Is the word "abortion" specifically stated in the current constitution and its amendment? If not, then it's not protected by the (current) constitution. You guys can make an amendment anyway to include abortion. Just like the 13th (slavery), 15th & 19th (right to vote).
Why it's a big deal?
Topic: USA Bans the right to abortion - page 4. (Read 884 times)
So what you are telling me is that someone on a forum, on the internet, read some headline, and misinterprets it (let's say it was not deliberate), and never got deeper into it? I am shocked. Truly I am. Anyway, people being people, only want to confirm their perceptions and biases, never wanting to look just a tad bit deeper. But I guess it was always like that, we just didn't have the internet to show us that XD
Knee-jerk reactions are the profoundest thinking most people are capable of.
USA Bans the right to abortion
There is no right to abortion. Rather, it's a wrong. The US simply recognized it, finally.
There is no right to abortion. Rather, it's a wrong. The US simply recognized it, finally.
The woman has the right to choose whether to become a mother or not, especially since the decision to become pregnant was not and cannot be unilateral as long as the presence of a male is obligatory for the operation to take place.
Making a counter-argument for the sake of discussion... The man has to make this decision prior to having sex. I would think that a feminist or anyone pushing equal rights would hold women to this same standard, right? The man has to decide before having sex if he wants to risk becoming a father for this action. Why should women get the right to decide later on, but men do not? Does a man have less rights than a woman when it comes to deciding if they want to be a parent? Making matters worse, the child support system heavily leans to the mother, who can force the father out of their child's life while making them pay to support them for 18 years. Seems anti-feminist and anti-equal rights to me.
Actually, the issue can be discussed from this side as well.
Men are abolished and we do not actually hear from them, perhaps because the mother is the one who carries out pregnancy, breastfeeding and most of the basic functions and almost most of the complicated cases in which the woman is the direct victim or the number one concerned.
There is a point that I would like to mention, which is that despite the existence of legislation prohibiting abortion in almost most societies, including the most open societies, reports speak of large numbers of abortions that take place outside legal frameworks and may not be in appropriate health conditions at all, in addition to cases that the statistics could not include, which I think are much larger. Is it not the duty of lawmakers to take this factor into account as well?
Your post is false and misleading, at best. More realistically, it is propaganda.
The SCOTUS correctly read the constitution and found that the constitution does not give the right for people to get abortions. States now can use their police powers to regulate and restrict abortions in accordance with their own state constitutions for making laws.
For the majority of abortions, nothing will change.
The SCOTUS correctly read the constitution and found that the constitution does not give the right for people to get abortions. States now can use their police powers to regulate and restrict abortions in accordance with their own state constitutions for making laws.
For the majority of abortions, nothing will change.
I was thinking the same thing. USA didn’t ban abortions at all. People are acting like it’s the end of the world for states to be able to make this decision instead of it being a federal issue. I think it’s a win in my book anytime the federal government steps back and allows states to do their own governing. I think they should take this approach to many other issues as well. The less federal government the better for basically everything except the military.
So what you are telling me is that someone on a forum, on the internet, read some headline, and misinterprets it (let's say it was not deliberate), and never got deeper into it? I am shocked. Truly I am. Anyway, people being people, only want to confirm their perceptions and biases, never wanting to look just a tad bit deeper. But I guess it was always like that, we just didn't have the internet to show us that XD
It is not just the OP that is making this "mistake". There are many people repeating this lie. Your post is false and misleading, at best. More realistically, it is propaganda.
The SCOTUS correctly read the constitution and found that the constitution does not give the right for people to get abortions. States now can use their police powers to regulate and restrict abortions in accordance with their own state constitutions for making laws.
For the majority of abortions, nothing will change.
The SCOTUS correctly read the constitution and found that the constitution does not give the right for people to get abortions. States now can use their police powers to regulate and restrict abortions in accordance with their own state constitutions for making laws.
For the majority of abortions, nothing will change.
Well lets see the constitution bans slaves correct or am I wrong ?
So under many new state laws a dad can rape his 14 year old daughter and the daughter is forced to carry to term.
Or am I misinterpreting texas law on abortion and the 13th admendment.
I would say that any law from any state that forces a child to carry the child placed within them by an act of rape by their own brother or father is a law that is practicing a new slavery.
There are many options available for women who were raped, including the Plan B pill. Any attempts to prevent a woman from traveling to another state would be unconstitutional. Further, state legislators are accountable to the people they represent, so if they pass (or fail to pass) laws that do not reflect the will of the people, they can be held accountable at the ballot box.
The woman has the right to choose whether to become a mother or not, especially since the decision to become pregnant was not and cannot be unilateral as long as the presence of a male is obligatory for the operation to take place.
Making a counter-argument for the sake of discussion... The man has to make this decision prior to having sex. I would think that a feminist or anyone pushing equal rights would hold women to this same standard, right? The man has to decide before having sex if he wants to risk becoming a father for this action. Why should women get the right to decide later on, but men do not? Does a man have less rights than a woman when it comes to deciding if they want to be a parent? Making matters worse, the child support system heavily leans to the mother, who can force the father out of their child's life while making them pay to support them for 18 years. Seems anti-feminist and anti-equal rights to me.
Those who argue that women who have been raped and did not decide to carry a child will be effected by this... Maybe you should re-read the laws and consider living somewhere that you want to live.
I find that you have all the convincing arguments to diffuse the issue in a more philosophical aspect. I/we are not saying that the scientific community is able to provide facts, since we are still not really able to determine the meaning of death, i.e. when the body turns into a corpse. All that science offers are theoretical interpretations, just as it does with all theoretical sciences. From this point of view, it is inevitable for us to acknowledge the most compatible result and act on it.
And if legalizing abortion may lead to complications at the level of legislation, then laws can be specified to describe the specific cases in which abortion can take place without allowing this to happen on the basis of classification.
I am now trying to present ideas with you because I find the subject interesting, frankly, and I am not going to defend a private point of view, but I support you in almost everything you went to in your analysis.
Thanks again
I would like to first thank you for the time you took to craft this answer.
Secondly, I found many good points in your interpretation.
Let's take the example of a couple who decide to have children and during the first weeks of pregnancy they have lost all their money and decided that the person who will be born will suffer in their upbringing, why continue an experiment that is clearly going to fail?
The bill is supposed to not be biased to one party over the other.
Secondly, I found many good points in your interpretation.
Let me recap. The important part that could make abortion an okay thing is the absolute proof that a new life is not a person before such and such a time. Since there isn't any proof, but only judgmental guesses, we just don't know that abortions are not murders, at any stage.
I think the problem can be confined to the medical consensus that the fetus becomes alive, for example, when its heart begins to beat (this is only for example) and a law is formulated on a scientific basis under the guidance of the scientific community. And if we recognized the right of one person to life, why would we cancel the right of another person to make effort and time that he may not be able to to take care of a child?Let's take the example of a couple who decide to have children and during the first weeks of pregnancy they have lost all their money and decided that the person who will be born will suffer in their upbringing, why continue an experiment that is clearly going to fail?
The bill is supposed to not be biased to one party over the other.
Consensus does not make truth. There are many scientific and medical consensuses that have been overturned when the truth came to light. A simple one is the belief that there were canals on Mars. Another is the Theory of Relativity, which does not work regarding all microscopic physics, though most people aren't aware of this. A current one is that Covid is a pandemic in virus form, when it's really a media pandemic.
Although it is unlikely that we will be executed for having an IQ of under 190, such a thing might become the norm at a distant future. But when you are 80-y-o, do you want to be in fear of being euthanized simply for being 80? Because we don't know if the faulty consensus is the truth or not, why are you so willing to die when you might be in the best of health? I mean, the laws might become such, if abortion is made easier.
Further, since we are dealing with the life of a person, it's the promise being held in trust when the parents get together. Of course, science uses their metaphysical soul/spirit/mind to say that there isn't any metaphysical, so it seems right to them. For the parents, why not use contraceptives? And if they are worried about wealth circumstances, things change backward and forward, and they can make it work a different way, without taking the chance of murdering their own offspring.
I would like to first thank you for the time you took to craft this answer.
Secondly, I found many good points in your interpretation.
Let's take the example of a couple who decide to have children and during the first weeks of pregnancy they have lost all their money and decided that the person who will be born will suffer in their upbringing, why continue an experiment that is clearly going to fail?
The bill is supposed to not be biased to one party over the other.
Secondly, I found many good points in your interpretation.
Let me recap. The important part that could make abortion an okay thing is the absolute proof that a new life is not a person before such and such a time. Since there isn't any proof, but only judgmental guesses, we just don't know that abortions are not murders, at any stage.
I think the problem can be confined to the medical consensus that the fetus becomes alive, for example, when its heart begins to beat (this is only for example) and a law is formulated on a scientific basis under the guidance of the scientific community. And if we recognized the right of one person to life, why would we cancel the right of another person to make effort and time that he may not be able to to take care of a child?Let's take the example of a couple who decide to have children and during the first weeks of pregnancy they have lost all their money and decided that the person who will be born will suffer in their upbringing, why continue an experiment that is clearly going to fail?
The bill is supposed to not be biased to one party over the other.
Honestly, I did not expect this to come from a country the size and stature of the United States. The issuance of this law is a clear and explicit violation of a universal principle, which is human freedom and his right to choose.
The woman has the right to choose whether to become a mother or not, especially since the decision to become pregnant was not and cannot be unilateral as long as the presence of a male is obligatory for the operation to take place.
Before the fetus reaches the age of three months, I think that the mother has the right to abandon the idea for any reason, even if she initially wanted.
For religious systems to be prohibited by divine order, this is somewhat reprehensible since God cannot be discussed, but in man-made systems, I do not understand why many legislations insist on codifying this matter. Is the state really responsible for what happens in the vaginas of female citizens?
The woman has the right to choose whether to become a mother or not, especially since the decision to become pregnant was not and cannot be unilateral as long as the presence of a male is obligatory for the operation to take place.
Before the fetus reaches the age of three months, I think that the mother has the right to abandon the idea for any reason, even if she initially wanted.
For religious systems to be prohibited by divine order, this is somewhat reprehensible since God cannot be discussed, but in man-made systems, I do not understand why many legislations insist on codifying this matter. Is the state really responsible for what happens in the vaginas of female citizens?
Whatever the legal points might have been for the abortion ban, the basic point, legal or non-legal, is that after conception there is a new person. The first 9 months, usually inside the body of the mother, are simply a stage in the life of a person. Why? Because it is judgmental to suggest when the new life becomes a person. Nobody has proof for when. So abortion (if there is death) could be murder. Let's err on the side of caution, and not potentially kill a person.
Why is this important to both, those in favor and those against abortion? Because, since there isn't any proof for when a new life becomes a person, legalized abortion based on it not being a person yet, is really saying that "government" has a right to decide who is eligible to be called a person at any stage of life.
This means that anybody could be euthanized just because a governing body decides that such and such a person is not really a person, but is simply a lump of excess cellular tissues.
Let me recap. The important part that could make abortion an okay thing is the absolute proof that a new life is not a person before such and such a time. Since there isn't any proof, but only judgmental guesses, we just don't know that abortions are not murders, at any stage.
And again, why is that important for you? Because someday somebody might legalize the death of excess tissues, based on its IQ of less than 190. That would mean that you and I and most of the people on the planet would be simple cannon fodder, simple excess tissues, to be exterminated without any kind of due process or rights. Do you really want to be in that position? The new life in Mommy's tummy doesn't want death without proof, either. How do we know? Because he or she is growing faster than at any other time of life. They want life, not death.
Honestly, I did not expect this to come from a country the size and stature of the United States. The issuance of this law is a clear and explicit violation of a universal principle, which is human freedom and his right to choose.
The woman has the right to choose whether to become a mother or not, especially since the decision to become pregnant was not and cannot be unilateral as long as the presence of a male is obligatory for the operation to take place.
Before the fetus reaches the age of three months, I think that the mother has the right to abandon the idea for any reason, even if she initially wanted.
For religious systems to be prohibited by divine order, this is somewhat reprehensible since God cannot be discussed, but in man-made systems, I do not understand why many legislations insist on codifying this matter. Is the state really responsible for what happens in the vaginas of female citizens?
The woman has the right to choose whether to become a mother or not, especially since the decision to become pregnant was not and cannot be unilateral as long as the presence of a male is obligatory for the operation to take place.
Before the fetus reaches the age of three months, I think that the mother has the right to abandon the idea for any reason, even if she initially wanted.
For religious systems to be prohibited by divine order, this is somewhat reprehensible since God cannot be discussed, but in man-made systems, I do not understand why many legislations insist on codifying this matter. Is the state really responsible for what happens in the vaginas of female citizens?
Restricting abortion is preferable. When it comes to ban it means the will high population density coupled with the high inflation and economic crisis everywhere. This restriction will save lives because some abortions are done at a late state of the pregnancy where the life of the woman is at high risk although it is not wise to do this abortion in the first place but for sure a ban will result in uncontrollable population
Your post is false and misleading, at best. More realistically, it is propaganda.
The SCOTUS correctly read the constitution and found that the constitution does not give the right for people to get abortions. States now can use their police powers to regulate and restrict abortions in accordance with their own state constitutions for making laws.
For the majority of abortions, nothing will change.
The SCOTUS correctly read the constitution and found that the constitution does not give the right for people to get abortions. States now can use their police powers to regulate and restrict abortions in accordance with their own state constitutions for making laws.
For the majority of abortions, nothing will change.
Well lets see the constitution bans slaves correct or am I wrong ?
So under many new state laws a dad can rape his 14 year old daughter and the daughter is forced to carry to term.
Or am I misinterpreting texas law on abortion and the 13th admendment.
I would say that any law from any state that forces a child to carry the child placed within them by an act of rape by their own brother or father is a law that is practicing a new slavery.
Abortion is almost similar to killing an ingrown infant because as from the knowledge I have the process is something like taking the baby into pieces which we call it as an abortion, anyway women have the rights to decide what they can but I don't know whether its okay for us to take a baby into pieces? Probably we should need more advancement to abort the child which isn't that much brutal as of now.
Your post is false and misleading, at best. More realistically, it is propaganda.
The SCOTUS correctly read the constitution and found that the constitution does not give the right for people to get abortions. States now can use their police powers to regulate and restrict abortions in accordance with their own state constitutions for making laws.
For the majority of abortions, nothing will change.
The SCOTUS correctly read the constitution and found that the constitution does not give the right for people to get abortions. States now can use their police powers to regulate and restrict abortions in accordance with their own state constitutions for making laws.
For the majority of abortions, nothing will change.
So what you are telling me is that someone on a forum, on the internet, read some headline, and misinterprets it (let's say it was not deliberate), and never got deeper into it? I am shocked. Truly I am. Anyway, people being people, only want to confirm their perceptions and biases, never wanting to look just a tad bit deeper. But I guess it was always like that, we just didn't have the internet to show us that XD
Your post is false and misleading, at best. More realistically, it is propaganda.
The SCOTUS correctly read the constitution and found that the constitution does not give the right for people to get abortions. States now can use their police powers to regulate and restrict abortions in accordance with their own state constitutions for making laws.
For the majority of abortions, nothing will change.
The SCOTUS correctly read the constitution and found that the constitution does not give the right for people to get abortions. States now can use their police powers to regulate and restrict abortions in accordance with their own state constitutions for making laws.
For the majority of abortions, nothing will change.
I was thinking the same thing. USA didn’t ban abortions at all. People are acting like it’s the end of the world for states to be able to make this decision instead of it being a federal issue. I think it’s a win in my book anytime the federal government steps back and allows states to do their own governing. I think they should take this approach to many other issues as well. The less federal government the better for basically everything except the military.
Your post is false and misleading, at best. More realistically, it is propaganda.
The SCOTUS correctly read the constitution and found that the constitution does not give the right for people to get abortions. States now can use their police powers to regulate and restrict abortions in accordance with their own state constitutions for making laws.
For the majority of abortions, nothing will change.
The SCOTUS correctly read the constitution and found that the constitution does not give the right for people to get abortions. States now can use their police powers to regulate and restrict abortions in accordance with their own state constitutions for making laws.
For the majority of abortions, nothing will change.
I'm quite funny seeing how the law is in the US.
abortion = killing, indeed everyone has full rights over their bodies but is killing something that should be justified?
Previously I was also concerned about seeing LGBT people being removed from mental disorders....
abortion = killing, indeed everyone has full rights over their bodies but is killing something that should be justified?
Previously I was also concerned about seeing LGBT people being removed from mental disorders....
It's official, USA is banning the right for women to have an abortion, revoking Roe v. Wade (1973), a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States generally protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion. We're practically running 50 years behind, something that was fought for in the past is now banned, a right that many developing countries are fighting for (In India for instance, it's only allowed for very specific cases and is often overlooked).
Honestly, I'd never expect the USA to revoke such a right, we're not in the 19th century anymore, but yet, the U.S. Supreme Court is revoking such rights, with over 13 states quickly adopting the ban.
Today it's abortion, tomorrow it could be something else, like LGBT rights or who knows what else.
What's your take on this matter?
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/24/global-reaction-roe-abortion-supreme-court/
https://news.trust.org/item/20201231112641-qfynt/
Honestly, I'd never expect the USA to revoke such a right, we're not in the 19th century anymore, but yet, the U.S. Supreme Court is revoking such rights, with over 13 states quickly adopting the ban.
Today it's abortion, tomorrow it could be something else, like LGBT rights or who knows what else.
What's your take on this matter?
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/24/global-reaction-roe-abortion-supreme-court/
https://news.trust.org/item/20201231112641-qfynt/
Jump to: