U.S Supreme Court overturns (Roe v Wade) legalised abortion

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Silly question, but who gets to determine "modern day changes required"?
"Modern day" science has determined that unborn children can feel pain when pulled apart by the abortion process. Is that an example of "modern day changes required", you were referring to?

It’s probably one of the hardest issues to debate. The rights of the unborn child v the rights of the mother.

I don’t think there is really any “one size fits all” answer.

There are perhaps stages throughout pregnancy that certain decisions can be made.

One thing is certain though it is poor women in states that ban abortion or have shorter deadlines that will suffer. If you can afford to fly to California, it won’t be a problem for you. If you’re poor and live in Texas…..not good.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well they have to work within the confines of their democratic system and not circumvent it via the courts. Roe v Wade and the actions resulting from that were unconstitutional (which is a big thing in the US)

If they can’t get a federal bill through , then it’s down to state legislature.

Many states will still offer abortions, if your state doesn’t, then lobby the state senate and Governor and /or vote them out.

Again……..democracy.

The Supreme Court and the Constitution are intentionally designed to guarantee some rights. For a time they had decided that a woman's right to choose was one of them. The debate is if it should be.

I understand you're saying these rights shouldn't circumvent lawmakers by using the court but that's their system. If we want to debate the merits of their democracy, I would also find fault with a system where California's 40 million people get the same level of representation as Wyoming's 500,000 people. A system which means 61% of Americans can support the right to have an abortion but legislation to protect that is never likely to pass because those people aren't distributed across the country. But again, their system.

Personally, I think there should be protection for individual rights beyond a show of hands at any given time. People's fundamental rights should not be taken from them because a majority (or this case, a minority) simply say so. And as long as America recognises this concept of inalienable rights then it's legitimate to question the court on what those rights should be.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Mick

States, mainly Republican leaning, will ban it in some form or totally ban it outright.

You think they'll try to punish people who leave their state to have one once they return or prosecute clinics in the states that perform the procedures on their citizens?

Originally Posted by nomadking

We can't have little thing called democracy get in the way of diktat. You're only allowed to vote or decide the way they demand.

The vast, vast majority of people there aren't in favour of this but don't let that get in the way of your little rant

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

You think they'll try to punish people who leave their state to have one once they return or prosecute clinics in the states that perform the procedures on their citizens?



The vast, vast majority of people there aren't in favour of this but don't let that get in the way of your little rant

There have been plenty of decades, before and after Roe v Wade, to change anything.
In each and every individual state? It's about those that are constantly trying to rule by diktat, without the messiness of a ballot box getting in their way.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

Personally, I think there should be protection for individual rights beyond a show of hands at any given time. People's fundamental rights should not be taken from them because a majority (or this case, a minority) simply say so. And as long as America recognises this concept of inalienable rights then it's legitimate to question the court on what those rights should be.

100% agree, it would probably require an amendment to the constitution though.

Originally Posted by Pierre

100% agree, it would probably require an amendment to the constitution though.

This is the law in Arkansas.

https://twitter.com/NicoleClowneyAR/...49907357167617

Arkansas’s abortion ban (in effect today) allows no exception for rape. It allows no exception for incest. It allows no exception for a lethal fetal condition.

This people claim to be protecting life and religiously motivated but the people who wrote that law are not. At least not like any religious person I have ever met. The minds behind this law are sick.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

This is the law in Arkansas.

https://twitter.com/NicoleClowneyAR/...49907357167617



This people claim to be protecting life and religiously motivated but the people who wrote that law are not. At least not like any religious person I have ever met. The minds behind this law are sick.

Like all things, the debate is nuanced. Extremes to either side of the debate are unpalatable.

But the debate needs to be had and a consensus needs to be reached.

That is a democratic and reasonable societal path to take.

If we cannot do that, in this or other matters, then Western democracy is screwed.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Like all things, the debate is nuanced. Extremes to either side of the debate are unpalatable.

But the debate needs to be had and a consensus needs to be reached.

That is a democratic and reasonable societal path to take.

If we cannot do that, in this or other matters, then Western democracy is screwed.

I don't want to keep going on about and beating a dead horse but I think what was the law: that women can choose what they do with their bodies with regard to pregnancy was correct. There isn't really an extreme position there. Like the U.K there was a limit at the point the fetus is considered 'viable', you could maybe debate a few weeks here and there but that isn't central to the issue.

Beyond that, I don't think there should be a debate on someone's rights. You can be against abortion no problem but it's not a belief you should impose on others. I understand that if someone believes that life begins at conception this is an extremely hard thing, you're talking about ending a life, but again I come back to the same argument that you can't force a woman to carry a fetus to term. Although I accept that taking that argument to the extreme means you could have an abortion just before birth.

I am pretty tired and this argument is a bit all over the place. There is also a lot of debate that could be had about the nature of the American democratic system. But for now, it's just a very sad day.

[Julian]

It’s the ultimate hypocrisy that the same people who are in favour of people being able to have virtually unlimited weapons of death, are the same people imposing a law that prohibits women having a choice with childbirth. Whatever the circumstances.
They are truly twisted.

[Jaymoss]

I am afraid I am pro life. I know as a man I do not have say and I know my opinion will go down like a ton of bricks. I understand cases where there is risk of life and those cases of rape resulting in pregnancy so I am not totally heartless on this matter

In the UK they allow abortion up to 24 weeks a friend of my ex wife gave birth at 22 weeks and the child survived so how can that be right to literally kill a viable person?

Ands lets be honest here the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies that are aborted are down to convenience " I am not ready" or "I just do not want it". That pregnancy is alive the cells are alive in a very short time there is a heartbeat and the potential of that child is unknown and totally lost.

Plenty of people out there want children and can not have them if abortion was harder to get then A the parent could when gone to term find they love the child and B if not they can put them up for adoption.

End of the day if you do not want a child do not have unprotected sex there is no excuse and it is totally irresponsible from both the female and male who makes the choice to not bag up or take the pill

I am sorry not sorry that my opinion will make people angry with me, I have held this opinion all my life and has nothing to do with my faith before some say it is. Abortion is the killing of a potential person will all the possibilities taken away from them

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

I've watched all of the episodes, fantastic series.

Totally agree. I was blown away by how good the lead actors are.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

I am afraid I am pro life. I know as a man I do not have say and I know my opinion will go down like a ton of bricks. I understand cases where there is risk of life and those cases of rape resulting in pregnancy so I am not totally heartless on this matter

In the UK they allow abortion up to 24 weeks a friend of my ex wife gave birth at 22 weeks and the child survived so how can that be right to literally kill a viable person?

Ands lets be honest here the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies that are aborted are down to convenience " I am not ready" or "I just do not want it". That pregnancy is alive the cells are alive in a very short time there is a heartbeat and the potential of that child is unknown and totally lost.

Plenty of people out there want children and can not have them if abortion was harder to get then A the parent could when gone to term find they love the child and B if not they can put them up for adoption.

End of the day if you do not want a child do not have unprotected sex there is no excuse and it is totally irresponsible from both the female and male who makes the choice to not bag up or take the pill

I am sorry not sorry that my opinion will make people angry with me, I have held this opinion all my life and has nothing to do with my faith before some say it is. Abortion is the killing of a potential person will all the possibilities taken away from them

I currently think the Abortion Act got matters right and in the case of rape there really should be no fault applied in particular.In fact at the end of the day I think it's really the woman's choice whether she puts her health and body at risk in the rape situation.If men don't want a partner aborting their child then as you say bag up or use the male contraceptive.

[jfman]

Bizarrely agreeing with Pierre here that a fundamental right (if it is at all) shouldn’t rely upon 9 judicial appointees skewing really hard at a 200 year old document and a right to privacy overturning the opinion of 9 judicial appointees 50 years earlier.

If a democracy wants to legalise abortion it should have a clear law that states the circumstances under which it is so enacted by it’s elected representatives only.

While there is a role the judiciary to interpret law, it’s scope, purpose and intent it’s simply preposterous to claim that the US constitution written before abortion was a safe medical procedure intended to legalise it.

Originally Posted by jfman

Bizarrely agreeing with Pierre here that a fundamental right (if it is at all) shouldn’t rely upon 9 judicial appointees skewing really hard at a 200 year old document and a right to privacy overturning the opinion of 9 judicial appointees 50 years earlier.

If a democracy wants to legalise abortion it should have a clear law that states the circumstances under which it is so enacted by it’s elected representatives only.

While there is a role the judiciary to interpret law, it’s scope, purpose and intent it’s simply preposterous to claim that the US constitution written before abortion was a safe medical procedure intended to legalise it.

Therein lies a hurdle. To fully legalise abortion in all 50 States, I’d say would need to have a Constitutional Amendment, Amendment 28. That way, no individual State can create any law banning it and no matter how many Supreme Court Justices, there are, it would be “Unconstitutional”, to rule any kind of ban, or release any prior rule that puts back at State level.

The hurdle as mentioned above, an Amendment would be almost impossible today. The Founding Fathers, or “Framers”, the men who wrote the Constitution, wanted the amendment process to be as difficult as possible. Their belief, was that a long and complicated amendment process would help create balance & stability in the United States.

The chart below highlights how difficult it would be today to create an Amendment.



Difficult because America is too divided, you’d never get 3/4 States to agree with each other. You’d never get two thirds majority in both Houses of Congress.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Julian

There ya go.....

Lawrence vs Texas will be the one they go for...