The Roe Countdown

[Cain]

Well I guess we'll finally find out one way or the other.

My guess is that Roberts would vote to uphold Roe because of stare decisis, but there might be 5 votes to overturn Roe.

Just to remind everyone, last summer there was a case that narrowly threw out a Louisiana anti-abortion law on a 5-4 vote, with Roberts siding with the Liberals. But that was with Ginsburg on the court. She has since been replaced by Amy Coney Barrett.

Roberts could rationalize siding with five other justices voting to overturn simply to avoid a politically divisive 5-4 and secure a more decisive 6-3.

 

[The Atheist]

Is there any situation where it shouldn't be the mother's choice, relating to abortion?

If she'd commenced labour.

 

[Darat]

While I am generally for choice I do have to ask if there needs to be a line. At first, it was because there was a substantial risk to the health of the Mother or that the child was unlikely to survive. Now we're allowing abortion because the child might be disabled. Do we start allowing abortions because the child might need glasses by age 10, or won't be good at sports, or might have the wrong coloured eyes, or is the wrong gender? Is there a line that we draw when considering that the unborn child might have rights, or do we just throw open the doors and say go for it?

In most of the U.K. up to 24 weeks it is entirely up to the woman, so yep they can abort for all the reasons you state above or even if there is a ‘r’ in the month.

After 24 weeks there is then an additional test to see if an abortion can go ahead.

 

[Darat]

I am not familiar with UK abortion laws. It sounds like they are a lot stricter than US laws?

Anything but.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Is there any situation where it shouldn't be the mother's choice, relating to abortion?

No.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

While I am generally for choice I do have to ask if there needs to be a line. At first, it was because there was a substantial risk to the health of the Mother or that the child was unlikely to survive. Now we're allowing abortion because the child might be disabled. Do we start allowing abortions because the child might need glasses by age 10, or won't be good at sports, or might have the wrong coloured eyes, or is the wrong gender? Is there a line that we draw when considering that the unborn child might have rights, or do we just throw open the doors and say go for it?

Reverse it.

It started with imposing restrictions on all but the exceptions.

Raising a child with non-fatal disabilities requires greater emotional, developmental, and financial resources.

So it is actually the same decision one makes for most any abortion. A consideration if you can take on such a responsibility.

I worked in film production a while. When I'd ask someone if they could handle a task and they said "no," I respected them even more than the ones who said "yes" and then fell on their faces.

 

[Warp12]

So it is actually the same decision one makes for most any abortion. A consideration if you can take on such a responsibility.

The ultimate reactive maintenance program.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

The ultimate reactive maintenance program.

A deeply personal decision that is none of anyone else's business.

A responsible act of considering the potential consequences and probable outcomes.

Rhetoric is fun, isn't it?

 

[mgidm86]

If men could get pregnant abortion would not only be completely legal with a drive-thru clinic on every corner, but it would also be free.

These laws are written by men, many of which who have done much worse themselves than forcing their mistresses to get abortions. As if these jerkoffs live a Christ-like life. Let the women decide.

My stepdad said recently, "The only issues I care about are abortion and guns"

Ya I dunno either.

My Mom (both are Christian) let him have it on abortion. "YOU may think it's wrong but that's YOUR opinion only and...." it was great.

As an aside, I think women are more naturally prone to critical thinking than men. I can't remember how many times I've heard Mom say, "That is NOT what I said, I said..."

 

[Aber]

In most of the U.K. up to 24 weeks it is entirely up to the woman, so yep they can abort for all the reasons you state above or even if there is a ‘r’ in the month.

Not actually what the law says

Abortions can take place in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy in England, Scotland and Wales.

However, they have to be approved by two doctors. They must agree having the baby would pose a greater risk to the physical or mental health of the woman than a termination.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19856314

However in reality it is not difficult to find 2 doctors to agree.

 

[Ziggurat]

If men could get pregnant abortion would not only be completely legal with a drive-thru clinic on every corner, but it would also be free.

Viagra isn’t free. Male pattern baldness treatment isn’t free.

Bacon isn’t free.

This idea that men would just give themselves free stuff is unhinged.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

If men could get pregnant abortion would not only be completely legal with a drive-thru clinic on every corner, but it would also be free.

These laws are written by men, many of which who have done much worse themselves than forcing their mistresses to get abortions. As if these jerkoffs live a Christ-like life. Let the women decide.

My stepdad said recently, "The only issues I care about are abortion and guns"

Ya I dunno either.

My Mom (both are Christian) let him have it on abortion. "YOU may think it's wrong but that's YOUR opinion only and...." it was great.

As an aside, I think women are more naturally prone to critical thinking than men. I can't remember how many times I've heard Mom say, "That is NOT what I said, I said..."

This strike me as naive. There is no shortage of vehemently anti-abortionist women.

Polling shows that the gender gap on the issue of abortion is small. Even in your imagined femtopia, there would be no shortage of women anti-abortion zealots.

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/20/18629644/abortion-gender-gap-public-opinion

 

[blutoski]

This strike me as naive.

I've always seen those hypotheticals in the same light.

One that's easy to reject is, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

Well... no. Men are pretty fond of masturbation and contraception, but the Catholic church is super clear on this being abortion by another name and grounds for excommunication and lobby to make them crimes.

In fact, there's even an atheist representation in the abortion-is-wrong theatre.

 

[The Atheist]

If men could get pregnant abortion would not only be completely legal with a drive-thru clinic on every corner, but it would also be free.

That is exactly what my vehemently pro-choice sister-in-law says, and it's pretty damned close to the mark, although I suspect if men gave birth the human species wouldn't have been around for long.

These laws are written by men, many of which who have done much worse themselves than forcing their mistresses to get abortions. As if these jerkoffs live a Christ-like life. Let the women decide.

There are only two things that can incite me to violent action - antivaxers and men who are anti-abortion. And almost the entire anti-abortion industry is male-dominated. Sick, controlling *****.

 

[wobs]

If men could get pregnant abortion would not only be completely legal with a drive-thru clinic on every corner, but it would also be free.

No. Based on what we see in most developed countries (especially US), we seem fine with unnecessary surgery on male babies (circumcision), whereas FGM is rightly illegal. So this idea that men who make the laws would give men some favouritism is wrong.

When we look at unplanned births, the men have no say whether they want to be supporting. If the mother wishes to abort, she should be able to, but the man has no say in any of it, and there is no discussion as to whether he should be able to have a "legal abortion" from responsibility outside some men's rights groups. I'm not saying one should change this, but just pointing out how things are.

This idea that men would make abortion easy to carry out if men got pregnent is based on identity politics, and not based on any evidence.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

No. Based on what we see in most developed countries (especially US), we seem fine with unnecessary surgery on male babies (circumcision), whereas FGM is rightly illegal. So this idea that men who make the laws would give men some favouritism is wrong.



When we look at unplanned births, the men have no say whether they want to be supporting. If the mother wishes to abort, she should be able to, but the man has no say in any of it, and there is no discussion as to whether he should be able to have a "legal abortion" from responsibility outside some men's rights groups. I'm not saying one should change this, but just pointing out how things are.



This idea that men would make abortion easy to carry out if men got pregnent is based on identity politics, and not based on any evidence.

What "developed countries?"

Rates of MC in western Europe have fallen to ~20%.

The U.S. is quite exceptional among its peers in this regard.

 

[wobs]

What "developed countries?"

Rates of MC in western Europe have fallen to ~20%.

The U.S. is quite exceptional among its peers in this regard.

That's still high for something that is unnecessary, and is clearly still legal.

And yet the UN states that part of the human rights include:
"The right to health contains freedoms. These freedoms include
the right to be free from non-consensual medical treatment"
(from OHCHR).

 

[Delphic Oracle]

That's still high for something that is unnecessary, and is clearly still legal.



And yet the UN states that part of the human rights include:

"The right to health contains freedoms. These freedoms include

the right to be free from non-consensual medical treatment"

(from OHCHR).

And therefore...what?

 

[Darat]

What "developed countries?"

Rates of MC in western Europe have fallen to ~20%.

The U.S. is quite exceptional among its peers in this regard.

The point was that FGM of all types is illegal, whilst MGM is legal in "developed" countries even those that make FGM illegal.

 

[wobs]

And therefore...what?

The orginal point was raised that as men largely have been making the laws, that if men got pregnant, then abortion would be easy in the US etc. This clearly isn't the case, as laws pertaining to male bodies are also in the dark ages, if not more so.

There is no evidence that abortion would be easily accessed if men got pregnant.