Society/Culture Reproductive Rights: Roe vs Wade, abortion, etc

[Taylor]

There won't be a middle ground found if one side see a human life and the other see an inconvenience.

Fortunately Roe v Wade being repealed would amount to the states being able to determine their own laws on abortion to suit the opinions of the people within, which they already are.

You can see how this issue is NOT intended to be legislated by the inaction of the federal government to create law governing abortion nationwide, since this would be challenged by a state in the supreme court and the law would be struck down.

Roe v Wade managed to get a national law ruling by shopping for an example to take to the supreme court, which was a Texas law, and then the supreme court over reached on the opinion (again, as said by RGB) to create law by judicial ruling.

Their role is to decide if the states and federal government legislators are producing laws in line with their constitution, not make calls on weeks or viability, especially as an issue of privacy.

I'm sure there will be a supreme court case soon too challenging whether bearing arms in public is an unrestricted right nationwide.

...just to keep the two big issues in the news instead of how rubbish their economy is, how inflation is taking over and how decisions made by their team are responsible. They have been holding meetings with the big news groups to keep that desired message too as reported earlier this week.

 

[Osho]

A Democrat political football? Surely not.

Dems Stalled Abortion Protections In A Committee

Democrats promised legislation to codify Roe and preempt the Texas law, but they’ve chosen to leave it sitting with a congressional panel.

www.dailyposter.com

 

[Opine]

I find it difficult not to infer the initial 1973 decision other than as judicial activism. How else might one think about a judgment founded on a constitutional head of power primarily concerned with due process, relying on a subcategory involving privacy, to decide a question about the right to terminate a foetus? The latter arguably being a question influenced mainly by technical and political matters within the scope of the concerned legislature/s.

Remove that blanket of bias a prominent poster in this thread spoke about in another thread; the same conflicting questions remain 1) stage of foetus viability 2) should a constitution and SC interpreting it be used as a legislature. There's nothing much wrong with updated clarification on either question.

 

[Spirit Level]

I find it mind boggling that this is still an argument in 2021.

Your body, your decision. End of story

 

[faible]

I find it mind boggling that this is still an argument in 2021.

Your body, your decision. End of story

I understand the premise of the argument if someone believes life begins at conception.

It's just a weird cross-over where the people arguing against abortion, also seem to hold a few other questionable and contradictory views.

 

[ElectricG]

That's not what they believe at all. Grisly savages most of them, hence they usually believe in all three notions. In fact, plenty of them line up outside of prisons where executions are carried out and cheer the demise of the prisoner. Such level headed, compassionate people they are. You can be sure the same grubs hurl abuse at women outside abortion clinics.


(Oops, lefty clairvoyance call coming).

Again, neither of those actions are inconsistent with the view to protect innocent lives (as they see it). Protesting abortion clinics, which is something that happens more at the extremist fringe, is something that makes perfect sense when you consider their belief that those women are literally going in to commit murder.

 

[Spirit Level]

I understand the premise of the argument if someone believes life begins at conception.

It's just a weird cross-over where the people arguing against abortion, also seem to hold a few other questionable and contradictory views.

I understand that people are allowed to have their views and don't get me wrong I believe everyone is entitled to do so, but they are your own and no one has any right to push their views onto someone else.

Don't like abortion? Don't get one

Keep it to yourself and stay out of other peoples lives.

The bolded is the most mind boggling part, "All life is precious, unless it stands on my front lawn". Just dumb

 

[Opine]

I find it mind boggling that this is still an argument in 2021.

Your body, your decision. End of story

Your body your decision <<—— until what point in time in the process precisely?

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Again, neither of those actions are inconsistent with the view to protect innocent lives (as they see it). Protesting abortion clinics, which is something that happens more at the extremist fringe, is something that makes perfect sense when you consider their belief that those women are literally going in to commit murder.

Well they are wrong. And we should stop letting the lunatic fringe have a greater say than they are entitled.

 

[faible]

Well they are wrong. And we should stop letting the lunatic fringe have a greater say than they are entitled.

I mean, they're not 'wrong'. They just have a different opinion as to when a life is a life.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

I mean, they're not 'wrong'. They just have a different opinion as to when a life is a life.

Nah mate, they're wrong.

Forcing r*ped women to carry to term. Jesus H Christ.

 

[faible]

Nah mate, they're wrong.

Forcing r*ped women to carry to term. Jesus H Christ.

Yeah, I feel perhaps you're not quite mature enough to sensibly discuss the topic if that's your immediate go-to position.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Yeah, I feel perhaps you're not quite mature enough to sensibly discuss the topic if that's your immediate go-to position.

Seriously?

If that is the position these crazies are taking then I put it to you that they are not mature enough to sensibly discuss the topic. And that is the position they are taking when they hurl abuse at assaulted women outside abortion clinics. So you can take your rather pathetic comment and jam it up your arse mate. These people literally demand that abused women give birth to the children coming from that abuse. That is a fact so don't try and play on the notion that the debate is more nuanced. It isn't. It's fundamentalist, right wing, religious indoctrination. The smoke and mirrors argument about when is a human being a human being is just smoke and mirrors so that whackjobs can gain control over women's bodies.

Trying to overturn Roe vs Wade is an abomination that no decent human being should defend.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Defend this. Nutjob religious grubs pushing their bullshit.

 

[faible]

Seriously?

If that is the position these crazies are taking then I put it to you that they are not mature enough to sensibly discuss the topic. And that is the position they are taking when they hurl abuse at assaulted women outside abortion clinics. So you can take your rather pathetic comment and jam it up your arse mate. These people literally demand that abused women give birth to the children coming from that abuse. That is a fact so don't try and play on the notion that the debate is more nuanced. It isn't. It's fundamentalist, right wing, religious indoctrination. The smoke and mirrors argument about when is a human being a human being is just smoke and mirrors so that whackjobs can gain control over women's bodies.

Trying to overturn Roe vs Wade is an abomination that no decent human being should defend.

No. I'm suggesting that you take a moment to consider what lies at the basis of their position.

We can all agree that killing a child is wrong, yes?

At what age is killing a child, not killing a child?

2 years after birth? (Infanticide Laws in Victoria)
6 days after birth?
6 days prior to birth?
6 weeks prior to birth?
6 months prior to birth?
Conception?

We all draw a line somewhere, that's what underlies everyone's position.

If you immediately leap to your comment below, then you lose any ability whatsoever to have a rational discussion on the topic, which is very much what the topic requires people to be capable of having.

Forcing r*ped women to carry to term

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

No. I'm suggesting that you take a moment to consider what lies at the basis of their position.

We can all agree that killing a child is wrong, yes?

At what age is killing a child, not killing a child?

2 years after birth? (Infanticide Laws in Victoria)
6 days after birth?
6 days prior to birth?
6 weeks prior to birth?
6 months prior to birth?
Conception?

We all draw a line somewhere, that's what underlies everyone's position.

If you immediately leap to your comment below, then you lose any ability whatsoever to have a rational discussion on the topic, which is very much what the topic requires people to be capable of having.

No I don't. Because that is the endgame. These grubs want abortion outlawed. That means that r*ped women will no longer have access. Only an idiot cannot see that.

People should learn to mind their own f***ing business. Using religious beliefs (and make no mistake, religion is the cornerstone of the anti-abortion argument) to force others into abiding by your rules is bullshit. And it should be called out.

 

[faible]

lunatic fringe

Forcing r*ped women

pathetic comment

jam it up your arse

whackjobs

abomination

Nutjob

grubs

Remember what I said about the topic requiring people to be able to have a reasonable discussion?

No I don't. Because that is the endgame. These grubs want abortion outlawed. That means that r*ped women will no longer have access. Only an idiot cannot see that.

People should learn to mind their own f***ing business. Using religious beliefs (and make no mistake, religion is the cornerstone of the anti-abortion argument) to force others into abiding by your rules is bullshit. And it should be called out.

You keep launching in to this emotive line of argument, calling every single person opposed to abortion grubs, whackjobs, lunatics etc...

What do you think that's going to achieve?

There's a lot of people that aren't protesting outside abortion clinics, who aren't 'bad' people, that won't have fully considered the implications of their position that life begins at conception, and thus abortion is akin to taking a life.

Even you can't take a moment to stop your angry tirade to comment reasonably when no one has even said they're opposed to abortion in this thread that I can see.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Remember what I said about the topic requiring people to be able to have a reasonable discussion?



You keep launching in to this emotive line of argument, calling every single person opposed to abortion grubs, whackjobs, lunatics etc...

What do you think that's going to achieve?

There's a lot of people that aren't protesting outside abortion clinics, who aren't 'bad' people, that won't have fully considered the implications of their position that life begins at conception.

Even you can't take a moment to stop your angry tirade to comment reasonably when no one has even said they're opposed to abortion in this thread that I can see.

Oh go away.

Not one of those comments you have selectively quoted was directed at anyone in here. They were general comments and you very well know that.

Just put me on ignore if you can't cope with a bit of emotion over what is an emotive topic. You are the one that targeted me mate, I didn't start this.

I'm not replying to you again so feel free to insert last word below and get back to defending those who would overturn a law that should be set in stone forever.

 

[faible]

Oh go away.

Not one of those comments you have selectively quoted was directed at anyone in here.

Exactly, no one here is arguing against abortion yet you're the one going off on a rant about it all.

It's a very serious topic, and requires serious, rational discussion, from both sides.

Where do you draw the line at a life versus not a life? Abortion laws differ from State to State regarding the point of pregnancy it's accessible up until, so even here there's no fixed point at which everyone has agreed it's ok versus not ok.

Abortion in Australia - Wikipedia

 

[faible]

Just put me on ignore if you can't cope with a bit of emotion over what is an emotive topic. You are the one that targeted me mate, I didn't start this.

I'm not replying to you again so feel free to insert last word below and get back to defending those who would overturn a law that should be set in stone forever.

Nice edit. Nice little insult thrown my way, despite my having never said anything like the bolded.

As I said. Perhaps you're not mature enough to be discussing this topic.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Exactly, no one here is arguing against abortion yet you're the one going off on a rant about it all.

It's a very serious topic, and requires serious, rational discussion, from both sides.

Where do you draw the line at a life versus not a life? Abortion laws differ from State to State regarding the point of pregnancy it's accessible up until, so even here there's no fixed point at which everyone has agreed it's ok versus not ok.

Abortion in Australia - Wikipedia

Going against my previous position not to reply, against my better judgement but anyway.

Let's be clear, I do not walk back my opinion on this (which I am entitled to by the way), if you oppose Roe vs Wade (this thread is about Roe vs Wade, not abortion in general) the end game is that you are aiming to outlaw abortion. Full stop. All else that comes before that is therefore moot. Those who are arguing against the law want it scrapped. Not amended. Scrapped. You do understand that, don't you? Because if you don't you have no right to tell me to be mature. If the end result is that sexually abused women cannot get a legal abortion then that is far too high a price to pay.

I also hope you understand that this anti-abortion movement is driven by the religious right. If you do not understand this then again, you have no right to even involve yourself in the discussion, and certainly no right to berate anybody because you don't like the words they use. Religion, in my view has no role in lawmaking. We should live in a secular world.

I will entertain a reasonable discussion about Roe vs Wade (I am not talking about abortion in general, only the law) once the religious right concede the rights of abused women to have an abortion. They haven't. They likely won't. And so for right now I will use any language that I damn well like to call them out for the scum they are.

(and those last few words were not directed at you or anyone else in here before you go berserk with the quote button)

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Nice edit. Nice little insult thrown my way, despite my having never said anything like the bolded.

As I said. Perhaps you're not mature enough to be discussing this topic.

As I said, you started this.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

We can all agree that killing a child is wrong, yes?

At what age is killing a child, not killing a child?

2 years after birth? (Infanticide Laws in Victoria)
6 days after birth?
6 days prior to birth?
6 weeks prior to birth?
6 months prior to birth?
Conception?

This shouldn't be relevant to the abortion argument though; because no being whether recognised as alive or dead is allowed to use the body of another person against their will, not even for survival. When abortion becomes about the life of the child, the obvious extension to that is it is no longer about the life of the mother.

 

[faible]

As I said, you started this.

Yes, without throwing a single insult at anyone, or going on an emotive rant about something no one in this thread has ever said.

 

[faible]

When abortion becomes about the life of the child, the obvious extension to that is it is no longer about the life of the mother.

Legal abortions in Australia have a cutoff date, so it isn’t just about the life of the mother even when it’s permitted.

That’s kind of my point; the abortion argument ultimately comes down to what point someone considers a life to be a life.