[report]Rov V Wade overturned[confirmed]

[Vatimins]

     Abortion is such a sensitive topic specially to the people that are morally seeing it as wrong. But in my opinion, people should be given the right to do what they want since it is their body. That is if the reasoning is indeed right. But then again, unborn children also has the right to be born. I really think it depends on the perspective and where the person grew up like the environment, tradition and culture they were exposed in as to how they may see this either wrong or right. Either way, I think that with a good reason, I think it should be allowed.

[1714885236]

1714885236

[1714885236]

1714885236

[1714885236]

1714885236

[paxmao]

...

If a parent, man or woman, decides they don't want a child 1 month into it's life citing they're "unwanted" or that raising a child might be "lengthy," would it be acceptable for that man or woman to end the child's life for their own convenience?

Obviously not, and constructing such a ridiculous strawman only weakens your position.

...

I know this is controversial, but for me the choice stops when you decide that is no longer a bunch of cells with no conscience and becomes a human. At that moment, it passes from being a health decision / convenient decision / means tested decision / psychological health decision to killing a human.

When that potential human being is a human being? Endless arguments have been out there for ages. An embryo for me is not yet a human, just a potential human that has not yet a conscience nor anything like it. After a few weeks, I would hesitate saying that is not a human being.

As for who takes de decision: The mother makes her decision. The father will have time to make his own decisions about life as well.

There is something that looks quite hypocrite in those jurisdictions that actually say "you cannot unless is rape, incest...". Either killing is a crime or it is not. It does not depend if you are killing a human on the basis on how was created. That is my argument for free decision within a period of time.

[Silver80]

According to recent unconfirmed reports, including a reported draft opinion of the US Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned by the US Supreme Court.

If the above is correct, abortion will be regulated by the various states, and in most states, abortion will not be illegal in all circumstances.

It appears that the SCOTUS correctly recognizes that there is no basis to say that the "right to get an abortion" is enumerated in the Constitution, and as such, the ability to regulate abortion is reserved to the various states.

What do you think? Is there any basis in the US constitution to suggest that the right to an abortion is guaranteed in the Constitution? If true, is the above ruling consistent with the Constitution?

very supportive if it is held in the United States against the Constitution, especially regarding abortion, the freedom of the population to do so is highly respected there, that position becomes a reference for free sex there, cohabiting, we remember what happened to Will Smith's family who put forward the wife in home,  Indeed, some countries strongly oppose this abortion because it is not in accordance with religious norms, morals, state regulations, but why not?

[Poker Player]

I don't have a clear position on this either. I am an atheist, so the moral objections of religious type on this subject do not go with me and I do not agree that it is 100% a matter of "my body my choice" because if we consider that in your body you carry a life it is no longer a matter of your own.

I also see hypocrisy in this on the part of conservative and religious people, because they are against abortion but, historically, there have been quite a few cases where they took their daughter to have an abortion in a place where it was legal, or even illegal, for getting pregnant before marriage. And let alone if the one who got her pregnant was black or someone not well regarded in their social circle. All this while defending the prohibition of abortion. I guess they then go to mass, go to confession and feel free of sin.

What I think is clear is the crux of the matter is where human life begins, and there I think we will never reach a consensus, because I do not think there is a line where one second before we can say that there is no life and one second after that life has already begun.

- Give arguments for why abortion is not murder even in the 2nd trimester (eg. data on brain development).

The cortex does not develop until between 24 and 26 weeks (the lower range of which also happens to be the limit of viability). The cortex is responsible for consciousness, for thought, for feeling, for sensation, for pain. Without a cortex, none of these things are possible. Therefore, before 24 weeks, you do not have a life, but simply a collection of cells and tissues.

Although the scientific definition is a good way to try to establish a criterion to decide whether it is a life or not, I don't think it is the solution either. The cortex will develop in those weeks but the consciousness of self, that I am here and I am something different from the rest, that I exist, does not appear until months after birth, and, on the other hand, what do we do with those who want to abort after the 27th week? Do we also prohibit it? I am thinking of a young girl who has not told her parents because of fear, shame, etc. Do we forbid it and if she has an abortion, do we call her a murderer? And the young girl is not the only case I could give as an example.

If a parent, man or woman, decides they don't want a child 1 month into it's life citing they're "unwanted" or that raising a child might be "lengthy," would it be acceptable for that man or woman to end the child's life for their own convenience?

Obviously not, and constructing such a ridiculous strawman only weakens your position.

I don't think it's a straw man argument. I do believe that in the debate no one raises the question of killing a child once it is born, but there are radical feminist positions that defend that abortion should be free until an instant before birth, then, he speaks of one month, but I propose to consider the argument of one day: to kill a baby one day before birth is an abortion and one day after is a murder? I don't see a line there, as I said before, I see more of a continuum on which it will be difficult to agree.

[PrimeNumber7]

According to recent unconfirmed reports, including a reported draft opinion of the US Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned by the US Supreme Court.

If the above is correct, abortion will be regulated by the various states, and in most states, abortion will not be illegal in all circumstances.

It appears that the SCOTUS correctly recognizes that there is no basis to say that the "right to get an abortion" is enumerated in the Constitution, and as such, the ability to regulate abortion is reserved to the various states.

What do you think? Is there any basis in the US constitution to suggest that the right to an abortion is guaranteed in the Constitution? If true, is the above ruling consistent with the Constitution?

very supportive if it is held in the United States against the Constitution, especially regarding abortion, the freedom of the population to do so is highly respected there, that position becomes a reference for free sex there, cohabiting, we remember what happened to Will Smith's family who put forward the wife in home,  Indeed, some countries strongly oppose this abortion because it is not in accordance with religious norms, morals, state regulations, but why not?

The US is one of only three countries that allow for abortions past 24 weeks. The other two countries are China and North Korea.

As a moral issue, I really don't see any valid argument as to why late-term abortions should be allowed (dito with post-birth abortions). I understand the argument for earlier term abortions, and in most places, the support for early-term abortions is likely strong enough such that early-term abortions will remain legal.

As a constitutional issue, there is no basis to guarantee the "right" to have an abortion. There is a litany of other issues that the states use their police powers to regulate regarding behaviors that people do in their own homes and what people do in their doctor's office.

[o_e_l_e_o]

The US is one of only three countries that allow for abortions past 24 weeks. The other two countries are China and North Korea.

This is just not true. Most Western countries allow abortion beyond 24 weeks in specific circumstances. Here are a handful I know off the top of my head:

New Zealand:

A qualified health practitioner may only provide abortion services to a woman who is more than 20 weeks pregnant if the health practitioner reasonably believes that the abortion is clinically appropriate in the circumstances.

France

L'interruption volontaire d'une grossesse peut, à toute époque, être pratiquée si deux médecins membres d'une équipe pluridisciplinaire attestent, après que cette équipe a rendu son avis consultatif, soit que la poursuite de la grossesse met en péril grave la santé de la femme, soit qu'il existe une forte probabilité que l'enfant à naître soit atteint d'une affection d'une particulière gravité reconnue comme incurable au moment du diagnostic.

Netherlands

After the 24th week, a doctor may only terminate the pregnancy for serious medical reasons, for instance because the foetus is not viable outside the mother’s body.

UK

They can be carried out after 24 weeks in very limited circumstances – for example, if the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born with a severe disability.

Belgium

Na de termijn van twaalf weken kan de zwangerschap onder de voorwaarden bepaald onder het 1°, b), het 2° en het 3° slechts worden afgebroken, indien het voltooien van de zwangerschap een ernstig gevaar inhoudt voor de gezondheid van de vrouw of indien vaststaat dat het kind dat geboren zal worden, zal lijden aan een uiterst zware kwaal die als ongeneeslijk wordt erkend op het ogenblik van de diagnose. In dat geval moet de arts tot wie de vrouw zich heeft gewend, de medewerking vragen van een tweede arts, wiens advies bij het dossier moet worden gevoegd.

Sweden

Kan det antas att havandeskapet på grund av sjukdom eller kroppsfelhos kvinnan medför allvarlig fara för hennes liv eller hälsa, får Socialstyrel-sen lämna tillstånd till avbrytande av havandeskap efter utgången av artondehavandeskapsveckan och oavsett hur långt havandeskapet framskridit.

Canada

Although abortion is defined as termination up to 20 weeks’ gestation, a lack of restrictions on abortion in Canada has made it legal and accessible through all 40 weeks/nine months of pregnancy.

As a moral issue, I really don't see any valid argument as to why late-term abortions should be allowed

So it's perfectly fine for a woman to die from health complications as a result of her pregnancy?

As a constitutional issue, there is no basis to guarantee the "right" to have an abortion.

So if it didn't exist in Philadelphia, 1787, then it's fair game?

[paxmao]

...

Belgium

Na de termijn van twaalf weken kan de zwangerschap onder de voorwaarden bepaald onder het 1°, b), het 2° en het 3° slechts worden afgebroken, indien het voltooien van de zwangerschap een ernstig gevaar inhoudt voor de gezondheid van de vrouw of indien vaststaat dat het kind dat geboren zal worden, zal lijden aan een uiterst zware kwaal die als ongeneeslijk wordt erkend op het ogenblik van de diagnose. In dat geval moet de arts tot wie de vrouw zich heeft gewend, de medewerking vragen van een tweede arts, wiens advies bij het dossier moet worden gevoegd.

Sweden

Kan det antas att havandeskapet på grund av sjukdom eller kroppsfelhos kvinnan medför allvarlig fara för hennes liv eller hälsa, får Socialstyrel-sen lämna tillstånd till avbrytande av havandeskap efter utgången av artondehavandeskapsveckan och oavsett hur långt havandeskapet framskridit.

...

I could not have said it better. I mean, literally can't.

[Welsh]

In my own perspective, apart from rape cases, ignorance, health issues and other situations that risks the life of the mother, every man or woman must learn how to take full responsibility for  their actions. If you don't want a baby then use pregnancy prevention medications or protections.  

Aye, that's all well, and good. However, and this is where it becomes a little bit confusing, and there really in my opinion isn't a right answer, but what if you're using birth control, protection, but you don't want to permanently tie the tubes or cut the important parts? No contraception is 100% effective, meaning that there's a small chance you might fall pregnant, and while most contraception is effective in the >95% range, that 1-5% chance is actually very large when you consider the amount of people. According to this:

64.9% of the 72.2 million women aged 15–49 in the United States were currently using contraception.

that's a huge figure, and even if you take in 1% of that figure, that's like hundreds of thousands of potential unwanted pregnancies. That's huge, and those people were taking responsibility, and trying to avoid it.

While, I will definitely admit this is a rather moral grey area, I do tend to go along the lines of  what o_e_l_e_o was alluding too , and when the conscious specifically develops. I'm most definitely pro choice, up until that point. That amount of time, is usually enough for people to get an abortion without too many issues. However, the issue which a lot of people don't talk about (mainly because it's a horrible thought) is those stuck in abusive relationships, which might not be able to get an appointment to actually get it done before then, which I don't know the answer too, but it's an horrible thought that this very likely is happening.

You could argue that there's a way to up that protection even further by both partners using protection, and taking medication i.e the women takes birth control, and the man uses a condom. That would effectively bring that protection level up, however there will still be instances of unwanted pregnancy, despite taking that due diligence.

Unless, you're insisting that those that don't want children, commit to a period of celibacy, which could very well bring up its own problems. I'll leave that for another day, though.

[Agbe]

This is a controversial question. Though Countries differ and States have different opinions on the said Topic. Let me start from the Biblical Allusion.

I believe most of the articles, sections and sub-sections in the Constitution are from the HOLY BOOKS, THE BIBLE AND THE QURAN. And these Holy Books prohibit abortion, because God told Abraham to multiply the world. So in the process of the Multiplication, the population became increase and the Economic resources could not equally distributed to all the citizens. So to reduce the population is to tell the citizens to do abortion.

Even at this, US Constitution will not Force citizens to do abortion, but for willing people in the various States.

[PrimeNumber7]

The US is one of only three countries that allow for abortions past 24 weeks. The other two countries are China and North Korea.

This is just not true. Most Western countries allow abortion beyond 24 weeks in specific circumstances. Here are a handful I know off the top of my head:

All of the examples you cite allow for abortions in only limited circumstances. In the US, it is possible to have abortions for elective reasons. The two are not comparable.

As a moral issue, I really don't see any valid argument as to why late-term abortions should be allowed

So it's perfectly fine for a woman to die from health complications as a result of her pregnancy?

You are referring to edge cases. Most late-term abortions do not meet this criteria. I also understand that there was language inserted into the bill that recently failed in the Senate that used "health complications" as a loophole that would effectively legalize abortions up to the moment of birth for elective reasons.

Any exception that allows for late-term abortions would need to meet a very high standard, such as the requirement that new information was discovered that was impossible to have been known prior to the threshold cutoff, and there being a substantial risk to the lift of the mother.

As a moral issue, performing a late-term abortion because there is a risk of health complication for the mother is doing something that is guaranteed to end a baby's life that merely reduces the risk to the mother's life, when it was not certain that the mother was going to die from the pregnancy.

As a constitutional issue, there is no basis to guarantee the "right" to have an abortion.

So if it didn't exist in Philadelphia, 1787, then it's fair game?

The constitution has a means to be amended if there is the will of the people to amend it. If there is insufficient voter support to amend the consitutition, the only reasonable conclusion is that the people who are governed by the constitution have not consented to changing the consitutition.

[o_e_l_e_o]

All of the examples you cite allow for abortions in only limited circumstances. In the US, it is possible to have abortions for elective reasons. The two are not comparable.

The argument you made was "The US is one of only three countries that allow for abortions past 24 weeks", which I have proven is incorrect. Further, if you now want to make the argument that (some states in) the US, China and North Korea are the only places which allow for elective abortion past 24 weeks, then that is incorrect too, as you can see from the quote I provided above for Canada.

You are referring to edge cases.

And again, the argument you made was that you "really don't see any valid argument as to why late-term abortions should be allowed". I provided a valid argument. Of course they are edge cases: Global data show that somewhere around 1% of abortions take place beyond 20 weeks and fewer than 0.1% beyond 24 weeks.

I believe most of the articles, sections and sub-sections in the Constitution are from the HOLY BOOKS, THE BIBLE AND THE QURAN.

Sounds like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment, but regardless, here is the only passage in which the Bible actually mentions abortion:

If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.

So far from condemning or banning abortion, the Bible recommends it if the woman has been unfaithful.

[o_e_l_e_o]

This is throwing out your right to privacy. This should be an affront to everyone. If you throw out the 14th Amendment for Roe, then you can also throw out the 14th Amendment for Obergefell, Griswold, and Lawrence for starters.

Well, I called it:

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.

These are the laws allowing access to contraception and same sex relationships and marriage. Republicans just won't be happy until they have cameras in your bedroom and control over every aspect of your lives.

What a tragic day for America, Americans, and women everywhere.

[Gyfts]

This is throwing out your right to privacy. This should be an affront to everyone. If you throw out the 14th Amendment for Roe, then you can also throw out the 14th Amendment for Obergefell, Griswold, and Lawrence for starters.

Well, I called it:

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.

These are the laws allowing access to contraception and same sex relationships and marriage. Republicans just won't be happy until they have cameras in your bedroom and control over every aspect of your lives.

What a tragic day for America, Americans, and women everywhere.

God forbid a "clump of cells" at 20 weeks can't be sucked out of a vacuum and have its brains poked out with a stick anymore in some states. California and New York will be systematically ramping up abortions, don't worry. It's not gone.

For a country of 300+ million, a contentious issue like abortion should've just gone to the local government in the first place. Roe v. Wade was bad law, from one the liberal justices herself - https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/

One of the issues with liberal interpretation of constitutional text is that you get to legislate from the judicial system, law be damned.

[PrimeNumber7]

The leaked draft was, in fact accurate, and Row was overturned today.

The question of abortion's legality will go back to the states.

It is my understanding that the vast majority of abortions (~92%) occur in the first trimester (12 weeks), and I don't think many states will ban abortions this early. Presumably, most of the remaining 8% will happen earlier.

[Zlantann]

This is a victory for the conservatives and religious right groups after about 50 years of legal war. This ruling was orchestrated by Donald Trump when he nominated three conservative justices (Neil Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett) to the Supreme Court. This judgment has triggered massive protest in different states in the US but its game over. But pro-abortion groups would keep fighting for their course through other legal options available. But this landmark ruling would really affect mostly poor Americans that might not be able to afford transport and other expenses to abortion friendly states.

[TwitchySeal]

Pretty fucked up path we seem to be going down. 

Clarence "MAGA" Thomas is all but begging to be given the chance to abolish more rights like same sex marriage, same sex sex, and the right to contraception in his concurring opinion.

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all
of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,”
Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J.,
concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to
“correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble
v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain
whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.

[o_e_l_e_o]

God forbid a "clump of cells" at 20 weeks can't be sucked out of a vacuum and have its brains poked out with a stick anymore in some states.

Yes, far better to reduce the bodily autonomy of half the population to less than that of a corpse. (Glossing over your very transparent appeal to emotion and the fact that a fetus at 20 weeks does not have a brain which is capable of consciousness, feeling, thought, or pain.)

For a country of 300+ million, a contentious issue like abortion should've just gone to the local government in the first place.

So I'm sure you'll agree it is equally wrong of the Supreme Court to over rule local governments on other contentious issues like gun control? And that this ruling just yesterday was therefore obviously wrong?

Roe v. Wade was bad law, from one the liberal justices herself - https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/

Right, because this was definitely only about overturning a bad law. That's why many Republicans are now coming out and calling for nationwide bans.

One of the issues with liberal interpretation of constitutional text is that you get to legislate from the judicial system, law be damned.

And you see no issue with a biased and religiously driven Supreme Court overturning decades of precedent because of individual political leanings?

In the words of the dissent:

No recent developments, in either law or fact, have eroded or cast doubt on those precedents. Nothing, in short, has changed. Indeed, the Court in Casey already found all of that to be true. Casey is a precedent about precedent. It reviewed the same arguments made here in support of overruling Roe, and it found that doing so was not warranted. The Court reverses course today for one reason and one reason only: because the composition of this Court has changed. Stare decisis, this Court has often said, “contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process” by ensuring that decisions are “founded in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 827 (1991); Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U. S. 254, 265 (1986). Today, the proclivities of individuals rule. The Court departs from its obligation to faithfully and impartially apply the law.

and I don't think many states will ban abortions this early.

5 states (TX, OK, LA, KY, SD) already have. There are at least 8 more (ID, UT, WY, ND, MO, AR, MS, TN) which will do at some point over the next 30 days. That's already a quarter of states and the ruling is only a few hours old.

[TwitchySeal]

and I don't think many states will ban abortions this early.

5 states (TX, OK, LA, KY, SD) already have. There are at least 8 more (ID, UT, WY, ND, MO, AR, MS, TN) which will do at some point over the next 30 days. That's already a quarter of states and the ruling is only a few hours old.

According to NYTimes it's more than that.

[Gyfts]

Yes, far better to reduce the bodily autonomy of half the population to less than that of a corpse. (Glossing over your very transparent appeal to emotion and the fact that a fetus at 20 weeks does not have a brain which is capable of consciousness, feeling, thought, or pain.)

A patient under anesthesia doesn't feel pain either. Does it make it a tragedy if their brain were poked with a stick for the sake of ceasing life? I don't have to use any emotion when talking about abortion, the practice is barbaric when dealing with a developed fetus. Abortion zygotes aren't much of a tragedy but maybe in retrospect folks will look back and realize abortion isn't as liberating as they once thought it was. I'm hoping it will go out of style and revert back to "safe, legal, and rare."

So I'm sure you'll agree it is equally wrong of the Supreme Court to over rule local governments on other contentious issues like gun control? And that this ruling just yesterday was therefore obviously wrong?

There is a right to keep guns in the U.S. I don't see a right for abortion anywhere in the constitution.

Right, because this was definitely only about overturning a bad law. That's why many Republicans are now coming out and calling for nationwide bans.

They can call for whatever they want. Republicans are celebrating but this will set them back in midterms a bit. Let them celebrate, who cares? Abortion is and will be a state issue. Abortion in the U.S. is not banned. I don't think it should be either. If Californians want to abort 9 month old fetuses, I suppose that's within the purview of their electorate. Either way, bad law is bad law. Hard to find any legitimate constitutional scholar that can find abortion within the text of the constitution.

And you see no issue with a biased and religiously driven Supreme Court overturning decades of precedent because of individual political leanings?

Seems to me the legal analysis of any document, by a prudent person (few of those folks left in the court system these days) would be from a textualist interpretation. That way, as Justice Scalia once said (I quote him loosely), you don't need to wake up one day and look to the sky to determine if the death penalty is constitutional or not. Clarence Thomas is doing a better job at sticking to the text of the constitution despite what his religions beliefs might be.

And of course, Western foundational values are religious in nature, Judeo Christian values are long withstanding. So to your point, there could be a religious bent to all of this. But not under the name of God, under Judeo Christian values.

[franky1]

The trimester system is also obviously completely arbitrary. The court decided that the fetus is basically just a part of the mother's body before the third trimester, with zero personhood. I hate these sorts of arbitrary lines which nobody will ever agree on. Conservatives believe that Roe allows for murder, and some liberals think that Roe didn't go far enough, allowing mothers' rights to be infringed via abortion restrictions in the third trimester.

the trimester system is a valid system as it has 3 phases that fit actual biology and science

the first 12 weeks(3months) first trimester is where a pregnancy is most likely to not progress into an actual birth. the miscarriage rate is high in the first trimester. the risk of fetal abnormalities occur mostly in this trimester, its why women dont like to tell alot of people they are pregnant until they get passed this risky timeperiod threshold.

the start of the 3rd trimester is the point at which the fetus, if born prematurely or via emergency c-section has a chance of survival.. where as before this point it is considered not viable to survive outside the mother.

so upto the point of the end of the second trimester means the mother is in full control of the life support of the fetus, where there is no independence of the fetus without the mother. the mother is in full authority of the life support.. because SHE IS THE LIFE SUPPORT...
and just like being a medical proxy/next of kin for someone in a coma on machine life support ventilator, the family with the power of medical decisions about interventions or DNR has the power to choose what is right or best on behalf of those on life support where they wont survive without that particular life support

its her body, her decision.
after the third trimester. there could be options of c-section then put it up for adoption or continue pregnancy and put up for adoption..
but that option is not available in the first 6 months. the only option is abortion if she chooses that she doesnt want her body to have a baby (for many reasons)

its not murder if the fetus wouldnt live without the mother anyway.
just like DNR and switching off mechanical life support machines is not murder for people that are in coma/brain dead

A patient under anesthesia doesn't feel pain either. Does it make it a tragedy if their brain were poked with a stick for the sake of ceasing life? I don't have to use any emotion when talking about abortion, the practice is barbaric when dealing with a developed fetus.

poled with a stick?.?.? are you a time traveller from the Victorian age where you hear about the 'back room' abortions woman go to because they lack having a proper medical assistance so try to perform it themselves with a friend that found a random stick?..

i hope you do realise what modern abortions are compared to your Victorian views..
let me guess you think appendix surgery is done with pair of rusty scissors and a coat hanger too

i guarantee you, that no modern abortions performed by a doctor trained in abortions is done with a stick