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

[4MyEgo]

50 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

However what you think and what the law states are two different things and a woman has the right even if the partner does not like that decision. Quite right in my opinion.

Everyone will have different opinions and that's ok. I was more so trying to point out that there are other options.

[4MyEgo]

42 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

She voluntarily had sex with a man yet it's "not her fault that she got pregnant"?   What sort of logic is that?

Did you read my post ?

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, 4MyEgo said:

Everyone will have different opinions and that's ok. I was more so trying to point out that there are other options.

There are times when things are not clear cut but there have to be laws in place to avoid abusive relationships by partners that think they can dictate the womans right to her own body

[Fat is a type of crazy]

48 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

My view, for what its worth.............

 

A child feeding off a mother that wants it, is a blessing. A child feeding off a mother that doesn't want it, is a parasite. The perspective of the mother matters; it's her body that is being used as a willing or unwilling incubator.

 

There shouldn't be a law that requires a parasite be allowed to feed off a person's body. There just shouldn't. A person MUST have an opportinity to rid themselves of that parasite.

 

And you know what? I don't think there is ANYONE who would disagree with this.............. if we were talking about anything other than a human embryo, zygote, fetus.

 

So, the question becomes............. At what point should a human embryo/zygote/fetus be given status greater than......... just another parasite?

 

We know that at seven or eight or nine months, the fetus is developed enough to live outside the womb.

 

We know that before eighteen or nineteen weeks, with our current technology,  the fetus is incapable of surviving outside the womb, under any circumstances!

 

Thus, after the beginning of the seventh month, there is really no longer a question of status. At that point, it's really just a question of WHERE that human being is living; not of whether it is........ or is not......... a "human being."

 

Likewise, before the eighteenth or nineteenth week........... when the fetus cannot survive outside the womb under any circumstances........... there is no justification for assigning it the status of being "alive." Of it being a "living human being."

 

It simply has not developed far enough, yet, to warrant that status. At that point, the fetus is no more "alive".......... than a brain-dead person whose body is kept functioning by a machine.......... is "alive." Remove the machine...........

 (the womb, in this case).......... and discontinuation is both automatic and inevitable. 

 

For me, this becomes a clear and easy point of demarcation.........

 

If it cannot survive outside the womb under any circumstances............ then there's no justification for ascribing it "rights." It is not yet a "living being." And non-living things don't have "rights."

 

So............. this is why I am okay with mother choosing to abort during the first trimester. That window is still many weeks ahead of the point where a fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb. It also allows a buffer for technology to move the possible survival window forward. (Presently 20 weeks, but even that is exceedingly rare.)

 

During the first trimester, a woman must have the option of removing that parasite from her body. She must have that choice!

 

But, because that thing growing inside of her (and feeding off of her!) isn't just a "parasite," she doesnt get carte blanche to abort at any time she chooses.

 

She gets a choice. But if she hasn't chosen to abort before the end of the first trimester........... then she HAS chosen! She let her window of opportunity lapse. What was once an opportunity to choose.......... now becomes an obligation to follow through, a responsibility. Because not choosing........... is just another form of choosing!

 

And, before anyone asks............

 

Yes, if our technology changes in ways that cause these dynamics to change.......... I'm fully prepared to revise my position. If, for example, technology makes it possible for a 10-week fetus to survive outside the womb......... the definition of when an abortion is allowable.......... would need to change, also.

 

-----------------

 

So, there it is. That's my take on it.

 

And unless you can give me better answers than the ones I already have............ it's not going to change. Not, at least, until our technology causes it to!

 

Your approach of attempting to draw a line in the sand is interesting but I am not sure why it should be the ability to live outside the womb. If a baby is born sick and cannot survive without machines it surely is not OK to kill it.

I would have thought, if it is appropriate to say when an abortion should or should not be legal, it is the humanity of the fetus. Brain activity, can it feel, those types of criteria. 

It would be difficult now to make such a call but as science develops it may be possible to say that there is a light on and someone or something is home. 

[4MyEgo]

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

There are times when things are not clear cut but there have to be laws in place to avoid abusive relationships by partners that think they can dictate the womans right to her own body

In my situation, I knew the my ex wanted to have a child, we were together for 10 years, travelled around most of the globe, enjoyed life, were financially secure and she was ecstatic when she fell pregnant, then days later fell into depression for 3 months, call it pre-natal depression if you like, at the end of the day, perseverance and family support got her through.

 

My ending the relationship was the best thing as I wouldn't want anyone to go through the hell I went through for those 3 months, that's all, a woman's so called right can be so powerful that it could destroy a man.  

[KanchanaburiGuy]

38 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

She voluntarily had sex with a man yet it's "not her fault that she got pregnant"?   What sort of logic is that?

She volunteered to have sex, but she didn't volunteer to become pregnant. Becoming pregnant was a RISK she accepted, when agreeing to have sex.

 

But when she accepted that risk, it was done knowing full well there were remedies and alternatives available that in effect bring that risk back down to zero.

 

So, for the last 50 years, while a woman having intercourse was always facing the risk of becoming pregnant............ that risk was always mitigated by the fact that there was no reason she had to REMAIN pregnant.

 

That has changed now.

 

Being careful........... being vigilant......... was always a good idea, before.......... and is even more important, now. Because before, there was a remedy.......... and now there isn't.......... (or, at least, there isn't guaranteed to be one).

[Berkshire]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Nothing simple about what the Supreme Court did; it overturned 49 year precedent established by the Supreme Court in 1973.  In so doing, it has made all prior Supreme Court decisions open to review and reversal.  That includes the 2008  "District of Columbia vs Heller" Supreme Court decision that stated that the right of an individual to have a gun was protected independently of the well regulated militia part of the 2nd Amendment, a ruling that passed on the narrowest 5-4 majority.

 

Before this appalling ruling the past rulings of the Supreme Court were considered the final word on interpreting the Constitution.  Not any more.

You make a valid point.  But with the composition of the current SCOTUS, there is no way they're going to reverse a ruling related to gun rights.  This crew is pro-gun, pro-religion, pro-state rights...and pretty much anti everything else. 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Berkshire said:

You make a valid point.  But with the composition of the current SCOTUS, there is no way they're going to reverse a ruling related to gun rights.  This crew is pro-gun, pro-religion, pro-state rights...and pretty much anti everything else. 

States rights is a dog whistle for "The civil war ain't over yet".

[Bkk Brian]

12 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

In my situation, I knew the my ex wanted to have a child, we were together for 10 years, travelled around most of the globe, enjoyed life, were financially secure and she was ecstatic when she fell pregnant, then days later fell into depression for 3 months, call it pre-natal depression if you like, at the end of the day, perseverance and family support got her through.

 

My ending the relationship was the best thing as I wouldn't want anyone to go through the hell I went through for those 3 months, that's all, a woman's so called right can be so powerful that it could destroy a man.  

Too late now but some usefull advice on private contracts if all agree

 

 

https://www.findlaw.com/family/paternity/fathers-rights-and-abortion.html

 

[expat_4_life]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

You clearly don't understand the basis of the court's decision. It had nothing to do with whether or not abortion is mentioned as a right in the U.S. Constitution.

What? Had the right to abortion been explicitly enumerated in the constitution, Roe would not exist.

 

Roe depended on interpreting several other amendments to create the "constitutional right" that has now been overturned.

 

The Dobbs decision has everything to do with the fact that abortion is not an enumerated right and more broadly about under what legal arguments the court can create rights that are not specifically enumerated.

[scorecard]

On 6/24/2022 at 10:21 PM, jak2002003 said:

This is shocking!  

 

It's getting like a strict Muslim dictatorship now!

 

What will be next, ban gays, alcohol, sex outside marriage?!  America seems to really be regressing.

Google says:

 

63% of Americans indicate Christian as their religion, about 20% of these folks attend church weekly.

 

31% of the worlds population identify officially as Christian, and at least 55% of these folks are non practising christians.

 

So how does the American religious right get away with pushing Christianity, and how come so many right wing politicians get away with claiming the Christian religious high ground in terms of policy/law.

 

Just wondering if at the moment it's fashionable to claim to be a member of the GOP and a practicing Christian. Perhaps it's because their clown boy leader claims he's Christian but in reality can't discuss anything in relation to christian beliefs. But he's got a strangle hold on so many, and this is so dangerous.

 

Also just wondering how the American Christians who are not practicing Christians would react if someone tried to have Christian beliefs enshrined as civil law, same as Shiria law in some muslim countries?

 

And how would that fit with the demands of so many Americans to demand personal freedom?

 

 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

26 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Your approach of attempting to draw a line in the sand is interesting but I am not sure why it should be the ability to live outside the womb. If a baby is born sick and cannot survive without machines it surely is not OK to kill it.

I would have thought, if it is appropriate to say when an abortion should or should not be legal, it is the humanity of the fetus. Brain activity, can it feel, those types of criteria. 

It would be difficult now to make such a call but as science develops it may be possible to say that there is a light on and someone or something is home. 

The baby already born but needing machines to help it live.......... is not acting as a parasite, feeding off another person. Thats the difference.

 

And that's why started my post discussing the "parasite" aspect. 

 

And that's why I said that if technology improves and those unwanted parasites can be extracted and LIVE.......... then my position will change. 

 

But a woman should have a right to be free of a parasite that is "attacking" her body, regardless. But since that "valuable parasite" can change from something that cannot live to something that can, she shouldn't be allowed a blank check as to when she can make that decision. Thus: limited to First Trimester, when living outside the womb isn't an option, under any circumstances.

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Actually, there are apparently several states that had abortion bans in place prior to Roe v Wade, that reinstated them immediately.

 

There are apparently also a few others that passed abortion bans while Roe v Wade was in force and left them dormant, in anticipation of the time when Roe v Wade would be overturned.

 

So yeah.......

 

There ARE places where abortion has been banned, already, and things have changed.

 

 

Oh well, sucks if you wanted one.  Load up the car, drive to the next state.

Anyone wanting surely can find a doc to perform, as there's 50 state, most still offer.

[ozimoron]

Just now, KhunLA said:

Oh well, sucks if you wanted one.  Load up the car, drive to the next state.

Anyone wanting surely can find a doc to perform, as there's 50 state, most still offer.

Women most in need of an abortion are likely the least able to afford to travel to get one.

[placeholder]

13 minutes ago, expat_4_life said:

What? Had the right to abortion been explicitly enumerated in the constitution, Roe would not exist.

 

Roe depended on interpreting several other amendments to create the "constitutional right" that has now been overturned.

 

The Dobbs decision has everything to do with the fact that abortion is not an enumerated right and more broadly about under what legal arguments the court can create rights that are not specifically enumerated.

Once again, the Supreme Court decision had nothing to do with the lack of mention of the right to abortion in the Constitution. They did not make that lack a basis of their decision.

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Didn't change anything?

Sorry you are 100 percent wrong.

You are just being absurd now.

And you haven't been ?  Plan on getting an abortion anytime soon in the USA, or not, and having a baby ?

 

Please let me know how this ruling affected your well being.

 

 

Edited June 28, 2022 by KhunLA

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

And you haven't been ?  Plan on getting an abortion anytime soon in the USA, or not, and having a baby ?

 

Please let me know how this ruling affected your well being.

 

And it didn't change a thing, name one state, right now, that has changed there abortion laws.

Are you joking?

Are you that out of touch?

Why are you even posting here when you clearly don't know what you're talking about? 

 

I've had enough of willful ignorance.

 

GOODBYE

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/24/abortion-state-laws-criminalization-roe/

 

The Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade on Friday sets off a cascade of antiabortion legislation that will affect roughly half the country.

 

 

Edited June 28, 2022 by Jingthing

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Your approach of attempting to draw a line in the sand is interesting but I am not sure why it should be the ability to live outside the womb. If a baby is born sick and cannot survive without machines it surely is not OK to kill it.

I would have thought, if it is appropriate to say when an abortion should or should not be legal, it is the humanity of the fetus. Brain activity, can it feel, those types of criteria. 

It would be difficult now to make such a call but as science develops it may be possible to say that there is a light on and someone or something is home. 

Yes, the current court won't reverse decisions expanding gun rights but may reverse decisions regarding gay marriage, voting rights, and who knows what else.

 

This ruling has taken the Supreme Court from the respected institution that has the final say on interpreting the Constitution to just another political branch of government.  If you don't like the rulings of this court just work on getting more agreeable judges and they will reverse them. 

 

The rule of Constitutional Law in the US has been made much more elastic.  That's not good. 

[Bkk Brian]

39 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Oh well, sucks if you wanted one.  Load up the car, drive to the next state.

Anyone wanting surely can find a doc to perform, as there's 50 state, most still offer.

Yea well within the capacities of school/college kids, those in poverty and those who are the most vulnerable in society.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Bkk Brian

[expat_4_life]

53 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Once again, the Supreme Court decision had nothing to do with the lack of mention of the right to abortion in the Constitution. They did not make that lack a basis of their decision.

It is right in the 2nd paragraph ... I'll just put it here in case you missed it when you read it.

 

JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.

Abortion presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views. Some believe fervently that a human person comes into being at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. Others feel just as strongly that any regulation of abortion invades a woman’s right to control her own body and prevents women from achieving full equality. Still others in a third group think that abortion should be allowed under some but not all circumstances, and those within this group hold a variety of views about the particular restrictions that should be imposed.

 

For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113. Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one.

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, expat_4_life said:

It is right in the 2nd paragraph ... I'll just put it here in case you missed it when you read it.

 

JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.

Abortion presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views. Some believe fervently that a human person comes into being at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. Others feel just as strongly that any regulation of abortion invades a woman’s right to control her own body and prevents women from achieving full equality. Still others in a third group think that abortion should be allowed under some but not all circumstances, and those within this group hold a variety of views about the particular restrictions that should be imposed.

 

For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113. Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one.

did you also read the dissent?

[Fat is a type of crazy]

Delete

Edited June 28, 2022 by Fat is a type of crazy

[expat_4_life]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

the current court ....  may reverse decisions regarding gay marriage, voting rights, and who knows what else.

I don't think you have much to fear in this regard, the majority opinion specifically includes the following language ...

 

Unable to show concrete reliance on Roe and Casey themselves, the Solicitor General suggests that overruling those decisions would “threaten the Court’s precedents holding that the Due Process Clause protects other rights.” Brief for United States citing Obergefell, Lawrence,Griswold.

 

That is not correct for reasons we have already discuss As even the Casey plurality recognized, “abortion is a unique act” because it terminates “life or potential life.” Roe, abortion is “inherently different from marital intimacy,” “marriage,” or “procreation”. And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.

 

Edited June 28, 2022 by expat_4_life

[Jingthing]

The new America -- it's Juntarific!

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/27/supreme-court-roe-abortion-christians/

 

This isn’t your country anymore. You are now governed by a secretive and unaccountable junta in long black robes, and there are going to be some changes around here.

Our de facto rulers are Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. usually joining in.

 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, expat_4_life said:

It is right in the 2nd paragraph ... I'll just put it here in case you missed it when you read it.

 

JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.

Abortion presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views. Some believe fervently that a human person comes into being at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. Others feel just as strongly that any regulation of abortion invades a woman’s right to control her own body and prevents women from achieving full equality. Still others in a third group think that abortion should be allowed under some but not all circumstances, and those within this group hold a variety of views about the particular restrictions that should be imposed.

 

For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113. Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one.

And if that was the crucial paragraph in the decision, you'd have a better point.

But  the original Roe v. Wade didn't depend on any explicit mention of such a right, nor does Alioto claim it did, which is why Alioto wrote this:

 "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted)."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/text-from-supreme-court-ruling-overturning-roe-v-wade/2022/06/24/364578ac-f3f0-11ec-ac16-8fbf7194cd78_story.html

 

The assertion that rights must be deeply rooted in tradition is also nowhere to be found in the Constitution. In fact, it dates from 1997. That is the point on which the 3 dissenting justices disagree with Alioto and company, Whether only rights that were recognized as such when the 14th Amendment was created are covered by the 14th Amendment or whether as society's our understanding of human rights changes, those right should protected by the 14th Amendment.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

38 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And if that was the crucial paragraph in the decision, you'd have a better point.

But  the original Roe v. Wade didn't depend on any explicit mention of such a right, nor does Alioto claim it did, which is why Alioto wrote this:

 "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted)."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/text-from-supreme-court-ruling-overturning-roe-v-wade/2022/06/24/364578ac-f3f0-11ec-ac16-8fbf7194cd78_story.html

 

The assertion that rights must be deeply rooted in tradition is also nowhere to be found in the Constitution. In fact, it dates from 1997. That is the point on which the 3 dissenting justices disagree with Alioto and company, Whether only rights that were recognized as such when the 14th Amendment was created are covered by the 14th Amendment or whether as society's our understanding of human rights changes, those right should protected by the 14th Amendment.

It's actually the Ninth Amendment that's critical here, not the Fourteenth. The Ninth dates back to the beginning and eliminates any question about when a Right was recognized as such. 

 

The Ninth makes clear it is the Constitutuonal responsibility of government to protect peoples Rights, not step on them. And that apples to those delineated in the Bill of Rights, as well as any Rights not mentioned.

 

The Fourteenth Amendment can get confusing. The Ninth is remarkable simple and to rhe point.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

It's actually the Ninth Amendment that's critical here, not the Fourteenth. The Ninth dates back to the beginning and eliminates any question about when a Right was recognized as such. 

 

The Ninth makes clear it is the Constitutuonal responsibility of government to protect peoples Rights, not step on them. And that apples to those delineated in the Bill of Rights, as well as any Rights not mentioned.

 

The Fourteenth Amendment can get confusing. The Ninth is remarkable simple and to rhe point.

The justices who originally decided Roe v. Wade cited the 14th Amendment not the 9th as justification. 

[scorecard]

4 hours ago, scorecard said:

Google says:

 

63% of Americans indicate Christian as their religion, about 20% of these folks attend church weekly.

 

31% of the worlds population identify officially as Christian, and at least 55% of these folks are non practising christians.

 

So how does the American religious right get away with pushing Christianity, and how come so many right wing politicians get away with claiming the Christian religious high ground in terms of policy/law.

 

Just wondering if at the moment it's fashionable to claim to be a member of the GOP and a practicing Christian. Perhaps it's because their clown boy leader claims he's Christian but in reality can't discuss anything in relation to christian beliefs. But he's got a strangle hold on so many, and this is so dangerous.

 

Also just wondering how the American Christians who are not practicing Christians would react if someone tried to have Christian beliefs enshrined as civil law, same as Shiria law in some muslim countries?

 

And how would that fit with the demands of so many Americans to demand personal freedom?

 

 

I add more... I'm a caucasian person, not American, I've followed world politics for all my adult life  in my 77 years. I have a basic understanding of American politics but not much more.

 

Until perhaps 6 or 7 years ago It seemed to me that American politics, policies, discussions, laws were mostly based on:

 

- Building and maintaining democracy but without religion being strongly evident.

- The desire to build and maintain a civil society, mostly equal for all in terms of colour, etc.

- Respecting the wishes/laws enacted by the founding fathers that building/maintaining the US  must always totally respect the separation of religion and state.

 

In the earlier years we always saw strong respect across the political parties. And strong respect from all to see a peaceful/smooth transition from president to president.

 

What happened?

 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

I add more... I'm a caucasian person, not American, I've followed world politics for all my adult life  in my 77 years. I have a basic understanding of American politics but not much more.

 

Until perhaps 6 or 7 years ago It seemed to me that American politics, policies, discussions, laws were mostly based on:

 

- Building and maintaining democracy but without religion being strongly evident.

- The desire to build and maintain a civil society, mostly equal for all in terms of colour, etc.

- Respecting the wishes/laws enacted by the founding fathers that building/maintaining the US  must always totally respect the separation of religion and state.

 

In the earlier years we always saw strong respect across the political parties. And strong respect from all to see a peaceful/smooth transition from president to president.

 

What happened?

 

Things fell apart BIGLY.

[KhunLA]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Things fell apart BIGLY.

Y'all ain't seen nothing  yet.  Wait till they rule on W.V. vs EPA ... ????

 

If they rule for WV, extremely possible, probable, then the 'alphabet' agencies will no longer be setting policy, and the Congress folks might have to show up and actually do some work.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/20-1530

 

That ruling actually will affect most citizens.  Agencies no long making up and dictating policies on people and business.  Congress will need to show up, actually work, and pass laws.

 

... Reaffirming 2nd Amendment ... a big nothing

... Freedom of expression ... another big nothing 

... Letting states decide about abortion ... strict states, simply stricter, maybe ban w/exceptions.  Less strict states, a big nothing for them, no changes, just more business.