FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Roe vs Wade
Roe vs Wade
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *alice OP Woman
over a year ago
Birmingham |
What a terrible day for women, as the Surpreme Court overturns a 50 year old ruling giving women fundamental agency over their bodies.
Abortions now look set to be made illegal in as many as half of US states. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Part of me is celebrating, because Roe v Wade was a terrible legal argument and deserved to be struck down (it was based on the idea that abortion control violated a woman's right to privacy).
The other part of me is upset that US women have lost one of rights, but optimistic that a proper campaign will be mounted, and a proper new law will be put in place to allow them to control their lives.
Interesting times ahead I think. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It isa election year the judges and politicians have to stir the pot before elections. SCOTUS just kicked it back to each individual state and their politicians and constituents. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"What a terrible day for women, as the Surpreme Court overturns a 50 year old ruling giving women fundamental agency over their bodies.
Abortions now look set to be made illegal in as many as half of US states."
Basically within 30 days, it will be illegal in 26 states…. The other thing is that a whole bunch of states have no exemptions for sexual assault or health of the mother
Basically every pregnancy becomes a matter of public record and every miscarriage becomes a cause for suspicion…
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
So women in states affected by the decision may now not be able to cross state lines if pregnant and suspected they are seeking an abortion. Abortion will also become a felony in some states with lengthy prison sentences.
Such a sad day for women's reproductive rights, brought to us by the United States of Gilead. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Part of me is celebrating, because Roe v Wade was a terrible legal argument and deserved to be struck down (it was based on the idea that abortion control violated a woman's right to privacy).
The other part of me is upset that US women have lost one of rights, but optimistic that a proper campaign will be mounted, and a proper new law will be put in place to allow them to control their lives.
Interesting times ahead I think."
How nice to be a man and get to "celebrate" something that will harm millions of women because you don't like the quality of the legal argument  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This one is gonna open up a big can of worms"
Yes it will. We were discussing it last night with friends.Its like another way of controlling the votes in each state. Basically if you don't like our state you can move. It goes both ways for both parties. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How nice to be a man and get to "celebrate" something that will harm millions of women because you don't like the quality of the legal argument"
Perhaps you should read all of my post, not just the bit that triggers you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *iam2358Man
over a year ago
Edinburgh |
Not quite sure you should celebrate? Agreed the legal basis of Roe was weak (not terrible) and had no substantial foundation, but the overturning of a weak legal basis is not worthy celebration in of itself. (Studied the US constitution for a year). This is going to take the USA years to put right - and that's assuming a two term Democratic President. Let us hope that the federal government can secure funding for those women and girls who need to travel to other states. A shameful state of affairs completely out of line with modern values. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Just heard a an American anti abortion person on the radio. When the presenter challenged him about woman who had been r*ped being forced to have the r*pists baby.
His response was this law will reduce r*pes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago
Longridge |
"What a terrible day for women, as the Surpreme Court overturns a 50 year old ruling giving women fundamental agency over their bodies.
Abortions now look set to be made illegal in as many as half of US states."
Does if not make you glad to be British not American today.
Like everything else screwed upmin the US, they vote for it, they get what they pay.
Just wait until a church going, flat earther American tries to convince you God made the planet in a week, 20,000 year ago.
You'll quickly realise why.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just heard a an American anti abortion person on the radio. When the presenter challenged him about woman who had been r*ped being forced to have the r*pists baby.
His response was this law will reduce r*pes."
Some seriously fucked up thinking, what a mess and all to appease a minority of one side of a divided country which affects so many..
Backwards.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not quite sure you should celebrate? Agreed the legal basis of Roe was weak (not terrible) and had no substantial foundation, but the overturning of a weak legal basis is not worthy celebration in of itself."
I think it is. It's been a pet peeve of mine for years now.
In my opinion, Roe v Wade has held back discussion of women's rights for years. No one was forced to face the issue head-on because there was this spurious idea that it was 'constitutionally protected privacy'. Now everyone will be forced to look at the issue, and come to some agreement as to whether religious dogma should rule, or whether women have fundamental rights over their own bodies.
I'm guessing that this is going to be the single issue that the next presidency is based on. Given that recent pools say that 70% of the US population are in favour of abortion rights, the Republicans might have to start rethinking their position if they want to win the presidency. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Crazy stuff for 2022
As someone who has been very fortunate and grateful to receive kind and compassionate abortion care when I have needed it in this country, I feel terribly sorry for American women  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Crazy stuff for 2022
As someone who has been very fortunate and grateful to receive kind and compassionate abortion care when I have needed it in this country, I feel terribly sorry for American women "
Not every woman it's up to the states to decide. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Ignornat of American politics
This is about the constitution right ? Can someone set a country wide law that outlaws abortion.
Or is it constitution or state law ? Nothing in between ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ignornat of American politics
This is about the constitution right ? Can someone set a country wide law that outlaws abortion.
Or is it constitution or state law ? Nothing in between ?"
SCOTUS sent it back to each individual state to make legislative rulings and no judicial rulings. Each state gets to decide their own laws twords banning. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ignorant of American politics
This is about the constitution right ? Can someone set a country wide law that outlaws abortion."
In the US, each state sets its own laws. They can set any law they like, as long as it's in agreement with the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCotUS) gets to decide what the Constitution means, and whether an action is unconstitutional or not. Previously they decided that abortion was a constitutionally protected right (in Roe v Wade). That decision has now been overturned.
This means that, since this is no longer a constitutional issue, each individual state gets to set its own law. Some will legislate against abortion, some will legislate for. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ignorant of American politics
This is about the constitution right ? Can someone set a country wide law that outlaws abortion.
In the US, each state sets its own laws. They can set any law they like, as long as it's in agreement with the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCotUS) gets to decide what the Constitution means, and whether an action is unconstitutional or not. Previously they decided that abortion was a constitutionally protected right (in Roe v Wade). That decision has now been overturned.
This means that, since this is no longer a constitutional issue, each individual state gets to set its own law. Some will legislate against abortion, some will legislate for."
thx 
Makes me wonder what power tje POTUS has ! I need to do some reading ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Ignorant of American politics
This is about the constitution right ? Can someone set a country wide law that outlaws abortion.
In the US, each state sets its own laws. They can set any law they like, as long as it's in agreement with the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCotUS) gets to decide what the Constitution means, and whether an action is unconstitutional or not. Previously they decided that abortion was a constitutionally protected right (in Roe v Wade). That decision has now been overturned.
This means that, since this is no longer a constitutional issue, each individual state gets to set its own law. Some will legislate against abortion, some will legislate for."
Sort of…….
The problem with roe is that it was never “law” as such… it was a settled legal argument
But… and this is the long term solution
Federal law trumps state law… so if roe was enshrined in actual law and you could get it passed in both the house and the senate… that would solve the problem!
Which brings us back to the philabuster rules and a different discussion.. if they are not carving out an exception for voting rights, they are not doing it for this!
Anyway.. the other issue is that when kavanagh, gorsich and coney-Barrett were all asked in their confirmation hearings if they thought roe was settled law, they all at least intimated that it was….
And if people don’t think this is the start of the lurch backwards.. read the judge Thomas opinion notes on the matter… I am guessing a state will try and ban same sex marriage…. And this will be back at the court |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ignorant of American politics
This is about the constitution right ? Can someone set a country wide law that outlaws abortion.
In the US, each state sets its own laws. They can set any law they like, as long as it's in agreement with the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCotUS) gets to decide what the Constitution means, and whether an action is unconstitutional or not. Previously they decided that abortion was a constitutionally protected right (in Roe v Wade). That decision has now been overturned.
This means that, since this is no longer a constitutional issue, each individual state gets to set its own law. Some will legislate against abortion, some will legislate for.
Sort of…….
The problem with roe is that it was never “law” as such… it was a settled legal argument
But… and this is the long term solution
Federal law trumps state law… so if roe was enshrined in actual law and you could get it passed in both the house and the senate… that would solve the problem!
Which brings us back to the philabuster rules and a different discussion.. if they are not carving out an exception for voting rights, they are not doing it for this!
Anyway.. the other issue is that when kavanagh, gorsich and coney-Barrett were all asked in their confirmation hearings if they thought roe was settled law, they all at least intimated that it was….
And if people don’t think this is the start of the lurch backwards.. read the judge Thomas opinion notes on the matter… I am guessing a state will try and ban same sex marriage…. And this will be back at the court "
I live here if the bible belts want to be ignorant that's on them the people of each state chose their voices. My state more understanding. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is just the 1st stepping stone for the religious right… same sex marriage is going to be next
And contraception apparently "
And what about them making sodomy illegal again, although forbidden fruits are always sweeter. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
This is a horrendous backwards step in women's and human rights.
The world seems to be regressing morally.
So forgive my ignorance but does this law cover rxpe victim's and babies that are never going to survive?
Also I don't understand how a law can be passed like this when the president is against it?
What's the point of a government when it seems that others are able to change law's without being voted in?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is a horrendous backwards step in women's and human rights.
The world seems to be regressing morally.
So forgive my ignorance but does this law cover rxpe victim's and babies that are never going to survive?
Also I don't understand how a law can be passed like this when the president is against it?
What's the point of a government when it seems that others are able to change law's without being voted in?
"
SCOTUS just leaving it for the state governments to decide not federal government. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is a horrendous backwards step in women's and human rights.
The world seems to be regressing morally.
So forgive my ignorance but does this law cover rxpe victim's and babies that are never going to survive?
Also I don't understand how a law can be passed like this when the president is against it?
What's the point of a government when it seems that others are able to change law's without being voted in?
SCOTUS just leaving it for the state governments to decide not federal government."
So basically the United States isn't that at all.
It's 50 individual countries making their own laws as they see fit all under the umbrella of a government that in reality is only there to take taxes and supply a military.
Or am I missing something? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is a horrendous backwards step in women's and human rights.
The world seems to be regressing morally.
So forgive my ignorance but does this law cover rxpe victim's and babies that are never going to survive?
Also I don't understand how a law can be passed like this when the president is against it?
What's the point of a government when it seems that others are able to change law's without being voted in?
SCOTUS just leaving it for the state governments to decide not federal government.
So basically the United States isn't that at all.
It's 50 individual countries making their own laws as they see fit all under the umbrella of a government that in reality is only there to take taxes and supply a military.
Or am I missing something?"
Pretty much each state has their own autonomy in accordance to the the US constitution. If anything is decided on the federal level. Federal law overides state laws. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Bottom line with this is that there are millions of Americans who care deeply about your life, from your conception until the moment of your birth.
After that - fuck you. Especially if you're poor, or non-white, or both.
I know that the long term consequences of this haven't been thought through - it's not the American Way.
Let's imagine - for a moment - the possibility of millions more American boys growing up in a care system that doesn't care for them, failed by an inadequate education system and descending into crime and violence, just to survive in a society that thinks they're shit; but insisted they be born to mothers unable to cope with them.
As for all the American girls born into poverty at the insistence of their state government; well, they can struggle to avoid pregnancy for as long as possible - until it happens and they are forced to see it through, full term; and then be left to cope with the consequences.
This ruling will - like it or not - lead to increases in poverty, violence, imprisonment and unnecessary death ...
because that's how the system works in much of the USA. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Abortion isn't a protected right under the US constitution? That just means US states will need to legislate for it.
Not sure how US law has anything to do with the UK or the rest of the world. It's not like there isn't worse oppression of women in other countries is there.
All this hand-wringing is over the top and worryingly parroted by too many people who seem incapable of thinking for themselves beyond what media tells them to think.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"This is a horrendous backwards step in women's and human rights.
The world seems to be regressing morally.
So forgive my ignorance but does this law cover rxpe victim's and babies that are never going to survive?
Also I don't understand how a law can be passed like this when the president is against it?
What's the point of a government when it seems that others are able to change law's without being voted in?
SCOTUS just leaving it for the state governments to decide not federal government.
So basically the United States isn't that at all.
It's 50 individual countries making their own laws as they see fit all under the umbrella of a government that in reality is only there to take taxes and supply a military.
Or am I missing something?
Pretty much each state has their own autonomy in accordance to the the US constitution. If anything is decided on the federal level. Federal law overides state laws."
There “may” still a legal court action coming….
Because the judgement was made under the 14th amendment statute that covers privacy that is the reason why it opens a Pandora’s box on other issues such as contraception and same sex marriage which is going to be the next big fight! … but because this ruling means that literally half the states will have in effect an abortion ban (26 of 50) there is an argument in that if another case comes back to SCOTUS under “equal rights and protection” legislation clauses because of what is about to happen… say that some of the barriers and consequences that states are going to threaten women with are unreasonable
For example people in parts of Mississippi or Arkansas would need to travel over 1000 miles to Illinois to get a legal abortion…
Imagine living in London and finding out the nearest place you could have gotten a then legal procedure suddenly changed overnight to Belgrade … this is what has just happened |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is a horrendous backwards step in women's and human rights.
The world seems to be regressing morally.
So forgive my ignorance but does this law cover rxpe victim's and babies that are never going to survive?
Also I don't understand how a law can be passed like this when the president is against it?
What's the point of a government when it seems that others are able to change law's without being voted in?
SCOTUS just leaving it for the state governments to decide not federal government.
So basically the United States isn't that at all.
It's 50 individual countries making their own laws as they see fit all under the umbrella of a government that in reality is only there to take taxes and supply a military.
Or am I missing something?
Pretty much each state has their own autonomy in accordance to the the US constitution. If anything is decided on the federal level. Federal law overides state laws.
There “may” still a legal court action coming….
Because the judgement was made under the 14th amendment statute that covers privacy that is the reason why it opens a Pandora’s box on other issues such as contraception and same sex marriage which is going to be the next big fight! … but because this ruling means that literally half the states will have in effect an abortion ban (26 of 50) there is an argument in that if another case comes back to SCOTUS under “equal rights and protection” legislation clauses because of what is about to happen… say that some of the barriers and consequences that states are going to threaten women with are unreasonable
For example people in parts of Mississippi or Arkansas would need to travel over 1000 miles to Illinois to get a legal abortion…
Imagine living in London and finding out the nearest place you could have gotten a then legal procedure suddenly changed overnight to Belgrade … this is what has just happened "
I agree and the first amendment is that grants the freedom of travel. You can't restrict someone going to another state. It is none of the states business what you doing . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ignorant of American politics
This is about the constitution right ? Can someone set a country wide law that outlaws abortion.
In the US, each state sets its own laws. They can set any law they like, as long as it's in agreement with the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCotUS) gets to decide what the Constitution means, and whether an action is unconstitutional or not. Previously they decided that abortion was a constitutionally protected right (in Roe v Wade). That decision has now been overturned.
This means that, since this is no longer a constitutional issue, each individual state gets to set its own law. Some will legislate against abortion, some will legislate for.
Sort of…….
The problem with roe is that it was never “law” as such… it was a settled legal argument
But… and this is the long term solution
Federal law trumps state law… so if roe was enshrined in actual law and you could get it passed in both the house and the senate… that would solve the problem!
Which brings us back to the philabuster rules and a different discussion.. if they are not carving out an exception for voting rights, they are not doing it for this!
Anyway.. the other issue is that when kavanagh, gorsich and coney-Barrett were all asked in their confirmation hearings if they thought roe was settled law, they all at least intimated that it was….
And if people don’t think this is the start of the lurch backwards.. read the judge Thomas opinion notes on the matter… I am guessing a state will try and ban same sex marriage…. And this will be back at the court "
Given the 3 Judges lied about Roe vs Wade, impeaching them is an option. I guess that is then stuck in the Senate like impeaching Trump. Maybe it does need more judges being added to the SCOTUS by the Democrats - it is a mess and we really feel for all the women and families affected by this, as well as the threat to other ‘settled opinions’ - who needs Gilead when you have the USA…  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Ignorant of American politics
This is about the constitution right ? Can someone set a country wide law that outlaws abortion.
In the US, each state sets its own laws. They can set any law they like, as long as it's in agreement with the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCotUS) gets to decide what the Constitution means, and whether an action is unconstitutional or not. Previously they decided that abortion was a constitutionally protected right (in Roe v Wade). That decision has now been overturned.
This means that, since this is no longer a constitutional issue, each individual state gets to set its own law. Some will legislate against abortion, some will legislate for.
Sort of…….
The problem with roe is that it was never “law” as such… it was a settled legal argument
But… and this is the long term solution
Federal law trumps state law… so if roe was enshrined in actual law and you could get it passed in both the house and the senate… that would solve the problem!
Which brings us back to the philabuster rules and a different discussion.. if they are not carving out an exception for voting rights, they are not doing it for this!
Anyway.. the other issue is that when kavanagh, gorsich and coney-Barrett were all asked in their confirmation hearings if they thought roe was settled law, they all at least intimated that it was….
And if people don’t think this is the start of the lurch backwards.. read the judge Thomas opinion notes on the matter… I am guessing a state will try and ban same sex marriage…. And this will be back at the court
Given the 3 Judges lied about Roe vs Wade, impeaching them is an option. I guess that is then stuck in the Senate like impeaching Trump. Maybe it does need more judges being added to the SCOTUS by the Democrats - it is a mess and we really feel for all the women and families affected by this, as well as the threat to other ‘settled opinions’ - who needs Gilead when you have the USA… "
The problem is that they are all lawyers and would have been coached to the nines as to how to answer questions at the confirmation hearings… were we all know they lied, the words are ambiguous enough where they could they didn’t… if they gave assurances in private to senators then it becames he said they said
Republicans are going to rue this decision…i think it will be one of the be careful of what you wished for issue’s because it’s one of those where now they have to campaign on making it a national ban in a 70-30 against issue and 80-20 against for women, compounded by judge Thomas blowing open the doors by alluding to contraception and same sex marriage being the next targets where who is going to believe any assurances that they won’t be after this!
This just turned the midterms from just an economy issue where Biden was in huge trouble… into a womens rights, civil rights and marriage rights debate
Where republicans love to same democrats are coming for your guns….. democrats are going to flood the airwaves with commercials saying republicans are coming for your rights!!! Democrats might have stayed hope before in November, I don’t think they are staying home now! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
Slightly off topic here but as this is a swingers website...
Always puzzled me why the two hotbeds of swinging in the USA are Florida and Texas. Both hardcore Republican states and, therefore, less likely to be liberal and permissive in outlook. However, not bible belt states so maybe a bit of a pressure valve? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Given the 3 Judges lied about Roe vs Wade, impeaching them is an option."
It isn't an option, because none of them lied. They all stated that Roe v Wade was precedent, but none of them said it could not be overturned. Amy Coney Barrett was explicitly asked if Roe was a super-precedent, and she carefully explained what super-precedent meant, and said that Roe wasn't one.
You can look up the hearings on YouTube and see for yourself. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Slightly off topic here but as this is a swingers website...
Always puzzled me why the two hotbeds of swinging in the USA are Florida and Texas. Both hardcore Republican states and, therefore, less likely to be liberal and permissive in outlook. However, not bible belt states so maybe a bit of a pressure valve?"
Same as fab. Absolutely packed with Tories and right-wingers.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There is a suggestion that federal lands in each state could be used to site abortion clinics but I imagine that would lead to women being arrested for murder when they re-enter their home states. Why would you do any of this unless you were looking to lock liberals away and profit from their incarceration? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Slightly off topic here but as this is a swingers website...
Always puzzled me why the two hotbeds of swinging in the USA are Florida and Texas. Both hardcore Republican states and, therefore, less likely to be liberal and permissive in outlook. However, not bible belt states so maybe a bit of a pressure valve?
Same as fab. Absolutely packed with Tories and right-wingers.
"
What a valuable contribution to this topic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Slightly off topic here but as this is a swingers website...
Always puzzled me why the two hotbeds of swinging in the USA are Florida and Texas. Both hardcore Republican states and, therefore, less likely to be liberal and permissive in outlook. However, not bible belt states so maybe a bit of a pressure valve?
Same as fab. Absolutely packed with Tories and right-wingers.
What a valuable contribution to this topic."
Is your critique of my reply to someone else, a more, or less valuable contribution? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Given the 3 Judges lied about Roe vs Wade, impeaching them is an option.
It isn't an option, because none of them lied. They all stated that Roe v Wade was precedent, but none of them said it could not be overturned. Amy Coney Barrett was explicitly asked if Roe was a super-precedent, and she carefully explained what super-precedent meant, and said that Roe wasn't one.
You can look up the hearings on YouTube and see for yourself."
Collins and manchin have specifically said in statements in the last few days saying they were told by gorsich and kavanagh themselves in private meetings they would not change roe.. Collins and manchin never voted for ACB to be approved anyway
The problem SCOTUS now have is that alito is saying that this change only relates to abortion, Thomas blew that open… so who is going to believe anything now!
Just the fact in the last couple of days they have removed government controls on guns, but increased them of women bodies with it potentially going further says all you need to know about where the court is at the moment |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Slightly off topic here but as this is a swingers website...
Always puzzled me why the two hotbeds of swinging in the USA are Florida and Texas. Both hardcore Republican states and, therefore, less likely to be liberal and permissive in outlook. However, not bible belt states so maybe a bit of a pressure valve?
Same as fab. Absolutely packed with Tories and right-wingers.
What a valuable contribution to this topic.
Is your critique of my reply to someone else, a more, or less valuable contribution?"
Probably, as it wasn’t just making a tired old cliche generalisation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Given the 3 Judges lied about Roe vs Wade, impeaching them is an option.
It isn't an option, because none of them lied. They all stated that Roe v Wade was precedent, but none of them said it could not be overturned. Amy Coney Barrett was explicitly asked if Roe was a super-precedent, and she carefully explained what super-precedent meant, and said that Roe wasn't one.
You can look up the hearings on YouTube and see for yourself.
Collins and manchin have specifically said in statements in the last few days saying they were told by gorsich and kavanagh themselves in private meetings they would not change roe.. Collins and manchin never voted for ACB to be approved anyway
The problem SCOTUS now have is that alito is saying that this change only relates to abortion, Thomas blew that open… so who is going to believe anything now!
Just the fact in the last couple of days they have removed government controls on guns, but increased them of women bodies with it potentially going further says all you need to know about where the court is at the moment "
The most concerning thing about the whole episode for me is the USA legal system has now become simply a tool of one political party.
As a consequence the scales of justice have been thrown on the scrap heap and political allegiance will become the only parameter when measuring guilt and innocence.
Is there any surprise that the Republican party which is so keen on guns, despite mass school shooting in infant schools, also want abortion banned? They don't want their supporters to run out of targets, do they?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Slightly off topic here but as this is a swingers website...
Always puzzled me why the two hotbeds of swinging in the USA are Florida and Texas. Both hardcore Republican states and, therefore, less likely to be liberal and permissive in outlook. However, not bible belt states so maybe a bit of a pressure valve?
Same as fab. Absolutely packed with Tories and right-wingers.
What a valuable contribution to this topic.
Is your critique of my reply to someone else, a more, or less valuable contribution?
Probably, as it wasn’t just making a tired old cliche generalisation."
Having a pop at one of the few non-Tories on here isn't a "tired old cliché generalisation"?
Shocking news, if true.
Anyway, we could argue about how you don't like people who aren't Conservative voters speaking out. Or we can try to stick vaguely to the points being made? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There is a suggestion that federal lands in each state could be used to site abortion clinics but I imagine that would lead to women being arrested for murder when they re-enter their home states. Why would you do any of this unless you were looking to lock liberals away and profit from their incarceration? "
Ok, controversial reply coming, but maybe they would do it because they genuinely believe that life begins at the point of conception rather than at the point of birth or some other point somewhere between conception and birth such as foetus viability.
I think most people would agree that at some point before birth the foetus becomes human and therefore has rights that should be respected. If you believe that that point is at conception then it would be really difficult to be pro choice on the whole abortion issue. The issue, if you believe that human life begins at conception, is who's rights should trump who's; the mother's or the foetus'/child's.
If you don't understand the motivation behind those that oppose abortion you'll never make the correct argument to persuade them otherwise.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There is a suggestion that federal lands in each state could be used to site abortion clinics but I imagine that would lead to women being arrested for murder when they re-enter their home states. Why would you do any of this unless you were looking to lock liberals away and profit from their incarceration?
Ok, controversial reply coming, but maybe they would do it because they genuinely believe that life begins at the point of conception rather than at the point of birth or some other point somewhere between conception and birth such as foetus viability.
I think most people would agree that at some point before birth the foetus becomes human and therefore has rights that should be respected. If you believe that that point is at conception then it would be really difficult to be pro choice on the whole abortion issue. The issue, if you believe that human life begins at conception, is who's rights should trump who's; the mother's or the foetus'/child's.
If you don't understand the motivation behind those that oppose abortion you'll never make the correct argument to persuade them otherwise.
"
I agree with you that is the issue and up to now the argument for foetus viability has been the determining factor which with modern medical treatments has been pushed back to earlier in pregnancy than would naturally be possible
The difficulty I have with the pro-life position is that they believe conception is life full stop which for people who have had repeated miscarriages or non-viable foetuses seems just irrational to me but I guess if they believe in God then perhaps they don’t worry about that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Pro-lifers appear fanatical and dangerous. Women have sought abortions since the beginning of time, this will not change. The medical procedure makes it safer for us.
"
I agree. Whilst I don't agree with their position on abortion and human life starting at the point of conception I can understand it and see how, believing that, they would feel the need to oppose abortion. However many also oppose contraception on the grounds that "children should be lovingly accept as gifts from God". At this point we really are getting to the point of people trying to force their religious beliefs on others. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ok, controversial reply coming, but maybe they would do it because they genuinely believe that life begins at the point of conception ...
If you don't understand the motivation behind those that oppose abortion you'll never make the correct argument to persuade them otherwise. "
The supreme court judges ruled the way they did based on their interpretation of the Constitution, not on whether abortion should be allowed or not.
If you read the decision, they state that they considered 3 things:
1. Whether the 14th amendment's reference to 'liberty' protects a specific right.
2. Whether the right to obtain an abortion is rooted in the nation's history and tradition.
3. Whether a right to obtain an abortion is part of a broader entrenched right that is supported by other precedents.
What they found is that there is no 'right', under the US Constitution or law, to an abortion. They haven't ruled that abortion is illegal, just that there is no basis to prevent each state from drawing up it's own law about it.
I don't believe that the judges were motivated by their own feelings about abortion, they were instead following their beliefs about the Constitution and what it does, and does not, protect. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ok, controversial reply coming, but maybe they would do it because they genuinely believe that life begins at the point of conception ...
If you don't understand the motivation behind those that oppose abortion you'll never make the correct argument to persuade them otherwise.
The supreme court judges ruled the way they did based on their interpretation of the Constitution, not on whether abortion should be allowed or not.
If you read the decision, they state that they considered 3 things:
1. Whether the 14th amendment's reference to 'liberty' protects a specific right.
2. Whether the right to obtain an abortion is rooted in the nation's history and tradition.
3. Whether a right to obtain an abortion is part of a broader entrenched right that is supported by other precedents.
What they found is that there is no 'right', under the US Constitution or law, to an abortion. They haven't ruled that abortion is illegal, just that there is no basis to prevent each state from drawing up it's own law about it.
I don't believe that the judges were motivated by their own feelings about abortion, they were instead following their beliefs about the Constitution and what it does, and does not, protect."
I agree. I think there is little point in attacking the judges for having a different opinion to previous judges on the legal, constitutional point. In some ways, while I don't like the result of the ruling, it seems far more legally sound than the original "Roe Vs Wade".
However now the matter is to be decided by legislation, either State or Federal, it's important that the arguments for legislation in favour of reproduction rights are made well and, in order to counter the arguments that will be put against them, we understand properly the bases of the arguments against. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"However now the matter is to be decided by legislation, either State or Federal, it's important that the arguments for legislation in favour of reproduction rights are made well and, in order to counter the arguments that will be put against them, we understand properly the bases of the arguments against. "
This is the problem that the US has. Roe v Wade killed the discussion about abortion and women's rights. Because it has been ruled that there was a constitutional right, neither side actually had to engage in debate. You can see this in the protests that are being held. One side is shouting that you can't force a person to give birth, and the other side is shouting that you can't kill a human being. They don't even attempt to address each others' point of view, they just endlessly state that their view is the only correct one.
The US is now going to be forced to actually address the issue, like every other country has over the past 50 years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Pro-lifers appear fanatical and dangerous. Women have sought abortions since the beginning of time, this will not change. The medical procedure makes it safer for us.
I agree. Whilst I don't agree with their position on abortion and human life starting at the point of conception I can understand it and see how, believing that, they would feel the need to oppose abortion. However many also oppose contraception on the grounds that "children should be lovingly accept as gifts from God". At this point we really are getting to the point of people trying to force their religious beliefs on others."
Would they accept impotence is a gift from God and God's will ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Pro-lifers appear fanatical and dangerous. Women have sought abortions since the beginning of time, this will not change. The medical procedure makes it safer for us.
I agree. Whilst I don't agree with their position on abortion and human life starting at the point of conception I can understand it and see how, believing that, they would feel the need to oppose abortion. However many also oppose contraception on the grounds that "children should be lovingly accept as gifts from God". At this point we really are getting to the point of people trying to force their religious beliefs on others.
Would they accept impotence is a gift from God and God's will ? "
I think most religious groups would definitely have reservations about some of the treatments used to get around various forms of infertility, especially IVF. However most, although not all, religious groups would not be opposed treatments, in and of themselves, that are used to treat any disorder but it would depend on what the specific treatment was. I also think that if the impotency was incurable then the religious point of view would be that the impotency, whether seen as a gift or a curse, was "the will of God" and the person concerned would have to accept and learn to live with it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
