381–390 of 1001 posts
It's a shame the abortion debate is overtaken by radicals on both sides when the majority of Americans would prefer laws similar to most European nations: legal abortion within the first trimester.
Spare me...
> legal abortion within the first trimester
And one party is pushing to make it 6 weeks (or less) or no abortions at all. Tell me more about "both sides".
The thing about abortion that most people seem not to understand is that the debate is fundamentally about answering "when does human life start?". One side believes it starts at conception, which equates any abortion with murder. The other side believes it starts at some point after that, which makes abortion up to that point a women's health / rights issue. Irreconcilable, but also toxic when the two sides never ta…
There is no answer of "when life begins". It's a game of semantics. Like Diogenes bringing a chicken to Plato, any set of traits you can give me to define life, I can find an exception that destroys your definition. Therefore the question should be "when is it ethical to terminate a fetus". Pro-choice voters have different answers for this question. The problem is pro-life hardliners who refuse to play ball whatsoeve…
Move to Europe. If you work and/or live in the US your taxes are supporting this system.
0: https://hwfo.substack.com/p/us-europe-abortion-law-compariso...
I`m not american, but lets be honest. Is not a constitution right because is not in the constitution. States can now do their onw diligence about the subject. So it`s not the end of the word for pro-choise people.
The problem is that it just exacerbates an already major problem in America: access to healthcare is based on where you live and how wealthy your parents are. Wealthy republicans can just fly their teenage daughters to a blue state, while poor people will inevitably end up getting back-alley abortions.
I'll be the begrudging devils advocate for a decision that is sure to have devastating consequences for poor women in red states. It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. The US house has bled power to the other 3 institutions and of them, the judiciary is the least democratic. Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court wi…
Yes. I couldn’t imagine if a party had all 3 branches in control. So leaving more rights to states and not forcing them on the entire nation is going to be better. You can vote in your state for reps that support your cause. Don’t like it? Move elsewhere. People are doing exactly the same. Florida being one of the top states with influx of people from other states, specifically California.
The Supreme Court neither banned abortion nor prohibited the legislature from protecting the right to abortion. It merely decided that it is not currently protected by constitution, which to me seems completely correct. If most people agree that it should be a constitutional right, no one stops the legislature from adding the required amendment. And if most people can't agree on that, well, adding that wouldn't be de…
Also, you need to ask yourself: is this about abortion? Or is it really about literally keeping the people poor, stupid and uneducated?
Think about it: if you're not poor this is not an issue. If you have 5 kids instead of 1, good luck getting them the proper education. But it's cool...we can use all that almost free labor to drive our corporate empires forward.
The thing about abortion that most people seem not to understand is that the debate is fundamentally about answering "when does human life start?". One side believes it starts at conception, which equates any abortion with murder. The other side believes it starts at some point after that, which makes abortion up to that point a women's health / rights issue. Irreconcilable, but also toxic when the two sides never ta…
I don't think this is the right question. The better question is one of bodily autonomy: whether someone should be compelled to keep another human being alive at the cost of their own health and safety. This avoids the whole "when does life start" debate, which has been a moving goalpost for the history of abortion related law.
Looking at this ruling and the one a few days ago on arms - could someone explain to me why they're wrong legally? FYI I'm not American and personally am in favour of legalised abortion + severe gun restrictions. My understanding is these rulings are both based on the constitution. The one on guns seems really straightforward: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of th…
Article the twelfth (AKA the 10th amendment) of the Bill of Rights from the US Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” So the current argument might be that since the constitution does not give the federal government the power to regular abortions (or to prevent states from regulat…
The viability condition is one of the legal arguments people tend to attack. Justice Blackmun even wrote in a memo when drafting the verdict for Roe vs Wade: "You will observe that I have concluded that the end of the first trimester is critical. This is arbitrary, but perhaps any other selected point, such as quickening or viability, is equally arbitrary."
They did end upon a viability criteria. The exact week has also changed since medical science has advanced in the last 50 years.
Christopher Hitchens