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!

It's a barbaric outcome. Can't believe it can be passed in this day and age. What an era to be a woman...

Haven't RTFT.....I don't like the idea of abortion but I've never been put in the position of needing to have one so I can never judge anyone who has. If I was in that position then I should have a legally enshrined right to be able to have one if I wanted one. By overturning this the supreme court are taking away that right and women will die, be seriously injured or prosecuted for reasons beyond their control. All you are doing is removing the right of a women to abort a fetus as humanely as possible. We shouldn't be going back to an age of hot baths, gin and coat hangers, women suffering a miscarriage ending up being prosecuted because they can't prove it's a natural occurrence and doctors being accused of helping women with a genuine need for a medical termination of pregnancy. This will disproportionately affect the poor and WOC. No matter what your personal view is on abortion the right to access one shouldn't be taken away and women should be given the right to choose. Theoretical musings are no good at this stage. Some States have already enacted an abortion ban with immediate effect and desperate women will start resorting to desperate measures.

This this this this.

Those poor women.

And that person was a man. Says it all really.

I think you are a shit human being. You really are completely clueless. As reading about the subject seems beyond yiu, maybe watch ‘call the midwife’ to see a dramatised (vaguely positive) idea of backstreet abortions.

I am entirely with the OP on this albeit unpopular and difficult thing to say. Women don’t go on “the foetus moved! The foetus kicked!” It’s baby - the baby moved, the baby kicked… there is a point when most people start to naturally see it that way and that will affect how we feel about abortion.

Robust legislation could still have been written while Roe v Wade was in place. Your argument makes no sense.

It's really not just rich white men who are the problem. This is amply demonstrated on here daily.

Are you a man by any chance?

Abortions were carried out because it was an inconvenience for women to have a child.

What an inconvenience it must be to have a baby with anencephaly, who will die shortly after being born - if not before.

What an inconvenience it must be to have an ectopic pregnancy, which will kill you painfully if it is not aborted.

What an inconvenience it must be to be diagnosed with cancer while pregnant, and not be treated until you have given birth, by which time the cancer may have spread so far that it is terminal. How inconvenient for the baby to then lose its mother to the metastasised cancer.

What an inconvenience it must be to have a child born of rape. What an inconvenience it must be to have to give your rapist access to his child.

What an inconvenience it must be to have your right to make your own decisions about your own body.

Funny how men don't have this inconvenience.

And shocking how many women are keen to impose this inconvenience upon other women.

Inconvenience!

To force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy is the most sickening law ever. It's denying women basic healthcare.

If Roe v Wade is flawed then find the right fix which protects women and implement it before doing away with RvW altogether. What has just happened is an abomination

Legsl aborion does not compel anyone to have sn abortion.
It allows you or anyone to choose.

Making abortion illegal compels everyvwoman to giuve birth regardless , it forces women and gives no choice over their bodies (or seek unsafe procedures)

And the majority of Americans did not want RvW to be overturned.

This ruling won't stop abortions, it will stop safe abortions.

You might find it fascinating from a legal perspective or whatever, but such apologists are the unwitting enables of dictatorships which destroy the rights of women. For all your poncing around trying to prove how clever you are, you have missed the point, spectacularly. This is a full on attack on womens rights, the fact they have used a carefully manipulated legal point to do so makes it even more abhorrent. A point they will use next to ban contraception, to ban same sex relationships. You really aren’t very bright if you can’t see what this is actually about

Yeah, no. This ruling is about the control of women and anyone saying otherwise is lying. It’s misogynistic and regressive and women will die as a result of this ruling today.

Oh come on, engage your fucking brain for just a second and think about the situation, the reality, in which a 12 year old girl who is pregnant by rape is wanting to abort at 37 weeks. Think about the fucked up shit that would be going on for that to happen.

And fucking stop peddling the absolute bull crap that women and girls are going for abortions at 37 weeks purely for the craic. It's so bloody offensive.

Are you a man?

All of this.

OP does not understand the legal basis for Roe vs Wade. It is NOT concerning liberty, it is based on the right to privacy, one of the Constitution’s inalienable rights.
Get your facts straight.

I agree too.
One can be strongly pro-abortion.
And also believe that that both mother and foetus have rights.
And that abortion law should be made by democratically elected representatives.
These (to me) all seem like morally responsible philosophical positions.

On the other hand the practical consequences of today's judgement are clearly going to be disastrous.

JFC… go read a book, get educated, get a grip.

If you don't want to have an abortion personally that's up to you, but it's a woman's right to choose, and no woman should not be forced to have a kid against her will. They are talking about life beginning at conception and that rules out a lot of contraception . Women will die because of this.

Wish everyone would stop calling me a pro-lifer. Other people might be and that's their business, but the current system in E&W almost perfectly matches up with my own moral instincts - later-term abortions legal but only for serious medical reasons, otherwise fairly long period with very limited restrictions. And I think that basically everyone having a late-term termination is doing it for serious medical reasons!

Roe v Wade was passed in, when, the 70s? It's all very well saying that we mustn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, but that's a long time that could have been used to build a more stable platform.

I agree 100% with the poster from the US saying that judges who are appointed once for life based on whoever happens to be president when someone dies are the wrong people to be deciding on issues like this.

If you're annoyed that this got overturned because Trump got lucky / got cheeky and got to nominate an unusual number of justices - then you understand. At least the decision returns it to the legislature - they could have found some reason to just ban it!