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!

Yes but at various points since 1973 there has been a chance. Legislators (men) have badly let down women here - this decision has always been at risk of being overturned and no man has been willing to risk any of their political capital to cement women's rights through legislation.

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

I completely disagree. Hundred percent believe it is always the woman’s choice and the rights are hers. Since becoming a parent I would not wish an unwanted pregnancy/child on anyone.

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.

Ffs. That would be called 'birth'

What a stupid and utterly ignorant thing to say! Late term abortion does NOT mean deciding at 37 weeks, to terminate a pregnancy. If a girl of 12, at such a late gestation, got cold feet, she would be giving birth to a full term baby. Which would presumably be adopted.

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,

You think the legal branch of government should only concern itself with issues directly covered in a document which was created at the founding of the nation?

Do you think the British Courts should only pass judgment on issues laid out in the Magna Carta?

It seems very odd to want all legal judgments to have a direct link to a document hundreds of years old.

Therefore no gay marriage? No interracial marriages? Slavery is fine? Women shouldn't vote?

What these neanderthals have done will not result in no abortions, it will result in botched, illegal abortions with women dying. Do you agree with that too?

It’s a terrible day for women. It’s a woman’s choice.Every. Single. Time

Fucks sake OP, the US Constitution was drafted in 1787. In its original form it didn't guarantee freedom of speech, or votes for anyone but white men. Women didn't get the vote until 1920, and the voting rights act to stop them all being quite so bloody racist was in 1965.

That's why it's been amended 27 times, and that's out of only 33 attempts.

As I said in my OP, I have no moral issue with abortion in most real-life cases. I don't think 12yos killing their 37wk fetuses are all that common in real life, I say it to illustrate a point.

I think it's absolutely vital, if we want to protect women and give them this option, to build it on a framework which is legally sound and defensible.

I'm not just arbitrarily reading Dobbs for fun, I want to understand the justification instead of just getting mad at some strawman idea of evil conservative plots. I want to understand to what extent the logic used is something that would apply in the UK as well. Don't you?

Justice Alito clearly didn't think it was a waste of time learning the constitution or we wouldn't be having this conversation. Pro-life supporters have spent decades preparing for this and if we want to protect women's rights then so should we, instead of wringing our hands.

I don't think you're in a position to be lecturing others about strawmen

In a country without maternity rights or universal healthcare!
How much blatant disregard must you have for women & unwanted children, to come to such a conclusion?

@haveyounot that's not how it works when a baby is at term though. It's just not. I agree as late as necessary but even if someone decides at 40 weeks that they don't want the baby, an abortion as we know it simply does not happen that way, if there are no medical reasons for doing so.

If the mother decides at 37 weeks, that she simply does not want that baby, then Labour will be induced, or a c-section conducted and adoption proceedings can then occur but 9 month abortions are not a thing.

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?

It doesn't mention computers or motor cars either or quite a lot of other things.

Abortion was not imposed on anyone. It was and always must be a matter of choice. Free choice by each and every individual woman.

This must be a temporary set back if the US is to maintain any claim as a civilised and equitable nation.

I don't think in an instance of rape that the foetus has any rights whatsoever. It's a foetus that was never meant to be, never meant to exist.
The 12 year olds rights must come first.

So naive. You do realise that this will push abortions underground. Women will die as a result of this.

States are already closing clinics and turning women away.

So you are pro choice and women's rights? But you're against having them enshrined in constitutional law?

A person's own medical care shouldn't be subject to the opinion of the majority as it has no impact on anyone but the person receiving it.

Can't be arsed to read all your twaddle, and none of it means anything anyway. Remind me again, what's the outcome for women? Because really, that's what matters. Oh right yeah, it's a shit outcome.

Talk about ‘letting the perfect be the enemy of the good’. So even if we accept there might be a better legal mechanism to ensuring women and girls access to abortion (and I don’t even know if that’s true). The answer isn’t to scrap the existing mechanism and then try to figure it out. Meanwhile millions of women lose their rights 🙄

Oh! I voted the wrong way by accident. So one of the YANBUs is me but I am definitely YABU 😬

Constitutional originalists are disingenuous muppets. Discuss.

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.

No @thereareotherways, I'd struggle morally with a society that would make a 12 year old carry a pregnancy, or one that allows child abuse where the perpetrator walks away and their victim is left traumatised and with an unwanted pregnancy. In America specifically the medical care during the pregnancy and support after for the mother and baby woefully lacking for those who can't pay.

All this decision will do is force more women into dangerous, illegal abortions. Women will suffer and die, children will suffer and die. But you get to sit on a moral high horse because rape victims can't abort an unwanted fetus so it's all good right?

'As early as possible, as late as necessary' for any and all abortions.

On a day which has ensured that women - mostly poor, mostly women of colour have had their rights to access an essential part of female health care - you felt it was important to voice this half-arsed opinion?

First of all Roe was based on a right to privacy. The right to privacy no longer exists. That affects more than the right to abortion. It potentially affects the right to access contraception and the right to marriage equality. Thomas said this explicitly in his opinion. It also implys that no one has a right to privacy in health care decisions. And of course women will suffer death and permanent injury in poor red states as a result of this.

Roe did not convey a right to abortion to 40 weeks so don't be stupid with the 12 year old abortion at 37 weeks strawman stuff.