Overturning Roe-v-Wade won't stop abortion, it will just end safe abortion for women and girls
Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Some companies, Amazon amongst others, are providing cover for travel for abortions. As ever it will be those least able to cope with the decision that suffer.
I was about to say the same thing, but not as eloquently.
Separate State from Religion and the world is a happier place. And I am not saying it as an Atheist.
We live in a Christian country, but unless I am wrong our politics is pretty separate from religion.
It is. For example it is notable how there is no focus given to what church our potential prime minister is part of
The US look down their noses and make a song and dance about 'Muslim regimes' for example and how it is apparently so bad. Surely they can see the hypocrisy.
Unfortunately no, because that is the wrong religion. Only the correct religion matters.
I saw a very good video about the US Airforce issuing a statement against the anti-LGBTQ legislation in various states
The video suggested that if the laws impacted combat readiness then they might close some bases in certain states and devastate certain local areas
Now I was very skeptical at how many people in the airforce anti-trans laws would impact (even if you do consider it applies to service people and their kids). And I didn’t get a very clear answer about what percentage would need to want to move to impact combat readiness (again - YouTube comments so wasn’t expecting much)
However lots of people raised that surely this logic could be applied to anti-abortion laws and that potentially impacts far more people. I don’t know if the statement covered these but it might be extended to this. If it isn’t then the optics of that are very very strange
But an interesting nuance given that the likes of Texas and Florida are likely among those states that will enact bans the second this R v W repeal happens. And I gather they have lots of bases
The video suggested that if the laws impacted combat readiness then they might close some bases in certain states and devastate certain local areas
Now I was very skeptical at how many people in the airforce anti-trans laws would impact (even if you do consider it applies to service people and their kids). And I didn’t get a very clear answer about what percentage would need to want to move to impact combat readiness (again - YouTube comments so wasn’t expecting much)
However lots of people raised that surely this logic could be applied to anti-abortion laws and that potentially impacts far more people. I don’t know if the statement covered these but it might be extended to this. If it isn’t then the optics of that are very very strange
But an interesting nuance given that the likes of Texas and Florida are likely among those states that will enact bans the second this R v W repeal happens. And I gather they have lots of bases
If you read the leaked document, that's clearly the intent.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...t-abortion-leak-roe-overturned-explained.html
They could have written a narrowly-tailored decision that gutted abortion access without going further. Instead, Alito's opinion fires a broadside at the concept of "unenumerated rights": the idea that rights that aren't specifically enshrined in the Constitution exist at all. It's pretty clear what their next target is; the idea that gay rights (of any sort, not just gay marriage...Antonin Scalia repeatedly blasted the decision that decriminalized sodomy in later opinions) exist is one of those other "unenumerated rights", and they're going to make every effort to eliminate them.
One thing I do find interesting is how the abortion debate is such a hot topic in America.
Almost everywhere else in the it’s a nothing burger.
I sort of get what the right wing conservative loonies are saying about easy abortions making society somewhat worse. But the problem with their view is that banning abortions is not the cure to the oversexualised society we live in. I also fully agree that the government shouldn’t get a say in a woman’s choice.
Ultimately as for most issues the answer lies in better education for young people.
It seems that it’s yet another issue being used to divide people and stop them focusing on the real issues.
Almost everywhere else in the it’s a nothing burger.
I sort of get what the right wing conservative loonies are saying about easy abortions making society somewhat worse. But the problem with their view is that banning abortions is not the cure to the oversexualised society we live in. I also fully agree that the government shouldn’t get a say in a woman’s choice.
Ultimately as for most issues the answer lies in better education for young people.
It seems that it’s yet another issue being used to divide people and stop them focusing on the real issues.
I saw a video where a doctor explained the difference between surgical and medical abortions and how the majority in the US are surgical and the majority in the U.K. are medical. And both have different methods for early and late term
The late ones both sounded awful but I recall the surgical ones sounding far more horrible (even at the early stage).
But I think it might be giving Americans too much credit to assume their opposition is based on detailed knowledge of what the procedure generally entails for them
But if they do generally know (just like my general idea of the U.K. from knowing people is that it involved some tablets) then I can certainly see why some people really aren’t fans of it
But I don’t think this is the reason it is such a big deal. It is the religious element
About 3-5% of abortions in the US are surgical. A large percentage of those occur because the pregnancy is not viable, or because a medical abortion has failed, because most people do not want to be pregnant for several months before getting an abortion.
So if you're punishing women for getting surgical abortions, you're largely punishing women who are in the process of miscarrying and don't want to end up dying of sepsis, or have ectopic pregnancies which will rupture and kill them, or whose lives are threatened by the pregnancy for other reasons, not people having abortions by choice.
Also, know what will result in a whole lot more surgical abortions? Making medical abortions illegal in half of all states, and forcing women to cross half the damned country to get an abortion. Suddenly a lot of unwanted pregnancies that would have been terminated at an early stage will be terminated quite a bit later.
Last edited:
Where are your figures from? Because this link suggests you are wrong by something like a factor of more than 10 : https://www.cbsnews.com/news/abortions-pills-surgical/?ftag=CNM-16-10abd6g
Or that report from cbs is off by a factor of more than 10. It is one or the other.
The doctor in the video I watched I think said “majority” which I admit I clearly took to mean closer to the figures you claim for medical (but reversed so over 90% surgical)
But now that I think on it “most” or “majority” could be 51% (close to what the reporting I found says)
I’m not sure who the “you” is in the second paragraph. Because I didn’t say anything like that. Indeed I raised the medical vs surgical point and then as I was writing kind of questioned how likely that was to be a factor. Where on earth does “punishing women” come from? Jumping to that kind of point completely out of nowhere doesn’t seem too helpful. No wonder people who are more invested in this get really entrenched in their positions if this is how the discourse goes
I may have misread the numbers I was looking at, because they differ from other numbers I'm seeing. Went straight to the source. From the CDC's own reporting:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm
More than 50% are now medical. Well over 90% occur before 13 weeks.
I'm not suggesting that you are punishing women. I am absolutely suggesting that the purpose of abortion bans are to punish women. It is being used as a means of social control. Why do I believe that? Why else would the same people who are taking aim at abortion be taking aim at contraception and sex education? Those are the best ways to prevent abortions! They do not want to prevent abortions (abortion bans have very little impact on abortion rate, just on the rate of legal abortion), they want to punish women for being promiscuous.
The bottom line to me is that in 'The land of the free' woman are not free to make a choice.
Having watched a clip of the Susanna Reid/Johnson car crash interview and seen photos taken from it, has the Mail led with a front page criticising Johnson for sitting with his legs wide open, in an attempt to distract the interviewer’s attention to his crotch?
No worries- I read your message far too early in the morning so clearly knee jerked
My link suggests there is an institute with more thorough data than the cdc / government but I have no idea if that is true or how to verify it . That is what was used in the reporting
This is a fair point but the people making these decisions don’t see it this way
They would say “In the land of the free you are still not free to kill someone who has done nothing to you”. That is their logic - freedoms don’t mean freedom to do whatever you want.
It isn’t good logic. But it is the logic they use
And you also have to remember that in some states of the U.S. there is no legal minimum age for marriage (as long as a judge or county clerk approves OR the girl is pregnant), though age of consent is 16, these girls (it’s almost 100% young girls getting married to older men) can be married from 13 or even younger. It’s a frightening scenario.
I find the Americans totally two-faced. They enshrine the right to bear arms in their damn constitution, but not a woman’s right to choose about abortion, even in cases of rape, etc.
When I moved into my neighbourhood in Noo Joisy, I was besieged by neighbours inviting me to join their church. When I declined, saying “actually I don’t go to church”, it was like I was the son of satan ….. I spoke to an American friend in the office and he said that church is a great social thing. It’s all about one-upmanship (“my church is bigger than yours”) more than actual religion and now the ultra-religious right have got their teeth into it through SCOTUS, there could be a massive issue in terms of individual rights. And, sadly, I’ve noticed more of that creeping into U.K. politics. I really hope we’re bright enough to put a stop to it!
Unless they’re breaking into your home or are trespassing on your land …… or, in the case of a few police officers, are the wrong colour driving a too fancy car …….
When was this? I wonder if the church thing is still a big deal in large parts of the US