If someone doesn't want to do it ..fine, but don't tell others they can't based on your personal religious beliefs.

It's like The Handmaids Tale come to life.  

The same people who are 'for life' and against abortion rights are mostly the same ones who do not support gun control and think we all should be packing. Talk about cognitive dissonance.   

The opinion is the most consequential Supreme Court decision in decades and will transform the landscape of women's reproductive health in America.  

Going forward, abortion rights will be determined by states, unless Congress acts.  Already, nearly half of the states have or will pass laws that ban abortion while others have enacted strict measures regulating the procedure.  

"Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,"  http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/politics/2022/05/06/samuel-alito-abortion-scotus-draft-schneider-dnt-ac360-vpx.cnn.html" rel="nofollow - Justice Samuel Alito  wrote in his majority opinion. "Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division."

The vote was 5-3-1. In a joint dissenting opinion, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan heavily criticized the majority, closing: "With sorrow -- for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection -- we dissent."

Many states already have abortion laws in place banning it, as well many states have laws and procedures on allowing it.

This will be a constant battle and topic for each state during their own elections, 100% turns it into a political issue. We now have politicians who will be dictating health care choices for women in each state.

Seems like a damn if you do damn if you don't....I think we would all agree we don't want the federal govt telling us how we are to take care of ourselves medically, but now it goes to each state with soooooo many state politicians not qualified or intelligent enough to do much more than smile in front of the camera.

I think it's hilarious how the most Conservative among us, those who claim to hold individual liberty as their highest ideal, think it's okay to prevent a grown woman from making her own medical decisions.

Hey Libertarians here on PA, I'm talking to you.   Hey "Freedom Lovers", I'm talking to you.   Hey Gun-Loving Nazis, I'm talking to you.

I 'm so glad you posted your comment.  I agree 100%.  The Republicans have been moving in this direction for decades in plain sight and what have the Democrats spent all their time focused on, banning the use of plastic bags in the grocery stories and save the whales.  Well, now Roe v. Wade has been overturned and everyone is surprised.  What's next (possibly another 4 years for Trump as President).  You'd better get off your ass and get the vote out.

^ Something unimportant about saving endangered species and banning a major pollutant while the Republicans strengthened gun laws and made it harder for brown people to buy property ?  

Just because one of the two major parties is a *Hate spewing, homophobic, Bible-thumping, racist group of psychotics* , doesn't mean we stop trying to improve things.   

I spent the last few years doing contract work south of the border, from Michigan to Alabama.

You couldn't pay me enough to even consider going into the states now.

Between this and the gun laws (or unlaws)...no thank you !

That, my friend, is 'Murica, and the a**hole majority's opinions in the Supreme Court. Guns now have more rights than women.

Sarcasm aside, The sad truth is that many Republicans never believed Roe v. Wade would ever be overturned, even with such Nazis on the bench. Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

^Video doesn't show.

Gotta link?

You know the few people ive spoken to here in the UK today all said basically what you've just said.. using dark humour to try and make sense of what we're hearing..

Europe (Britain particularly) seems stuck in some kind of 1970's 'winter of discontent' revival thing but this makes the US look like its trying to recreate the medieval past it never actually had!

Good the SCOTUS stood  the ground  and did not succumb to the violent, sometimes  even terroristic mob.

This decision will not effect the utterly barbaric abortion laws of New York, Illinois or California.

The countries that allow the butchering of 7 pound unborn babies always when a professional killer and a woman agrees are:

China

North Korea

Vietnam

Canada

USA

The first three countries are obvious paragons of democracy  and respecting human rights...

If Canada and USA feels well in such company...

In the land of Brave and Free according to one party it is OK if frustrated, psychologically disturbed  teens own machine guns.

According to the other party it is OK to dismember a full term unborn baby.

How sick.

Amy Coney Barrett is an originalist, meaning she interprets the constitution as if it were 1787. Maybe she should be removed from the court because no woman was admitted until 1981, almost 200 later.

Oh, Norbert, need I say a Hungarian's view of the U.S. is useless.   You clearly don't understand Federal vs. State law and your stance is muddled between Religious Extremism and Redneck Ignorance.

Anything else?   Maybe some tea?

Barrett is a mole.

You'll find you won't get much, if any, support around these parts for such reactionary and racist garbage.

I don't need any support of fans of baby butchering, many thanks.:-)

I am not a racist, and vehemently oppose any form of racism.

But these Neo-Maoists just bring up racism always when somebody dares to disagree with their views.

Garbage is not my post, but the other posts of this topic.

It is very  clear that the people of this communist cesspool are not even worth a discussion.

mathman0806 wrote: A politicized ruling that will be damaging for years. Saw this coming when Trump was elected in 2016. Awful.

In a way yes, but I think it goes further ... what the man brought to politics is that lawyers in court will win just about anything because the public has no idea what they are discussing or fighting about except a one sentence line ... this is what America's political system is all about these days ... it's all about legalese and their minions.

But the real issue is that the census appears to be another novel in literature. So many people of color, so many Latinos, so many women ... and yet ... the voting always ends up all white Anglo Saxon folks representing your country! Makes you wonder where the cheating and the lying really is!

===========================

Anyways ....

I think that America got what it wanted ... 2 AMERICAS ... one that thinks this way and another than thinks that way!

The worst part is that both parties go both ways ... to the point of no one even really knowing or understanding what they are fighting about.

So we will have some states with and some states without ... to heck that my children will go some of those states passing laws by neo-politicians disguised as some sort of religious anything.

But maybe this was needed ... and we finally might get to see women actually vote more and create a bigger difference over all than just merely sitting by ... along with many folks enjoying their weed and ignoring the vote ... reminds me of Reagan one time ... "let them get stoned! I'll win all the elections!"

We simply don't listen to history and its lessons, and sometimes the best lesson is a step backwards in order to learn to go forward. I sincerely hope that the populace replace many of the neo-politicians that are behaving more like religious lecturers than they are like the politicians they need to be ... and specially arguing about something that is personal ... and should never be considered a matter of vote, law or court.

Hi,

I wonder if the media is the problem. The main difference between now and then, could easily be said to be that there was no media, thus it seems like in a war, one side lost.

But my biggest concern is that the numbers between the census and the voting populace do not match, and the results usually turn out exactly the same. Which suggests that a vast (and incredible number) of Americans are not bothering to put in the effort to make things go forward, instead of backwards! 

So, if things don't go "right" as they should or could, then we have no one to blame but ourselves. The case of the Civil War, I imagine that a media would hide the idea that it was more about land grabbing and control than anything else.

Pretty sure the supreme court stepped outside its role and made an illégal decision.

The supreme court's role is to see that the constitution and laws are observed and followed and that's about it.

It's not supposed to change (modify or suppress) laws that have been voted - especially those voted some 49 years ago.

Democracy is taking a beating in the XXIst C, and not only in Ukraine and Russia. (not that those two were ever democracies anyways)

I just hope Europe's democracy (and the planet's climate) remains stable long enough until I die, because it's going to get ugly for mankind.

.

I don't need any support of fans of women butchering.

There's just https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/jun/22/us-woman-left-traumatised-after-malta-hospital-refuses-life-saving-abortion" rel="nofollow - a very recent story (with fortunately https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/jun/23/us-woman-denied-abortion-in-malta-flies-to-spain-for-termination-andrea-prudente" rel="nofollow - a good outcome ) in Malta which shows how inhumane this kind of legislation is.

Allow me to attempt to bring a smidgen of levity to an otherwise dire and concerning thread.

Assuming at least some of the women affected will head north of the border for the care and support they desire...

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/lifestyle/smart-living/things-you-should-never-say-to-a-canadian/ss-AAYK3tg?li=AAggFp5#image=1" rel="nofollow -

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/lifestyle/smart-living/things-you-should-never-say-to-a-canadian/ss-AAYK3tg?li=AAggFp5#image=1" rel="nofollow - https://www.msn.com/en-ca/lifestyle/smart-living/things-you-should-never-say-to-a-canadian/ss-AAYK3tg?li=AAggFp5#image=3

Communists?   Really?  Is that the best you've got?  What is it, 1959? 

Very few liberals in America are Communists and in fact most of us think communism is not much better than fascism, which leads me to my next point which is that you seem to have a poor and very dated sense of politics.  There are connections & collusions between opposing politics, and there are rifts & fissures between related politics--  some believe that socialism & authoritarianism marry well and would make an ideal society.

Things aren't always as they seem.

Maybe if they live in the Dakotas or Montana.

^ And what of Clarence Thomas suggesting same-sex marriage and birth control should be reconsidered.  Freakin' same-sex marriage and birth control.   Who does this guy think he is, St. Paul?   Do he and his wife not do the nasty?  Are they so repressed old Tom has to pleasure himself out in the garden so they don't see each other naked?   Please, Thomas, tell us we have it wrong, that you were misinterpreted, that you didn't mean contraception should be banned nationally ... oh wait, there's that written published statement.   Great.

Despite being black, CT is the oldest and worst-repressive &  most-regressive conservatives (I explained the SC composition in the +/- recent Abortion thread). Thankfully, he's by far the oldest one in that SC, but unfortunately, unless willingly stepping down, they're nominated until death (like popes & ayatollahs).

He's out even as to make illegal homo sexual relation.

While I wouldn't really fight for homo marriages rights, I would for their right to have relations. 

.

Hi,

I kinda wonder if the whole thing is about keeping the Constitution on its "generic" and "general" terms, and make sure that the States themselves decide the individualities they want ... and not bother the Constitution. You can already hear some of this in the words of one Supreme Court Justice already asking for various individualities taken out of the Constitution. 

If something like this were observed, right off the bat, the issue of "abortion" would have been handled by each state in their own manner, instead of it adding up to the great mess that we ended up with and people's emotions totally and completely out of control.

It's really sad ... because it is going to hurt American Politics for a long time to come, because it is no longer about the politics and ideas ... but about someone's religious belief. This should have been removed from the Constitution right off the bat! Specially when it was disguised as some sort of medical this or that!

Yeah, States Rights. That's how the U.S. got slavery and Jim Crow laws for 150 years. That's how individual states prohibited biracial marriage. That's how individual states eliminate unions, LGBTQ rights and force a single religion's mythical codes on people who want nothing to do with that particular religion. That's how we have this insane crazy quilt of stupidly conflicting gun laws across the U.S.

moshkito wrote: If something like this were observed, right off the bat, the issue of "abortion" would have been handled by each state in their own manner, instead of it adding up to the great mess that we ended up with and people's emotions totally and completely out of control. It's really sad ... because it is going to hurt American Politics for a long time to come, because it is no longer about the politics and ideas ... but about someone's religious belief. This should have been removed from the Constitution right off the bat! Specially when it was disguised as some sort of medical this or that!

-------------
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...

I think the important question, Hugues, is does one support a gay couple being able to enjoy the same marriage rights as those of straight people.   In some ways that's more significant than being willing to fight for it.

^ True, I was speaking philosophically.   But yeah, let's protect what's left.

 

Or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaids_Tale" rel="nofollow - The Handmaid's Tale .

 

The Black Moor wrote: Human life begins at conception. This is a scientific and biological fact. It is not merely a religious belief.

Well, your first statement is very much disputed within the scientific and biologist communities. Furthermore, you seem to think that a "fact" is something objective, existing outside of human interference or belief systems. It is all the contrary to that: facts, including scientific facts, are human fabrications, representations, and thus interpretations. And in this discussion the "facts" are very much ideologically, if not religiously, charged, so not "objective" at all.

An atheist can (and should) be against abortion.

Oh yes, he can, but why "should" he be? I don't see the logic behind that.

The unborn is a separate life from the mother.

If this was the case, there wouldn't be a Roe vs. Wade case. If the unborn would be a separate life from the mother, it would have its autonomy regarding its mother, which is not the case, because it couldn't survive without its mother until its birth. That's what it's all about. And with your rubbish arguments that follow and that I didn't quote you can continue to stick your head in the sand, but it doesn't make a valid statement about "mistreatment of lives", because it just seems you privilege the unborn over the mother's life...Why?

How humorous you decided to log into a progressive rock site and your first post is a screed about zygotes beings full-fledged humans with inalienable rights. I understand in your rabid beliefs that women are merely receptacles for potential humans, basically sp*rm-buckets, and that guns now have more rights than women in the U.S. But if it were just about babies, Southern states who are dead set on arresting women for being pregnant against their will would be doing all they can to drop the Black maternal mortality rate.

But it's not just about babies, is it? It's about children being slaughtered in schools with alarming frequency. It's about a two-tiered education system where some folks do not get the proper knowledge to compete for better jobs because they are in the wrong tax bracket and zip code. It is about power and control over women. It is about punishing women for daring to be equal. 

You like scientific facts? There are already far too many humans on this planet, and they are destroying it. There are far too many billions starving, poverty-ridden and prone to contagions. If anything, there should be a concerted effort for universal contraception, universal sex education and reducing the population (mostly for the males who can't keep their d*cks in their pants). Or else these babies you are forcing out will all be dead in horrific fashion when the world runs out of resources. 

 

Are you an atheist?

 

Yeah--  first, welcome to the site though elsewhere you'd probably be considered a "fake" member or a troll as clearly you joined to discuss Roe v. Wade, not to discuss Progressive Rock.   That's fine, I suppose.

Second, you just don't get it, so I'll just come out and say it ::

Edit:  I don't care if the unborn baby is several months away from birth,

Oh yeah, I went there, you betcha.

Bro its a person. Its not the womans choice whether her kid can live or die. The child is a HUMAN BEING with a right to live. Sure, i totally understand the woman not wanting to raise the child because she wants to have a career, but thats what adoption is for. Why do people need to have abortions? They can literally just have the baby, put it up for adoption, and get on with their lives. Its that simple. Killing people is never the answer. Its that simple. Killing human beings, no matter their age, is wrong.

yee haw

^^ Thank you for approaching it rationally.  So you're against the death penalty I take it?

But forget that, just answer me this:  How is it conservatives (and libertarians) believe above all else in freedom and self-determination and yet, with relish, will legally force an adult woman to have a child? 

Thanks for clarifying, John, it does seem an incongruous matter.   In past discussions with Libertarians here on the site, it turned out religion plays a significant role in their perceptions of abortion.   To them I say we have something called the Separation of Church & State.

It is fascinating, the political nuances--  Goldwater is a great example, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice...and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue".   Funny thing is, I hate Pat Buchanan too, but I hate his politics.  When he was on Bill Buckley's show and McLaughlin I always enjoyed his input, he has a great ear for what's happening in the populace, but as far as I can discern Buchanan is more aligned with MAGA than not.  

^ Not so funny now.  We could use a Bob Dole.

 Maybe, but the laws will still exist.   I see half the people who mass-exodused from California during the virus deciding to go back, especially if they landed in a soon to be Woman-Slave State.

Without getting into the fact that the date for Jesus’s birth was chosen for convenience, expediency, pragmatism, whatever you like to call it, incorporating a Pagan celebration, Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus, not his immaculate conception. You’d think that for a bunch of pro-life nut jobs would want to celebrate Jesus’s conception, and not his birth. After all, “after conception nothing is added to him or her”.

Anyone who follows the science tends not to be pro-life, but rather pro-choice. Anyone who is pro-life tends to be religious. As Steve says, it is near impossible to believe that your views are not influenced by religion.

Furthermore, I am not denigrating religion, when I say religious nut jobs. There are plenty of religious people who are pro choice. I would guess possibly even a majority. As with anything, it is the vocal minority who are noticed by the world.

I also know plenty of people who are both pro life AND pro choice. The two are not mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible to hold a personal belief (pro life), but not wish to push it on everyone else (pro choice). I suspect this is where the majority of religious people lie (certainly almost all I know). The distinction is between immoral and illegal. So while you might find it immoral, that is not justification for wanting it to be illegal.