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.
I don't know, where?
Is the person pregnant and having to make a life and death choice at this moment ?
See that is the problem, you can twist the words of the constitution into anything you want them to be. Bullets were not even invented when the the constitution was written.
The argument is being made in relation to Roe that you have to look at it from the perspective of the time then it should stand the same for the 2nd amendment. If they are saying that abortion isn't a right then a whole host of others that have been provided based on the same approach shouldnt be either, but all but one of the SCs are saying that isnt the case (for now anyway).
I've asked you the same question twice and you've failed to answer repeatedly - it says it all.
You're the one who responded to my OP with an incredibly weak attempt at whataboutery conflating abortion access to vaccine mandates to try and ending up failing to show some hypocrisy.
I'll try a third time, over the multi-year pandemic name just one Democrat ran US state which brought in jail term for those who simply refused to get vaccinated? It is obvious why you can't answer because it doesn't exist and your original attempt at point scoring was built on nothing
Again, that’s your own interpretation of what actually happened, based upon the narrative you wish to promote as being what actually happened. It’s not what actually happened though. In the most basic terms - the school over-reached, and got told nope, can’t do that.
There is no disagreement that he chose to come off the sidelines and kneel and pray at the halfway line - the most central and public part of the field. It isn't my interpretation of what happened - it is literally what happened.
Interpretation is what the SC did by calling this action 'personal religious observance'.
Nobody is telling anyone what they can and can’t do with their own bodies, it’s the law which determines the freedoms and limitations on what anyone can or cannot do with their own bodies, and what freedoms and limitations anyone has with anyone else’s body either, such as abortion services providers who receive Federal and State funding, or bodies like the FDA who will try and find a way to challenge legislation which prohibits the procurement of abortion pills by telesales, etc.
You talk about laws as if they just magically appear. These laws in states are generally voted for by rich, white, and old men who come from extremely gerrymandered areas. My passing these laws they are setting up big government to tell women what they can do with their bodies.
Instead of taking your “my hands are clean, my conscience is clear” approach to addressing the main causes of socioeconomic deprivation by means of having the Federal and State taxes provide funding for abortion providers operating in socioeconomically deprived areas in the US, I mean, it’s one way of trying to eliminate a whole underclass of people living in poverty, do you think a better strategy might be to provide funding for supports and services which will enable and encourage socioeconomic equality, rather than having women forced into a position where they are faced with no other choice but to have an abortion? That’s not choice. That’s not choosing what they want to do with their own bodies. It’s promoting abortion, and attempting to sell it as healthcare.
You need people to be stupid enough to buy into it. It’s already a no-brainier for anyone who wants an easy way to avoid any social responsibility they have towards other people in society - wash your hands of it and pretend you’re arguing for anyone to be given the freedom to do what they want with their own bodies, and if it weren’t for 'big-government' mostly full of old white men, they would be too. But you treat everyone as individual human beings… of course you do, looks like it and all 😒
How deep is your head in the sand? Democrats and pro-choice folk are consistently trying to get more money for those in socioeconomically deprived areas while those Republican and pro-birth are consistently fighting any move to improve payments to these people or improving their healthcare opportunities.
Republicans are pro-birth and then wipe their hands of supporting families afterwards.
So violent...
Considering the Dodds decision the court used relied upon historical precedent it seems perfectly apt to discuss abortion history
How is it off-topic to discuss historical attitudes to abortion in a thread like this?
Bang me on Ignore or maybe I should bang you on Ignore?
Report my comments if you think they're against the rules or better yet don't read them.
To my mind replying to a post with "SO BLEEDIN' WHA'?" is a worthless contribution
Well Ireland (or Scotland?) will become more conservative I think.
Whether that has any policy consequences... Dunno.
I couldn't see RoI parties forming a cordon-sanitaire around ex-unionists that would come across as sectarian imo.
These posts don’t evidence wanting to chop someone’s dick off.
all of these posts are simple: the last time republicans banned or regulated a gun it was because it was being held by black men. Response: non whites and liberals should arm up as much as the gun nuts do and see how really comfortable they are with their OWN IDEA: arm the teachers arm the moms arm the dads arm the cashiers you have a gun she has a gun everybody has a gun opera.gif
what this does not translate to, is any open call for violence. Arranging to open carry is not against the law.
Yep, same shít different year...
"Fine"
What do you mean? Are you in agreement with me?
I see we’ve come full circle back to people advocating for children to be brought into the world for the sole purpose of being used as punishments for their sl*tty/irresponsible/selfish mothers.
How very pro life. Quite baffling that all these people who are trying to save the lives of children would be willing to trust a potential murderer with the upbringing and wellbeing of a baby? It’s almost as though they don’t really believe abortion is the murder of a child?
I had serious flashbacks to spring 2018 on Boards when reading this thread today.
Talk about strange bedfellows.
What is the basis for your assumption that all Protestants in NI are "hard-line" and anti-choice?
How many votes do the Iona Institute get? None as they won't register with SIPO as a lobby group, never mind as a party or run candidates.
How many votes do Catholic/Christian conservative independents (and all of the tiny alphabet soup Catholic/Christian conservative parties which existed in the past) get? Almost none. They struggle to reach three figures.
Your wet dream of a christofascist coalition holding this country to ransom is not going to come to pass. It'd be suicide for any ex-RoI party to do a deal with the DUP in a united Ireland - that's assuming there's any DUPpers left as Arlene and others are on record that they'll go to Scotland! (Lucky Scotland, eh...)
So bleedin' what?
Yet another totally off-topic non-sequitur
In terms of human history Christianity is a recent innovation
Yeah, pretty much.
Worth noting though that the dissenting justices pointed out that Roe's striking of balance between early and late abortions did actually have historical rhyme in historical American law. The majority opinion cited authority from the 13th century(!) and then kinda fast-forwarded through time to find convenient authority -- casually shrugging off that old British / colonial and subsequently post-revolution common law did not treat abortion as a crime 'pre-quickening'. So there was a historical thread of law which drew distinction between early and late abortions, along similar lines to the balance struck in Roe.
Roe v Wade didn't purport to "settle" the issue, it struck a balance and has provided that balance as a safety net for women against the failure of legislators to actually legislate. It is in fact this latest Supreme Court decision which purports to settle the issue -- by setting out unequivocally that from the moment of fertilisation a woman has absolutely no right to speak of -- none whatsoever -- when it comes to her decision on whether to proceed with it or not. And as you say, such thinking if applied consistently could be applied to many other modern rights.
If we absorb a million hard-line Protestants into a United Ireland, could a dream team of Iona Institute Catholics and the DUP hold a coalition government or two to ransom?
Interesting times ahead anyway.
St. Thomas Aquinas was famously more 'liberal' on abortion than a strict Catholic of 2022.
Medical technology and greater medical knowledge of foetuses has changed perspectives among the religious.
Also does anyone here remember that in 1983 the eight amendment brought with it accusations of 'sectarianism'?
Because opposition to abortion was considered a Catholic thing at that time.
Fast forward to 2022 and many Protestants are as passionately opposed to abortion as Catholics are.
One can never state overall direction for Judaism - there's not one group that makes policy and sets attitudes like, in, say the RCC. And there are Catholics who support abortion, too
It's controversial amongst Orthodox Jews.
There isn't blanket support for abortion within Judaism.
Actually, and imo unsurprisingly, the most recent demonstrations have featured violence *against the pro-choice* from the forced-birthers:
Lots of prior art for forced birthers resorting to violence including bombings, murders, vandalism, let alone the 'gauntlet' women were forced to run when visiting health clinics.
And supported by major religions like Judaism. Biblical support for abortion, heh.
Fine. Here's an article I've posted before talking about forced-birthing advocates like yourself who avail of abortion services, often at the places they picketed.
Opposition to abortion throughout history was not exclusively Christian.
Caesar Augustus, Ovid and Juvenal would be the most famous pagans from the classical world to be against it.
Nah, it's just the usual small number of anti-choice posters posting the same drivel furiously and repeatedly.
Makes about as much sense as saying slavery is grand because many people saw no problem with it until well into the 19th century, and indeed fought a war to maintain their "right" to own slaves.
Or persecuting LGBT people is fine, after all they had laws explicitly discriminating against them in most of the US until very recently... and unlike slavery, there is a real risk of a return to this.
Legal abortion is a 20th century concept in most places, but abortion has been around throughout human history and always will be.
The court's view on the interpretation of the constitution does seem very inconsistent though, as pointed out in the dissenting opinion.
Firstly, the majority of the Supreme Court essentially held that a right to abortion was unknown before the mid 20th century, and this greatly informed their decision that the rights conferred by Roe v Wade were, in essence, an overreach. However, the majority also stressed with great emphasis that their decision absolutely did not affect the constitutional rights pertaining to other things like access to contraception -- even if this concept (and the others they mention) were also not known rights until the mid 20th century.
So, essentially, they came to a somewhat confusing conclusion that the lack of a historical basis for the constitutional right conferred by Roe was a significant reason to overturn it -- but in the same breath they also say confidently that this view does not affect other things like contraception or interracial marriage. A consistent approach would mean saying that the Court's decision means that essentially all constitutional rights are insecure unless they have a requisite explicit trace of origin back to the 19th century.
The Court essentially seems to apply a different reasoning towards Roe because, as the dissenting judges plainly put it: they despise abortion, found an argument to frustrate it, but were expressly unwilling to apply that argument consistently across the strata of other rights.
None of those are actually advocating violence. They are all advocating being armed so others don't attack them. I mean I don't think I agree since it will lead to escalation but none of it is advocating violence.
We shall see when elected officials have to go into hiding and barricade their doors with furniture.
As you brought up the 6th as a comparison the equivalent statements I saw coming up to that were that Biden and Pelosi should be dropped out of a flying helicopter.
This is just argument for the sake of it.
The video is a clip from a YouTuber named Juan Guanzalez. A prankster type with a net worth of 16 million.
A chancer with scripted videos
We could boycott states where abortion is illegal in cases of rape or incest, don't visit those states, avoid buying from company's that are based in those states. I'm not saying do not buy any American products. Its interesting that certain company's were making big donations to Politicans who campaigned to make abortion illegal. It appears America will be more divisive republican controlled states versus states controlled by Democrats and the supreme Court will be voting for laws that allow more religious discrimation against lgbt minoritys .
