one who got her pregnant was black or someone not well regarded in their social circle. All this while defending the prohibition of abortion. I guess they then go to mass, go to confession and feel free of sin.

What I think is clear is the crux of the matter is where human life begins, and there I think we will never reach a consensus, because I do not think there is a line where one second before we can say that there is no life and one second after that life has already begun.


Although the scientific definition is a good way to try to establish a criterion to decide whether it is a life or not, I don't think it is the solution either. The cortex will develop in those weeks but the consciousness of self, that I am here and I am something different from the rest, that I exist, does not appear until months after birth, and, on the other hand, what do we do with those who want to abort after the 27th week? Do we also prohibit it? I am thinking of a young girl who has not told her parents because of fear, shame, etc. Do we forbid it and if she has an abortion, do we call her a murderer? And the young girl is not the only case I could give as an example.


I don't think it's a straw man argument. I do believe that in the debate no one raises the question of killing a child once it is born, but there are radical feminist positions that defend that abortion should be free until an instant before birth, then, he speaks of one month, but I propose to consider the argument of one day: to kill a baby one day before birth is an abortion and one day after is a murder? I don't see a line there, as I said before, I see more of a continuum on which it will be difficult to agree.

very supportive if it is held in the United States against the Constitution, especially regarding abortion, the freedom of the population to do so is highly respected there, that position becomes a reference for free sex there, cohabiting, we remember what happened to Will Smith's family who put forward the wife in home,  Indeed, some countries strongly oppose this abortion because it is not in accordance with religious norms, morals, state regulations, but why not?

I know this is controversial, but for me the choice stops when you decide that is no longer a bunch of cells with no conscience and becomes a human. At that moment, it passes from being a health decision / convenient decision / means tested decision / psychological health decision to killing a human.

When that potential human being is a human being? Endless arguments have been out there for ages. An embryo for me is not yet a human, just a potential human that has not yet a conscience nor anything like it. After a few weeks, I would hesitate saying that is not a human being.

As for who takes de decision: The mother makes her decision. The father will have time to make his own decisions about life as well.

There is something that looks quite hypocrite in those jurisdictions that actually say "you cannot unless is rape, incest...". Either killing is a crime or it is not. It does not depend if you are killing a human on the basis on how was created. That is my argument for free decision within a period of time.

     Abortion is such a sensitive topic specially to the people that are morally seeing it as wrong. But in my opinion, people should be given the right to do what they want since it is their body. That is if the reasoning is indeed right. But then again, unborn children also has the right to be born. I really think it depends on the perspective and where the person grew up like the environment, tradition and culture they were exposed in as to how they may see this either wrong or right. Either way, I think that with a good reason, I think it should be allowed.

Posting in this thread is very scary because this topic is complicated, the analysis from both parties is very strong and the participants are my mentors. I have really learnt a lot from this topic that has really change my mentality. Please permit me to share my humble thoughts.

My partner had an unwanted pregnancy two years ago and we had two options: Abort or keep the foetus. My decision was that I need to take full responsibility for my actions and inactions. Although not convenient, we kept the child.

In my own perspective, apart from rape cases, ignorance, health issues and other situations that risks the life of the mother, every man or woman must learn how to take full responsibility for  their actions. If you don't want a baby then use pregnancy prevention medications or protections.  

If someone is diagnosed as brain dead, then both medically and legally they are dead. We can keep their heart beating for decades, but that doesn't make the person alive.

Simply not true. A single cell is not a human being.

Obviously not, and constructing such a ridiculous strawman only weakens your position.

It isn't a human life, but calling pregnancy and the process of giving birth, and all the risks, complications, costs, and implications which come with them an "inconvenience" is incredibly naive.