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!

Fuck off OP - you want to debate semantics? You don't care about women and how they will be impacted by this in real life?

Fuck you in that case, you're not worth even debating this with.

This is scary - and problematic if one believes in the democratic principle (by state).

www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/

Of course not @ldontWanna they're fighting as hard as they can.

But the US is not the UK. They are still in infancy in their history compared to us. They constitution is a load of shit in the modern world and it's their religion on top of religion.

Uk is nothing like that. Most don't care about religion. A lot of us are twats but there's a deep understanding that goes back hundreds of years, earnt, that we have rights and fuck them in charge, we don't like it they're out.

See Brexit. Not saying I voted for that but when the Brits get pissed off then the government, however they spin it, tow the line.

Same as thatcher and poll tax.

Fuck off OP
Fuck you in that case

Noted. Think it might be bedtime :)

"I'm fine with them as they are now (granted I'm only familiar with E&W so I suppose I should limit it to that). Just making a comment that in theory there's nothing stopping a future parliament from changing the laws (there are some insightful posts in the Overton window thread about it).

To answer a wider question - I think the philosophical debates are one thing but there is still a lot of scope for "practicality activism" here. I know someone who works in a London sexual health clinic who despairs over the backlog and wait lists.

This is why I really respected the telemedical abortion campaign. It addressed a very practical problem very quickly, affecting many women (most abortions are in that 9-10 week window), enables a preferable result for more women (early medical termination rather than surgical), and was the result of women staying involved and active in the legislative process (reading specific amendments, etc)."

Word salad

You started off with "I'm fine with"

Then you lost the argument. I'll say it again. It's none of your business, nor politicians, nor law makers, nor other voters, nor constitution, nor anything.

It's no one's business other than the woman. It's hers and hers alone.

Pro lifers say babies will suffer. Who's to say who's right?

The issue of abortion is a fundamental clash of the rights of women to control their bodies (to which the argument is that there is another body involved), and the rights of the child to not be killed (to which the argument is that they're not yet legally a person).

There is no knockout argument on either side, nor is there some kind of scientific or philosophical principle that can be applied to win the debate once and for all.

Pro lifers.

What do they advocate once the child is born? I'd love to know

I trust women.

At early as possible, as late as necessary.

No debate 🤘🤘🤘

You have NO RIGHT to tell another woman how she should make medical decisions about her body.
NONE.

@QuestionableMouse
🙏

"Pro lifers say babies will suffer. Who's to say who's right?"

They are not babies only potential babies

There is an entire argument around a woman s right to decide what to do with her body

"There is an entire argument around a woman s right to decide what to do with her body"

There shouldn't be, though.

'Pro lifers' im America tend to be the same people who support access to semi automatic guns from the age of 18 who have recently slaughtered junior school children so don't tell me these people are pro life. That is bullshit.

Yes i agree was what i meant... there is no argument against, womans bodily autonomy is absolute. There should be no question .
You can build argument for womans right to bodily autonomy

No point in trying to “understand the justification”. This is a political decision. But you know that and you’re clearly being goady so…

With you all the way @cestlavielife

For those of you who think that " it can never happen here" , you should take a close look at this thread and wonder why someone is already analyzing the legal basis for this opinion so closely and wonder at the parallels they have already so cleverly outlined between the US and UK law. Especially their declaration that there is no universal right to abortion in the UK.

But the tigers come at night, with their voice as soft as thunder.

OP,

I have spent a number of years working in America and thinking about American culture before returning to the U.K. I came here to say that I thought your views about superseding this dreadful decision with (state level) legislation was naive at best, with millions of lives ruined before change can be effected. At best.

I was going to add that IMO you may have the germ of a good idea, that one of my greatest heroes - the late, incomparable Ruth Bader Ginsberg - thought Roe v Wade was not the way to go. Then I saw that on p 12 you said this yourself. When I first returned to the U.K., I thought that needing medical approval for a termination was a gross infringement of privacy. Now I think it is only a civilised acknowledgement that although a woman’s self interest is rightly primary, there is a loss involved.

But I still think you are grossly underestimating the misogyny, the racism and the sheer hate behind Friday’s decision. Your ideas can only work in the presence of goodwill. It is completely missing.

She wouldn’t terminate at 37 weeks though would she, she’d get rid in the first trimester ffs.
you are really grasping at straws here aren’t you??

@thereareotherways Most women don’t have late term abortions unless there’s a serious birth defect that will mean the child will suffer horribly until it dies. You’d have to give birth anyway so most women have an abortion in the first trimester. I’ve never had one but I don’t begrudge women having an early abortion (unless they keep having them and refuse the pill, implant etc) or a later one of the foetus has a serious birth defect.

She wouldn’t terminate at 37 weeks though would she, she’d get rid in the first trimester ffs.

She'd have no problem in Mississippi then, where the law now allows abortions up until 15 weeks, and also allows abortions for medical reasons after that.

legiscan.com/MS/text/HB1510/2018

It frustrates me to read headlines saying "Mississippi bans almost all abortions, even for rape and incest!" when that's just factually not what the law says. I know other states have more restrictive laws, and there's a debate to be had about whether 15 is the right number, but honestly the conversation around this can be quite disconnected from reality.

The bigger problem for the 12yo in Mississippi is lack of access due to not having any abortion clinics to actually go to, or having protesters argue with her outside.

Which is not solved by bringing back Roe, or by constantly talking about your ideological support for late-term abortions for any reason and giving protesters a cause to fight against.

I said that to my husband and he asked if I could back up that claim. I know it's true that pro lifers are often gun rights people, but couldn't find any actual statistics for it. Anyone know of any?

My husband does get it, by the way. He thinks it's a terrible decision too, but is less interested in US politics than I am.

As a side issue, what do people think about the rights of gynaecologists who object to non-medical abortion ?
Should they have be able to freely opt out of performing the procedure, without sanction from their employer/regulatory body ?

In the case of a country where abortion is legal.

In the UK medical professionals have every right to do this- they just have to refer/signpost you to someone else. This applies in other settings like pharmacies where a pharmacist can refuse to sell the MAP on ethical grounds, but they have to signpost you to a different pharmacy that can provide the service. Hypothetically I suppose someone could be sent round in circles but I don't think this has arisen as an issue. Although the vast majority are funded by the NHS, most are carried out in clinics. I would question to be honest why someone who was against such a procedure would choose to work in such a setting (I don't mean women's healthcare as a whole, but this part- although personally I don't feel womens healthcare should be the place for someone who doesn't wish to uphold their body autonomy).

I saw someone make a good point on twitter- wonder how many of the anti-covid vaccine "my body my choice the government shouldn't have a say over my body" are in support of women having their say over their own bodies taken away? Not wishing to assume but I suspect its a fair one that there are many who this applies to...I get the argument but the feotus etc but at the same time the jab was shown to benefit the population as a whole so is still a decision that affects others. By the way if people didn't want the jab then respect their choice, as I do women who wish to have abortions.