Breaking... US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119330871#Comment_119330871

All anti abortion rights groups do is to stop safe/cheap abortions. It does not stop abortions, we know this. In Ireland we shipped our problem to England for decades and still do to a certain extent since the facilities need upgrading.

Well that’s certainly one thing they do, as part of preventing all abortion. Yes it’s fair to say that they don’t stop abortions, but that’s because in reality they can’t control individuals choices. On that basis I don’t agree with the idea that what you’re portraying as a problem was shipped anywhere, or that the facilities need upgrading. Individuals themselves made the choice to go abroad to avail of abortion, and their experiences have been mixed. A case like this for example, could happen anywhere -

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/01/london-abortion-clinic-criticised-in-inquest-into-womans-death

Look at the states that are anti safe abortion and see what they actually do to reduce the number of abortions (not just legal ones). How much do they put into sex ed for teens, how much do they put in for social welfare for families, how much do they put in public medical facilities. And if you want to argue they are just poor how much do the anti choice politicians argue for these things on a national level. It is absolutely true that that money won't see mothers and their families. I have payed attention to how they have voted for years, as soon as the mother gives birth they will call her a benefit cheat. The reason those states have worse outcomes for pregnancy is simply because the politicians don't actually give an F about any mother or child.

I don’t think people who are anti-abortion make any distinction between safe and unsafe abortions tbh, they’re just generally opposed to abortion under any circumstances. It’s for this reason that campaigners who are pro-choice use extreme examples that account for 1% of cases where an abortion was deemed medically necessary, to argue in favour of a right to abortion without any limitations in law.

They don’t put anything into providing sex education in accordance with your values, because your values are not their values. Same goes for social welfare. That’s not the same as campaigning for greater investment in social supports. It’s just that the State doesn’t provide it, and instead leaves that up to be provided for by their own religious communities for the most part. The reason they have the worst outcomes for pregnancy isn’t because politicians don’t give a F about women and children, it’s a whole multitude of contributing factors, not the least of which is that they are regarded as being of lesser value to “civilised” society, than people who see them as being a burden on society.

Trust me, plenty of pro life people have put their lives and the lives of loved ones in the hands of planned parenthood. They obviously had a good reason for the decision unlike the rest of the building.

I do trust you, but I see the reasons for their availing of abortion somewhat differently to the way you do. When the vast majority of people who avail of abortion give their reasons as being socioeconomic circumstances, then it’s incumbent upon policy and decision makers to look at the underlying reasons, and not just the outcomes, which are higher rates of unintended and unwanted pregnancies, higher rates of abortions, higher maternal and infant mortality rates, and prioritise putting structures in place to cater for people’s more basic needs, in order to reduce the risks of poor outcomes.

Nobody can lay all the responsibility for issues they have identified, at the foot of their ideological and political opponents, when they have all the opportunities to do something about it themselves. I don’t consider people with limited opportunities being forced into making decisions out of desperation, a good reason for anything. I don’t blame anyone making decisions in desperate circumstances for what they feel they need to do; I do blame people who exploit people in desperate circumstances for their own personal, political or financial gain.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119331173#Comment_119331173

I do trust you, but I see the reasons for their availing of abortion somewhat differently to the way you do. When the vast majority of people who avail of abortion give their reasons as being socioeconomic circumstances, then it’s incumbent upon policy and decision makers to look at the underlying reasons, and not just the outcomes, which are higher rates of unintended and unwanted pregnancies, higher rates of abortions, higher maternal and infant mortality rates, and prioritise putting structures in place to cater for people’s more basic needs, in order to reduce the risks of poor outcomes.

And, it's been 50+ years in the US and that hasn't happened. Instead, the punitive devaluing solution is chosen at every turn. I'd also love to see the data you're quoting from. As you agree, abortions will still happen, and they should be safe and legal.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119330522#Comment_119330522

The 14% number is out of date. I didn't realize the study quoted a survey from 2011. That's over a decade ago.

It's at least 24% now, as of 2019 anyway. And, I think of all things, the number will be going up post-Dobbs because women will flock to states providing abortions when they need them, and there'll be a need for more OB/GYN's.

It'd be bigger still it wasn't for the huge (and growing) influence on US healthcare by Catholic private organisations owning hospitals.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119331193#Comment_119331193

It'll continue to happen too, in spite of the fact that it was highlighted in the Guttermacher Institute survey nearly 20 years ago -

https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives

Abortion IS legal under certain conditions. Abortion as an absolute legal right, is a different matter entirely. I don’t regard abortion under any circumstances as safe tbh, and I don’t imagine telemedicine is going to lead to anything positive either (either on a societal or individual level) -

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/05/20/1099179361/telehealth-abortions-are-simple-and-private-but-restricted-in-many-states

Inevitably, it’ll lead to more circumstances like this -

https://www.itv.com/news/london/2022-06-16/ex-home-office-boss-jailed-for-spiking-pregnant-lovers-drink-with-abortion-drug

Hotblack Desiato

🙄 Abortion is safer than giving birth. Yet another empty argument. Ho hum.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119331791#Comment_119331791

Never understood the point in making that comparison if I’m being honest. I don’t make it, and I don’t understand the point of comparing the two completely different circumstances as though ideally women should have abortions instead of giving birth, it’s… safer??? It’s just a bizarre comparison.

Hotblack Desiato

They're not completely different circumstances. If someone is pregnant they basically have two options. It's deeply disingenuous to be talking about the risks of abortion while ignoring the very real, in fact greater, risks of what inevitably happens when you decline to have an abortion while pregnant. And those risks are averages. For certain women, due to health issues, there is a very substantial risk that continuing with a pregnancy will kill them.

Igotadose

@One eyed Jack huh? This claim's absurd:

I don’t regard abortion under any circumstances as safe tbh...

Abortion as a pregnancy outcome is much safer than bearing a child. Early abortion via medication, the kind that's legal here, is like having a heavy period. Childbearing is extremely risky.

Now, maybe you're saying, 'there are extreme circumstances when abortion isn't safe,' but I think you should clarify what the circumstances are versus what's the risk of carrying the fetus to term in those circumstances. I think you'll find carrying the fetus is always riskier.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119332174#Comment_119332174

No, what’s disingenuous is the false equivalence. Of course it stands to reason that a therapeutic or medical abortion, is safer than giving birth. The comparison is based upon statistical evidence.

One is not related to the other - they’re two completely different circumstances. I said I don’t consider abortion safe, because that’s what was being referred to, if giving birth had been mentioned, I don’t consider that particularly safe either, but the risks in both circumstances are outweighed by the benefits in terms of outcomes, which are completely different.

It’s an attempt at an argument in favour of abortion by portraying giving birth as much riskier than having an abortion. Avoiding pregnancy altogether is less risky again than either abortion or giving birth, but it’s completely impractical as an argument. It’s the kind of specious nonsense I expect of anti-natalists, who are an entirely different breed of idiot.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119332403#Comment_119332403

I’m not going to defend an argument I didn’t make. I didn’t compare abortion to giving birth in the first place because I don’t think they are comparable. The only type of abortion where the circumstances would be anywhere close to being comparable would be in late-term abortions, which are incredibly rare in terms of the different types of abortions performed -

In 2000, although only 0.17% (2,232 of 1,313,000) of all abortions in the United States were performed using this procedure,[3] it developed into a focal point of the abortion debate. Intact D&E of a fetus with a heartbeat was outlawed in most cases by the 2003 federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119332485#Comment_119332485

Now you've gone and contradicted yourself:

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119331409#Comment_119331409

So to help us understand your original point, please define 'any.' Do you mean, 'there are circumstances where abortion is unsafe?' Can you be specific? Because you are making an argument against abortions in any circumstance by using the word 'any.' And as has been pointed out, there are many circumstances when abortion is safer than carrying the fetus to term.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119332539#Comment_119332539

I’m not sure what way you’re reading it but I haven’t contradicted myself. Earlier in the thread I said I don’t support abortion under any circumstances, but I do understand in circumstances where it’s medically necessary to save the mothers life. It doesn’t mean I approve of it, but I have no choice but to accept that there is no alternative.

I’m aware there are many circumstances when abortion is safer than carrying the foetus to term, and not meaning to be rude, but so what? That’s why I said I don’t make the comparison, because the comparison is completely pointless. It doesn’t mean anything. It’s a false dilemma in much the same way as drinking my own piss is safer than driving a car - so what if it is, I still wouldn’t recommend that anyone drink their own piss.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119332658#Comment_119332658

Drinking your own piss or driving a car are not connected and not driving a car does not mean you have to drink your own piss or vice versa. You can do neither or do both. Less so with abortion, either a pregnant person gets one or you have the risks of a pregnancy. Abortion has to be compared to pregnancy, it is a bit weird to consider an abortion unsafe if it is safer than the only alternative option.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119332658#Comment_119332658

I don’t ‘recommend’ they get one either but there is still utility in its safety.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119332698#Comment_119332698

It’s only weird to attempt to compare them in terms of statistical risks and safety concerns when they’re completely unrelated. It’s not at all weird to acknowledge there are risks involved in either procedure, with the idea being to assess the risks and determine whether or not the outcome is worth the risk.

That’s a judgement that’s up to the individual, in the same way as providing abortion services is a risk which either a person is willing to take, or not, depending upon the circumstances involved, and whether circumventing the law is a risk they’re prepared to take. Some people think it’s worth the risk, and hope for a positive outcome, which, much like safety, can never be fully guaranteed.

That’s why I have an issue with the sloganeering of claiming that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” - it’s misleading IMO, as it attempts to guarantee something where they really can’t guarantee anything.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119332720#Comment_119332720

The perception of it’s safety compared to giving birth is based upon statistical evidence. The only utility in the comparison is an attempt to mislead people by attempting the comparison as a thought experiment. The idea is grand, so long as you don’t think too hard about it.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119332783#Comment_119332783

It is no longer an individual judgement and that choice, even with full information is being taken away from many in the US. Or at least the ability to do without decreasing the level of safety involved. Safety should always be considered with respect to the other available options at the time, in this case continuing the pregnancy.

You can also argue about the danger of going to the abortion clinic but I feel like you are getting overly detailed. Safe is used frequently when absolute safety is not guaranteed. For instance an employer has the legal requirement to ensure any vehicles used are safe, which by your definition is impossible.

shesty

"Safe" refers to the fact that a woman would be under some form of medical care or monitoring while undergoing an abortion.

In other words that they wouldn't buy the medication online at 9 or 10 weeks pregnant and administer it to themselves at home, because that is very dangerous.

Or that wouldn't use the medication to abort earlier, at 5 or 6 weeks, and potentially have a haemorrage or retained ...product...needing hospitalisation and treatment.

"Safe" does not mean that the procedure is better than giving birth.It is referring to all the ways in whiche an abortion can go wrong if not done under medical supervision.

Taking away the legal medical supervision is the "unsafe" element of abortion.

As for pregnancy and childbirth that obviously carries risks of its own.

I don't think the comparative 'safety" of one against the other is a factor in this debate.

The medical safety of a woman continuing with a pregnancy would probably only be a factor in quite a small number of pregnancies.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119332832#Comment_119332832

It is no longer an individual judgement and that choice, even with full information is being taken away from many in the US. Or at least the ability to do without decreasing the level of safety involved. Safety should always be considered with respect to the other available options at the time, in this case continuing the pregnancy.

You’re acting like it was just done on a whim and people haven’t been campaigning to overturn Roe for the last 50 years or something? I think those people were very much aware of the potential consequences of their actions, it’s what they’ve been campaigning for.

You can also argue about the danger of going to the abortion clinic but I feel like you are getting overly detailed. Safe is used frequently when absolute safety is not guaranteed. For instance an employer has the legal requirement to ensure any vehicles used are safe, which by your definition is impossible.

I didn’t make that argument though, it’s an entirely separate issue as far as I’m concerned. I’m aware that safe is used frequently when absolute safety is not guaranteed, which is my issue with the political slogan “safe, legal and rare” - it’s obfuscation, where it is better to acknowledge the risks involved in an abortion, and at least to their credit when I go on the Planned Parenthood website, they do make it clear that there are risks involved and that abortion does involve risks -

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/the-abortion-pill/how-safe-is-the-abortion-pill

You do understand of course that in your example the legal requirement is enforced by the State, not by me as an individual - I’m free to make that risk assessment for myself, but the law requires a much more stringent and objective standard, as it does with abortion - a pregnant woman might well be of the opinion that she wants an abortion, but medical professionals are held to much more stringent standards in law, as are employers, for the benefit of society as a whole.

Hotblack Desiato

Shesty, the heath risks of giving birth are greater than having a (legal, medically supervised) abortion. That's just a fact.

OEJ has yet again bombarded a thread with complete nonsense and managed to divert the thread up a blind alley contradicting that complete nonsense, while they continue to post pages of waffle and contradict themselves shamlessly.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119330888#Comment_119330888

I suspect there's a line between protest, and perverting the course of justice by intimidation because the protest is specifically because of the presence of a member of the judiciary. If the judge weren't there, there wouldn't be a protest, and judges are supposed to be able to work free of external influence.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119333086#Comment_119333086

I’m fine with sticking to what the thread title is actually about, as opposed to introducing specious comparisons that don’t actually have a point and don’t go anywhere. I didn’t introduce the comparison in the first place, so accusing me of diverting the thread up a blind alley or contradicting myself?

Sure what else are you gonna do only resort to getting personal when you’ve nothing else.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119333168#Comment_119333168

You could argue the that any protest against any judge's decision is external influence. Odds are they will see it on TV if it is big enough and may well be influenced by it. Like I said it was not outside a Judge's house or courtroom and was, near as I can tell, peaceful.

I would disagree that a peaceful protest counts as intimidation. Indeed I suspect the court agrees with me given I am guessing there are rules over intimidating healthcare workers outside their homes but they did allow peaceful protests outside the homes of healthcare workers. Unless you consider that intimidation?

Overheal

Fox News Channel tried to brand as "Fake" the incident in which a 10 year old girl was recently raped and impregnated following the passage of her state's bans on rape-exempt abortion.

Then the rapist confessed.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-host-called-story-of-10-year-old-rape-victim-seeking-abortion-fake-the-rapist-just-confessed/

Multiple hosts and anchors decried the story as fake and lacking in any evidence.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119333083#Comment_119333083

You literally repeated the argument you said you didn't make. Your issue (near as I can tell) is that safe is being used when absolute safety is not guaranteed. In general abortions satisfy the general usage of the word safe.

An abortion requires a conversation with a doctor which is when you discuss the risks of going through with a procedure or the risks of not going through with a procedure on a case by case basis.

The law prevents a safer decision by forcing the risk of the birth. Obviously there is more that goes into a decision to abort however in terms of pure survival % of the woman in question the government is demanding a riskier course of action.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119333506#Comment_119333506

You literally repeated the argument you said you didn't make. Your issue (near as I can tell) is that safe is being used when absolute safety is not guaranteed. In general abortions satisfy the general usage of the word safe. 

The argument I didn’t make, is that giving birth is safer than abortion. If the point is that in general abortions satisfy the general usage of the word safe, then by that same standard, so too does pregnancy and giving birth, which neutralises a comparison which never should have been made in the first place.

An abortion requires a conversation with a doctor which is when you discuss the risks of going through with a procedure or the risks of not going through with a procedure on a case by case basis.

The law prevents a safer decision by forcing the risk of the birth. Obviously there is more that goes into a decision to abort however in terms of pure survival % of the woman in question the government is demanding a riskier course of action.

The law doesn’t do any such thing. The law sets out the conditions under which an abortion is permitted or prohibited, and it’s within that framework that anyone has to make decisions about abortion. The complicating factor in law is the issue of competing interests -

The Court also held that the right to abortion is not absolute and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

We’ve already established that giving birth is generally considered safe, but I won’t hold you to it if you want to reconsider that assessment.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119333175#Comment_119333175

Bull.

You said abortion was never safe.

BTW commenting on the quality of your posts in this thread (or rather the complete lack thereof) is not getting personal.

xxxxxxl

Hate to be a pedant. But no medical procedure is safe. You will never get a medical professional to admit that liability. Even medication has a manual with serious upto fatal side effects and to contact said medical professionals. Anything that causes heavy bleeding can go south fast. Why you would be advised to seek medical attention. To say otherwise is plain well.

y0ssar1an22

the 1 thing that gets my goat on this...its just such an affront to democracy.

personally i think the US supreme court should have ruled in line with the will of the loud.

the constitution doesn't really matter, and who are these justices to say it does matter; so go and vote on it.

its terrible. i think 9 unelected officials have a duty to please rather than to serve.

who needs the legislative branch?

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119334723#Comment_119334723

The unelected started the Issue. We can't have it both ways.