Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade?

The situation in the UK and Ireland is somewhat convoluted. When abortion became legal in most of the UK, N.Ireland was not included.
The result was that women in both N.Ireland and the Republic, would cross to England privately for abortions although it was illegal to do so.
The situation took many twists and turns with various court cases and political interventions. The fiercest opposition to issues such as abortion, gay rights, same sex marriages etc, would seem to have come from the more extreme protestant community and their political representatives.

Some easing of the situation in the North came when the UK government granted women from N.Ireland free access to abortion facilities in the UK. Eventually the UK government directed (in the absence of an agreed assembly) that full abortion facilities (with safeguards) should be made available in N.Ireland. As late as this year, it was ruled that denying this was a breach of women's rights.

The situation in the Republic took a different course after a referendum voted in favour of relaxing the law on abortions. I seems somewhat ironic that Republic appears to have taken a more liberal stance than the North on many issues.
 

I have no doubt that R Vs W is history. I'm kind of surprised people are still wondering about this. In the back of my mind I see a slight possibility that the leak was a trial balloon to test public reaction, but I don't think the court will be influenced by public reaction, the same as it should not be influenced by personal bias of the judges. This whole abortion issue must be settled by congress, but congress never touched it and left it to the courts, probably for two reasons: 1)it's too controversial and 2)it's too valuable as a political football.

If the issue is ever resolved, both parties would have lost a valuable tool. You can't play football, political or otherwise, without a ball.
 
JustDave said:
If the issue is ever resolved, both parties would have lost a valuable tool. You can't play football, political or otherwise, without a ball.
Click to expand...
You may be right, but it sure wastes a lot of our time and energy. It would be best if we could resolve it.

Seems to me the only way would be a compromise giving both sides some, but not all of what they want. However our politics are not much about compromise these days.
 

Alligatorob said:
You may be right, but it sure wastes a lot of our time and energy. It would be best if we could resolve it.

Seems to me the only way would be a compromise giving both sides some, but not all of what they want. However our politics are not much about compromise these days.
Click to expand...
Can't compromise on individual rights, that should be sacrosanct. I am referring to people who are actually alive, breathing their own air.
 
Sounds like the UK is moving in one direction, while the US is moving in another, sad to say.

Pepper, I think compromise has been a part of the equation all along. What about the last trimester? Let's say a woman decides, in her ninth month, that she doesn't want to have this baby after all. Could she get an abortion? I doubt it; at least, I hope not!

But in the early part of pregnancy, the other side has to give a little, too. And the staunch "pro-lifers" consider an egg that was fertilized one day earlier a full human being. That's also ridiculous, in my mind.

I agree with Carol, by the way. I don't understand, with all the kinds of birth control available, why so many abortions are needed.
 
This could be a separate thread, but if it's illegal to kill a person, when does "person-hood" happen after conception?
 
It happens gradually, Chet. There is no magic date when - kaboom! It is now a person! I think viability is a good marker to use. That is somewhere in the second trimester.
 
Chet said:
This could be a separate thread, but if it's illegal to kill a person, when does "person-hood" happen after conception?
Click to expand...
I remember one such case where someone was trying to overturn Roe v Wade and the attorney used the fact that a heartbeat becomes detectable at about 6 weeks and should be considered a life and protected under the14th amendment of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I never followed it, so I’m not sure why his argument was rejected.
 
Alligatorob said:
Thanks, that makes sense. And I guess all the pro and anti fuss has to do with the fact that if the decision to overturn is made it will result in a number of states outlawing or severely restricting abortion. In my opinion this outcome should not be considered by the Supreme Court, our rule of law is more important, and their charge.

That said if the ruling does go that way I would support any legislation removing government controls over abortion.

I don't see it as a religious issue, just a legal one as to how the Constitution should be interpreted. I know there is a lot of political and religious spin off, but that's not the Supreme Court's responsibility is.
Click to expand...
Look at Justice Barrett's background.
 
Wontactmyage said:
I was not a downs child, I was the etcetera, unexpected. I was born with no anus opening, all my internal organs were free floating and premature (2 lbs.) while my fraternal twin was born with a full head of hair and a tooth and seven-ish lbs. I spent 13 years in and out of the hospital and multiple operations. My mother had two other children before my twin and I (my brother 18 months difference). Throughout my life I was challenged to keep up this my twin (which I did) and we graduated the same year (and no I was not given a break nor did I ask for one in the school system). My mom gave birth to me first and was on her way back to her room when she said she was having contractions my twin was born 1/2 hour after me. By grace, I was born first because if I was second who knows. I thank my twin for kicking me out first and my mom for keeping me so I had a chance to survive and thrive. For these reasons I am angst over the Rowe versus Wade.
Click to expand...
The choice part includes choosing NOT to terminate.
 
How Americans Really Feel About Abortion: The Sometimes Surprising Poll Results As Supreme Court Reportedly Set To Overturn Roe V. Wade (forbes.com)

Strongest support for abortion—within limits: An Associated Press/NORC poll in June found 87% support abortion when the woman’s life is in danger, 84% support exceptions in the case of rape or incest, and 74% support abortion if the child would be born with a life-threatening illness.

When abortion support drops: The further into the pregnancy, with AP/NORC finding 61% believe abortion should be legal during the first trimester, but only 34% in the second trimester and 19% in the third, and an April Wall Street Journal poll finding more Americans approve of 15-week abortion bans than disapprove.
 
HarryHawk said:
Strongest support for abortion—within limits: An Associated Press/NORC poll in June found 87% support abortion when the woman’s life is in danger, 84% support exceptions in the case of rape or incest, and 74% support abortion if the child would be born with a life-threatening illness.

When abortion support drops: The further into the pregnancy, with AP/NORC finding 61% believe abortion should be legal during the first trimester, but only 34% in the second trimester and 19% in the third, and an April Wall Street Journal poll finding more Americans approve of 15-week abortion bans than disapprove.
Click to expand...
These are useful statistics, thanks.

However I believe that unless a vast majority does not support abortion we should leave the government out of it. Outlawing abortion is telling someone what they can't do with their body in a very important way. Just not something for government involvement.
 
quote-you-can-t-legislate-morality-jesse-ventura-30-21-07.jpg
 
Alligatorob said:
You may be right, but it sure wastes a lot of our time and energy. It would be best if we could resolve it.

Seems to me the only way would be a compromise giving both sides some, but not all of what they want. However our politics are not much about compromise these days.
Click to expand...
Compromise has been a dirty word in our Congress (especially the Senate) for the past 10+ years.
 
Paco Dennis said:
If they do, there is a strong possibility that it would start a civil war.
Click to expand...
Very similar situation to why the Civil War was fought in the U.S. Some people thought it was morally wrong to "own" slaves. Other said you don't have to "own" a slave, but don't tell me that I can't "own" a slave. I assume they thought the people they enslaved were not fully human.

They could not come to a consensus, so the shooting began.
 
HarryHawk said:
Very similar situation to why the Civil War was fought in the U.S. Some people thought it was morally wrong to "own" slaves. Other said you don't have to "own" a slave, but don't tell me that I can't "own" a slave. I assume they thought the people they enslaved were not fully human.
Click to expand...
That is an interesting analogy. Not one I had thought of, or like thinking about much. However I do see your point...

It is easy to point out differences. However, in the end if people actually believed, and I think some did, that slaves were not people then maybe it fits...

Sure hope this one does not lead to Civil War.
 
Alligatorob said:
These are useful statistics, thanks.

However I believe that unless a vast majority does not support abortion we should leave the government out of it. Outlawing abortion is telling someone what they can't do with their body in a very important way. Just not something for government involvement.
Click to expand...
As VP Harris said in her very powerful speech yesterday,
"Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?"
 
I'm a guy. I may be the start of the situation, but the ultimate decision, and weight of that decision falls on the woman. Yet, as the guy, I have a stake in the outcome, whether, or not I have a child. Some feel that abortion is murder but should others' feelings outweigh her right to her own body. And reality deems that abortion is impossible to prevent. I don't think there is one solution to the problem of an unexpected, and unwanted pregnancy, and there is none that will satisfy all parties I believe the most effected party should have the most say..
That said, if Roe is vacated. It's going to be a long disastrous trek through a Constitutional Amendment phase.
 
Last edited:
Alligatorob said:
That is an interesting analogy. Not one I had thought of, or like thinking about much. However I do see your point...

It is easy to point out differences. However, in the end if people actually believed, and I think some did, that slaves were not people then maybe it fits...

Sure hope this one does not lead to Civil War.
Click to expand...
I don't think that everyone who had a slave was inherently evil. I'm not sure how they were able to justify it. Regardless of their mindset, some thought slavery was morally wrong, others thought it was totally justifiable.

All the talk about men hating women and wanting to control them, there are alot of women who are against abortion. THe reason folks are against abortion, plain and simple, they believe abortion kills living human beings. Pretty much the same reason folks were against slavery, or the holocaust, or any other genocide.

Many people get upset when dogs and cats are put down in shelters. It is not surprising that at least some folks think the unborn are just as precious as a dog or cat.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top