Abortion - "its days are numbered"

speakingwoman, yes, that's a fair assessment.

"With regard to ‘even in cases of rape’ - I actually can respect someone who sees abortion as wrong because they see the foetus as a human life rather than someone who sees abortion as wrong because they want to punish women for having sex (ergo, if you didn’t want to have sex, you are blameless.)"

I never thought of it that way but you've got a point.

I think the Catholic position is very logical provided that you understand the life of the potential human to be more important than the rights of the potential mother. I don't, and I'm happy to say my life is more important than that of a newly fertilised egg/foetus/whatever.
Catholics believe there are things more important than personal liberty.

I'm just not really sure why that is given the weight it is. He's a backbench MP, and while he has quite an internet following and is a character, I don't get the impression he is all that popular among the powerful on his party.

Because if the Brexiteers take over, he is talked about as possible Tory leader ie possible PM. We're that to happen, I think the oft-divided FWR posters would be united in our concern

I get why Rees Mogg gets the attention on this. He's the only politician I can remember who has been upfront and straight forward about his anti abortion views.

I'm just not really sure why that is given the weight it is. He's a backbench MP, and while he has quite an internet following and is a character, I don't get the impression he is all that popular among the powerful on his party.

If I were pro choice, I'd probably be more concerned by people who weren't as open about their views and were in a position of significant power, like leader of the party or something. Tbh, I think this is why Tim Farron got the clobbering he did, because he wasn't at all honesty about his personal views and that is rather a shifty trait in a politician.

I believe it is important not to become complacent on this issue.

It's important not to become complacent on any issue, whether that be something old and long-standing or new. But I admire him for standing up for his values and being forward enough to say this is what I believe, but doesn't mean it will or should change anything. I respect him for that, he has his beliefs but didn't argue back or get frustrated. He has his opinions but accepts the laws that he is there to support.

abilockhart did you mean to include an article link in that last post?

Abortion will continue even if banned it just won't be safe abortion. Women will die. Families will suffer. As history has showed, women who can afford it will travel for a private abortion. It's simply the most backwards thing to even be considering. I hope it doesn't happen.

Doctors tend to be sympathetic to a woman's request for a termination and if one isn't a woman can go elsewhere, Snappity. The parameters of what counts as potential risk to the woman are broad.

If a woman's MH is at risk from continuing a pregnancy, if it may exacerbate a physical or MH condition.. Both of these count. Or even - as I said - that having a termination presents a lower risk to a woman's health than having a baby.

The 'even in cases of rape' thing I kind of understand. I utterly disagree with it, but its consistent with the view that abortion is murder. I actually do not understand those who say abortion is murder BUT its fine if the woman was raped, like..murder is fine in some circumstances. If its murder, its murder in all cases surely. So yeah, Rees Moggs view, while disgusting, is consistent tbh.

I don't think abortion is under threat here. His personal views are his personal views, and there would surely have to be a vote anyway, its not like he could just change things on a whim

JRM has often said that he would not seek to change the law. Indeed could not do so even if he wanted to as abortion issues are always a free vote.

the truth is that a termination is always going to be statistically safer than carrying a pregnancy to term. That's how some doctors interpret the rules.

Which means that a change wouldn't require a vote in Parliament, just revised guidance from the Department of Health on risks.

Thomas, the truth is that a termination is always going to be statistically safer than carrying a pregnancy to term. That's how some doctors interpret the rules.

Racecardriver means that abortion is only legal in Britain on the grounds that continuing with the pregnancy constitutes risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. In practice this is interpreted very widely, and I’ve not heard of British women e.g. needing to undergo psychiatric testing to prove their mental health is at risk but it is a hostage to fortune.

As early as possible as late as necessary.

The concern about losing their get out the evangelical vote issue is part of the reason the immigration issue has become so important, and crime. But immigration and crime are both gone down though you wouldn't know that by the Republicans speeches.

If the single issue was gone from the federal level, then frankly, all bets are off for them.

Absolutely. The day Roe is overturned is the day evangelicals and some catholics (not many) rejoice and the republicans realise they now lack a shoe-in for votes.

If I were the democrats, the day it happens I would say "ok, that's that, now look what else I can do for you on immigration, poverty, work, etc"

That is actually an excellent point, pallisers, that I have not considered before. It's very true, I know people who held their nose and voted Republican even though they disagree on the broader platform, because of their commitment to the single issue. If the single issue was gone from the federal level, then frankly, all bets are off for them.

I agree thebewilderness - losing Roe could affect people - not just women - in all sorts of ways we can't even anticipate - unless maybe the SC acknowledges the right to privacy but says it doesn't extend to right to terminate.

Heard some commentators wondering if the right to privacy is gone, could some women be consitutionally prevented from getting pregnant.

mind you, overturning Roe, could actually change the reality of politics in the US. Voters who feel passionately about abortion are often one-issue voters. I heard many of them interviewed before the presidential election. They were vehemently pro-life but didn't like Trump's immigration policies - thought them essentially unchristian. But they voted on what they thought was the bigger issue. If Roe is gone, the republicans lock-in on those one-issue voters is gone on a federal level.

At the risk of repeating myself, Roe is what gives women a constitutional right to privacy.
Overturn Roe and you strip women of their right to privacy.

A region of the UK of GB and NI (NI) criminalises abortion right now - and has prosecuted and convicted women for obtaining an abortion within the past few years. I would focus on this rather than worrying what might happen in the future with RM.

Not sure what will happen in the US if they overturn Roe. I can't see a Roberts court overturning established precedent but you never know.
Far more likely that unreasonable restrictions on abortion will be upheld. Where I am - MA - abortion is already recognised as a constitutional right under our state constitution so it will not affect me. It won't affect women in the 20 states likely to outlaw it either - as long as they can afford to travel. So it is poorer women who will be affected - as usual.

Mogg can go fuck himself

Grow up.

A quick Google, or even reading the thread will tell you that he has no desire to impose his personal beliefs on the country.

Mogg can go fuck himself