Roe v Wade

Germanshepherdsmum

What a very sad situation. I believe I would only have had an abortion in very limited circumstances (rape or seriously abnormal foetus with limited life chances) but it's every woman's right to do what is right for her as far as her own body is concerned. To force women into the hands of back street abortionists once again is a shocking step backwards. The land of the free and the home of the brave? I don't think so.

Interesting GSM I think the thing is to accept there may be a circumstance in which anyone would make that decision, however much we would rather not.

That choice has now been taken away from many women and, as others have said, many poor women.

I think we will need to see the politics work out. They work so very differently from our own . Many Republicans are against this but, just as politicians do here, they will be looking to their own seats.

Women should always have the choice whether to carry a foetus to full term or not. I am not against abortions per se, but for me using it as a form of contraception when consensual sex has taken place is abhorrent.

Women have the choice not to become pregnant in the first place, so why not make that choice?

Haven't some Republican controlled states already made abortion illegal?

I note that in some of the extracts from the leaked draft judgement I saw this morning one of the judges' arguments was that the right to an abortion wasn't in the Constitution. As the Constitution dates from the 18thC, and is really difficult to amend, it's not really surprising. I doubt it takes any account of modern Human Rights, especially women's rights. It does point up the dangers of a written constitution, though, in that it can be very inflexible.

It also points up the dangers of judges being politically appointed. Something which our current government would dearly love to copy.... they're making political appointments everywhere that they can get away with it...

Women have the choice not to become pregnant in the first place, so why not make that choice?

Ever heard of rape, Smileless?

Smileless2012

^Women should always have the choice whether to carry a foetus to full term or not^. I am not against abortions per se, but for me using it as a form of contraception when consensual sex has taken place is abhorrent.

Women have the choice not to become pregnant in the first place, so why not make that choice?

I wish that were always so. It’s not though, because of, for example, rape and contraception failure.

Or circumstances may change during even a wanted pregnancy.

In my own view: all women should have access to legal and safe abortion, full stop.

I did start a reply to Women have the choice not to become pregnant in the first place, so why not make that choice? but I lost the will to live...

My ex SIL lived in Cork some years ago - three times she travelled over to England, on the pretext of seeing her family, and just paid for private terminations over here.?

Women should always have the choice whether to carry a foetus to full term, or not.

This is what worries me about abortion on demand. There are perfectly acceptable forms of contraception and the only time I can see multiple abortions as the way forward is if you are trying to have a baby but carry a defective gene which would compromise a foetus, eg. carrying the gene which causes haemophilia in boys.
That said, I am not against abortion per se which would make me a hypocrite as I had one when my pregnancy was going to end in a severely disabled child but the psychological effects far outweighed the physical effects. My DIL had an abortion when she was 18 which she felt completely comfortable about until she tried to get pregnant and it didn't happen easily when the worry that kicked in about any long term damage was all consuming. A still birth at the end of the eventual pregnancy just compounded things.
It's just a conundrum to me. How to provide an empathetic service which supports women's rights without it being something that is used as a dangerous form of contraception.

Do you realise what this is?

The rights of women over their own bodies is being threatened, and within two pages we're finding examples of the women who have had more than one abortion and we're saying that's such a terribly wrong thing.

At every step, women get blamed.

Frankly I think that abortion is used as a form of contraception is a myth.

No one willingly goes through an abortion.

This is an absolute disaster for women. But looking at the reasoning behind it gives a clue as to what is really going on.
The anti-abortion campaign has strong links with white supremacists. It's worrying and especially so as there is evidence that groups in the US have links with right wing groups in Europe.
This is interesting but harrowing reading and it was written 2 years ago. I imagine things are now much worse. www.thenation.com/article/politics/anti-abortion-white-supremacy/

They don’t hate abortion. They hate women. Misogyny is at the heart of every right wing movement. Trump’s Republicans and Johnson’s Tories.

I think it's more than hatred of women and misogyny.

There's a deep-rooted fear among the extreme RW - politicians and citizens - that what they consider to be the 'natural order' of life is being overturned. Their comfortable world where men work and women look after children at home (basically) is threatened because it would removed their premiership. They would be tossed off their comfort blanket into a world where they would have to compete, with no automatic rights. It's a world that challenges the very nature of their beliefs, and because their whole make-up is based on these beliefs, I think they see it as both an insult to them, and a danger to their very existence.

Women, controlling their own reproduction, is part of this threat because it completely changes the dynamics. Home, hearth and family are at the root of their belief, and if that's challenged, they have lost control, and they can't cope with it. I think there are probably as many women as men in this category.

Then there are the real misogynists of course. The men who "love" and "adore" women. But don't actually like them. Especially if they have a mind of their own and employ critical-thinking skills and question the concept of the sanctity of marriage and motherhood and the role of the father as head of the family.

They don't understand that the world is ever-changing, that we evolve continually, that nothing is set in stone. Religion is often the crutch they lean on to support them and has become politicised. It's not a spiritual sanctuary, it's a weapon to be used against non-believers, 'Lefties' and anyone who doesn't agree with the ordained world-order.

But both the extreme Right and extreme Left are, I think, the biggest danger to Democracy.

There is a discussion to be had about abortion. But leaving it in the hands of those who use it as a political tool / weapon is utterly wrong.

Excellent post, Dickens. I think that the attitude you describe is also responsible for a lot of racism, when people who have been considered to be of the "lower orders" start to take an equal part in society and threaten the status quo.

White male supremacists comes to mind.

Exactly, GSM. Of all the people who should never be trusted with weapons...

Abortions has been used as a form of contraception. But not many abortions are for that reason.

Some girls are pregnant through rape. Should they keep the babies? Or what about the ones whose father impregnates them? No abortion for them?

Babies who won't be viable, why do they need to continue with their pregnancies?

So many of these cases are happening on a daily basis. What right does anyone have to say that abortion is a crime? Banned? Forcing girls to use back street abortionists or having to travel miles to get what is their right.

Shocking from USA. Just shocking.

If you'd read my post Maizie I said when sex was consensual which of course rules out rape.

I made a point of ruling out rape when I posted about consensual sex Zonne.

I wish that were always the case Whitwavemark. I have a friend who had an abortion before she was married, 'persuaded' to go through with it by her now husband and still regrets the decision.

We have friends who 'persuaded' their D to have an abortion several years ago and are at a loss as to why she thinks about her unborn child every year on what could have been the child's birthday.

As I posted, I am not against abortion per se but find its use as a means of contraception abhorrent, and IMO to say it's never used as such is a myth.

It won’t stop abortion, it will simply push it underground, causing untold misery, pain, harm and death.

I have always assumed that the morning after pill, widely available, is technically a form of abortion.

Zonne

Urmstongran

Mind you funny how the left are all up in arms about this but when it comes to trans women (basically biological men) trampling all over women’s sports and their rights, the left are all for that. Pick a side why don’t you.

Pure whataboutery, and thus pointless and irrelevant.

Sorry, I don't want to derail the thread, but couldn't let this pass without comment.

It's true that the trans comment is not particularly relevant to the abortion debate, but neither is it true. 'The left' is not 'all for' TRAs trampling on women's rights - not at all. It is a patriarchal movement, and therefore cross-party. As many of its opponents are broadly leftie feminists the slur of being 'right wing' is used to be offensive, along with accusations of racism and homophobia, both of which are also ridiculous, and deeply ironic given the aims of the trans rights movement.

Back to the subject of the thread - it would be a massive step backwards for the US if this is passed. As things stand, Roe vs Wade gives women in all states the right to access legal abortion - it doesn't force anyone to have one if it is against their beliefs to do so. I understand the beliefs of those who oppose abortion, but not their desire to impose them on others.

Another round of applause for your post, Dickens.

I think that's a view that some hold GSM but as it takes about 24 hours for fertilisation to take place, it's not a view shared by many.

Germanshepherdsmum

I have always assumed that the morning after pill, widely available, is technically a form of abortion.

Its not.

Morning after pills prevent pregnancy after the event of unprotected sex. It can't be an abortion if the woman isn't pregnant in the first place.

I don’t know how long after unprotected sex women might take it. Possibly fertilisation might have taken place? I don’t know, just wondering …

fullfact.org/health/what-is-an-abortifacient/

Rees Mogg. Who else.

Thanks volver.