US Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade

That George Carlin routine isn't even true. Anti-abortion campaigners aren't really interested in mothers abusing their body while pregnant and potentially killing the foetus or giving it lifelong (possibly a short life) defects, so they can go f*ck themselves before they're born as well.

It’s a false dilemma to argue that the issue is whether or not anyone has the right to use the law as a blunt instrument to deny women autonomy over their own bodies. Nobody, man or woman, has full autonomy over their own bodies. With regards to reproduction and abortion specifically, it’s required to be regulated by law as the State has an interest in the issue.

I don’t think anyone who is anti-choice would have any more or less respect than they do or don’t have already. I wouldn’t consider it respect if someone only claimed to respect me because I agreed with their opinions. That’s not respect. It’s not even worth addressing claims which infer that anyone who is anti-choice doesn’t also advocate for help for struggling mums, better schools funding, help with accommodation and so on, when in reality, they actually do all those things already. Those things are unrelated to abortion.

You must surely be aware of the fact that religious organisations do provide all those sorts of supports to families and to women who have had abortions. The original plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, Norma McCorvey, later became an Evangelical Protestant and anti-abortion activist, claiming to have been used as a pawn by abortion activists, which was true. What is also true is that she was used as a pawn by anti-abortion activists -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/28/norma-mccorvey-obituary-216184/

That happens when your idea of respect is predicated upon your agreement with another person’s opinions.

A man has no legal obligations towards a child that hasn’t been born yet. It’s his sperm, but it’s not his body. Depositing his sperm wherever he wishes does not give him ownership rights over anything or anyone else, regardless of how much a gift he imagines it is. Maintaining that a man should have zero contact with his children is not in the child’s best interests, and States in the US are beginning to regulate sperm donation because of some of the issues raised by anonymous sperm donation -

https://theconversation.com/amp/sperm-donation-is-largely-unregulated-but-that-could-soon-change-as-lawsuits-multiply-174389

In spite of the assertion that a child is a gift, by way of trying to justify forcing women to give birth against their wishes, pregnancy is not a gift if the woman in question did not choose to become pregnant in the first place. To be fair to you, you do concede that exceptions could be made in certain circumstances, but your exceptions are of little value when children are born and a rapist is entitled to access to their children -

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/1432450001

The attempt to force a woman into having an abortion by way of threatening to withdraw support from the child is just a non-starter. It’s a rather vindictive argument that has nothing to do with abortion. In any case it’s why laws exist that hold both parents are responsible for their children’s welfare, because it’s in the best interests of the child.

If as some have read into the decision that 'stare decisis' no longer will be used in US Jurisprudence, well, welcome to no guns in blue states (since, yinno, no stare decisis, states can do what they want), Heller vs. DC nope, etc etc. It's a disaster of a decision in so many ways.

The point about the contrast between the EU (and other places where it is legal) v the US is that the question has been resolved and put to bed. It's really far less about how it works legally. This will not need to be addressed again but they'll still be trotting up to the SC in another 100 years.

Part of concern about those restrictive US abortion laws, is the chance of criminality being tacked on to the laws for women who travel outside their state. There are also people who would gladly undo a wide range of other rights if they could, off the back of this.

Ehh I am confused?.

Surely you mean lots of guns in blue states ?

Also how are you bringing in "stare decisis" as I thought the decision here on revoking Roe v Wade was based on fact there was no right given for abortion in constitution in the first place ?

Likewise with rights to same sex marriage, birth control, inter racial marriage, etc.

You are correct, Alito used the 'it's not in the constitution' argument. This is farcical reasoning. Women weren't in the Constitution. Slaves were in the constitution. Lots of stuff the USSC rules on isn't in the constitution. But, Alito specifically called out abortion as not being in and hence, no previous decisions about it matter (e.g., Roe.) So, previous decisions don't matter wrt to all sorts of things around the 2d amendment (for example, DC vs. Heller).

Here's a comparison - Dred Scott. The court passed this awful opinion but they used *what was in the Constitution* as the basis for it's reasoning, and once the... (forget the numbers) 13/14th/15th amendments were passed, Dred Scott became invalidated. Roe v. Wade (and Planned Parenthood v. Casey) were invalidated because 'it's not in the Constitution.' The Constitution is 230+ years old, lots of stuff the USSC rules on is based on previous USSC decisions. Lots of things State courts rule on, are based on the previous State court decisions. This ruling is a repudiation of that practice. Good luck, US Democracy.

No it hasnt. Abortion laws have been changing a lot in EU members. Poland for example has recently become more restrictive on abortion, not less. Even in this country theres still a bit of churn behind the scenes regarding provision of abortion services , how much/to what extent. Its far from a settled debate anywhere really

Politically it is in decline because it has a dubious electoral system exploited by both sides. Gerrymandering actually goes all the way back to Elbridge Gerry, a founding father. He started the game in Massachusetts in 1812, allegedly reluctantly. Redistricting as they also call it is the way to maintain that status quo in order to be able to drive their respective agendas.

its not though, laws can be changed, its no different in the US, in fact if it was a law it would have been changed already in the US, you just need to wait for someone to literally die before you can get a chance to change the supreme court

You get the Prez, congress the senate and the supreme court in a sequence, then good night

I know how it works, I watched the simpsons

if you get them all on one side of the fence, well anything goes

its the reason for all the shitthousery, its setup to not work

Oh, it's always been hovering in the background in the US, a lot more in recent times with the swing of the courts to the right. Like ourselves, other countries would have legislated for it and the majority of political parties support that right so it's doubtful it would change elsewhere.

Yeah and countries could also choose to re-outlaw divorce, contraception, gay sex etc. But in most liberal democracies, including Ireland, banning or severely restricting abortion is no more likely than banning any of those things.

its as unlikely as Donald Trump becoming president or a bunch or hicks storming Capital hill would have seemed 10 years ago

laws can change, its no safer than that