To agree with the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v Wade?

[thereareotherways]

Obviously I can predict the voting already! Ha.

TL;DR (at the top!): I support abortion but think Roe v Wade (and later cases) are not legally sound, and there are better ways to secure women's rights that would have more public support.

I'm personally not opposed to abortion in most real-life circumstances. I think after viability I would prefer other options to be explored, but I think most women having later-term abortions are doing it for serious medical reasons and I don't think that should be prosecuted. That said, I also am okay in principle with regulating abortion and I'm not an absolutist re: women's control: I think the fetus/baby does have some rights (which I weight proportionally more as the baby grows).

As I understand it, Roe v Wade and Casey rely on a right to "liberty" in the US constitution (primarily the 14th amendment), which otherwise doesn't mention abortion. I'm not a lawyer at all, I find this tenuous at best. Liberty has always had implied limits based on what's acceptable in society, and abortion was illegal until fairly recently. I don't think there's any justification for claiming that there's an implied consent of the people that abortion is morally acceptable - and the polarisation of the US on this issue reflects that.

I think the decision in Roe/Casey to impose abortion via activist judges was a poor decision both legally and politically. This is a clear case where elected representatives need to pass legislation that reflects their constituents' positions. If that legislation differs from state-to-state, well, that's the whole point of a federal system. Pro-choice candidates need to get elected in red states and then they will have the actual consent of the people, not tenuous implied consent.

The decision in Dobbs is here and good reading: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

I also have a faint hope that now that this has been overturned, both Republicans and Democrats might now return their focus to legislation instead of Supreme Court nominees. The power of the Supreme Court is too dominating in US politics: we should be pleased to see them ceding some power back to the legislature, i.e., the people's representatives!

You are so Naive. I want some of what you're having. Must be nice.

This is ruling against women. Women will suffer.

Have you seen the part of the judgement where Justice Thomas suggests that they ought to go and have another look at the decisions on same sex relationships and contraception?

Can’t remember what this logical fallacy is called but you’re saying just because something has flaws (not legally sound) it can be discredited as a whole.
”There are better ways to secure women’s rights”, can’t think of any right now so let’s set back women’s rights while we work out what they are.

So some women in some states will be fucked, others will be fine. Those who can afford to travel to another state might have a chance at getting a safe abortion, others will be condemned to having a baby they do not want or to pursuing an unsafe illegal abortion. Roughly half of states have indicated they will be either heavily restricting or making abortion illegal; some have already enacted snap changes. Contraception isn't free there either, some insurance plans cover it but not everyone has access to it, and their social security provisions are dire. How anyone can see this as a good thing is to me, personally, baffling. Women will needlessly die as a result of this, and babies will suffer as they're born into homes not fit for purpose in which the parents cannot afford food or warmth. I absolutely don't subscribe to the thought that giving birth even if a child will be born into absolutely shit circumstances is better than not at all.

Also agree with others that scarily this might be the tip of the iceberg- dread to think what might be next.

YABVU

you're basically saying your happy that millions of women are going to be denied legal and safe abortion.

This doesn't regulate abortion as you put it all it will do is make safe abortion illegal. Abortions will still take place they just won't be safe.

So if a 12yr old girl is raped and becomes pregnant you think that the foetus has rights.....where were the 12yr olds rights when she was being raped.

Regardless of the constitutional law, overturning Roe vs Wade will lead to millions of women either having reduced or no access to abortion. Women will die. Seems ridiculous to be looking at specifics of the constitution, it was a practical way to protect women’s human rights.

It will be appealed but will take time. In the meantime there are states who will make a blanket ban and women will be hurt and even die.

OP, this is not an intellectual exercise. This is real women, real lives.

Despite your attempt to pass off your beliefs as stemming from an objective interest in legal and political processes, the fact that you're using using the terms 'baby' and 'fetus' as if they are synonymous speaks volumes.

YABVU.

This is a clear case where elected representatives need to pass legislation that reflects their constituents' positions.

So men (and some conservative women) should tell women what to do with an unwanted pregnancy? That's very draconian of you, OP.

I'm not saying I'm happy that women are going to be denied abortions. I'm saying that inherently abortion is a question of balancing two competing rights/interests, and different people have different ideas on where the balance should fall.

The US Constitution does not mention abortion so why should a nationwide Supreme Court decision decide for the entire nation what the rules should be, when there is an existing framework (elected representatives who make legislation) that they could use?

To put it another way - for something as important as abortion (and I personally agree it's very important for women), why rest on your laurels and rely on what you KNOW is shaky legal justification instead of working to influence policy and get elected?!

I'm saying that inherently abortion is a question of balancing two competing rights/interests

Only if you regard women as incubators.

The idea that abortion is a balance of rights is highly contested. In the U.K. the foetus has no rights.

Why did those silly American feminists not already crack on with a superior way to safeguard women’s rights?

Yes, the US constitution is maddening to outsiders, but you come across as a naive sixth former who’s never met an adult woman. These posturing debates sicken me at this time.

I agree with the general point that it would be much better to have legislation than a shaky Supreme Court judgement. But a law mandating states to provide legal abortion would never get through both houses as things currently stand.

Any other shit that needs throwing at us women?

If that legislation differs from state-to-state, well, that's the whole point of a federal system. Pro-choice candidates need to get elected in red states and then they will have the actual consent of the people, not tenuous implied consent

Elections are not (usually) based on single issues. Pro choice candidates are not going to get elected in red states because pro choice candidates also tend towards social liberalism and (very relatively) left wing fiscal policies. Even if a majority of the population in red states weren't against abortion, they'd still be unlikely to vote in a pro choice candidate due to disagreement on other issues.

And, meanwhile, women will continued to be denied the right to an abortion and will be made all the more vulnerable for it. Someone else's God should have no place in the laws concerning your bodily autonomy.

The US constitution also doesn't mention assault rifles, and yet it's OK for people to have them and shoot children in schools.

The Constitution and the Supreme Court are not fit for purpose in the modern world.

Meanwhile YABVU because this ruling means women will die.

So if a 12yr old girl is raped and becomes pregnant you think that the foetus has rights.....where were the 12yr olds rights when she was being raped.

Yes, I do believe it has rights. I believe that for most of the pregnancy, the 12yo's rights MASSIVELY outweigh them. Obviously.

That doesn't mean I don't think the fetus has any rights at all.

If the 12yo decided at 37 weeks to terminate the pregnancy for no medical reason... I'd struggle with that morally and I think many people would too.

Most people, including most women, do have some kind of a line where the rights of the fetus start to become relevant.

inherently abortion is a question of balancing two competing rights/interests

It really, really, really isn't. Saying a foetus has rights is basically the pro-life argument in a nutshell.

Please stop dressing your arguments up as anything other than oppression of women.

I'm saying that inherently abortion is a question of balancing two competing rights/interests, and different people have different ideas on where the balance should fall.

Which is why each person should get to decide for themselves if they want ab abortion or not. No imposition, no denial of personal beliefs.

I've name changed because people seem to get bashed a lot for this view, but YANBU, OP.
Personally, I don't agree with abortion, unless for medical reasons, and certain other complicated situations. I'm not religious, it's just my personal opinion. However, I also recognise that my opinion shouldn't outweigh the majority (and I think, in the UK, the majority probably believe it should be allowed). If the majority of American citizens don't agree with this decision, then it should never happened.

Why are you doing this? Seriously? This is a fucking terrible day for women so why trot out your tiresome pro-life crap? This debate has been had a million times and you're still wrong.

Go find a bunch of conservative, Bible-bashing misogynists to nod along with your bullshit.