The Right religious conservatives and who knows who else have today overturned the constitutional right to abortion in the US.
Will this now embolden anti abortionists in this country to fight back?
The US is a cold place for women now.
Do you not consider people to have gone through a hysterectomy to be women?
The right goes on about what is a woman question but any of their off the cuff definitions don't even match what they think a woman is.
I suspect a large part of why women is used is because any thread I have seen referring to people with regards abortion gets taken off track pretty quickly as people seem to get really offended by referring to women as people for whatever reason.
the root of the problem is the people that think a fetus should have the same or greater rights than that of a woman.
but once born, it's fu*k you, shouldn't have had sex in the first place, guffaw guffaw
disgusting
The proper place for federal law to be passed is by congress or referendum. A congress that has had 50yrs to codify abortion legislation but didn't because of cowardice and convenience.
I find it hard to understand this but I don't really understand the American legislative system, with filibusters and supermajorities and all that. Given how many Democratic presidents and congressional leaders have been strongly pro-choice over the years, I can only conclude there is a serious block in the system to getting such legislation on the books.
what's confusing?
people with wombs = women
If you'd bothered to read the piece, you'd see the attacks were monitered over the span of the last 50 years - still happening relatively recently, including murder. Kavanaugh wasn't murdered and received round-the-clock protection directly thanks to a bill signed by Joe Biden granting such protections to Supreme Curt justices and their families.
The guy, who was suicidal and suffered with mental issues called the cops himself to confess to wanting to harm Kavanaugh in part, because he was distressed over the Ulvade school massacre and feared Kavanaugh would loosen existing gun laws (which, incidentally, he did). He wasn't part of a 'leftist' mob at all.
Scare mongering is part and parcel of what keeps people like Trump in power, so I understand that mindset that has you believing all left leaning folk are violent fascists, but let's face it, it wasn't the lefties who violently infiltrated the Capitol building and attempted to over throw a Democratic election now, was it?
Probably true but the movement behind repealing roe vs wade was lead by the evangelicals in America and the two biggest organisations that lost the referendum here was a religious organisation and the Catholic church.
No, it was widely covered until someone appeared in court, therefore the case is now sub-judice.
Literally the same for any murder case. Once someone is charged, it is then a matter before the courts until a verdict. Anything that is said (such as what you said here) in between the point of someone being charged and a verdict can be detrimental to the proceedings.
If you're going to post, make sure you have a clue what you're talking about first instead of peddling your conspiracy theory bile. It's the law, not what your la la land bullsh*t wants it to be.
True, and i'm sure a lot of the current push back against progressive left has to do with the aggressive attitude coming from activists.
You see no irony in your statement given the fact that Roe V. Wade was a decision made by 9 individuals in the first place? Perhaps 9 people shouldn't have been making that decision, which is the root of the problem today. This is what you get when you encourage judicial activism, top down decisions imposed by a very few individuals making up law as the go along to suit themselves, often at odds with the constitution. Even RBG stated that it was a gross over-reach by the supreme court, but as a judge that was all about judicial activism, she was fine with that of course. But what's good for the goose and all that...
The proper place for federal law to be passed is by congress or referendum. A congress that has had 50yrs to codify abortion legislation but didn't because of cowardice and convenience. Roe V. Wade was a ridiculous judgement based on a lie to twist the screws on the court (Roe was never raped) but was a lie and a bad judgement that suited the activists. Now they are baring the brunt of a bad call.
I highly doubt that my views are that much of an anomaly. I think people are underestimating the variety of views and opinions people have.
It was briefly covered until their murderer turned out to be the Muslim son of prominent local businessman. The family were granted asylum here and the guy grew up with a comfortable privileged life here, then he got into the old Dark Ages stuff and decided to stalk and murder two very vulnerable gay men simply because they were gay. The Dark Ages religion tends to be very keen on murdering gay people. I've no doubt he'll be found to have been suffering more 'mental illness' and be tucked away in a nice cosy mental institute somewhere.
They have, but initially, they were fleeing Europe in search of religious freedom. The separation of church and state was a founding principle because of this. Now they seem to pick justices based on religious ideology over qualifications.
I'm judging society by today's standard, not 50 years ago. The left have become the new right, look at the dozens of parental clinics that have been attacked by crazed leftists over the last few weeks, not to mention the hit job attempt on Brett while he was home with his family
I think you may find you are very much in the minority. The only countries in Europe that don't allow abortion are Poland and Malta both overwhelmingly Catholic. I think people do not want to force women to carry a pregnancy against their will, and that's how they make their moral judgement on abortion. We always hear from the Right the fear that Western Values are being threatened by immigration, well abortion, like it or not, is a Western value.
Yeah, it's the pro-choice crowd who are violent, unhinged fascists.... 🙄
This ruling is anti-woman. Simple as. If men who were the ones who won the genetic lottery and had to worry about getting pregnant, hyperemesis gravidarum, preeclampsia, ectopic pregnancy, Post-natal depression, breast feeding on demand, bringing up a child alone, putting their education / careers on hold etc., you'd be able to buy abortion pills over a drug store counter.
As it is, men will never experience any of physical or emotional side-effects of pregnancy, yet it is mainly men in power (I suspect some of whom who are currently extolling the virtues of forced birth have personal experience of paying for the termination of unplanned pregnancies they contributed to) who are making these decisions.
If women are to bear the brunt of child birth/care, perhaps it might be just as prudent to enact a policy whereby men are ordered to start paying child support from the time of conception. Or even better, let's see how they like having their bodily autonomy invaded by mandating vasectomies until the man in question feels 'ready' for fatherhood?
Sound fair?
Very simplistic pidgeon holing in your behalf there.
For example I'm pro life but haven't been in a church in 30 years. I'm too old for fairytales.
I do believe in not killing unborn children though.
You don't have to be religious to have morals.
I will agree that childcare for working parents here needs far more support. However on the generality Ireland has very good parental benefits/leave and child allowance.
I was talking about the US anyway, which you neatly avoided commenting on.
A 20 something killed two gay men and planned to kill more but was arrested. What's to say? A quick Google search will give you oodles of links, including mention of community vigils and political reactions. Just because you have little recall of it being discussed doesn't mean it fell through the cracks.
That religious element have been there since the 1600s though. They've never not been there.
So when people say things like "Its no longer the land of the free", "Its no longer a great country" its like Huh?
It is a complicated situation but it seems that certain rights only being granted at state level has resulted in some obvious errors by states like slavery, bans on interracial-marriage and gay marriage. I think its dangerous for society to allow something for 50 years and then take it away based on the decision of nine individuals. No one can believe that the supreme court is unbiased given they are chosen specifically based on their ideologies.
It's just confusing because the same posters that post regularly in "support" of trans issues are deliberately excluding them from this conversation. Just trying to understand why.
Does this affect trans people or not?
it was not and it was barely discussed here, we all know why
there are posters on here who love bashing america for its policies, there level of interest and outrage depends on who is the deemed victim and who is the deemed perpetuator.
We all know it
Thankfully we live in a progressive country free from these religious lunatics.
People with wombs are women, that's who we have been talking about here all along
maybe because only women can get pregnant?
provide evidence to your statement
That argument leads down to multiple ethical rabbit holes. Should a terminally ill person be allowed kill themselves? It's their health, their body... yet most societies have taken that choice away from them. There's no 'right' to suicide in any country I'm aware of, those few countries which do allow it have allowed for it through active legislation.
The US courts are being asked here to rule on an ethical, not legal, problem. A large part of the population considers a fetus to be a life. Indeed, in California, it's sort of Shroedinger's life. If the wrong person kills a fetus, it's murder. If the right person kills a fetus, it's legal abortion. Even as late as the third trimester, though, it's still not a person for carpool regulations. At least the law is clear for each situation, even if the logic is tenuous.
It is not a single-sided decision, and even Justice Blackman's opinion in Roe made clear that they were trying to balance two competing interests. To quote from Roe, the State "has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life". It's not purely about women's health or privacy, it was a balancing act, which is why the court came up with the three trimester legal categorisations. US Jurisprudence has traditionally deferred to legislators (and even the executive branch, though Chevron is starting to get rolled back) when absent any other direct guidance in caselaw or the Constitution precisely because the Courts don't think it's their place to resolve ethical matters like that. Yet the court decided for whatever reason that it had to.
Even once one goes beyond the ethical/moral questions of abortion, Roe is also an excellent example of the ethical question of "do the ends justify the means?". This is an argument which has been going for centuries, and isn't likely to be resolved in the next few months. Allowing for abortion through legislation (or Constitutional amendment, if you feel strongly enough about it) will get the same result through a method which has a much less shaky foundation. Otherwise, we have the argument also between people who want abortion however it is obtained, and those who want abortion but will only tolerate it through certain paths. Consider the path abortion took to become legal in Ireland as a template.
A gerrymandered democracy so things remains as they suit those who can move people around. There is more than a hint there will be a look at same sex marriage and contraception. Sadly the elected folks in Texas, Georgia, Missoureh or even Michigan may not exercise a balanced rights-based approach in those areas.
Nonsense that story was really widely covered in ireland.
ah yeah woman who had rights before but will not now will not be celebrating but I get your point. It is slightly complicated by the fact that roe vs wade judgement was that abortion rights were in the constitution. I think both side cant be happy as this shows that the constitution can be interpreted in different ways by different justices depending on their own ideologies.
I would say there would be uproar if in the future democrat appointed supreme justices interpreted the well regulated militia line differently and decide gun rights should be reduced country wide.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/11f397efbb618f280f346771bb290fe0.svg)
