Breaking... US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

I thought I’d made myself perfectly clear?

Personally, I’m not in favour of those laws which don’t allow for physicians to be able to use their best judgment in determining what is an appropriate course of action, but I’m even less concerned about the idea of forcing women to give birth, that’s impossible in any case without some form of incarceration.

On the contrary - I get what you’re trying to do, I just don’t agree with your characterisation, that’s all. Just like a medical professional can’t be forced to dispense medication, or forced to perform a medical procedure just because the patient wants them to, or forced to carry out a procedure in accordance with the patient’s wishes.

Forced birthing - impossible without incarceration, not something anyone has to consider when States aren’t incarcerating pregnant women solely for the purposes of forcing them to give birth. Certainly you may wish to portray circumstances that way, and nobody is going to stop you doing that either. Most people just won’t entertain it.

Abortion are just about punishing women as if they actually cared they would improve the education system.

I’m not sure whether you mean to say there that abortion bans are about punishing women, but if I were to take it at face value, I’d agree, abortions are often more about punishing women who become pregnant and lack the resources to be able to provide for themselves and their families; mountains of research has concluded that the most common reason given by women seeking an abortion are socioeconomic circumstances, and to that end yes, improving access to education would mitigate the effects of adverse socioeconomic circumstances, as it does for well educated women who have been able to access education.

I’m not going to go so far as to suggest the enormously powerful lobby groups promoting abortion as a means of alleviating poverty should focus their efforts on education instead, that’d be unrealistic and something they’re unlikely to do anyway - it’s just not their motivation, which is fair enough.

Now as for the idea that abortion bans are just about punishing women, I’m not going to pretend I don’t know what you mean they’re being punished for, but using that line of reasoning, it would be just as logical to conclude that abortion bans are equally about punishing men too by ensuring they don’t skip out on their obligations toward their children. The idea that the State has any interest in punishing either men or women is nothing more than a specious argument, one which it’s generally easy to find… in political terms, a ‘useful idiot’ who will put forward that accusation and attempt to justify it with specious rhetoric -

Melanie McCulley, a South Carolina attorney coined the term male abortion in 1998, suggesting that a father should be allowed to disclaim his obligations to an unborn child early in the pregnancy. Proponents hold that concept begins with the premise that when an unmarried woman becomes pregnant, she has the option of abortion, adoption, or parenthood; and argues, in the context of legally recognized gender equality, that in the earliest stages of pregnancy the putative (alleged) father should have the same human rightsto relinquish all future parental rights and financial responsibility—leaving the informed mother with the same three options.

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

The Courts weren’t entertaining that one, for obvious reasons -

Dubay's claim that a man's right to disclaim fatherhood would be analogous to a woman's right to abortion rests upon a false analogy. In the case of a father seeking to opt out of fatherhood and thereby avoid child support obligations, the child is already in existence and the state therefore has an important interest in providing for his or her support.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubay_v._Wells

No more than they should ever have entertained the idea that abortion is a private matter that is only of concern to women, knowing that they would generally require physicians to facilitate the procedure, as the absence of someone who knows that they’re doing generally leads to adverse consequences for all involved.

Using the same reasoning employed by your logic, States which limit the conditions under which an abortion is permissible must really, really hate physicians, or perhaps they just seek to deter rogue physicians by making it prohibitive for them to perform abortions without compelling reasons that they have to be able to justify.

Not going to delve too much into the education system in the US itself, suffice to say that has always been, and will continue to be just another political battleground.

It's not just education though many pro abortion bans states promote abstinence and are against the use of contraceptives. Taking the right to have an abortion is punishing women more than men for obvious reasons. It actually gives more power to potential fathers by limiting the chance of the mother terminating their pregnancy.

The point wasn’t whether or not men suffer, it was to refute the idea that abortion bans are introduced with the idea of punishing women specifically, I may have been mistaken, but I figured where you might be coming from is the idea of punishing women for having sex?

I was making the point that the same specious rhetoric is employed in making the argument that men are somehow punished for having sex by being obligated by laws to provide for their children. It’s not an argument I’d make, hence the reason I don’t subscribe to the notion that abortion bans are about punishing women either.

Sex education isn’t the kind of education I was referring to, I was referring to a more comprehensive education, as opposed to the type of education which may only prove useful if one is seeking a career in the sex industry.

I’d like to believe you’d argue in good faith, but see where our beliefs have gotten us? I’m familiar with the concept of forced, which is why I rejected your proposition of “forced birth” outright. I wasn’t splitting hairs over your use of the term, I was pointing out that while you’re entitled to make it, I’m not obligated to accept your characterisation.

I’m sure you know well enough by now too that the most likely women to have an abortion aren’t just women who have children and understand the impact of another child, they also happen to regurgitate a lot of RCC propaganda; public opinion surveys suggest they aren’t in favour of abortion bans, and yet they encourage condemnation of women within their own communities who have had abortions.

Personally, I’d prefer if it were enshrined in law that it be a physicians duty to make the decisions and take the appropriate action they deemed necessary in whatever circumstances they were presented with, based upon their medical knowledge and judgment as opposed to their own personal moral code. That’s a nice idea, but I’m sure we both know it has no grounding in reality - they’re obligated by law to adhere to their employers code of practice, and in the US it’s the RCC are the dominant players in terms of education and healthcare provision, so it’s hardly a coincidence that my opposition to abortion would coincide with the RCC’s view. One could say the same of anyone who expresses opposition to abortion, that their views coincide with RCC propaganda. It’s an obvious point though.

EDIT: I’m not sure if you’re misremembering, I have no idea what way you’re reading my posts in the first place, but my opposition to the recent referendum to repeal the 8th amendment in Irish law was that it was based upon bad law in the first place - a knee-jerk reaction to the decision in Roe v Wade. Should never have been introduced in Irish law as it had the similar effect of hamstringing the medical profession in how they practiced medicine that inevitably led to some of the most ghoulish and unnecessary outcomes ever observed in Irish society. The legislation which replaced it isn’t any better in that it appears some people believe pregnancy only lasts 12 weeks. Cue more piecemeal legislation over the next 50 years.

Well obviously it’s in my opinion, I didn’t claim it to be anyone else’s?

It’s also my opinion (didn’t imagine it needed to be specified, but just for you), that you’d win that wager, as it was argued at the time that the 12 week limit was a compromise in order to have the referendum passed. They should have gone back to the drawing board, IMO, and drafted the legislation properly, so they wouldn’t end up later in exactly the same situation as before where in reality, nothing has actually changed:

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2023/0421/1378311-politics-abortion/

Yes. It is a punishment for women having sex. Otherwise they would do as you say and help education funding. They would call a fetus a child on principle and give child support for it.

Yes many who receive abortions are hypocrites. They simply believe their own case is special and they don't deserve punishment. I would bet a lot of money that in countries with more explicit anti women laws there are many who defend laws against sex outside of marriage for women while also breaking that law.

Not sure what your issue with the repeal the 8th. You have issues with the law drafted but no law that you approve could be drafted at all without changing the constitution.

Sex education is a vital tool for the population at large and in reducing the need for abortions. I believe you are asking a bit much for pro choice to fix all issues going.

They’re not a punishment for anyone having sex, they’re a prohibition against anyone providing illegal abortions. It’s a hell of a leap you’re making to try and conflate the two in a country which is the largest producer and distributor of pornography in the world.

I don’t care to call women who don’t share my views on what I believe is best for them hypocrites tbh, I know that abortion is a difficult moral issue for women, I know that towing the party line in public while maintaining their own private thoughts is what they feel they need to do too in order that they’re not ostracised from their communities.

It had little to do with this particular thread but just for the purposes of being civil I clarified my position on the 8th - should never have been brought into law in the first place, back in 1983 I mean, and the repeal of it was based upon equally flawed reasoning in order to have the referendum pass. For what it’s worth, I believe the passage of the referendum had less to do with the idea that the electorate came down with a sudden bout of feminism, and more to do with the idea of having the opportunity of condemning women deemed unfit to be mothers who choose not to have abortions. It didn’t matter that evidence suggests that poorly educated women living in poverty have higher rates of maternal mortality and infant mortality already, higher birth rates and higher rates of abortion already.

I didn’t ever put forward the idea of expecting the pro-choice lobby groups to fix anything, in fact I specifically said I don’t expect them to provide education as it’s not their motivation. I also made the point that the public education system in the US is another political battleground, and I don’t believe trying to emphasise the importance of sex education overrides the importance of access to education in the first place. Sex education wasn’t necessary for example when Nancy cosied up to the Pope to show the Archbishop of San Fran who’s yer daddy! 😂

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/29/1108548298/pelosi-vatican-communion-abortion-rights

I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if Abbot turned out to be a kinky ol’ bastard. It’s often the case that a person’s degree of public piety is directly proportional to their private perversions 😂

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna24148838

I wouldn’t call it scientific evidence, more just an anecdotal observation 🤔

It would cut down on my frequency of having to correct you when you continue to insert your own narrative in place of what I’ve said, when it appears your issue is the frequency of my contributions to a thread which is open to the public.

I never claimed to have opposed the 8th, I said it was bad law, which it was, and I’m well aware that the only way to have it repealed was via a referendum. The Government at the time published draft legislation which would commence should the referendum pass. It didn’t actually change anything as it was a bad idea to have the 12 weeks in there in the first place, and still the penalty of 14 years put medical professionals in a bad situation in terms of how they practice of medicine, similar to how SB. 8 means a penalty of 99 years and the possibility of being struck off*, which is why medical professionals are reluctant to practice medicine as they should.

But hey, like you suggested - pills in the post means providers don’t have to take any responsibility for their actions (not true, but I don’t imagine facts are all that important to your narrative), problem solved!

*Correction: it’s HB1820 makes the provision of abortion that results in the termination of a pregnancy a first degree felony that can mean 99 years in prison -

https://www.courthousenews.com/texas-trigger-ban-on-abortion-goes-into-effect/

It comes up in relation to abortion because abortion is purported as an individual right as a means to terminate an unintended pregnancy. Access to education reduces the likelihood of unintended pregnancy in the first place (it’s why both unintended pregnancy and abortion rates have been dropping in the US).

I don’t support abortion as an individual right, I do support the medical profession being able to practice medicine without the threat of a 14 year prison term should they decide that a termination of the pregnancy which would lead to the termination of the unborn is necessary in whatever circumstances are presented before them. The 12 week limit was nothing more than an appeasement for the Mattie McGrath types, it serves no practical purpose in the practice of medicine given that the typical gestation period in human reproduction and development is approximately 40 weeks, not 12.

Basic stuff.

What about them?

Right, I get you now. Same medical assessment of the patient and course of action determined necessary would apply in those circumstances, which is why I wouldn’t recommend codification of exemptions like that in legislation.

I’m lost as to how you got from one to the other there! 😳

An assessment of the patient in any given circumstances may include whole teams of physicians of different specialties, including an assessment of physical and mental health in order to form a comprehensive evaluation of the patient in order to determine a course of action.

It doesn’t follow from that, that anyone can commit rape or incest, they’re still very much prohibited by law. By that same token I wouldn’t assume a rapists victims would want a termination of the pregnancy. It’s an emerging area of law in some countries Overheal, one that pro-choice lobbyists have been able to lean on while it was assumed that a rapists victims would never wish to continue their pregnancy. In recent years that orthodoxy is being challenged and changes in law are being campaigned for in a number of States in the US:

https://prismreports.org/2022/03/22/in-multiple-states-rapists-can-sue-their-victims-for-parental-custody/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65274470.amp

That’s more a question for legal professionals than expecting it should be an issue medical professionals should have to grapple with.

Yet more BS. Nobody has ever assumed that. Abortion rights are about choice, choice means more than one option is available and any particular one is not an inevitability.