Society/Culture Reproductive Rights: Roe vs Wade, abortion, etc

[Osho]

So what are the contending arguments as the US SC makes their deliberations.

Constitutional: is Roe Wade over reach, smuggling in certain privacy issues that don't belong, or is it a correct evolution of the constitition. Should the SC be silent and leave it to the states?

Ethical: Does a women have the right to control her body to the inclusion of another life within it? Is viability fair dinkum or so subjective to be meaningless? When is the foetus a human being?

I have gone back and forth on the issue, and are still less than sure of my own position, which currently would be described as conservative on this particular issue.

 

[Chief]

Still trying to figure out which banned user you are.

Interesting.

 

[Strange Cat]

Still trying to figure out which banned user you are.

Interesting.

Can we play this game too!!!

 

[pugsville]

So what are the contending arguments as the US SC makes their deliberations.

Constitutional: is Roe Wade over reach, smuggling in certain privacy issues that don't belong, or is it a correct evolution of the constitition. Should the SC be silent and leave it to the states?

Ethical: Does a women have the right to control her body to the inclusion of another life within it? Is viability fair dinkum or so subjective to be meaningless? When is the foetus a human being?

I have gone back and forth on the issue, and are still less than sure of my own position, which currently would be described as conservative on this particular issue.

Just leave it woman and their doctors and keep pollies, interest groups,m courts and crazies s out of it.

A artificial issues constructed by those who just can;t sleep at night unless they can stuff other people's lives up. These people should be ignored.

 

[Mick F]

Seeing adoption as the preferred option (Justice Barrett) is unbelievably cruel on the birth mother and child.

“The grief doesn’t really subside,” one mother said, 40 years after she relinquished her child in 1968. “There’s no peace.”

Eleanor Baker did a ‘paper’ in the 80's. Women who give children up at birth have higher rates of suicide, alcohol abuse, and prescription drug abuse. There is no such increase for abortions.

Similar with the children. Margaret Keyes (2013) found the odds of a reported suicide attempt were 4 times greater in adoptees, compared with non-adoptees.

 

[Number37]

Seeing adoption as the preferred option (Justice Barrett) is unbelievably cruel on the birth mother and child.

“The grief doesn’t really subside,” one mother said, 40 years after she relinquished her child in 1968. “There’s no peace.”

Eleanor Baker did a ‘paper’ in the 80's. Women who give children up at birth have higher rates of suicide, alcohol abuse, and prescription drug abuse. There is no such increase for abortions.

Similar with the children. Margaret Keyes (2013) found the odds of a reported suicide attempt were 4 times greater in adoptees, compared with non-adoptees.

I haven't read the transcript but I read some commentary that suggested Justice Barrett was evaluating the alternatives and concluded that it was actually no better...as you have outlined.
The commentary was about how they are likely to vote...and based on what Barrett said...concluded that she was more likely to vote NOT to overturn R v W.

 

[ElectricG]

Seeing adoption as the preferred option (Justice Barrett) is unbelievably cruel on the birth mother and child.

Abortion is infinitely crueler on the child.

 

[Chief]

Abortion is infinitely crueler on the child.

What child?

 

[Opine]

What child?

That’s one of the questions at issue; at what stage does a foetus become a child for purposes of being afforded protection of the State.

 

[ElectricG]

What child?

The unborn child. But I understand that the pro-choice argument is that a foetus, or a foetus in very early development, is not a child.

 

[Taylor]

Roe v Wade was about privacy, even RBG said the decision massively overreached and was bad.

 

[Gough]

If men gave birth there would be government funded abortion clinics on every corner. A quick glance at the right to lifers and some of the other causes dear to their heart and you're left with a lingering suspicion that this might not be as much about protecting the unborn as they would like you to think it is and more about the biblical notion of women as chattel.

 

[ElectricG]

If men gave birth there would be government funded abortion clinics on every corner. A quick glance at the right to lifers and some of the other causes dear to their heart and you're left with a lingering suspicion that this might not be as much about protecting the unborn as they would like you to think it is and more about the biblical notion of women as chattel.

A good example of Lefty Clairvoyance where instead of taking them at their word and responding to the arguments, we respond to the thoughts in their heads that we assume are there.

 

[spinynorman]

Of course there is nothing in the US constitution protecting abortion rights. Of course it will be overturned.

Liberals have spent 50 years relying on this anti-democratic elitist power to uphold their gains. Victories such as abortion rights, the decriminalisation of homosexuality and marriage equality were won through this institution rather than through the work of the insipid politicians supposedly representing their interests.

The last US President to actually achieve a great, positive outcome, Franklin Roosevelt, understood this about the Supreme Court. It has been forgotten since. The way to achieve real, lasting positive change is to win over the populace and force it. To rely on the enforcement of it from the top down, on a people to whom abortion rights have long since been eroded away to be out of reach for a significant number of Americans, was always doomed to failure. Time to try again, to win over and convince people of the need to the legal right to abortion and the need to vote for politicians who’ll actually make that a reality. Anything else can’t be expected to be sustained.

 

[Gough]

A good example of Lefty Clairvoyance where instead of taking them at their word and responding to the arguments, we respond to the thoughts in their heads that we assume are there.

If these people think life is so sacred why do a great many of them also support gun rights and the death penalty. This is not clairvoyance on my behalf a lot of the right to lifers are very vocal about where their political loyalties lie and no amount of gymnastics can properly explain why a medical procedure to end a life is a sin if it's on the unborn but perfectly okay on the living.

 

[owen87]

If these people think life is so sacred why do a great many of them also support gun rights and the death penalty. This is not clairvoyance on my behalf a lot of the right to lifers are very vocal about where their political loyalties lie and no amount of gymnastics can properly explain why a medical procedure to end a life is a sin if it's on the unborn but perfectly okay on the living.

The living are filthy criminals (or homosexuals) and deserve to hang.

The child isn't born yet so is innocent of being a criminal (or homosexual) and deserves to live.

Something like that.

 

[ElectricG]

If these people think life is so sacred why do a great many of them also support gun rights and the death penalty. This is not clairvoyance on my behalf a lot of the right to lifers are very vocal about where their political loyalties lie and no amount of gymnastics can properly explain why a medical procedure to end a life is a sin if it's on the unborn but perfectly okay on the living.

The first sentence you wrote is the most uncharitable reading of their views as is possible, though. If you take them at their word, they believe that a right to self defence using firearms, and removing dangerous criminals from circulation via the death penalty, are measures taken to protect innocent human lives. These views are only at odds with pro-life if you read them as wanting people to die.

 

[tandino]

If you have to draw the line somewhere, then ~22 weeks is probably fair enough.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Meanwhile, further south in a nation whose name literally means 'The Saviour' in Spanish...

These women say they had miscarriages. Now they're in jail for abortion.

In El Salvador, the law is clear: If you have an abortion, you go to jail. But many women say they were wrongfully convicted. Could it happen in the U.S.?

www.cbsnews.com

May 28, 2020

Seven months pregnant, Manuela, a mother of two, said she miscarried at her modest home in rural El Salvador. But the police, and a judge, didn't believe her. They charged and convicted her for aggravated homicide, sentencing her to 30 years in prison.

But Manuela only served two of those years. In 2010, she died alone in a hospital of Hodgkin's lymphoma, a disease her lawyers say caused her to miscarry.

More than 140 women have been charged under El Salvador's total ban on abortion since 1998, incarcerated for up to 35 years in some of the world's most notorious prisons. Like Manuela, many say they never had an abortion, but instead claim that after suffering a miscarriage they were wrongfully convicted when their doctors accused them of intentionally terminating their pregnancies.

At a moment when Roe v. Wade appears more vulnerable than ever to legal challenges, El Salvador provides a glimpse of what the United States could look like if bans on the procedure are permitted.

For more than 20 years, El Salvador — a tiny Central American country struggling with brutal gang violence and a record-high homicide rate — has completely banned abortion, including in situations when the procedure could save the patient's life. The total ban was lobbied for by the Roman Catholic Church, an institution that became particularly powerful in the country after its devastating civil war. In 1998, the church was successful in cementing the ban into El Salvador's constitution, adding an amendment to say that "life begins at conception."

"No one should act against a life once it has been conceived," said Father Edwin Banos, a social media savvy millennial priest based in Metapan, El Salvador, who's thrown public support behind the country's anti-abortion laws. "A doctor will always want to save both lives," Banos said. "The mother and the child."

But Dr. Ronald Lopez, an OB-GYN based in San Salvador, says that's not always possible and the ban has prevented him from saving the lives of some of his patients. Lopez recalled one patient, a woman who came to him with a heart disease that made her pregnancy a life-threatening condition.

"We couldn't make the abortion, so the woman died about nine weeks later," Lopez told CBS News during an interview from the maternity ward of San Salvador's public hospital for women. "And the baby, too..."

Is this the future the United States wants?

 

[CM86]

Meanwhile, further south in a nation whose name literally means 'The Saviour' in Spanish...



Is this the future the United States wants?

You'll probably get replies of incredulty.

But in the real world... that's not the part that's being fought against. It's the ability to get an abortion that's being fought against.
It's handwaved as insignificant. But people using abortion as a replacement for contraception!!! That's what we need to fight!


I mean people are fighting against what you're talking about, but they're bad people... like feminists and 'woke'.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

You'll probably get replies of incredulty.

But in the real world... that's not the part that's being fought against. It's the ability to get an abortion that's being fought against.
It's handwaved as insignificant. But people using abortion as a replacement for contraception!!! That's what we need to fight!


I mean people are fighting against what you're talking about, but they're bad people... like feminists and 'woke'.

Different roads. Same destination.

 

[The Passenger]

Is this the future the United States wants?

I have no doubt there is a minority (and not an insignificant minority either) of the US who would love to see their country morph into some sort of Gilead-esque state.

These nutters have far more in common with their Saudi Wahhabist cousins than they'd ever know. The only real difference is they worship at a different altar.

 

[cartwright]

Just a bunch of assholes looking to control others with forced pregnancies.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

A good example of Lefty Clairvoyance where instead of taking them at their word and responding to the arguments, we respond to the thoughts in their heads that we assume are there.

"Lefty clairvoyance."

The history of how conservative whackjobs conduct their business and look after only their own trumps such a nonsense statement. It's not overreach at all to suggest that there would be abortion on demand if men were the ones affected.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

The first sentence you wrote is the most uncharitable reading of their views as is possible, though. If you take them at their word, they believe that a right to self defence using firearms, and removing dangerous criminals from circulation via the death penalty, are measures taken to protect innocent human lives. These views are only at odds with pro-life if you read them as wanting people to die.

That's not what they believe at all. Grisly savages most of them, hence they usually believe in all three notions. In fact, plenty of them line up outside of prisons where executions are carried out and cheer the demise of the prisoner. Such level headed, compassionate people they are. You can be sure the same grubs hurl abuse at women outside abortion clinics.


(Oops, lefty clairvoyance call coming).