Right to abortion overturned by US Supreme Court after nearly 50 years in Roe v Wade ruling

[Traveller55]

The process of life having begun doesn't make it alive. If you want to extend 'process of life has begun' to non-living clumps of cell, well the process of life has begun when you start producing sperm. Ergo, when you have a wet dream, you are killing millions of 'would-be babies'.
Each time a woman has a period, she is 'killing a future baby of hers' - the only difference between her egg and a blastocyst, is the # of cells, that's it.

The line is very precise and sharp: It is not a living entity, until it has a brain function. It is not an independent living entity, unless it is capable of living without direct biological dependency on another living organism.

To clarify the last part, abortion, under no rationale, is murder, if done before there is brain function. As I said, you cannot kill something if it isn't alive and brain function is the official, world-wide medical definition of being alive. This is not an 'opinion',its a medical fact. Doctors don't consider something alive, medically speaking, if it doesn't have brain function.

So therefore, if terminating a foetus before brain function is murder, then by same accord, cutting your nails = murdering nails, cutting your hair = murdering hair. What does hair, nail and a foetus pre-brain function have in common ? they all lack a brain and therefore, are not alive. None of them can live independently of the host organism (in this case, the human being its attached to).

So abortion before 22-23 weeks (not exactly sure of the number), when there is no brain function, is not murder.


Now, what about after 22-23 weeks ? it can be murdered- but not by the mother. Ie, if I kick a pregnant woman in the belly (say she is 7 months pregnant) and she miscarries, yes, I have committed murder.
Because I have unilaterally killed a life-form that has brain function.

However, till the baby is delivered, the baby is dependent on the mother's biology to stay alive. The basis of fundamental human rights rationale, is a person has total and complete agency over their own body. So if a 8 month pregnant woman deciedes to stop sharing her body with another organism, its fundamental exercise of her agency over her own body. Does not matter if that organism a tapeworm or ringworm or her own baby.

Since she is exercising her agency over her own body, any other being affected by it, is of secondary and latter consequence- ergo, it is also not an act of murder. What it is, in this scenario, is ' withdrawal of her grace to share her body with another entity, resulting in the death of the said dependent entity, which happens AFTER the grace is withdrawn.

 

[ManFan]

I fail to see the relevance, as getting pregnant is not equivalent to jumping off a bridge.

The jumping off a bridge was an example of making a life-changing decision with potential consequences. Once you make that decision and are in the process, it would be unreasonable to step away due to the fears of uncertainty.

 

[Traveller55]

The jumping off a bridge was an example of making a life-changing decision with potential consequences. Once you make that decision and are in the process, it would be unreasonable to step away due to the fears of uncertainty.

Once you jump off a bridge, it is physically impossible to change the outcome (that you will fall till you hit terra ferma).
Inapplicable in the case of pregnancy - we can terminate a pregnancy at any point if we so choose, in overwhelming majority of cases.

If one has the option to step away, then one has the power and the right to exercise said option. This is why your analogy is broken - you do not have the power or any option once you jump off a bridge. You most certainly do if you get pregnant. This is not 1800s, this is the modern world. New technology gives us new options.

 

[ManFan]

Once you jump off a bridge, it is physically impossible to change the outcome (that you will fall till you hit terra ferma).
Inapplicable in the case of pregnancy - we can terminate a pregnancy at any point if we so choose, in overwhelming majority of cases.

If one has the option to step away, then one has the power and the right to exercise said option. This is why your analogy is broken - you do not have the power or any option once you jump off a bridge. You most certainly do if you get pregnant. This is not 1800s, this is the modern world. New technology gives us new options.

It is a response to those who say that it is acceptable for a woman to be always right to do whatever she wants with her body, even if it means terminating it without the consent of her partner. Pregnancy can be avoided and or terminated but never with half-commitment. That does neither the man, woman, and child any good.

 

[Traveller55]

It is a response to those who say that it is acceptable for a woman to be always right to do whatever she wants with her body, even if it means terminating it without the consent of her partner. Pregnancy can be avoided and or terminated but never with half-commitment. That does neither the man, woman, and child any good.

Its always right for ANY person- man, woman or 'third sex'- to do what they want to with their body.
The most fundamental right of any sentient entity, is total control over their own body.

The man has no say in it, because it is NOT his body that is sharing itself with the organism. So a man's right to his own body is irrelevant here. And if a man has any say, then it means we are denying the women the most basic fundamental right, which is total control of their own body.

As I said, the only scenario where the man has a right, is IF we were an egg-laying species. Because then the woman's choice is not reflective of her fundamental right to her own body- she can choose to abandon the egg and the man can choose to sit on it instead.

 

[ManFan]

Its always right for ANY person- man, woman or 'third sex'- to do what they want to with their body.
The most fundamental right of any sentient entity, is total control over their own body.

The man has no say in it, because it is NOT his body that is sharing itself with the organism. So a man's right to his own body is irrelevant here. And if a man has any say, then it means we are denying the women the most basic fundamental right, which is total control of their own body.

As I said, the only scenario where the man has a right, is IF we were an egg-laying species. Because then the woman's choice is not reflective of her fundamental right to her own body- she can choose to abandon the egg and the man can choose to sit on it instead.

The woman is the basket that carries the egg and the man plants it. These are not my words but my former biology teachers. So a woman can do whatever she wants with her body? Than I guess the woman who knowingly gave hundreds of men AIDS in Africa was also correct because her body, her choice, right?

 

[Traveller55]

The woman is the basket that carries the egg and the man plants it. These are not my words but my former biology teachers. So a woman can do whatever she wants with her body? Than I guess the woman who knowingly gave hundreds of men AIDS in Africa was also correct because her body, her choice, right?

The man plants it in HER body. So yes, the woman can do whatever she wants with her body. Just like a man can do whatever he wants with his body.

Again your analogy is broken : because having ability to choose whatever I wish with MY body, does not mean I can do whatever I wish with another independent, living life-form's body. having sex, is not exclusive exercise of fundamental agency of 1 entity over their body. It involves atleast two independent entities.

 

[ManFan]

The man plants it in HER body. So yes, the woman can do whatever she wants with her body. Just like a man can do whatever he wants with his body.

Again your analogy is broken : because having ability to choose whatever I wish with MY body, does not mean I can do whatever I wish with another independent, living life-form's body. having sex, is not exclusive exercise of fundamental agency of 1 entity over their body. It involves atleast two independent entities.

You may very well think that but I couldn’t possibly comment. On a serious note, that’s a horrible way to think. Man and woman work together to have a child. It’s a simple idea. Both are equally responsible for its creation. For one to make a decision for it based on their own reasoning is entirely selfish in a relationship.

 

[Traveller55]

You may very well think that but I couldn’t possibly comment. On a serious note, that’s a horrible way to think. Man and woman work together to have a child. It’s a simple idea. Both are equally responsible for its creation. For one to make a decision for it based on their own reasoning is entirely selfish in a relationship.

No, both are not equally responsible. The woman is more responsible. The egg itself is 1000x the times the size of the sperm. Sperm ONLY provides DNA so that cloning errors are made, the egg provides equal parts DNA as the sperm but ALSO the early nutrients for the blastocyst.
Then the woman carries it in her womb.

In all mammals, females are the primary contributors to procreation, men are secondary- our ONLY job is to provide a base variety of DNA, so we don't end up like clones and have genetic defects.
Those are the cold, hard biological facts.

A woman contributes more towards making a baby and therefore, she has more of a say in the topic. Its also in her body, which she has a fundamental right to. Its all pretty simple really. Its hard to accept because we all come from traditionally male dominated societies, but science is pretty clear on this.

 

[faraz39]

Except science doesn't determine morality. That comes from the values we hold.
Same people who defend a woman's right to choose because it's her body would restrict it if scores of women began to abort based on gender (which happened in Canada). In this instance, the morality of the people said it was more important to stop gender based abortion than to allow a woman to have "right over her body."

Similarly, many people hold the opinion that past a certain term, abortion should not be allowed unless there are exceptional circumstances (rape, health, forced pregnancy, etc.) . This could be based on the values they were raised on which in this case stems from an Islamic point of view.

You can choose to believe it's a woman's right to do "whatever she wants" even though there are instances of that right being denied as I mentioned above. And I'm sure in the next 20 years, something else will come along that will change that morality too because that's the nature of morality in the modern western society -- it constantly changes with time and latest societal trend/fad.

 

[Traveller55]

Except science doesn't determine morality. That comes from the values we hold.
Same people who defend a woman's right to choose because it's her body would restrict it if scores of women began to abort based on gender (which happened in Canada). In this instance, the morality of the people said it was more important to stop gender based abortion than to allow a woman to have "right over her body."

Actually, it is not illegal in Canada. What has been acknowledged, is its wrong to abort children BASED on their gender- which the advocacy has sought to address by denying ultrasound to determine the gender of the baby. The right of the woman to abort is still intact in Canada.

Similarly, many people hold the opinion that past a certain term, abortion should not be allowed unless there are exceptional circumstances (rape, health, forced pregnancy, etc.) . This could be based on the values they were raised on which in this case stems from an Islamic point of view.

You can choose to believe it's a woman's right to do "whatever she wants" even though there are instances of that right being denied as I mentioned above. And I'm sure in the next 20 years, something else will come along that will change that morality too because that's the nature of morality in the modern western society -- it constantly changes with time and latest societal trend/fad.

As it should. Morality, like every other concept/tool out there, is there to serve us. Not for us to serve these concepts. Reality of human existence is fast changing, primarily due to technological and information revolution of the last 100 years. Makes perfect sense to keep the moralities changing to fit our needs into the future too.

 

[faraz39]

That's your choice to believe in a changing morality. For the vast majority of Muslims, we take our morality from Islam which has flexible enough boundaries to accommodate the changing times without comprising on its core principles.

 

[Traveller55]

That's your choice to believe in a changing morality. For the vast majority of Muslims, we take our morality from Islam which has flexible enough boundaries to accommodate the changing times without comprising on its core principles.

Sure.
But a religious moralism cannot override the simple axiom of agency towards one's own body. That is a basic, innate concept - just like how religion cannot override the idea that rape or murder is detestable.

This is where religions breakdown actually, because axiom of agency fundamentally disagrees with religions on the fact that women are not answerable to anyone for what they choose to do with their bodies- including abortion.

 

[faraz39]

That's an axiom made up by those who follow relative moralism. You can't create an axiom in your world view and impose it on mine.

 

[Traveller55]

That's an axiom made up by those who follow relative moralism. You can't create an axiom in your world view and impose it on mine.

Agency over one's own body is no more a made up axiom as killing your own parents is wrong. It doesn't matter if religion sanctions it or not, it is a fundamental makeup of human consciousness.

 

[faraz39]

Once again, that's an axiom in your worldview and you have a right to believe it.
I don't feel the need to mention the Islamic POV on rights of a body to convince you otherwise since I'm content in my belief.

 

[Traveller55]

Once again, that's an axiom in your worldview and you have a right to believe it.
I don't feel the need to mention the Islamic POV on rights of a body to convince you otherwise since I'm content in my belief.

I don't think you are understanding what I am trying to convey here.
I am stating that right of agency over one's body, is a fundamental mindset of species homo sapiens, which transcends religion. It is not the only one- we have certain mindsets that transcends any religion or philosophy. Ie,it is biological in nature.

No-matter WHAT a religion says, nobody is going to happily accept another person controlling their body.
Just like no matter WHAT a religion says, nobody is going to enjoy the idea of killing their parents.
Or giving up sex forever. No matter what your religion says, nobody enjoys the idea of fasting. As a muslim, you should empathize with this- nobody goes 'YEEHAW ! Ramadan !! I am gonna enjoy not eating food'.
These are stuff that are greater than any and all religion and its diktats.

Yes, you could argue that there are statistical oddities in our midst who'd fulfill that criteria, but those are statistical oddities, not normative behavior.

 

[faraz39]

I understand your point very well and say it once again: the principle that a person is not answerable to "anyone" for what he/she does to their own body is not an Islamic one.

Ultimately we are answerable to God in everything we do.

 

[Traveller55]

I understand your point very well and say it once again: the principle that a person is not answerable to "anyone" for what they do to their own body is not an Islamic one.

Ultimately we are answerable to God in everything we do.

Ok. By that logic, the woman is free to abort as she chooses fit, awaiting God's judgement. You or me or anyone else has zero authority to judge her for exercising a fundamental agency of our species.


PS: The 'anyone' in my equation is anyone that actually directly interfaces with the said person. God - whether you believe in the concept or not- does not directly interface with us. We don't usually consider religious people who say 'So God visited me in my mind and told me this kicka$$ joke...or he told me to put extra salt in my kabaab' as mentally sound. So sure, if God wishes to judge - the judgement is in its hands.
Not yours, not mine, not any other human being's for exercising a fundamental right of being human.

 

[faraz39]

As I said earlier, I'm not really interested in convincing anyone on the merits of Islamic POV on body rights. I only jumped in the discussion to point out we come from different reference points and the only one aggressively preaching their belief here is not the one who believes in God. The irony

 

[ManFan]

No, both are not equally responsible. The woman is more responsible. The egg itself is 1000x the times the size of the sperm. Sperm ONLY provides DNA so that cloning errors are made, the egg provides equal parts DNA as the sperm but ALSO the early nutrients for the blastocyst.
Then the woman carries it in her womb.

In all mammals, females are the primary contributors to procreation, men are secondary- our ONLY job is to provide a base variety of DNA, so we don't end up like clones and have genetic defects.
Those are the cold, hard biological facts.

A woman contributes more towards making a baby and therefore, she has more of a say in the topic. Its also in her body, which she has a fundamental right to. Its all pretty simple really. Its hard to accept because we all come from traditionally male dominated societies, but science is pretty clear on this.

No, the notion of coming from male dominated societies is a sub par stereotype. The woman and man are two separate entities of matter that combine to form a new one. This whole discussion has been that the man, has equal responsibility and therefore necessity, to know what will happen to his child. If the woman performs an abortion without the husband's consent, than that is wrong. Not biologically wrong but morally wrong. The argument that since it is in her body she can do whatever she wants is wrong because the organism is shared by two parents. Both who have helped create it and share responsibility for it.

 

[Traveller55]

No, the notion of coming from male dominated societies is a sub par stereotype.

it isn't a steriotype, it is a fact. You, I - we all come from societies where men have traditionally held way more power than women have.

The woman and man are two separate entities of matter that combine to form a new one. This whole discussion has been that the man, has equal responsibility and therefore necessity, to know what will happen to his child. If the woman performs an abortion without the husband's consent, than that is wrong. Not biologically wrong but morally wrong. The argument that since it is in her body she can do whatever she wants is wrong because the organism is shared by two parents. Both who have helped create it and share responsibility for it.

But man does not have equal responsibility. Man is not carrying the child within him or nurturing it after birth.
If two people put 5 dollars each into a venture, then one person spends 9 months working on the venture and another 2 years giving life support to the venture, while the other person is doing nothing directly towards the venture, how in the world are they equal partners and equally responsible ?

Its a categoric falsehood that men and women are equal partners in creating a life. They are not. Women are the primary partner, men are secondary partner in creation of life.
If a woman makes a decision about HER BODY, she is not obligated to ask the man for it- even if the man was an equal partner in the said topic. Since he isn't, the question doesn't arise.

 

[KingKhanWC]

The process of life having begun doesn't make it alive. If you want to extend 'process of life has begun' to non-living clumps of cell, well the process of life has begun when you start producing sperm. Ergo, when you have a wet dream, you are killing millions of 'would-be babies'.
Each time a woman has a period, she is 'killing a future baby of hers' - the only difference between her egg and a blastocyst, is the # of cells, that's it.

The line is very precise and sharp: It is not a living entity, until it has a brain function. It is not an independent living entity, unless it is capable of living without direct biological dependency on another living organism.

When medical officials confirm a woman is pregnant, she is then on a course to produce life. Its very simple, you're confusing yourself.

 

[JackTR]

Anti except in the case of medical emergency or rape apart from that I see it as a murder

 

[Traveller55]

When medical officials confirm a woman is pregnant, she is then on a course to produce life. Its very simple, you're confusing yourself.

Irrelevant. Confirmation of pregnancy does not make the thing inside her alive. If it isn't alive, it can't be killed or murdered. Fairly simple logic.
If your contention is, it WILL develop into a life under proper conditions, well so will your sperm. Ergo, you spilling your sperm,is also possible ending of a future kid of yours. You ran away from this.

 

[Traveller55]

As I said earlier, I'm not really interested in convincing anyone on the merits of Islamic POV on body rights. I only jumped in the discussion to point out we come from different reference points and the only one aggressively preaching their belief here is not the one who believes in God. The irony

I missed this comment. I am fully aware of what the Islamic POV is- considering that i am a former muslim.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Irrelevant. Confirmation of pregnancy does not make the thing inside her alive. If it isn't alive, it can't be killed or murdered. Fairly simple logic.
If your contention is, it WILL develop into a life under proper conditions, well so will your sperm. Ergo, you spilling your sperm,is also possible ending of a future kid of yours. You ran away from this.

A sperm by itself is not the beginning of anything. When a woman is pregnant it marks the confirmation a life will be formed and born in due course. Daft comparison and Im being nice.

 

[Traveller55]

A sperm by itself is not the beginning of anything. When a woman is pregnant it marks the confirmation a life will be formed and born in due course. Daft comparison and Im being nice.

A sperm by itself is the beginning block to life- without it, there is no zygote in the first place.
A zygote by itself is also not the beginning of anything, if the sperm and eggs (its precursors) are not the beginning of anything.

The only thing daft, is you differentiating between various different non-alive, clumps of cells and calling one alive, while the other isn't. Or by saying one clump of cells is beginning of something, while its pre-cursor is not the begining of anything.

You are straying far from logic, reason and rationalism and only trying to fit in your religious agenda into it.

This is why you insist on calling first trimester abortion- the equivalent of cutting hair or nails- as murder.

 

[faraz39]

"I missed this comment. I am fully aware of what the Islamic POV is- considering that i am a former muslim."

Maybe. Maybe not. Being a former Muslim doesn't equate to knowing the religion.

 

[Traveller55]

Maybe. Maybe not. Being a "former Muslim" doesn't equate to knowing the religion.

It doesn't necessarily equate it to knowing the religion, but it also doesn't necessarily equate to not knowing the religion.

A common fallacy of many people, is to assume that rejection of an ideology = ignorance of the ideology. Doesn't matter if its religion or way of life ( a lot of communists think the same of former commies - they didn't really 'know' communism).

This is a standard defense mechanism of self - for if one were to consider rejection of one's own belief systems to be rational by someone else, it brings forth the 'perhaps I am wrong too' notion- which leads to conflict within self. Much easier to dismiss it as 'they didn't know it like I know it, else they wouldn't reject it'.

In my experience, people reject ideologies for a whole host of reasons - its too tough to follow for some, its inconvenient for others, for some its to appease a love interest, for some it simply does not make sense/they see the flaws in it, etc etc.

I personally rejected Islam, because it simply did not stand up to the kind of scrutiny western philosophy brings up. Too many inconsistencies, too many absurdities, etc. Whether you choose to believe me or not, is more about what type of defense mechanism you wish to engage, more than anything else.

 

[faraz39]

You preach and lecture a lot for a person who has left religion.

 

[Traveller55]

You preach and lecture a lot for a person who has left religion.

Preaching and lecturing isn't the sole domain of religion, those are personality traits that transcends religion.

 

[faraz39]

So you agree to being an atheist who aggressively preaches and lectures others on his (or her) beliefs?

 

[KingKhanWC]

A sperm by itself is the beginning block to life- without it, there is no zygote in the first place.
A zygote by itself is also not the beginning of anything, if the sperm and eggs (its precursors) are not the beginning of anything.

The only thing daft, is you differentiating between various different non-alive, clumps of cells and calling one alive, while the other isn't. Or by saying one clump of cells is beginning of something, while its pre-cursor is not the begining of anything.

You are straying far from logic, reason and rationalism and only trying to fit in your religious agenda into it.

This is why you insist on calling first trimester abortion- the equivalent of cutting hair or nails- as murder.

You missed the part where I wrote a A SPERM BY ITSELF. A sperm on it's own cannot produce a life. When a woman is pregnant, a life is on the way. How hard is this for you to understand?

Look if you are happy to kill your unborn child when your partner is pregnant, this is your choice. I assume you would as you are favour of abortion?

 

[Traveller55]

You missed the part where I wrote a A SPERM BY ITSELF. A sperm on it's own cannot produce a life. When a woman is pregnant, a life is on the way. How hard is this for you to understand?

Look if you are happy to kill your unborn child when your partner is pregnant, this is your choice. I assume you would as you are favour of abortion?

yeah, a zygote by itself also cannot produce life. Else we'd be growing babies in a vat by now.

When a woman is pregnant, a life is on the way- IF certain conditions pan out. Same with the sperm or egg- when a sperm is made, a life is on the way- IF certain conditions pan out. Its not that hard to understand.

As for killing unborn children - they are not children till they have a brain function. Till that point, they are identical to a benign tumor's pathway (dependent on the host, no brain function, mass of differentiating cells).
As for my choice - its not my choice. Its my partner's choice. And I've told that to her in the past- its her body, not mine. I can give my like/dislike about it, but just like she isn't obligated to change how she dresses based on my likes and dislikes, same way she is not obligated to take my likes/dislikes into consideration re: abortion.

I've also said the same thing to my daughter - that if one day she becomes a mother, the choice is hers and hers alone. Not that of her husband/partner/boyfriend and any man who says otherwise, does not deserve her.
Said the exact reverse to my son.

 

[Traveller55]

So you agree to being an atheist who aggressively preaches and lectures others on his (or her) beliefs?

Err, I don't believe in anything that is not empirically valid. Neither have I said anything on this thread that is empirically invalid. Its a common misunderstanding that atheists have beleifs- we mostly do not, as most atheists are fundamentally against the concept of belief and pro-knowledge.

 

[KingKhanWC]

yeah, a zygote by itself also cannot produce life. Else we'd be growing babies in a vat by now.

When a woman is pregnant, a life is on the way- IF certain conditions pan out. Same with the sperm or egg- when a sperm is made, a life is on the way- IF certain conditions pan out. Its not that hard to understand.

Well done.

Once a woman is pregnant, it is normally expected a baby will born. Of course things can go wrong.

As for killing unborn children - they are not children till they have a brain function. Till that point, they are identical to a benign tumor's pathway (dependent on the host, no brain function, mass of differentiating cells).
As for my choice - its not my choice. Its my partner's choice. And I've told that to her in the past- its her body, not mine. I can give my like/dislike about it, but just like she isn't obligated to change how she dresses based on my likes and dislikes, same way she is not obligated to take my likes/dislikes into consideration re: abortion.

I've also said the same thing to my daughter - that if one day she becomes a mother, the choice is hers and hers alone. Not that of her husband/partner/boyfriend and any man who says otherwise, does not deserve her.
Said the exact reverse to my son.

Of course no future lifeform starts with a brain but they will develop everything in a human when they are born.

Anyway lets agree to disagree, the below is far more interesting.

Oh I see leaving all the responsibility to the woman. Surely the father also has a say in matter?

 

[Traveller55]

Well done.

Once a woman is pregnant, it is normally expected a baby will born. Of course things can go wrong.

So what ? Once a sperm meets an egg, it is normally expected a baby will be born. Ofcourse things can go wrong too.

The entire point is, you are arbitrarily drawing a line between a bunch of cells who under no definition are alive as an entity.

Of course no future lifeform starts with a brain but they will develop everything in a human when they are born.

And until they do develop a brain function, they are not alive. Its pretty straight-forward really.
Anyway lets agree to disagree, the below is far more interesting.

Oh I see leaving all the responsibility to the woman. Surely the father also has a say in matter?

No, he does not. Not his body, not his say. Not equal partner in creating a life either. So also no say.

 

[KingKhanWC]

No, he does not. Not his body, not his say. Not equal partner in creating a life either. So also no say.

I have moved on from the first point , I dont agree and have my point.

Ok youre entitled to your view.

Now if you were a woman, would you abort or not?

 

[Traveller55]

I have moved on from the first point , I dont agree and have my point.

Ok youre entitled to your view.

Now if you were a woman, would you abort or not?

I don't know, I am not a woman. Until I can actually know what it feels like to have a thing growing inside you, my speculation is irrelevant. Its the same kind of irrelevant speculation as 'if you were God what would you do ?'...well I am not, so I have no idea.

You don't have a point, since you are categorically wrong in calling termination of something, that does not meet the definition of being alive, as murder. As I said, if terminating a zygote is murder, so is cutting your hair or chopping your nails. AT THAT POINT in time, its not alive. Something not alive, cannot be killed. Its all fairly simple, really.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I don't know, I am not a woman. Until I can actually know what it feels like to have a thing growing inside you, my speculation is irrelevant. Its the same kind of irrelevant speculation as 'if you were God what would you do ?'...well I am not, so I have no idea.

You don't have a point, since you are categorically wrong in calling termination of something, that does not meet the definition of being alive, as murder. As I said, if terminating a zygote is murder, so is cutting your hair or chopping your nails. AT THAT POINT in time, its not alive. Something not alive, cannot be killed. Its all fairly simple, really.

That's your opinion Im wrong, try and learn to move on. You dont seem to know how to debate.

Speculation?

So you have no idea if you would or not. I accept your answer which also means you are open to abortion if you was a woman. As I said if you want to stop your own baby from being born, it's your choice but imo it's immoral.

 

[Traveller55]

That's your opinion Im wrong, try and learn to move on. You dont seem to know how to debate.

Speculation?

So you have no idea if you would or not. I accept your answer which also means you are open to abortion if you was a woman. As I said if you want to stop your own baby from being born, it's your choice but imo it's immoral.

there is no such thing as immoral or moral that goes beyond the basic wants of humanity. And stats show, where abortion is legal, women want it.
What religion or certain philosophies wish to impose as morals, is rather irrelevant to the fact that many women want it and that makes it desirable, which makes it objectively, moral to the self.

PS: Its not an opinion that you are wrong to call abortion pre-brain function as murder. Its a fact, since it contravenes the factual & empiric, legally accepted (by almost all the free courts in the world) definition of being alive.

 

[Sachin136]

I'm prolife, assuming there are no medical concerns, a possibility of sexual assault, etc.

 

[James]

Irrelevant. Confirmation of pregnancy does not make the thing inside her alive. If it isn't alive, it can't be killed or murdered. Fairly simple logic.
If your contention is, it WILL develop into a life under proper conditions, well so will your sperm. Ergo, you spilling your sperm,is also possible ending of a future kid of yours. You ran away from this.

I disagree, surely a fertilised egg represents something different to a random bit of spilt sperm.

 

[Traveller55]

I disagree, surely a fertilised egg represents something different to a random bit of spilt sperm.

Yeah, it repsents something different.
Just like whatever nutrients go into making sperm represents something different than sperm ( whatever is the precursor stage to sperm inside the gonads, for eg).
And a fertilized egg, after a few more days or a week or two, will represent something different.

None of these things are alive. None of these things possess consciousness of any sort. And if you believe in a soul, then any biological matter that doesn't have a brain, doesn't posess a soul either.

These all stages, represent nothing more than a pre-life form and cannot possibly be considered 'alive'. Right up to the point that there is brain-wave.

The issue of abortion generates so much confusion, because it is actually a two-parter question, rolled into one (which people do not realize):

part A: Pre-brain waves abortion : its a bunch of cells. It can grow into a life-form the same way a freshly laid chicken egg can turn into a life-form but isn't. But it isn't- yet. Same way the sperm can too under right conditions, but isn't in and of itself.
So there is no murder, no nothing - this is easy-peasy decision as far as 'taking a life' goes: no life is being terminated.

Part B: after brain-waves. This is the pickle and this is where things get 'lose-lose' more or less. Because simple fact is, there are few things worse in life than being unwanted children of their parents of a 'mistake'.
And even if not, this then becomes the situation of two beings sharing the body of one, with one being having active control. Everyone, as I said, wants total control over their bodies and everyone hates being forced to do something with their bodies. And since the 'active entity' is the superior entity (first priority to the body, as its their body), its their choice ultimately whether they wish to share the body with the foetus or not.

These are the only two points of the debate that matter (ie, debate around consciousness of the baby and its rammifications and the right of the host). Whether agree or disagree, this is the crux of abortion.

As a man, I have no problem admitting, that a man has 0% role in this discussion. Donating a few dollops of sperm over max 1 hour does not, in any rational or ethical scenario, give the man any say over what happens to something inside a woman's body.
The 'right of the husband' is, nothing more than an imposition of one citizen's will (man's) over another (the woman's) and cannot be condoned ethically.

 

[barah_admi]

This discussion varies from country to country and in some places, from state council to state council.

In the UK, the first hurdle we have to get over is decreasing the cut off date for an abortion, which currently stands at 24 weeks. that to me is abhorrent, as birth even earlier than that is viable. The argument to pro abortion is that "oh, it is just a clump of cells"...problem is, 24 weeks is not just a clump of cells.

However, the pro abortion lobby is so strong, they will not even allow a medical/scientific discussion on changing the cut off.

 

[humzy]

That's your opinion Im wrong, try and learn to move on. You dont seem to know how to debate.

Speculation?

So you have no idea if you would or not. I accept your answer which also means you are open to abortion if you was a woman. As I said if you want to stop your own baby from being born, it's your choice but imo it's immoral.

Whats immoral about it?

 

[Firebat]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">In a landmark ruling, the US Supreme Court strikes down a Louisiana law restricting abortions as unconstitutional <a href="https://t.co/oXz8Nekze5">https://t.co/oXz8Nekze5</a></p>— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) <a href="https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1277610210887118848?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 29, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Savak]

Kids are a blessing from God. Speak to those couples who have been struggling to conceive for 10 years and the emotional toll it takes on the marriage.

 

[shaykh]

On a side note ...should me be provided the option of opting out of fatherhood?...

 

[MenInG]

A federal judge has temporarily blocked a controversial new law in Texas that effectively bans women from having an abortion in the state.

US District Judge Robert Pitman granted a request by the Biden administration to prevent any enforcement of the law while its legality is being challenged.

The law was put forward and approved by Republican lawmakers in Texas.

The White House called the judge's ruling "an important step" to restoring Texas women's constitutional rights.

Judge Pitman, of Austin, wrote in an 113-page opinion that, from the moment the law came into effect on 1 September, "women have been unlawfully prevent from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution".

"That other courts may find a way to avoid this conclusion is theirs to decide; this Court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right."

This is the first legal setback for Texas since the law was implemented, and state officials are expected to appeal Judge Pitman's ruling.

The Biden administration took legal action after the conservative-majority Supreme Court declined to prevent Texas from enacting the law. The justice department filed an emergency motion to block enforcement of the law while it pursues legal action.

Democrat President Joe Biden has described the law as an "unprecedented assault" on women's rights, but Texas Governor Greg Abbott has defended it, saying: "The most precious freedom is life itself."

The "Heartbeat Act" bans terminations after the detection of what anti-abortion campaigners call a foetal heartbeat, something medical authorities say is misleading. This effectively bans abortions from as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, at a time when most women will not be aware they are pregnant.

The law also gives any individual - from Texas or elsewhere - the right to sue doctors who perform an abortion past the six-week point. However it does not allow the women who get the procedure to be sued.

One doctor who admitted breaking the state's new abortion legislation has already been sued.

Writing for the Washington Post, Dr Alan Braid said he "acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care.

"I fully understood that there could be legal consequences - but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn't get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested," he wrote.

 

[Robert]

A federal judge has temporarily blocked a controversial new law in Texas that effectively bans women from having an abortion in the state.

US District Judge Robert Pitman granted a request by the Biden administration to prevent any enforcement of the law while its legality is being challenged.

Good. However the abortion clinics have not restarted as doctors are concerned that this injunction may now provide them with sufficient legal protection.

So desperate Texan women will resort to backstreet abortions and put their own lives at risk.

 

[MenInG]

A US appeals court has temporarily reinstated Texas's near total ban on abortions.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to a request from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton that an injunction imposed against the law be lifted.

On Wednesday, a lower court had temporarily blocked the bill for the "offensive deprivation" of the constitutional right to an abortion.

The restrictive law bans all abortions at about six weeks of pregnancy.

It gives any individual the right to sue anyone involved with providing or facilitating an abortion after foetal cardiac activity is detected, and makes no exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest.

On Wednesday District Judge Robert Pitman granted a request by the Biden administration to prevent enforcement of the law while its legality was being challenged. He held that women had been "unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution".

However, Texas officials immediately appealed against the ruling, which the New Orleans-based, conservative-leaning Fifth Circuit court has agreed to set aside. It ordered the justice department to respond to its ruling by Tuesday.

In a statement following the latest ruling, Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, called on the Supreme Court to "step in and stop this madness".

"Patients are being thrown back into a state of chaos and fear, and this cruel law is falling hardest on those who already face discriminatory obstacles in health care, especially Black, Indigenous, and other people of colour, undocumented immigrants, young people, those struggling to make ends meet, and those in rural areas," she said.

"The courts have an obligation to block laws that violate fundamental rights."

Meanwhile, Attorney General Ken Paxton said the court's decision was "great news" and added that he would "continue to fight to keep Texas free from federal overreach".

The dispute over the law could ultimately end up before the US Supreme Court, which in September declined to hear an emergency case filed in a last-minute bid to prevent the ban passing into law.

Several clinics in Texas had resumed providing abortions to patients who were beyond the six-week limit following Wednesday's order.

They may now face some legal risk, as the law includes a provision that says clinics and doctors may still be liable for abortions carried out while an emergency injunction is in place, legal experts say.

However, it is unclear whether such a provision can be enforced, with Judge Pittman saying in his ruling that it is "of questionable legality".

Some women have reportedly been travelling to other states where the procedure is legal.

BBC

 

[sweep_shot]

I dislike abortion.

I am against abortion after 40 days. Also, it has to be a legitimate reason.

 

[Robert]

I dislike abortion.

I am against abortion after 40 days. Also, it has to be a legitimate reason.

A lot of women don’t even know they are pregnant at forty days.

 

[MenInG]

US President Joe Biden's administration has said it will ask the Supreme Court to block a restrictive Texas law that imposes a near-total ban on abortion.

It comes after a federal appeals court reinstated the law.

The Supreme Court cited procedural issues when deciding against intervening to block it last month.

The law bans abortions after what anti-abortion campaigners call a foetal heartbeat is detected, a notion disputed by medical authorities.

The law - which makes an exception for a documented medical emergency but not for cases of rape or incest - gives any individual the right to sue doctors who perform an abortion past the six-week point.

Critics have said this provision - which provides monetary awards for those whose lawsuits are successful - lets people act as anti-abortion bounty hunters.

President Biden has vowed to fight the Texas ban, citing Americans' constitutional rights.

Since the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade, US women have had the right to an abortion until a foetus is viable - that is, able to survive outside the womb. This is usually between 22 and 24 weeks into a pregnancy.

In response to a Justice Department lawsuit over the Texas law, US District Judge Robert Pitman in Austin, Texas, last week issued a preliminary injunction halting its enforcement, calling it "flagrantly unconstitutional" and a violation of Roe v. Wade.

The judge said he would "not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right".

But the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals effectively reinstated the ban in Texas on most abortions once a heartbeat is detected in the womb.

On Thursday, the court confirmed the law would remain in place during ongoing proceedings.

The Justice Department is expected to formally file its appeal in the coming days.

The decision of the Supreme Court - which has a 6-3 conservative majority - will be watched closely throughout the US.

Its initial refusal to intervene was seen as confirmation of its conservative leanings after appointments by former President Donald Trump.

BBC

 

[Last Monetarist]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-hears-challenges-texas-near-total-abortion-ban-2021-11-01/

U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared to lean toward allowing a challenge brought by abortion providers to a Republican-backed law that imposes a near-total ban on the procedure in Texas and lets private citizens enforce it.

Over nearly three hours of oral arguments, the justices heard separate challenges by President Joe Biden's administration and abortion providers to the Texas law.

Abortion rights in the United States are hanging in the balance as the nine justices tackled the dispute over the Texas law barring abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy before hearing arguments on Dec. 1 over the legality of a Mississippi measure prohibiting the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

In the challenge brought by Texas abortion providers, the court on Sept. 1 declined to halt the law, with five of the court's six conservative justices in the majority. But there were signs during oral arguments that some conservative justices were reconsidering their positions.

Some justices signaled that existing Supreme Court precedent could accommodate the lawsuit brought by abortion providers challenging the law against even with the measure's unusual private-citizen enforcement structure.

However, in the Biden administration's challenge, conservative justices seemed more skeptical about the federal government's power to sue Texas over the law.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked clinic lawyer Marc Hearron about whether under the unusual structure of the law defendants could ever get a "full airing" of the constitutional claims on the right to abortion. Under the law, abortion providers can bring up the right to an abortion as a defense only after they have been sued.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed interest in an outcome discussed by liberal Justice Elena Kagan in which state court clerks would be barred from docketing lawsuits brought by private individuals seeking to enforce the law.

Kavanaugh said the Texas law "exploited" a loophole in court precedent concerning when state officials can be barred from enforcing unconstitutional laws. He wondered if the court should "close that loophole."

Kavanaugh also wondered if states could pass similar laws that could infringe other constitutional rights, including the right to bear arms. A state, for example, could allow for $1 million in damages against anyone who sells an AR-15 rifle, he said.

Kagan said the law was written by "some geniuses" to evade the broad legal principle that "states are not to nullify federal constitutional rights."

Other justices, including conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, appeared skeptical about the idea of judges themselves being sued under the law. Roberts on Sept. 1 had dissented along with the court's three liberal justices.

Some conservative justices, including Justice Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, raised the question of whether anyone would have standing to sue under the Texas law without having a direct injury.

Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone, defending the law, said "outrage" based on opposition to abortion would be grounds to bring a lawsuit.

In the Biden administration's challenge, Roberts questioned Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar as to the "limiting principle" for the federal government suing states, noting that a different administration could also try to directly challenge states over their laws. Other conservative justices expressed similar doubts.

At issue is whether federal courts can hear lawsuits aimed at striking down the Texas law and whether the U.S. government even can sue to try to block it. If the justices keep federal courts out of the process by virtue of the law's unique design, it could be replicated in other states and curtail abortion access in other parts of the country.

The Texas and Mississippi laws are among a series of Republican-backed abortion restrictions pursued at the state level in recent years. Lower courts blocked the Mississippi law.

Abortion opponents hope the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, will roll back abortion rights or even overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that recognized a woman's constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy and legalized the procedure nationwide.

The law bans abortion at a point in time when many women do not yet realize they are pregnant. There is an exception for a documented medical emergency but not for pregnancies resulting from incest or rape.

The Texas measure takes enforcement out of the hands of state officials, instead enabling private citizens to sue anyone who performs or assists a woman in getting an abortion after cardiac activity is detected in the embryo.

That feature made it more difficult to directly sue the state, helping shield the law from being immediately blocked. Individual citizens can be awarded a minimum of $10,000 for bringing successful lawsuits under the law. Critics have said this provision lets people act as anti-abortion bounty hunters.

The abortion providers and Biden's administration have called the law unconstitutional and explicitly designed to evade judicial review.

The law's design has deterred most abortions in Texas, which is the second most populous U.S. state, behind only California, with about 29 million people.

The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the abortion providers case refused to block the law and indicated that federal courts lack jurisdiction to intervene. After a federal judge in the Biden administration's challenge blocked the law on Oct. 6, the 5th Circuit quickly reinstated it.

Mississippi has asked the justices to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Texas attorney general has signaled he also would like to see that ruling overturned.

The Texas dispute reached the Supreme Court with unusual speed. The justices agreed to take up the matter on Oct. 22, bypassing lower courts that are considering the challenges.

 

[transparent opacity]

Why US abortion laws could be changed by Supreme Court ruling

The US Supreme Court is about to hear the most important abortion case in a generation.

On Wednesday it will consider a Mississippi law which asks the court to ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Its final ruling, due in June next year, could cut off abortion services for tens of millions of women.

What is the right to abortion in the US?
A woman's right to abortion was established in 1973, following a Supreme Court ruling in a case known as Roe v Wade.

The decision gave women in the US an absolute right to an abortion in the first three months of pregnancy, and limited rights in the second three months.

Nearly two decades later the court made another key decision.

In Planned Parenthood v Casey, the court ruled that states could not place an "undue burden" on women seeking abortions before foetal viability.

In the US, this threshold for when foetuses can sustain life outside the womb has been set at about 23 or 24 weeks.

Why could a Mississippi law overturn Roe v Wade?
A state law was passed in Mississippi in 2018 which would make most abortions illegal after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy - including those caused by rape or incest.

It hasn't been enforced due to a legal challenge by Mississippi's only abortion provider, the Jackson Women's Health Organization.

The US Supreme Court is now due to consider the case.

Mississippi is asking for Roe v Wade to be overturned, and with it the constitutional right to an abortion in the US.

If successful, states would be welcome to set their own standards for abortion - including outright bans before foetal viability.

Nearly two dozen states are expected to introduce their own bans, some probably more severe than Mississippi's.
In a legal brief filed this summer Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch - who will be defending the state's law - said that throwing out Roe would effectively return decision-making about abortion to the American people and their elected officials.

"The matter should be returned to the States and the people," she wrote. Ms Fitch did not return a BBC request for comment.

How is the Supreme Court expected to rule?
There are three possible outcomes next summer:

overturn Roe v Wade
rule that the Mississippi law does not place "an undue burden" on women seeking an abortion - this would leave Roe standing in principle, while undermining it in practice
strike down the Mississippi law, allowing Roe to stand - though this is considered unlikely
The first option is a distinct possibility. The court, reshaped by three appointments under former President Donald Trump, has been called the most conservative-leaning in modern US history.

"It has been a 50 year campaign to overrule Roe v Wade and there certainly are enough members of the court now to do so," said Katherine Franke, director of the center for gender and sexuality law at Columbia University.

But she believes an outright repeal is unlikely. Instead, the court could uphold the Mississippi law while keeping both Roe and Casey in place.

Still, lawyers for Jackson Women's Health Organization have said that such a decision is tantamount to gutting the court's past abortion rulings, because it would discard the foetal viability standard.

Where could abortion become illegal if Roe v Wade is overturned?
That could happen in 22 states, including Mississippi.

Twelve have passed so-called trigger laws, which would automatically ban abortion if Roe was overruled.

Others have either passed unconstitutional abortion bans in the years since Roe v Wade (which would be revived), or retained abortion restrictions from before Roe, which are currently unenforceable.

In all, nearly half of US women of reproductive age (18-49) - some 36 million - could lose abortion access, according to research from Planned Parenthood, a healthcare organisation which provides abortions.

In more than half of US states, abortion access would probably remain the same.

In 15 states and the District of Columbia, state law guarantees the right to an abortion even if Roe v Wade is overturned.

Who would be most affected?
Hollowing out abortion access would most intensely affect poor women - who are already more likely to seek an abortion in the first place.

Black and Latina women are likely to be inordinately affected - 61% of abortion patients are minorities.

"The typical abortion patient is in their 20s, doesn't have a lot of money and has one or more children," said Rachel Jones, a principal investigator at the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice group.

"These are the groups that are going to be the most impacted when restrictions are placed on abortion, or abortion is banned."

Why it isn't always easy to get an abortion now
Although Roe v Wade gave US women a guaranteed right to an abortion, for millions it is a right in name only.

In the decades since 1973, anti-abortion rulings have gradually pared back access in more than a dozen states.

In 2021 alone, nearly 600 abortion restrictions have been introduced nationwide, with 90 enacted into law. That is more than in any year since Roe.

And abortions have long been out of reach for many low-income women.

Since 1976, a law known as the Hyde Amendment has blocked the use of federal funding for the procedure.

Women are often forced to pay for abortion themselves, which can cost cost hundreds of dollars.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59340789

 

[Hassaan HS]

US Supreme Court hears landmark abortion case

The US Supreme Court has heard arguments in the country's most important abortion case in decades.

The case, Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization, concerns a Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

The court has never before allowed bans before a foetus can survive outside the womb, around 24 weeks, but appeared open to such restrictions on Wednesday.

The ruling, expected in June, may see millions of women lose abortion access.

Both sides of the debate regard this case as an all-or-nothing fight over abortion rights, with nationwide consequences.

Lawyers defending the Mississippi law have explicitly asked the court to overturn two landmark decisions regarding abortion.The first, 1973's Roe v Wade, gave women in the US an absolute right to an abortion in the first three months of pregnancy, and limited rights in the second trimester.

Nearly two decades later, in Planned Parenthood v Casey, the court ruled that states could not place an "undue burden" on women seeking abortions before foetal viability, about 24 weeks.

In the years since, foetal viability standard has acted as a red line in abortion law, preventing any bans an abortion before this time.

But addressing the court today - with its 6-to-3 conservative majority - Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart told justices that the two rulings "haunt our country" and "poison the law".

Mr Stewart took direct aim at the existing foetal viability standard, arguing that it is not "tethered" to the Constitution or any other historical precedent.

Justice Sonya Sotomayor, a liberal, took issue with this claim, responding: "there's so much that's not in the Constitution".

Representing Jackson Women's Health Organization - the only abortion clinic in Mississippi - Julie Rikelman of the Center for Reproductive Rights spoke next, asking the court to strike down the Mississippi law and maintain a woman's right to abortion.

"Mississippi's ban on abortion, two months before viability, is flatly unconstitutional under decades of precedent," Ms Rickelman said. Mississippi's law would "force women to remain pregnant and give birth against their will".

Ms Rickleman underlined her argument that foetal viability is the "central holding" of both Roe and Casey, and urged the court to uphold its own precedent. But she faced pointed questioning from several of the justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, on why the viability standard is appropriate.

In his questions on Wednesday, the chief justice appeared open to abortion bans after 15 weeks, a troubling sign for abortion advocates because Mr Roberts is seen widely as the ideological centrist of the court.

The US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar also spoke before the court today, arguing against the Mississippi abortion ban on behalf of the Biden administration.

"The real world effects of overruling Roe and Casey would be severe and swift," she said, adding that women have come to rely on this "fundamental right".

If the court strikes down Roe v Wade, or rules that the Mississippi law does not place an undue burden on women seeking abortions before foetal viability, at least 21 states are expected to introduce abortion restrictions, including outright bans after 15 weeks.

In these states, nearly half of US women of reproductive age (18-49) - some 36 million people - could lose abortion access, according to research from Planned Parenthood, a healthcare organisation that provides abortions.

Carol Tobias, president of anti-abortion group National Right to Life, told the BBC she was optimistic that the court would step in "to protect unborn children".

"We certainly hope that they will let the Mississippi law stand," she said. "We'd love to see them go even further and say that unborn human beings deserve the same protection as born human beings."

Some experts have predicted dangerous ripple effects if abortion is restricted.

"We will see significant increases in maternal mortality, which are already disproportionately experienced by women of colour. We will see families descend into greater levels of poverty because the inability to take care of kids, rises in domestic violence," said Katherine Franke, director of the center for gender and sexuality law at Columbia University.Who gets abortions in the US?

There were about 630,000 reported abortions in the US in 2019 according to the US Centers for Disease Control.

This was an 18% decrease compared with 2010.

Women in their twenties account for the majority of abortions - in 2019 about 57% were in this age group.

Black Americans get abortions at the highest rate - 27 per 1,000 women aged 15-44.

The pro-choice Guttmacher Institute says a lack of access to healthcare plays a role, as does discrimination.

Their 2014 survey found three quarters of people receiving abortions were either on low incomes or below the poverty line in the US.

"The typical abortion patient is in their twenties, doesn't have a lot of money and has one or more children," said Rachel Jones, a principal investigator at the Guttmacher Institute. And data shows that women of colour are overrepresented among abortion patients. After two hours of oral arguments, the Roe v Wade precedent that has set a baseline of abortion rights through the US for nearly half a century appears to be in serious jeopardy.

That shouldn't come as a huge surprise, given that the US Supreme Court is now dominated by conservatives, three of whom were appointed by Donald Trump with the explicit goal of overturning Roe.

Still, the tenor of questioning by the justices over the course of the morning suggests that there is, at the very least, a five-justice majority willing to uphold Mississippi's ban on all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Chief Justice John Roberts, who is now at the ideological centre of the court, seemed comfortable with such a result which, in and of itself, would constitute a major blow to Roe's first-trimester abortion protections.

That may end up a best-case scenario for abortion-rights supporters at this point, however. Other justices, like Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, displayed an openness to a wholesale reversal of Roe, returning the question of abortion legality to individual states.

That's the outcome anti-abortion activists have been working toward for decades - and today it seems closer than ever to becoming a reality.

Via : https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59495210

 

[Last Monetarist]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/anti-abortion-activists-march-washington-buoyed-by-waning-us-abortion-access-2022-01-21/

Tens of thousands of anti-abortion advocates gathered in Washington on Friday for the annual "March for Life," their mood boosted by the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court could soon upend the Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.

Despite freezing temperatures, the activists -- many attending with their school and church groups from around the country -- assembled on the National Mall carrying signs that read "I am the post-Roe generation" and "The future is anti-abortion."

The event marks the 49th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Attendees were optimistic that this would be the last march to occur before the overturn of the landmark 1973 ruling that established a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy before the fetus is viable, at around 24 weeks.

Rachel Young, 19, came from northeastern Ohio with fellow students at Franciscan University of Steubenville, a Roman Catholic school that sent several busloads of students on the five-hour trip to Washington.

Young said it was her third time attending the march but that it was a uniquely exciting occasion because of how close the Supreme Court seemed to overturning Roe.

"I just can’t even believe it," she said. "I am so thankful that God has brought us here. And that we are so, so close."

In December, the Supreme Court signaled its openness to overturning Roe during arguments for a case out of Mississippi. The conservative justices, like Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, indicated sympathy for Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban, which violates Roe's precedent.

If the conservative-leaning court rules in Mississippi's favor, it could overhaul abortion rights protected in the United States for nearly half a century. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

The anti-abortion movement also is celebrating a Texas law that banned abortion after six weeks and empowered private citizens to sue anyone who assists someone getting an abortion past that gestational limit. The Supreme Court has allowed that law, which took effect in September, to stand as it's challenged in lower courts.

Marchers walked from the center of the National Mall to the steps of the Supreme Court on Friday, some singing hymns along the way. A few people waved Trump flags and signs amid the sea of anti-abortion banners.

Several members of the white nationalist group Patriot Front attended, bearing shields and jackets with their group's insignia and lifting a banner that said "Strong Families Make Strong Nations." Police officers surrounded the group, keeping them cordoned off from onlookers and the rest of the anti-abortion march.

Abortion has long been a politically divisive issue in the United States, with abortion opponents concerned about preserving life from conception and abortion rights advocates standing for a woman's bodily autonomy.

In recent years, Republican-controlled states have advanced legislation and policies making it harder for women to get an abortion. The Guttmacher Institute, an abortion rights organization, found that 2021 saw the most restrictions of U.S. abortion rights in decades, with 108 abortion restrictions enacted in 19 states as of Dec. 31.

Liberate Abortion, a national coalition of more than 100 abortion rights advocacy groups, did not stage an in-person counterprotest at the March for Life because of the recent spike in COVID-19 cases, coalition campaign director Sharmin Hossain said. The coalition instead was holding a series of virtual events to mark the anniversary of Roe v. Wade this week.

"I think it's ironic that they call themselves March for Life because they ideologically do not support people living their best lives, lives filled without shame and stigma," Hossain said, adding that mobilizing large unmasked gatherings disregards public safety.

Miriam Rohe, 47, flew with her 16-year-old daughter Isabel from St. Louis to attend the march after her daughter's high school group canceled their planned trip due to COVID-19.

Rohe said the thought of the court overturning Roe was "fantastic" but also "a little scary" because she assumes some women will seek out unsafe illegal abortions.

"I do worry about the lives of those who end up in back alleys," she said, adding that she hoped to work to change those women's minds about abortion.

 

[MenInG]

A leaked document seems to indicate a majority of US Supreme Court justices planned to support overturning the historic Roe v Wade case law that legalised abortion.

Politico claims to have seen the draft 'opinion' which if genuine, is, they say, a "full-throated" and "unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision" which guaranteed constitutional protections of abortion rights.

The publication says the judicial opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito and circulated inside the court.

It apparently says "Roe was egregiously wrong from the start."

It is unclear at this stage if the draft represents the court's final word on the matter.

The Supreme Court has yet to issue an official ruling in the case, and opinions - and even justices' votes - have been known to change during the drafting process. The court is expected to rule on the case before its term is up in late June or early July.

The revelation has been greeted with dismay from pro-abortion rights' groups.

Oklahoma set to outlaw almost all abortions with threat of prison and $100,000 fines

Planned Parenthood tweeted: "While abortion is still legal, tonight's report makes clear our deepest fears are coming true.

"We have reached a crisis moment for abortion access. We don't have a moment to spare - we must act now."

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said if the decision stood, it would be a "direct assault on the dignity, rights, and lives of women, not to mention decades of settled law.

"It will kill and subjugate women even as a vast majority of Americans think abortion should be legal," she went on.

"What an utter disgrace."

In a joint statement Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: "If the report is accurate, the Supreme Court is poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past fifty years - not just on women but on all Americans.

"The Republican-appointed Justices' reported votes to overturn Roe v. Wade would go down as an abomination, one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history."

SKY

 

[Jadz]

The US is headed towards chaos and civil conflict that could end in violence. Donald Trump's appointment to the Supreme Court of no less than three judges - all for the duration of their lives - and his bitter refusal to accept the results of the elections has exacerbated and amplified pre-existing divisions amongst ruling classes and within society. Abortion has been politicized and weaponized on both sides of the political spectrum, from the right-wing pro-life Christian Republican to the liberal abortion-on-demand Democrat.

This epic leak - no doubt designed to spread discord and opposition to the SC - was the headline story on US corporate media, knocking its pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia/Putin narrative off top spot, that is how serious this issue is considered in the US.

 

[daytrader]

Roe v Wade: Two thirds of Americans say they will now back pro-abortion rights' politicians
A total of 41% also said the country would be a worse place to live if the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans are more likely to back candidates in the November midterm elections who support the right to abortion, says a new poll.

The survey of 998 voters also found that a plurality of Americans - 41% - said the country would be a worse place to live if the US Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe v Wade decision that established the right to abortion nationwide.

America's decades-old battle over abortion rights was reignited on Tuesday as the Supreme Court confirmed a leaked draft opinion that signalled a majority of the nine justices would soon overturn the right, was genuine.

The document, written by Justice Samuel Alito, described the 1973 decision as "egregiously wrong from the start".

President Joe Biden denounced the expected move as "radical" as Democrats in Washington and in statehouses scrambled to try to find a response to defend a right women in the United States have held for almost half a century.

"I believe that a woman's right to choose is fundamental, Roe has been the law of the land for almost fifty years, and basic fairness and the stability of our law demand that it not be overturned," he said.

His vice president Kamala Harris said simply: "How dare they?"

And on Tuesday, just hours after the opinion came to light, the Reuters/Ipsos poll appeared to show overturning Roe v Wade might have political implications.

It revealed that 63% of respondents, including 78% of Democrats and 49% of Republicans, said they were more likely to support candidates who support abortion rights in the 8 November election that will determine control of Congress for the next two years.

It also found that 41% of Americans thought repealing Roe v Wade would make the United States a worse place to live.

Republicans were divided on this point, with 28% saying it would make things worse, 29% saying it would make things better and 36% offering no opinion.

The poll reflected Americans' overall divisions on abortion: 52% of respondents said it should be legal in most or all cases, while 40% said it should be illegal in most or all cases.

The looming Supreme Court decision, expected to be issued by the end of June, represents the result of years of work by Republicans cementing a 6-3 conservative majority on the high court.

It could even change the dynamic of the election, in which Republicans had been predicted to recapture control of at least one chamber of Congress, allowing them to block Democratic President Joe Biden's legislative agenda.
https://news.sky.com/story/roe-v-wa...back-pro-abortion-rights-politicians-12605034

 

[daytrader]

Roe v Wade: Attempt to protect abortion rights with new US law fails
Politicians tried to head off a suspected move by the US Supreme Court to overturn laws that grant women a constitutional right to an abortion. And there are now fears over what rights may be lost next.

An attempt to protect abortion rights with a federal law in the US has failed.

The bid to preserve the rights - first enshrined in the Roe v Wade bill of 1973 - came following the leak of a Supreme Court document that appeared to suggest justices planned to overturn the almost 50-year-old legislation this summer.

But at the US Senate on Wednesday, the move was blocked by Republicans - a stark demonstration of America's partisan divide on the issue.

The Democrat-led House of Representatives passed the bill, but it failed 49-51 in the upper Senate chamber.

One Democrat, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, voted with the Republicans, saying he supported keeping Roe v Wade but believed the new bill was too broad.

Many states in the US create their own, individual laws. Federal laws, however, apply to everyone and are achieved by a bill passing both houses of Congress.

President Joe Biden said Republicans "have chosen to stand in the way of Americans' rights to make the most personal decisions about their own bodies, families and lives", and urged voters to elect more abortion-rights legislators in November

He pledged in the meantime "to explore the measures and tools at our disposal" to secure rights established by Roe.

His party's slim majority proved unable to overcome the filibuster led by Republicans, who have been working for decades to install conservative Supreme Court justices and end Roe v Wade.

A filibuster is a tactic used to oppose and prevent the passage of a bill.

About half the states in the US have already approved laws that would further restrict or ban abortions, including some 'trigger laws' that would take effect once the court rules.

At a fundraiser in Chicago on Wednesday, President Biden said he believed after abortion rights, the Supreme Court could "go after same-sex marriage, contraception, and other rights".

"Mark my words," he added.

Polls show that most Americans want to preserve access to abortion in the earlier stages of pregnancy, but views are more nuanced and mixed when it comes to later-term abortions.

Supreme Court decisions are not final until they are formally issued and the outcomes in some cases have changed between the justices' initial discussions and their announcement.
https://news.sky.com/story/roe-v-wa...bortion-rights-with-new-us-law-fails-12611015

 

[MenInG]

The US Supreme Court has voted to overturn the constitutional right to choose abortion which has existed for almost 50 years, paving the way for half the country to severely restrict or completely ban the practice.

The power to decide on abortion rights for tens of millions of women will now be handed to the 50 states to determine individually.

It is one of the most consequential rulings by the Supreme Court, the highest court in America, in recent history.

At least 25 states are poised to introduce new laws, or reactivate dormant law, which will make it illegal to access abortion in many cases, including, in some instances, where conception has resulted from rape or incest.

Many of those states are in the south of the country. Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi are three of 13 states which have so called "trigger bans" in place, which mean abortion will be banned immediately as of today or in the coming days and weeks.

The opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, overturns a landmark 1973 ruling known as "Roe versus Wade" which legalised abortion nationwide up to the point of foetal viability, generally accepted to be around 24 weeks into pregnancy.

A subsequent 1992 decision - known as "Planned Parenthood versus Casey" - largely upheld that right, but this sounds the death knell for those protections of reproductive rights.

Pro-choice groups, who believe abortion should be viewed as standard healthcare and a human right, say the removal of the constitutional right to abortion will create so called "abortion deserts" forcing women to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

The new opinion originates from the state of Mississippi which was arguing to establish a law which would ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, significantly earlier than the point of foetal viability.

In what was a stunning and unprecedented leak, a draft opinion was published on the US political website Politico in May, indicating that the court was poised to overturn Roe versus Wade.

It prompted widespread protest across the United States and reignited debate between pro-life and pro-choice groups.

Now that ruling has been confirmed it is likely to inflame political tensions once more.

Many court watchers believe the decision has occurred because the Supreme Court is newly right-leaning with six conservative judges, including three justices appointed by former president Donald Trump, outnumbering their three more liberal colleagues.

While abortion is one of the most divisive issues in America, polling has shown that the majority of Americans opposed Roe being overturned.

Earlier this month a poll by the analytics company Gallup found that 55% of Americans identify as "pro-choice."

https://news.sky.com/story/right-to...nearly-50-years-in-roe-v-wade-ruling-12628801

 

[JaDed]

Ridiculous, this would be legacy of Trump, made the entire SC conservative.

 

[Robert]

Mrs James strongly disagrees with me on this one and I generally keep it to myself anyway, but to be honest I am very Anti.

If the mother’s life is at risk due to foetus, or if the mother conceived after being raped, then abortion should absolutely be an option on the table and with instantaneous easy access - but aside from these scenarios I just can’t bring myself to agree with it. It IS taking a life away no matter how it gets justified or spun.

Family planning should be worked out very carefully - ideally within marriage, but if not, then within a long-term, loving and super-stable relationship where the parents have co-habited for a while. In these cases, why would you abort anyway? Not due to disability surely? Parents who don’t want to bring up a disadvantaged child are no parents at all.

As for the teenagers and drunkards who irresponsibly mess up then, well - man up, deal with the consequences of your actions, and raise the child. No better way to learn about life I guess.

You don't know if it would, as one in eight pregnancies end in miscarriage, and about 1.5% are stillborn.

As for your last point, a lot of lads don't man up, they boy down, run away and leave the mother holding the baby and with their lives in tatters. You know lads will tell girls any lie to get them to agree to sex.

It should be up to the woman IMO - her body, so her choice.

 

[Robert]

Looks like half the States will strike down Roe Vs Wade now.

It's so senseless. It won't stop desperate women getting abortions. They will go to illegal backstreet places instead, putting themselves at risk from internal bleeding and septic shock. Or come to the UK, Ireland and Canada for procedures.

 

[MenInG]

Former US president Donald Trump on Friday said "God made the decision" to end the national right to abortion after the Supreme Court overturned nearly five decades of settled law.

"This is following the Constitution, and giving rights back when they should have been given long ago," Trump told Fox News after a 6-3 majority said individual states should be allowed to make their own rules on abortion.

Asked if he felt he played a role in this outcome, having appointed three conservative justices to the court while in office, Trump said "God made the decision."

But a short time later, the 45th president chimed in again to take credit for the ruling.

"Today's decision, which is the biggest WIN for LIFE in a generation...(was) only made possible because I delivered everything as promised, including nominating and getting three highly respected and strong Constitutionalists confirmed to the United States Supreme Court," he said in a statement.

"It was my great honor to do so!"

Trump's four years in office saw the appoinment of three justices that tilted the balance of the Supreme Court to its current conservative majority.

Those appointees were Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, all of whom signed on to Friday's majority decision.

Trump, whose statement carried the familiar scattering of capital letters, castigated Democrats, the media and "RINOs" -- a disparaging term for Republicans deemed not sufficiently right-wing -- as the "enemy of the people."

"Even though the Radical Left is doing everything in their power to destroy our Country, your Rights are being protected, the Country is being defended, and there is still hope and time to Save America!

"I will never stop fighting for the Great People of our Nation!"

Trump, whose actions and inactions around the January 6, 2021 storming of the Capitol are under the spotlight at Congressional hearings, is publicly mulling another run at the White House.

NDTV

 

[Technics 1210]

Give it a couple of days and the radical left/Democrats will start blaming Trump, and consequently Russia.

 

[Technics 1210]

My bad, Biden has already blamed Trump.

 

[JaDed]

Give it a couple of days and the radical left/Democrats will start blaming Trump, and consequently Russia.

It is Trump’s doing he wanted this that’s exactly why the SC went conservative

 

[JaDed]

I also blame Ruth for this(RIP), she could had retired during Obama era and they would had had a Liberal in the court.

 

[James]

Give it a couple of days and the radical left/Democrats will start blaming Trump, and consequently Russia.

In fairness there is a strong Trumpian legacy within the current makeup of the US Supreme Court, as he appointed three conservatively minded judges during his term. So it is not an issue of “blame” or “Trump’s fault”, but there is legitimately a link to the former President which evidently he himself is proud of.

 

[Technics 1210]

In fairness there is a strong Trumpian legacy within the current makeup of the US Supreme Court, as he appointed three conservatively minded judges during his term. So it is not an issue of “blame” or “Trump’s fault”, but there is legitimately a link to the former President which evidently he himself is proud of.

True, I am reading same Sex Marriages are next - which I fully support.

The Trump legacy continues, and this latest judgement by SCOTUS will not doubt galvanize his 2024 Presidential campaign, if Trump decides to run for President again. He should, he would win.

 

[Robert]

In fairness there is a strong Trumpian legacy within the current makeup of the US Supreme Court, as he appointed three conservatively minded judges during his term. So it is not an issue of “blame” or “Trump’s fault”, but there is legitimately a link to the former President which evidently he himself is proud of.

That was the price of his support from the religious right - pack the SCOTUS with hardline conservatives who would overturn Roe.

Weird thing is that Trump has historically been a New York liberal - but he anchored himself to the GOP because he thought he would have a better chance of being POTUS. It worked.

 

[sweep_shot]

I am against non-emergency abortion. However, I support emergency abortion when the woman's life is in danger.

So, I personally do not have an issue with this ruling (provided emergency abortions are allowed).

 

[KingKhanWC]

The problem with the US and other modern secular states is pregnancy is often not planned but an accident, many times both partners were just having a fling. Abortions for such reasons is nothing less than murder imo.

Over 600k per year in the US alone is a huge number. 3-400k were probably not required, so in reality it is a genocide taking place lawfully but of course imorally.

However to BAN ALL abortions inc if a woman has been raped is very backward, maybe thousands of years ago caveman mentality.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I am against non-emergency abortion. However, I support emergency abortion when the woman's life is in danger.

So, I personally do not have an issue with this ruling (provided emergency abortions are allowed).

Interesting in Islam over `1400 years ago, the rulings were clear and correct , yet modern western civilistion is still confused. Reason is ones personal right is more important than the rights of society.

 

[Salma_T]

It is step backwards....women should be able to do what they want, why should a woman have a child if the man who helped create it doesn't stick around? Is the SC going to bring in a ruling to to make them stay or contribute to upbringing for said child financially and emotionally? This like all rulings will disportionally effect the poor and already marginalised groups.