Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Opinion leak confirmed

[Jamiet99uk]

Octavious:
Just to be clear, you are opposed to women having agency over their own bodies, yes?

You are in favour of forced pregnancies, yes?

You think that if a woman is raped, she should be forced, by state force, to give birth?

Because that's the side you're currently taking. So let's just be clear.

[Octavious]

No. My position is, and has always been, in favour of legal abortions in line with the current UK system. I have said nothing whatsoever here to suggest otherwise. If I recall correctly I think the largest difference between our positions is that you believe the pro life side in the US is motivated by some evil determination to subjugate women, whereas I see them as being primarily motivated by a laudable desire to defend the rights of human life in all its forms.

The question I am asking is a simple one and asked as clearly as I think it is possible to make it, and it is whether you value human lives differently depending on the circumstances of that life, with the age highlighted in particular.

[Jamiet99uk]

No. My position is, and has always been, in favour of legal abortions in line with the current UK system. I have said nothing whatsoever here to suggest otherwise. If I recall correctly I think the largest difference between our positions is that you believe the pro life side in the US is motivated by some evil determination to subjugate women, whereas I see them as being primarily motivated by a laudable desire to defend the rights of human life in all its forms.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying. And yes, that is an accurate depiction of my position. I do think that the "pro life" camp is motivated by a desire to subjugate women and control their bodies. Some of them are deluded into thinking that they are obeying Jesus's commands, but generally that's just an excuse for defending an outdated, disgusting, patriarchal society in which a woman's primary role is for men to breed with her.

The question I am asking is a simple one and asked as clearly as I think it is possible to make it, and it is whether you value human lives differently depending on the circumstances of that life, with the age highlighted in particular.

Once the humans in question are born, then no I don't specifically value them differently based on age.

However, I do not believe that a fertilised ovum has the same status as a female human (crucially, not "woman", because this definition could include children). And note that there are apparently people in the USA who strongly believe that a female rape victim in her early teens should be forced, by the Government, to have a baby. That is a fundamentally evil viewpoint, from my perspective.

[Octavious]

However, I do not believe that a fertilised ovum has the same status as a female human

Me neither. I am inclined to give the fertilised ovum a degree of respect, with the extent of that degree ranging from virtually nil at the point of fertilisation to fully human at the point of birth. There is also a significant difference between the right to life and the right to choose. All being equal life trumps choice, hence late term abortions should be banned outside of medical emergencies, and early term abortions are more easily justified. All abortions are inherently tragic, again with the degree of tragedy being largely a function of time.

[Jamiet99uk]

Of course there's an obvious way to prevent a lot of that tragedy. Simply stop abortion at the source. Vasectomy is reversible, so the state could simply mandate that all young men must get a vasectomy at 16. Then later, if he's deemed to be a responsible adult, fit for fatherhood, he can have it reversed.

Of course the US "pro life" nuts would never go for this option, because they're determined to police women's bodies, not men's.

[Tolstoy]

the state could simply mandate that all young men must get a vasectomy at 16. Then later, if he's deemed to be a responsible adult, fit for fatherhood, he can have it reversed.

Apparently the door of "gender equality" does not swing both ways where bodily autonomy is concerned.

[Jamiet99uk]

the state could simply mandate that all young men must get a vasectomy at 16. Then later, if he's deemed to be a responsible adult, fit for fatherhood, he can have it reversed.

Apparently the door of "gender equality" does not swing both ways where bodily autonomy is concerned.

I cannot tell whether or not this remark is ironic or not.

[Tolstoy]

I cannot tell whether or not this remark is ironic or not.

Umm... okay. Let's put it this way. If someone was suggesting that girls should be forced to have Norplant at 16 which would be reversed later only if the girl/young lady/woman/birthing person proved herself responsible and worthy of parenthood, would you be okay with that? If you would, my comment was an expression of irony. If you wouldn't, it wasn't.

[Jamiet99uk]

I cannot tell whether or not this remark is ironic or not.

Umm... okay. Let's put it this way. If someone was suggesting that girls should be forced to have Norplant at 16 which would be reversed later only if the girl/young lady/woman/birthing person proved herself responsible and worthy of parenthood, would you be okay with that? If you would, my comment was an expression of irony. If you wouldn't, it wasn't.

You've missed the original point of the thread.

Politicians in the USA are currently pressing for the Supreme Court to overturn the landmark Roe v Wade judgement. They want to take control of women's bodies.

I suggested an alternative which involves policing men's bodies instead. Naturally you are outraged by the idea.

[Jamiet99uk]

To put it another way, US Republicans currently believe that if an older man rapes a young teenage girl, his urge to procreate should be given greater importance, in law, than her bodily autonomy, and she should be forced to carry his baby and give birth to it.

They are sick, evil people.

[Randomizer]

This decision also overturns a lesser know Supreme Court decision from about 20 years ago, that a patient has the ultimate right to determine their own medical care. Especially since most of these new abortion law restrictions make no exemption for protecting the life of the mother. This draft would say that pregnant women no longer have the right to decide what is their best choice for medical care.

[Jamiet99uk]

This decision also overturns a lesser know Supreme Court decision from about 20 years ago, that a patient has the ultimate right to determine their own medical care. Especially since most of these new abortion law restrictions make no exemption for protecting the life of the mother. This draft would say that pregnant women no longer have the right to decide what is their best choice for medical care.

Absolutely right. They want to control women and promote their particular religious dogma, and they don't care if women suffer and die in the process.

[worcej]

I am pro freedom of choice...but I think in the longer term this will be a good thing.

Roe vs. Wade has poisoned political debate in the USA for way too long. I am tired of the Supreme Court nonsense...which ultimately all came down to trying to stack the court one way or the other on the issue.

Most people are on the middle on this. The people that want abortion to be banned even in the case of rape and incest and the people that want absolutely no restrictions AT ALL on abortion are a minority. While there will be variability between states, I am hoping over time some more maintainable middle-ground can be found on this...as has happened in most other Western countries.

For Democrats, I think this is definitely a good thing. With inflation being so bad they previously were looking down the barrel of an absolute rout in the midterms. While things are still pretty bad for them, I think this gives them a glimmer of hope for holding the Senate (the House is still gone).

When I was a kid the left and the Church were allies...as they had common purpose in helping the poor and disadvantaged. Democrats should use this as an opportunity to mend some of those bridges.

Late to the party, but this is pretty close to my take.

I'm personally torn as a right-leaning independent who values minimalistic federal involvement (AKA: Pro-state management). I am 100% pro-choice but fall in line with disliking Roe v. Wade's impact because it completely killed the political discourse and process of debating abortion and has been a part of how partisan politics and vilifying people of different opinions communicate with each other.

That, and I personally feel it violated the 10th Amendment...

[worcej]

To put it another way, US Republicans currently believe that if an older man rapes a young teenage girl, his urge to procreate should be given greater importance, in law, than her bodily autonomy, and she should be forced to carry his baby and give birth to it.

They are sick, evil people.

Sorry Jamie, but this is incredibly over-simplified vilification of a political party and is part of the problem with modern politics.

[worcej]

Really, in an ideal fantasy world were people could try to seek resolution, the best outcome would be for the court to hold that the Mississippi law of banning abortions past 15-weeks was acceptable and still keep Roe v. Wade in tact. This would be a better 'compromise' for this ideological battle than previous rulings which has prevented any laws that ban it before ~22-24 weeks.

[worcej]

The silver lining for Democrats would be, this could really rile up the base just before midterms. Republicans get the W for now, though.

And going back to the original commentary here: recent polling has shown it hasn't caused a sudden shift or anything. The top issue coming into this election cycle is still the economy by a large margin.

[Jamiet99uk]

To put it another way, US Republicans currently believe that if an older man rapes a young teenage girl, his urge to procreate should be given greater importance, in law, than her bodily autonomy, and she should be forced to carry his baby and give birth to it.

They are sick, evil people.

Sorry Jamie, but this is incredibly over-simplified vilification of a political party and is part of the problem with modern politics.

Sorry, Worcej, but this is literally what Republican legislators in, for example, Alabama, are doing.

[worcej]

To put it another way, US Republicans currently believe that if an older man rapes a young teenage girl, his urge to procreate should be given greater importance, in law, than her bodily autonomy, and she should be forced to carry his baby and give birth to it.

They are sick, evil people.

Sorry Jamie, but this is incredibly over-simplified vilification of a political party and is part of the problem with modern politics.

Sorry, Worcej, but this is literally what Republican legislators in, for example, Alabama, are doing.

Reality is though that these legislators are representing the will of their constituents.

Additionally, plenty of female politicians and voters are pro-life and engaging in the same policies you're attacking male politicians for. In the case of Alabama, the governor is a woman who readily signed the Human Life Protection Act and the state is predominately a Republican state.

[Randomizer]

Idaho wants to make it that a rapist's family can sue if the victim gets an abortion.

Meanwhile the laws ending or restricting abortion violate the 13th amendment of the US Constitution:

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/5 ... amendment/

The new laws forces pregnant women to be involuntary slaves that no longer have free will over the use of their own bodies. Of course rich people can afford to go to other countries that allow abortion. But these new laws end equal rights where the poorer people can't.

[Jamiet99uk]

Sorry Jamie, but this is incredibly over-simplified vilification of a political party and is part of the problem with modern politics.

Sorry, Worcej, but this is literally what Republican legislators in, for example, Alabama, are doing.

Reality is though that these legislators are representing the will of their constituents.

Additionally, plenty of female politicians and voters are pro-life and engaging in the same policies you're attacking male politicians for. In the case of Alabama, the governor is a woman who readily signed the Human Life Protection Act and the state is predominately a Republican state.

None of that matters. Women can oppress other women. In Alabama, Republican lawmakers want to control women's bodies, and want to force rape victims to give birth. That's fucking evil. Argue otherwise.