Forum menu
On the contrary, if Americans now want abortion they get to vote on it.
Whereas before, if someone wanted one, they could have one. If they didn’t want one, they didn’t have to have one.
On the contrary, if Americans now want abortion they get to vote on it.
Well that's sorted then.
This is not driven by party politics. Its driven by religious fundamentalists. They want to make their superstitions apply to all of us.
I'd argue the opposite is true. It's republican fundamentalists using religion as a tool for control.
Having said that, ,this map demonstrates what a powerful tool religion is in the USA, compared to here*. People lap it up.
*Well, the EU.
And correlate that religion map to the insta-ban states.
And, er, Gilead...
No it isn’t, this decision allows states to override local democracy. It empowers state legislators to overturn decisions made at the local level.
Whereas before the federal courts could overturn all local decisions re abortion.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.
The US is a federal republic made up of a union of states.
Whereas before, if someone wanted one, they could have one. If they didn’t want one, they didn’t have to have one.
Not many countries treat abortion like buying a tin of beans. Even in the UK we have laws that restrict abortion.
It’s republican fundamentalists using religion as a tool for control.
Is it possible to be a republican fundamentalist?
I thought that was something applied to religion?
I'd say the two are becoming increasingly difficult to separate in the US central state / republican politics.
America #1, fundamentalist Christian poorer Republican states
America #2, secular coastal generally more affluent Democrat states
Is it possible to be a republican fundamentalist?
Well, I dunno. Perhaps? Maybe I meant Republican Extremist. Someone that takes Republican traits and keeps pressing ENHANCE.
The point was supposed to be that Roe vs Wade isn't about religion at all. It's about political oppression in the name of religion - I.e. it's all just politics. The culture war is the librul coastal elites vs 'Christian values'.
Here, we have benefit scroungers vs toffs and lately remoaners vs racists for our culture war.
Not many countries treat abortion like buying a tin of beans. Even in the UK we have laws that restrict abortion.
Do you think what has happened in the states is a good thing, or are you just wanting a debate for funsies?
Even in the UK we have laws that restrict abortion.
Well, yes. I'm fully of the opinion that the six-year old feral horror down the road should be aborted, nasty little ****er that she is. Fortunately for her, abortion in the 24th trimester is legislated against.
Sarcasm aside there has to be safeguarding of course. But as I think someone else here said, outlawing abortion simply restricts safe abortion. The US of all places should understand all too well how effective prohibition is.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue.
That this decision empowers the state legislature in what has been a long hard complicated battle between local governments and state governments. I think your confusion is that you are using "local" where what you really mean is "state"... which does sort of suggest you don't really know what you're talking about as regards levels of government in the USA, or the parts they have played in the battle to deny/allow young women to make difficult choices without fear of the law.
It’s republican fundamentalists using religion as a tool for control.
enlisting single issue voters to vote for them has been a Republican tactic for decades now, Gun control, Religion govt, abortion, equality...It's been pretty successful. (see Trump and the evangelical right)
Sarcasm aside there has to be safeguarding of course. But as I think someone else here said, outlawing abortion simply restricts safe abortion. The US of all places should understand all too well how effective prohibition is.
IMHO it's one of those wicked problems; there is probably no right answer. OTOH when abortion was made a protected right in the US, and this seems to be the same in many western countries, abortions were supposed to be for pathos-ridden 'special cases': the 16-year-old, the rape victim, the incest victim, the very poor women, etc. Now you can go into a family planning clinic and be advised to get an abortion right off the bat because not everything is perfect in your life, or it's simply inconvenient to be pregnant, for example.
The 'pro-choice' argument total erases that a fetus, a baby, a something is collateral in that choice to terminate.
Kelvin - that's just sophism. Roe vs Wade empowered nobody but the federal government to decree that abortion could not be prohibited. Now the decision rests with the state. That there are more local legislatures than the state does not mean that the matter has not now been localised, i.e., at the state level from the federal level. Clearly, and obviously, the state is not absolutely the smallest (and thus most local) form of government, but it is more local that the federal government.
Now you can go into a family planning clinic and be advised to get an abortion right off the bat because not everything is perfect in your life
What??
That is an appallingly value laden statement.
that’s just sophism
No, it isn’t. It is understanding that the battle between local government (which is what it is called in the USA, a general term used across the states, because there are localised names and structures that vary between states and regions) and state legislature is absolutely key in this. States can now overturn decisions made by local government, where as before local government could use federal law to fight for their own decisions to be upheld.
where as before local government could use federal law to fight for their own decisions to be upheld.
Technically, although in reality the decision to allow abortion was a federal one.
If, as you say, local government was able to make the decisions on abortion then why didn't some ban it?
The ability to only make one decision isn't a decision.
They made decisions on access and restrictions. Local government in the USA tends to be more independent (often literally, as in not party affiliated) reflecting what their voters call for, rather than what those with a stranglehold on the Republican Party want, which is the case at the state level in many cases. Most people in America want abortion to be legal and as safe as possible but with safe guards and some restrictions in place.
@Kelvin do you have a source saying that local government had sovereignty over abortion restrictions vis a vis the state after the first trimester?
The ‘pro-choice’ argument total erases that a fetus, a baby, a something is collateral in that choice to terminate.
So outlaw contraception next? I mean effective contraception erases that foetus too.
Hell, go a step further and outlaw male self-pleasure.
Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great.
Some local governments acting to restrict access before this decision, just for you Mr Cake… (sovereignty doesn’t come into it, nothing in the USA is ever that simple)…
@chewk
I find ‘karma’ to be problematic in regards to reincarnation.
Some would argue that your spirit guides may present you with a number of alternative life’s to select from, prior to reincarnation.
That means that the lives you de-select will be available to other souls.
A lot of the pitfalls/ opportunities in these lives may be completely irrelevant to both you and your peers.
So how does karma come into play?
“Oh dude, bad karma, falling off your skateboard”.
But that would have happened to any of the umpteen candidates for that life, regardless of their actions in previous incarnations.
Others would argue that once we select a life, we spend some time, tailoring and tweaking that life to our delectation.
Some things we can’t change, and others we can.
It may be that what we can change before we incarnate are our proclivities to all manner of things, via all the junk dna inside humans.
So, we may like or dislike certain kinds of music, forms of transport, etc.
This applies to our peers too, mutually steering each other in certain directions.
As for souls, incarnating into possibly aborted foetuses?
I don’t think so.
They will be aware that the foetus will be aborted, and thus not select it.
There’s nothing really there, unless the soul interacts with it over the whole nine months.
And that’s quite an involved process of activating all kinds of brain functions.
And we have lift off…
They say that for an incarnate soul, the process of childbirth is more traumatic than that of death.
I think the problem for the lawmakers in America is that it’s not karma they have to deal with.
Skank is distributed fairly evenly across all socioeconomic and ethnic groups.
What’s not so evenly distributed is freedom of opportunity.
Taking the decision making powers out of those without basic economic means is a two-way street.
All that those at the bottom economic rungs have to offer is their inner skank.
It gets soaked up.
Whether in this life or the next, they’ll find themselves drawn to increasingly cruddier life outcomes through manipulation of the junk dna to engender certain valences.
I wouldn’t interact with those at the lower sociological rungs, unless to boost their choices.
To me, having kids is the same as kidnapping a bunch of souls who may have been chilling and kicking back in the spirit realm.
No matter how you dress it up, it’s a form of abduction.
It’s all about how tolerable (quality of life), you make it🤪
You're aware that's local government further restricting abortion in contrast to the gist of your argument above which framed local government as uniformly liberal and now at the mercy of tyrannous Republic state legislatures?
Anyway, I'm a bit unclear about whether local government restricts abortion within limits determined by the state, or they are sovereign on the matter now. It's still a moot point IMHO anyway because both are closer to the people than the federal government.
framed local government as uniformly liberal
I made no such claim.
or they are sovereign on the matter now
Stop trying to over simplify the laws and governance of a country you know so little about.
I shouldn’t have engaged you on this, it’ll never go anywhere interesting. Sorry.
Stop trying to over simplify the laws and governance of a country you know so little about.
I shouldn’t have engaged you on this, it’ll never go anywhere interesting. Sorry.
You're just obfuscating now because there's confusion about whether state or local government has particular powers when it comes to abortion.
I made no such claim.
You did implicitly. Roe vs Wade only 'protected' pro-choice local government, if it did at all. So how could it fundamentally protect local democracy?
because there’s confusion about whether state or local government has particular powers when it comes to abortion
Correct. It’s never been cut or dry, it’s been a constant political and legal battle, and this decision has moved things towards state governments, and away from local governments, as I said.
IMHO it’s one of those wicked problems; there is probably no right answer.
Except, there is, really. Because if you outlaw it then you're not banning abortions, you're banning safe abortions. Anyone sufficiently determined to have one is now going to be up a back street with a bottle of Jack and a wire coat-hanger. You might disagree with abortion on principle and that's fine, but the alternative is far far worse.
Now you can go into a family planning clinic and be advised to get an abortion right off the bat because not everything is perfect in your life, or it’s simply inconvenient to be pregnant, for example.
And this is, frankly, either mind-bendingly myopic or just plain ****ing offensive.
Abortion isn't a lazy form of contraception, it's a massively traumatic process. No woman in the history of ever thinks like this. "To do list: buy grapes; pop in for an abortion; meet Frank for brunch."
I've never been pregnant in a US clinic but I highly doubt that an abortion is something that anyone would "advise." Could be wrong.
The ‘pro-choice’ argument total erases that a fetus, a baby, a something is collateral in that choice to terminate.
This is the age-old argument (dressed up in emotive language), at what point is it "life" rather than "a bunch of cells"? The point of conception, sperm meets egg, is that a "baby"? As Graham said on the previous page, by that logic I'm a mass murderer every time I ejaculate without conceiving (and indeed, still a mass murderer -1 if I do). My partner has a collateral damage baby once a month, what do you propose there, mandatory insemination?
This is reductio ad absurdum of course, but my point is that this isn't as trivial to define as you seem to think.
@Cougar, as much as I enjoy the ‘every sperm is sacred’ argument, it’s not massively valid, as conception is the point at which the religious think life is created. I (along with the majority of people I like to think) tend to be a little more pragmatic about the subject and think that whether ‘life begins’ at conception or not is irrelevant, as it a) is not viable outwith it’s uterine enclosure, and b) it has no consciousness or awareness of its own existence, so far as we can tell. From this understanding I am totally comfortable with terminations happening in the first 20 weeks, and progressively less comfortable after that. I also recognise that the mothers right to life and good health should ALWAYS trump that of the unborn ‘potential human’. Again it just makes pragmatic sense as much as anything; the mother can easily survive without the foetus, the foetus cannot survive without the mother.
Finally, I am also of the opinion that whilst I have every right to hold my opinions, they are far less important than those of people who have uteruses, and absolutely of no importance compared to those who have uteruses that are currently in active use. It’s their call, not mine.
i_scoff_cake
Free MemberIMHO it’s one of those wicked problems; there is probably no right answer
IMO this is almost but in fact not at all the case. Intellectually, morally, there's no one right answer, there are many legitimate lines to take
But in reality, there is, because in practice banning abortion only bans safe abortion. And the people who are banning abortion also want to reduce healthcare access, access to contraception, and sex education, poverty, and state funding- all of the things that would actually reduce abortion. The nice intellectual argument of grey areas and perfect balances falls apart when introduced to the real world of interlinked agendas and bad faith arguing and religious fundamentalism.
I support womans' bodily autonomy, with minimal restriction. But I can respect and appreciate the position of people who want a greater restriction on abortion- as long as they do so with some logic and credibility. In reality the loud voices who make these things happen are not worthy of respect. They're supreme court judges who lie in selection, they're "pro lifers" who don't care if you get shot at school or die of sepsis, they're hypocrites in pretty much every way on this issue. The people who are making good arguments and who are worthy at least of respect, are pretty much never the people actually changing the law or leading the charge. Though they are often the people who vote for the hypocrites.
This is the age-old argument (dressed up in emotive language), at what point is it “life” rather than “a bunch of cells”?
Sure but framing a fetus or baby as a 'bunch of cells' is no less strategic in that the objective is to substitute an ethical conundrum with technical indifference.
Couldn't any living person also be framed as a 'bunch of cells'? Anyway, as said below the ethics of abortion are more pressing the longer the pregnancy goes on. The bunch of cells, fetus, baby, etc., becomes more worthy of protection the closer it gets to birth.
They’re supreme court judges who lie in selection, they’re “pro lifers” who don’t care if you get shot at school or die of sepsis, they’re hypocrites in pretty much every way on this issue.
I don't think that's fair at all. Their values are perfectly intelligible. There is no contradiction between a right to life vs a right to health care. A right to life is the prerequisite of liberty whereby one is free to get health insurance or not according to one's own preference. This is the individualism that's baked into the constitution.
I also recognise that the mothers right to life and good health should ALWAYS trump that of the unborn ‘potential human’. Again it just makes pragmatic sense as much as anything; the mother can easily survive without the foetus, the foetus cannot survive without the mother.
No parent ever had better health by having and raising kids. No baby can survive without a caregiver, indeed many teens wouldn't.
I don’t think that’s fair at all.
Two of the judges actually said in their conformation hearings that they'd not be looking to overturn a settled opinion, and when offered that chance, they both changed their minds in line with their registered parties position on the matter. That would appear to be on the face of it; (or implied, as you argued earlier) that they are hypocrites or lairs.
They may have misled but I'm not sure they outright lied.
Besides, stare decisis seems like a terrible legal doctrine when used as an absolute. It would mean the law is forever locked into bad decisions, which just compound. It can't self-correct.
No parent ever had better health by having and raising kids.
That’s just bollocks quite frankly. Before kids I drank like a fish, ate crap and stayed up until all hours. Not the case since having them. I now look after myself more so that I’m capable of looking after my kids. Carrying an eight year old around on your shoulders is also a great workout.
They may have misled but I’m not sure they outright lied.
Implied...wasn't that the argument you made up the page? Judge Roberts calls overturning a settled matter "A jolt to the system that requires in part, openness and even-handedness".
It would mean the law is forever locked into bad decisions
That argument presupposes that the availability of safe abortion to all women who require it is a bad decision. The SC have no opinion on that, only that it shouldn't be federal law.
as much as I enjoy the ‘every sperm is sacred’ argument, it’s not massively valid
Yes, of course it's not. But if we take religion out of the equation - which we should - then the point is that if we are to have any hope of legislating for or against then then we have to define terms. Which is inherently difficult.
Finally, I am also of the opinion that whilst I have every right to hold my opinions, they are far less important than those of people who have uteruses, and absolutely of no importance compared to those who have uteruses that are currently in active use. It’s their call, not mine.
100%.
Also, everything Northwind said.
framing a fetus or baby as a ‘bunch of cells’ is no less strategic
That works both ways.
@funkmasterp What works for you will not work for everyone else and it is simplistic to assume so.
I see scotus have now also outlawed federal environmental protection.
Given the logic of both these two decisions appears to be that if it isn't mandated in the constitution then the federal government is overreaching in applying law nationwide, it is hard to see much federal law actually surviving.
Literally laying the groundwork for a dissolution of the Union. Wow.
Literally laying the groundwork for a dissolution of the Union. Wow.
Seems the only "logical" outcome - race to Fort Knox?
I think a few people on the trump thread suggested that the US is in danger of splitting in half via policy.
Nevermind the gun toting supermarket shoppers
Seems the only “logical” outcome
The other logical outcome is that laws can be at the federal level only if Republican judges support them. So plenty of federal law, but not if it’s from the Democrats. So the USA can hold together, but there’s little point electing Democrats at the national level. That is where this is going. “Republicans make things happen at the national level, Democrats are weak and ineffective.”
@funkmasterp What works for you will not work for everyone else and it is simplistic to assume so.
I was simply countering the previous assumption made by cake. Highlighting the stupidity of his statement by making an equally stupid one myself. See, two can talk absolute shite!
Also this
I have every right to hold my opinions, they are far less important than those of people who have uteruses, and absolutely of no importance compared to those who have uteruses that are currently in active use. It’s their call, not mine.