RIP The right of a woman to choose

Callistemon

We should learn from the US how disastrous the First Past The Post electoral system is.

In 2016 Hillary Clinton received 3 million more votes than Donald Trump and yet Trump was elected.

He then appointed three ultra right wing judges to the Supreme Court and this is the result.

Today's ruling is widely misunderstood. Roe v Wade was based on the 14th amendment, which specifically speaks of a person being born or naturalized in America. The "right" hinged solely on the word "born" which was flimsy at best. Medical practice has now revealed a very early age at which a fetus is developing as a human being, law is practiced on the fact that unborn fetuses do have some rights (i. e., the right to good pre-natal care for themselves, the right to be considered a being who has sustained injury or death by accident, crime or poor medical practice). There are only six countries in the world, two of which are North Korea and China, with more liberal abortion practices than the US. Partial birth abortion has been creeping across the US and creeping into evermore advanced stages for decades. There is nothing more grizzly or more primitive than dissecting an innocent child right before birth. This is not a sound or necessary medical practice. Once a pregnancy reaches that point, the way to save a mother's life is not accomplished by killing the child in the birth canal. Europe in general has far more restrictive laws than US. The death penalty is not a remotely sound or logical argument. Death penalty is rarely applied, saved for those who were guilty of heinous crimes (like butchering an innocent victim.) To the extent that abortion was an either or argument ever, medical and scientific circumstances have changed so greatly as to make that argument null.

Utterly cruel.

Apparently one of the judges says gay marriage and contraception needs be addressed

www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/24/clarence-thomas-roe-gay-marriage-contraception-lgbtq

Can't believe what I've been reading recently.

happycatholicwife1

Today's ruling is widely misunderstood. Roe v Wade was based on the 14th amendment, which specifically speaks of a person being born or naturalized in America. The "right" hinged solely on the word "born" which was flimsy at best. Medical practice has now revealed a very early age at which a fetus is developing as a human being, law is practiced on the fact that unborn fetuses do have some rights (i. e., the right to good pre-natal care for themselves, the right to be considered a being who has sustained injury or death by accident, crime or poor medical practice). There are only six countries in the world, two of which are North Korea and China, with more liberal abortion practices than the US. Partial birth abortion has been creeping across the US and creeping into evermore advanced stages for decades. There is nothing more grizzly or more primitive than dissecting an innocent child right before birth. This is not a sound or necessary medical practice. Once a pregnancy reaches that point, the way to save a mother's life is not accomplished by killing the child in the birth canal. Europe in general has far more restrictive laws than US. The death penalty is not a remotely sound or logical argument. Death penalty is rarely applied, saved for those who were guilty of heinous crimes (like butchering an innocent victim.) To the extent that abortion was an either or argument ever, medical and scientific circumstances have changed so greatly as to make that argument null.

In the U.K. the foetus has no legal right until it is born. The mother has the human right to choose.

Women are going to die in the USA and mostly women of the poor and black members of society.

Of course the catholics nor the evangelicals will have little regard for this, as their history shows.

There is nothing more grizzly or more primitive than dissecting an innocent child right before birth.

Are you saying, happycatholicwife1, that abortion in the US can be carried out at any time during the term of a pregnancy? Or is that just an extreme case used by anti abortionists?

In the UK there is a time limit for abortion of 24 weeks.

Abortion 'may' be carried out later if the mother's life is in danger or if the foetus is severely malformed. This is rare, though.

I think that there needs to be some middle ground, the discussion has become so polarised that it has become a conservative versus liberal war without thinking of the consequences for the woman or potential child for that matter.
I am not against abortion if it is necessary but when you consider that 1 in 6 pregnancies end in abortion in the USA it seems to me very high.
I agree Whitewavemark the ruling will make it harder for the disadvantaged, but a humane law which takes into account these issues of the woman’s health, rape etc and also considers the value of human life in the womb seems to me to be a better option.

Unlike some grans on here, I don’t think the rights to abortion in the UK will be in any way eroded. JRM may well not agree with abortion, that is his right, but I think his views are simply his views, and not in any way likely to be enacted in this country.
I agree, maddyone, that it will not change anything here in the UK.
JR-M is an unprogressive Catholic and is not representative of most MPs

I saw an interview where JRM asserted that his views were his and he knew perfectly well that our abortion laws would not change,

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say Jumblygran but it has been a long time since the USA dealt with abortion humanely. In previous years whilst unable to do so by law, individual states have set 'restrictions' which seek to frustrate access to abortion and to hugely obstruct women who seek abortions and the medical staff who help them.

Your 1 in 6 point makes me wonder how many abortions were on medical grounds. Who will look after all the extra children born each year and the women and families whose lives are upturned by the arrival of a child for which they were unprepared?

Will it be the state?

maddyone

No, of course not Amber, but the question is, would they? I think it unlikely. The gun lobby and the abortion lobby are too powerful in America.

President Biden made it very clear that he was against the ruling. Trump put as many Republican Judges in the Supreme Court as he could before he left office, it's on him.

I think this is a very sad day for the rights of women the world over.

Personally I dont agree with abortions, unless there is a reason such as rape, other reasons aswell, such as a problem with the baby or mother ... that is just me ... as there are birth controls ... saying that ... who am I to judge if they want an abortion ... in the end their decision ... would I hold it against them ? Of course I wouldn't ... banning abortions will cause more problems & loss of life ...

Yes Jane, I have already acknowledged that Biden has spoken out about this situation. I know it’s a lot sometimes to read the whole thread, but it’s pointless to pick up on something a poster has said, when that poster has already acknowledged Biden’s comments. I agree that it’s not possible for Biden to change what has happened.

I am not saying the ruling is right ... far from it ... should be each individual choice ...

Beautful
I wouldn't agree with abortion being used as a type of contraception but there are several circumstances where it should be a valid option.
Prevention, if possible, is better.

The thought that these people are even considering banning contraception and the morning after pill is horrifying.
Shouldn't they now make contraception free to all?

They are going after contraception clinics next.
What are they thinking?
Whatever will happen to all the unwanted babies born into the world?
Such a sad country the US has become. Whatever happened to the land of the free?

Whatever happened to the land of the free?

I was just thinking that very thought dragonfly.

dragonfly46

They are going after contraception clinics next.
What are they thinking?
Whatever will happen to all the unwanted babies born into the world?
Such a sad country the US has become. Whatever happened to the land of the free?

What about the future of the planet and more over-population, too?
We see what happens in countries where contraception is not freely available to women. A country like America should be leading the way and be helping to reduce world population

A couple of months ago on here I compared what was happening in the US with The Handmaids Tale and got ridiculed for it. Well this is the start of Gilead, don't fool yourselves. And don't fool yourselves it won't happen here. If you're feeling it won't, look up Sandyford Clinic in Glasgow. I don't suppose anybody ever conceived that our government would engage in people trafficking, or try to distance us from the ECHR, yet here we are.

Our concerns today are with the women of the USA, but it's far from inconceivable that this could happen here.

I am unspeakably angry about this, for so many reasons. I hope any non-US women who could be pregnant and thinking of going to the US considers deeply that her own life could be at risk, if she develops complications, such as the couple currently in that position in Malta and also poor Savita Halappanavar in Ireland.

Americans are retreating to the Stone Age but with semi-automatic weapons instead of clubs. The hatred and fear of women is breathtaking and terrifying.

I feel very sad for American women. This action reminds of the Taliban, as it seems they are now chasing other people’s rights.

A bleak day for women.....

Gilead was born today.

A. Tory peer on the abortion issue.

Lord Moylan
@danielmgmoylan
· 9h
A great victory for US democracy.