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

[KhunLA]

 

36 minutes ago, Mike Teavee said:

It's been a long time since I've even thought of an Elvis song (shame as I was a big fan before he died, was 11 at the time) but this one springs to mind when I read your post & think about the impact this ruling will have on the poorer American families... 

 

 

 

Nothing to do with abortion, just life's choices.

If you can't afford to have kids, then don't have them.  

 

I didn't want, or thought so, after a certain age, so got a vasectomy. 

 

Great song, (Mac Davis) and probably his best, Mac & Elvis. IMHO

Edited June 25, 2022 by KhunLA

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, proton said:

still would have been a majority ending child murder!

You might want to check your math.

[malibukid]

15 hours ago, 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.

Madalane laundries like they have in Ireland.

[malibukid]

15 hours ago, Iamfalang said:

I'm a guy, I don't think I have a say in these matters.  

 

If I was a woman, it would be my choice.   

 

sad day for women. 

 

 

if i where a young guy living in the States, i would be very very careful now

[malibukid]

15 hours ago, proton said:

The choice is having sex with no contraception, nobody should have the choice to kill a child because they could not be bothered to

i don't think that a rapist is concerned about contraception or someone involved in a abusive relationship

Edited June 25, 2022 by malibukid

[zzaa09]

Hmmm...

You'll be begging my pardon for misunderstanding or lack of knowledge. 

 

As such applies to the U.S. systems, I was always under the impression that legislative-bound "laws" [especially of the Constitutional variety] can only be introduced, changed or rescinded by the respective legislative body or indirectly the voting population. 

 

The judicial branch merely rules upon or resolves legal disputation.....yet, in practice, seems to be commonplace to revoke or repeal writs created and voted upon by the legislative bodies [the people's representatives]. Any judgement, ruling or legal opinion doesn't reverse the course of the law. It's just interpreted........correct??

 

If any judicial rulings [or executive rulings] can overturn legislative laws, why bother with a legislative branch? 

 

For you American systematic and constitutional scholars - please educate me.

 

 

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, Rhys said:

Elections coming soon..

And will any result change the supreme court?

Remembers, those judges are appointed for life. 

[Mike Teavee]

49 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

 

Nothing to do with abortion, just life's choices.

If you can't afford to have kids, then don't have them.  

 

I didn't want, or thought so, after a certain age, so got a vasectomy. 

 

Great song, (Mac Davis) and probably his best, Mac & Elvis. IMHO

I agree the song has nothing to do with abortion per se, but it has everything to do with a poor family being forced to have a baby that they know they can't afford & the societal impact when that kid grows up. 

 

NB I'm not pro-abortion & would do my best to try to talk anybody out of getting one,  but I am Pro-Choice.

 

Please don't reply with "What about the choice of the unborn/undeveloped fetus", arguments like that can be taken to the extreme (Reductio Absurdum) as if you've ever had a w4nk, <deleted> or used a condom when having sex, you've denied the chance of your sperm to grow into a baby & every time a girl has a period, she's denied the rights of her unfertalised egg to grow into a baby. 

 

Should we ban hand shandy's & periods next 

 

 

PS: I agree, easily one of (if not the) best song from Elvis

 

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2022 by Mike Teavee

[James105]

42 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

100%

 

Religious schools!!!!!......absolutely ludicrous that people/governments/states allow children.....yes children......to be indoctrinated......Religion and religious schools in particular are a scourge on society.

Indeed, just about everyone in the world who is religious has had that belief forced upon them when they were a child.   If I was in charge of the planet I would not allow any religious teachings until at least 16 years old so everyone could make an informed decision about not only whether or not they wish to believe in a sky wizard, but crucially which sky wizard they wish to believe in.   I wonder how many (when given an informed choice) would pick the one that required them to pray 5 times a day, not eat bacon or drink alcohol and fast for 1 month every single year.   

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, James105 said:

Indeed, just about everyone in the world who is religious has had that belief forced upon them when they were a child.   If I was in charge of the planet I would not allow any religious teachings until at least 16 years old so everyone could make an informed decision about not only whether or not they wish to believe in a sky wizard, but crucially which sky wizard they wish to believe in.   I wonder how many (when given an informed choice) would pick the one that required them to pray 5 times a day, not eat bacon or drink alcohol and fast for 1 month every single year.   

And yet some claim this Supreme court does not have a majority of extreme right wingers.

[zzaa09]

11 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And will any result change the supreme court?

Remembers, those judges are appointed for life. 

Indeed. 

Akin to a dictatorial thing. 

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

There are already too many unwanted and unsupported children in this world.

Adding more unwanted and unsupported children won't make the world any better.

Absolutely aside from the awful cases of unwanted children through rape there are so many other genuine reasons for seeking an abortion. 

 

Abusive relationships, partners not wanting a child, to young, teenagers who are just not ready for the demands of a baby, have school, university and their careers to consider. Women who are too old even have a genuine reason, health concerns, drug or alcohol issues, the list is long and in my opinion as you rightly stated this will lead to more unwanted children and for many of those children to end up in care or an unwanted environment.

[Will B Good]

17 minutes ago, James105 said:

Indeed, just about everyone in the world who is religious has had that belief forced upon them when they were a child.   If I was in charge of the planet I would not allow any religious teachings until at least 16 years old so everyone could make an informed decision about not only whether or not they wish to believe in a sky wizard, but crucially which sky wizard they wish to believe in.   I wonder how many (when given an informed choice) would pick the one that required them to pray 5 times a day, not eat bacon or drink alcohol and fast for 1 month every single year.   

It amazes me that it not 'on the agenda' anywhere in the world......politicians see it as a vote loser I guess and their seat comes first before taking any moral action.

[JayBird]

16 hours ago, proton said:

The choice is having sex with no contraception, nobody should have the choice to kill a child because they could not be bothered to

Children being raped by daddy don't often get the choice.

 

Contraceptives are not 100%.

 

And soon they will be illegal.

 

Also:  This law stops safe abortions.  It does not block access to metal hangers.

[JayBird]

15 hours ago, Jingthing said:

It really is and quickly.

But there are two Americas now.

Can they live together?

History says they went to war with each other.  It feels like the war never settled anything.

[kingstonkid]

16 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Outrageous, this will lead to back street abortions and women coming of age today will have less rights then their mothers or grandmothers had. What with the wild west gun laws this has put the US back years.

Give me a break  abortion has not been outlawed it has been turned back to the people to decide for their state.

 

The idea that in Virginia  a mother can wait until the child is born to decide if she wants to abort moved the needle too far.  

 

Yes there may be states that outlaw abortion an if that is the desire of the people in the state.

 

The case that brought everything simply wanted to put a time limit on when you could have it.

 

People are going to whine but the bottom line is this was always a state issue.  The Dems had chances under Obama to make changes and pass a law and under Biden had the ability to play make a deal and decided to roll the dice.

 

Now they live with it.

[Chomper Higgot]

16 hours ago, proton said:

The choice is having sex with no contraception, nobody should have the choice to kill a child because they could not be bothered to

Abortion is not killing a child.

 

When actual children are killed all we hear is ‘Thoughts and Prayers’.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, kingstonkid said:

Give me a break  abortion has not been outlawed it has been turned back to the people to decide for their state.

 

The idea that in Virginia  a mother can wait until the child is born to decide if she wants to abort moved the needle too far.  

 

Yes there may be states that outlaw abortion an if that is the desire of the people in the state.

 

The case that brought everything simply wanted to put a time limit on when you could have it.

 

People are going to whine but the bottom line is this was always a state issue.  The Dems had chances under Obama to make changes and pass a law and under Biden had the ability to play make a deal and decided to roll the dice.

 

Now they live with it.

It's not states rights issue. The supreme court cited the constitution in its ruling. It is a human rights issue. They know full well the states dominated by the religious right will take full advantage of this decision.

[Chomper Higgot]

I’m not convinced the GOP actually wanted this outcome.

 

It made a great rallying call for the Christian Rightwing and others who have a desire to control women’s bodies but once achieved it’s not going to get any extra votes for the GOP.

 

It has though mobilized opposition to the GOP and the rightwing/Christian Fundamentalist  loaded SCOTUS.

 

All in time for the Mid Terms.

[Bkk Brian]

6 minutes ago, kingstonkid said:

Give me a break  abortion has not been outlawed it has been turned back to the people to decide for their state.

 

The idea that in Virginia  a mother can wait until the child is born to decide if she wants to abort moved the needle too far.  

 

Yes there may be states that outlaw abortion an if that is the desire of the people in the state.

 

The case that brought everything simply wanted to put a time limit on when you could have it.

 

People are going to whine but the bottom line is this was always a state issue.  The Dems had chances under Obama to make changes and pass a law and under Biden had the ability to play make a deal and decided to roll the dice.

 

Now they live with it.

I've no intention of giving you a break.................

 

The truth is its been outlawed in many states with more to come, twist it as much as you want but those are the facts.

 

There's no guarantee that people can get abortions in liberal states, either

[vandeventer]

16 hours ago, Iamfalang said:

I'm a guy, I don't think I have a say in these matters.  

 

If I was a woman, it would be my choice.   

 

sad day for women. 

 

 

It's not a sad day ,it is now up to the states on what the people of the state want to do, not the federal government. What about the baby's rights once theirs a heartbeat.  

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, vandeventer said:

It's not a sad day ,it is now up to the states on what the people of the state want to do, not the federal government. What about the baby's rights once theirs a heartbeat.  

Let’s take that at face value and then examine what it is the ‘States’ now get to do.

 

Decide on what a woman can do with her own body and in doing so stripping her of dominion over her own body.

 

Let’s hear the arguments that make that acceptable?

[John Drake]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

It has though mobilized opposition to the GOP and the rightwing/Christian Fundamentalist  loaded SCOTUS.

There are no Christian fundamentalists on the Supreme Court. Roman Catholics on the bench did this. It's an importation of Vatican doctrine into the US. My guess is the other side will be happier when Vatican backed decisions on immigration come before them. Personally, I favor abortion on demand up to 14 weeks, with exceptions made thereafter for the health of the mother. In fact, I think it should be encouraged in many, many instances.  I'd bet that my view is a solid majority among most Americans. I do wish there was a push for a Constitutional amendment to settle this once and for all. That would really put politicians on the hot seat and those hawking the idea that life begins at conception would find themselves thrown out on their ear.

[KhunLA]

44 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Remembers, those judges are appointed for life. 

I believe that's more so, they rule on their conscious and doing so in line with what the Constitution says, rather than being politicized, and worry about not having a job, if they go against their 'boss'.  Job for life, erases that fear.

 

It IS the last checks & balance of the Republic & democracy base on the Constitution.

 

Granted, getting there, may have been political, but once there, the job is secure and in theory, politics shouldn't sway their rulings.  More than a few judges have voted, contrary to what 'their party' expected when appointed.

 

Remember, every appointee has to be confirmed by a majority of the elected representatives.  No system is perfect, but the Constitution has endured for 235 yrs.

 

If they, a Judge does screw up bad enough, in theory, they can be removed.

 

If only the voters actually paid attention to who they are electing, along with their voting record, instead of who puts out the best commercials at election time.

 

How many yanks actually 'know' what the ruling was, instead of 'abortions are now banned' by Republicans ... hmm

 

This thread pretty much proves that point. IMHO

[Saanim]

54 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And yet some claim this Supreme court does not have a majority of extreme right wingers.

The Supreme Court Justices for life is the same deception of population as the 2 parties system...

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, John Drake said:

There are no Christian fundamentalists on the Supreme Court. Roman Catholics on the bench did this. It's an importation of Vatican doctrine into the US. My guess is the other side will be happier when Vatican backed decisions on immigration come before them. Personally, I favor abortion on demand up to 14 weeks, with exceptions made thereafter for the health of the mother. In fact, I think it should be encouraged in many, many instances.  I'd bet that my view is a solid majority among most Americans. I do wish there was a push for a Constitutional amendment to settle this once and for all. That would really put politicians on the hot seat and those hawking the idea that life begins at conception would find themselves thrown out on their ear.

Roman Catholic and Christian Fundamentalist are not mutually exclusive, far from it.

 

A Constitutional Amendment to enshrine the rights of a woman to abortion would be a good thing, but won’t happen.

 

However getting the GOP out of the way and reforming the SCOTUS is an achievable aim.

 

There are two Justices ripe for removal, the Democrats need to take the gloves off.

 

 

[BangkokReady]

16 hours ago, Iamfalang said:

I'm a guy, I don't think I have a say in these matters.  

 

If I was a woman, it would be my choice.   

 

sad day for women. 

Isn't it sad for a man that a woman can abort his baby and he has no say in it?

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I believe that's more so, they rule on their conscious and doing so in line with what the Constitution says, rather than being politicized, and worry about not having a job, if they go against their 'boss'.  Job for life, erases that fear.

 

It IS the last checks & balance of the Republic & democracy base on the Constitution.

 

Granted, getting there, may have been political, but once there, the job is secure and in theory, politics shouldn't sway their rulings.  More than a few judges have voted, contrary to what 'their party' expected when appointed.

 

Remember, every appointee has to be confirmed by a majority of the elected representatives.  No system is perfect, but the Constitution has endured for 235 yrs.

 

If they, a Judge does screw up bad enough, in theory, they can be removed.

 

If only the voters actually paid attention to who they are electing, along with their voting record, instead of who puts out the best commercials at election time.

 

How many yanks actually 'know' what the ruling was, instead of 'abortions are now banned' by Republicans ... hmm

 

This thread pretty much proves that point. IMHO

In principle I agree with most of that.

 

However, it’s not just ‘screwing up’ that warrants removal.

 

One Justice lies under oath during his appointment hearing and a second has very clear conflict of interest/obstruction of justice questions to answer.

 

These two need to be removed and replaced.

 

Next up, the Constitution says nothing at all about how many Justices should be seated on the SCOTUS.

 

Some rebalancing is in order.

[vandeventer]

26 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Abortion is not killing a child.

 

When actual children are killed all we hear is ‘Thoughts and Prayers’.

Isn't it funny how all you Dems. stick together. To me Abortion is not killing a baby ,it's murder and it doesn't matter what party you are in  murder is murder when there is a heartbeat.

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Isn't it sad for a man that a woman can abort his baby and he has no say in it?

no, if the shoe was on the other foot would you want to spend all your life supporting a child by a mother who wanted nothing to do with you or you her?