U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending 50 years of federal abortion rights

[sqwakvfr]

I'm from Los Angeles and the Dobbs vs. Jackson decision by the Supreme Court has no impact on abortions rights in California .  When I was 32 I briefly dated a 37 year old woman.  This woman was highly educated(Berkeley undergrad  and Harvard Law).  She was doing very well as a Lawyer in LA.  One night after some wine she told me something rather shocking.  She told she has had 6 abortions.  I asked her why 6 abortions.  She replied "did not take  birth control pills because of the side effects and did not want my partner to use a condom."  I then said something that <deleted> her off:  You use abortion as your method of birth control.  She then told me "my body, my choice and I will have an abortion without any limits".  She told me to get out her house.  Never saw her again.  I don't judge but this was when I understand what many Pro Choice advocates believe in:  Abortion on demand and without any limits.  I don't think this is realistic. 

 

I am a pro choice and feel abortion under some conditions should be legal:

 

1.  Forced pregnancy as a result of rape.  

2.  Medical Necessity to protect the life of the pregnant woman or birthing person

3.  Fraud.  In  cases where a man lies to a woman by telling her he is sterile or had a hysterectomy.  I can't see forcing a woman to carryout a pregnancy started out of a lie.  Don't know what the Supreme Court would feel about this?

4. Failure of Birth Control Methods;  I believe if a woman is taking birth control and gets pregnant then she should have the option of terminating this pregnancy.  

The next two are controversial

5. If a child will be born with a physical deformity that would require a lifetime of care. The woman then should have the right to consider terminating the pregnancy.  The Pro Lifers would have a stroke with this. 

6. Poverty with little hope of escaping from it.  Of course the Pro-Lifers would argue for adoption.  But the truth about adoption is prospective parent are picky.  Doubt many Black, brown or mix-race babies are in high demand from adoptive parents.  The other option is foster care.  This is not a great option either. 

 

Abortion is not guaranteed under the constitution and currently there is no federal law that protects it.  

 

The Democrats need some new leadership and a overall plan to respond to this decision.  Blocking roads, protesting in front of Justices homes and making veiled threats are not productive.  The Pro-Choice movement  and the Democrats need a unified  strategy and at the very least consider the following:

 

1. Win the White House in 2024.  By then Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito will be old and probably retire.

2. Get Pro-Choice candidates elected in State Legislatures in abortion restrictive states

3.  Draft and enacted abortion rights laws.  Not an easy thing to do but there are brilliant legal minds and wealthy donors who are pro-choice.  Where are these wealthy pro-choice donors now?  

 

The Pro-Choice advocates and the Democrats have known for 50 years that Roe vs. Wade could be overturned.  The day has come.  What now?  The ball is now in their court.  The Pro-Lifers got exactly what they wanted. 

 

 

[ExpatOilWorker]

Good point...

 

[ExpatOilWorker]

Good point...

 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, BangkokReady said:

We're talking more about "legal rights".  What people are either allowed or compelled to do by law.  We use "rights" as a kind of place holder for that.  Once you move to saying "women have an inalienable right to do whatever they want with their body and always will" it doesn't really allow for much debate when it comes to the law, especially when it is joined by "...but men have no choice but to pay."

You seem to generate more confusion with every explanation you offer. A "right" is something "people are compelled to do by law"

And while you eagerly define what a woman's right is as regards to abortion, you repeatedly evade answering what is a man's right  should be in the situation. Please share with us what level of authority should a man have when it comes to a woman wanting an abortion. I await your reply with interest.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, BangkokReady said:

Lol.  I'm trying to have an objective discussion.  Something you seem incapable of.

What does the word "objective" mean to you? I suppose the opposite of "objective" would be "subjective" or "emotional"

What do you find not objective about this statement of mine?

"In that case, why are you arguing about the nonexistent right of man to have a say in a woman's choice to abort?

What is there in it that is subjective or emotional?

[ozimoron]

'The dog that caught the car': Republicans brace for the impact of reversing Roe

 

Republicans finally got the Roe v. Wade decision they wanted, and in public, they are delighted.

More quietly, however, according to interviews with more than a dozen Republican strategists and party officials, they just didn’t want it to come right now — not during a midterm election campaign in which nearly everything had been going right for the GOP.

“This is not a conversation we want to have,” said John Thomas, a Republican strategist who works on House campaigns across the country.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/25/the-dog-that-caught-the-car-republicans-brace-for-the-impact-of-reversing-roe-00042387

[placeholder]

17 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

So you don't think men should have bodily autonomy when it comes to pregnancy and child rearing?

Exactly how does the question of bodily autonomy arise for men when it comes to pregnancy? And what in the world does "bodily autonomy" have to do with child rearing? I think you need to look up what bodily autonomy means.

From what I gather it means the right of a person to make choices concerning their own body. What choices in relation to a man's body does pregnancy entail?

[audaciousnomad]

Call me crazy, or call me Nostradamus...but does anyone else see that the GOP sensing their dwindling numbers, is slowly but surely orchestrating a civil war?  Challenge election results and attack the Capitol.  Put guns within everyone's reach(now without needing a permit in Texas).  Repeal laws that are guaranteed to be divisive and incite unrest.

God help the United(Divided) States of America.

Edited June 26, 2022 by audaciousnomad

[placeholder]

45 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

So you don't think men should have bodily autonomy when it comes to pregnancy and child rearing?

I think it's clear that BangkokReady doesn't have a clue as to the meaning of "bodily autonomy".

[BangkokReady]

54 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Yes. And they do.

They don't. Whether they want the child or not, they have to work to pay for it.

[BangkokReady]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I think it's clear that BangkokReady doesn't have a clue as to the meaning of "bodily autonomy".

I think it's more the other way round. You're the one who thinks that "women work too" has any bearing on what is being discussed.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

They don't. Whether they want the child or not, they have to work to pay for it.

How do they do that without a supporting father or family assistance? Many people are so poor they can't even afford contraceptives.

[BangkokReady]

36 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Exactly how does the question of bodily autonomy arise for men when it comes to pregnancy? And what in the world does "bodily autonomy" have to do with child rearing?

How could you possibly be asking me this question when you have been replying to me countless times?

 

I've already stated it very clearly above.

 

What are you doing discussing something when you have literally no idea what is being discussed?

 

I guess this explains why your responses fail to make sense or relate to what I am actually talking about.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, BangkokReady said:

I think it's more the other way round. You're the one who thinks that "women work too" has any bearing on what is being discussed.

It does have a bearing along with all the other reasons mentioned. Since when does a man need to take a break from his career or college in pregnancy

[BangkokReady]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

How do they do that without a supporting father or family assistance?

How do men support a child without a supporting father?

 

Please read comments before responding.

[BangkokReady]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

It does have a bearing along with all the other reasons mentioned. Since when does a man need to take a break from his career or college in pregnancy

How does that relate to what have said?

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

How does that relate to what have said?

Quite simply it has a bearing where you claimed it didn't. Do you think the fact that men who carry on working or studying and not interrupting their career whereas women cannot does not have a bearing to the woman then?

[BangkokReady]

57 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You seem to generate more confusion with every explanation you offer. A "right" is something "people are compelled to do by law"

And while you eagerly define what a woman's right is as regards to abortion, you repeatedly evade answering what is a man's right  should be in the situation. Please share with us what level of authority should a man have when it comes to a woman wanting an abortion. I await your reply with interest.

You're confused because you don't even know what is being discussed.

 

When did I define what a woman's right is regarding abortion?

 

I haven't defined anything.

 

You've come into the discussion half way through and you're arguing from a point of obvious emotionally investment.

 

You think I'm anti-abortion, so you're just trying to attack individual comments without even knowing what I have said.

[BangkokReady]

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Quite simply it has a bearing where you claimed it didn't. Do you think the fact that men who carry on working or studying and not interrupting their career whereas women cannot does not have a bearing to the woman then?

I don't think it has a bearing on my original point. Women's bodily autonomy re suffering to carry a baby and giving birth, vs. a man's bodily autonomy re having to suffer to work to pay for the upbringing of the baby, when factored into the decision as to whether a man has any say in whether a baby is born or not.

 

how could it?

[ozimoron]

8 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

I don't think it has a bearing on my original point. Women's bodily autonomy re suffering to carry a baby and giving birth, vs. a man's bodily autonomy re having to suffer to work to pay for the upbringing of the baby, when factored into the decision as to whether a man has any say in whether a baby is born or not.

 

how could it?

You're not making any sense here. I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I think you are being deliberately obscure so as to avoid rational debate. Not trolling, try to elucidate your points into something people can understand.

[Mac Mickmanus]

11 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

I don't think it has a bearing on my original point. Women's bodily autonomy re suffering to carry a baby and giving birth, vs. a man's bodily autonomy re having to suffer to work to pay for the upbringing of the baby, when factored into the decision as to whether a man has any say in whether a baby is born or not.

 

how could it?

They both need to decide on that BEFORE they carry out the procedure where she may become pregnant .

  Both decide on whether they want to have a child and THEN have sex 

[Bkk Brian]

31 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

I don't think it has a bearing on my original point. Women's bodily autonomy re suffering to carry a baby and giving birth, vs. a man's bodily autonomy re having to suffer to work to pay for the upbringing of the baby, when factored into the decision as to whether a man has any say in whether a baby is born or not.

 

how could it?

It has plenty of bearing when you were the one that brought it up. You fail to acknowledge any of a woman's burdens including work and their own financial contributions that would pay for her baby if she wanted to keep it. Or did you also expect that a woman stays at home for ever after a baby is born and have to rely on a man? 

 

News, he has no rights on an abortion decision, he has no rights to control a woman's body and what she does with it or puts it through. However you know that right?

Edited June 26, 2022 by Bkk Brian

[Sheryl]

A bickering post has been removed.

 

A reminder to all posters to keep it civil.

 

You are unlikely to change anyone's mind by what you post here, and if you participate in this thread  it is guaranteed you will read posts you disagree with. If you can't handle that and remain calm and polite, then please do not post.

[alex8912]

On 6/25/2022 at 1:05 AM, pegman said:

Whining is for losers. The American right fight to win whether that takes bending rules or not. The American left stay silent when an 87 year old, multiple cancer survivor, refuses to retire when her party is in power. That combined with the Dems nominating one of the most widely hated politicians in the country as their presidential candidate gave the right 3 seats on the court. Such is the stupidity of liberals. I feel sorry for my fellow social democrats who are stuck voting with them because of the ludicrous 2 party system.  

Exactly right. The two party system is insane!! How anyone could think that's sad IS sad. 

[Chomper Higgot]

6 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

So why does that man not have a say, given the fact that his body, his health, his time at work, his emotional state is affected?

Surely if a man impregnates a woman and she then gets an abortion she’s saved him from all these awful causes of ‘man pity you refer to?

 

Or are you arguing that a man should have the right to choose inflicting all these causes of ‘man pity’ on himself, perhaps vetoing an abortion in some strange attempt at causing self harm?

Do you not see the absurdity of arguing the sacrifices of men raising children as an argument against abortion?

 

Edited June 26, 2022 by Chomper Higgot

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

How do they do that without a supporting father or family assistance? Many people are so poor they can't even afford contraceptives.

In his ruling Justice Thomas argued against the right to access contraception, also not specifically mentioned in the Constitution and very clearly stated intent to remove that as a Federally protected right.

 

 

[BangkokReady]

24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Or are you arguing that a man should have the right to choose inflicting all these causes of ‘man pity’ on himself, perhaps vetoing an abortion in some strange attempt at causing self harm?

It's more about what choice the man has in whether the baby is born.

 

The woman can choose to terminate or keep the baby, based, apparently, on her bodily autonomy in chosing not to suffer the physical cost that carrying and birthing a baby has on her body.

 

The man, however, has no say in whether the baby is born or not, even though he can be compelled by a court to support the baby financially until it is 18, suffering the physical cost of doing 18 years of work. (I realise it will not be all of his physical labour over those 18 years, but it is a significant proportion.)

 

A woman suffers a physical cost when a baby is born, but a man too suffers a physical cost when he is compelled to use his body to work for 18 years in order to support the baby.

 

Ergo, the woman has bodily autonomy in terms of the baby being born and suffering a physical cost, while the man does not.

 

CC: @ozimoron

[Chomper Higgot]

19 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

It's more about what choice the man has in whether the baby is born.

 

The woman can choose to terminate or keep the baby, based, apparently, on her bodily autonomy in chosing not to suffer the physical cost that carrying and birthing a baby has on her body.

 

The man, however, has no say in whether the baby is born or not, even though he can be compelled by a court to support the baby financially until it is 18, suffering the physical cost of doing 18 years of work. (I realise it will not be all of his physical labour over those 18 years, but it is a significant proportion.)

 

A woman suffers a physical cost when a baby is born, but a man too suffers a physical cost when he is compelled to use his body to work for 18 years in order to support the baby.

 

Ergo, the woman has bodily autonomy in terms of the baby being born and suffering a physical cost, while the man does not.

 

CC: @ozimoron

Again this is not a sensible argument wrt to giving a man a say in a woman’s choice to have an abortion.

 

You also seem not to understand what ‘bodily autonomy’ means.

 

Giving a man any say what so ever over the choices a woman makes with her own body strips her of ‘bodily autonomy’.

 

Arguing for men to be allowed to do so reveals the glaring subtext of this SCOTUS ruling, controlling women’s bodies.

 

It is not possible to dictate to women what they can and cannot do with there own bodies without stripping them of the freedom men take for granted, they immediately become ‘controlled’, no longer fully in possession of their own bodies.

 

Edited June 26, 2022 by Chomper Higgot

[TropicalGuy]

7 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

It has nothing to do with pity.  If a woman has the right to choose whether a baby is born due to the effect the baby has on her body, why is the man not allowed any say based on the effect it has on his body?

No effect on his body. Can’t prove any effect on his mind. woman is the possessor so gets the full ultimate choice to possess or not( in civilized places) within legal time limits & conditions. Otherwise you have men controlling womens bodies again, a form of slavery. 

[poohy]