US Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade

That “wise person” wasn’t Captain Hindsight by any chance?

If people were single issue voters… actually, no, I’d still see where you’re coming from, but I wouldn’t agree there is likely to be the kind of backlash you’re wishing for. It’s similar to the way in which there wasn’t much of a backlash effect when Republicans opposed Biden’s policies which were popular with the American electorate -

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-republicans-dont-fear-an-electoral-backlash-for-opposing-really-popular-parts-of-bidens-agenda/amp/

No you asked for sources. Presumably about the X Case.

This is widely public knowledge that happened fairly recently.

I do not think it requires citation and sources just because you've never heard of it or can't be bothered googling it.

The limit should be 24 weeks.

Given typical human gestation is 40 weeks, I don’t see what purpose is served by a 24 week limit. It’s not as though a woman is going to change her mind between the 24th week and the time she is forced to give birth, never mind hoping she would change her mind in two days.

Btw I don’t think you’re conscious of it, but you keep doing that thing where you make your rebuttal to my point, and then tell me this isn’t the thread for it, or you make your point in rebuttal to mine, and then tell me this isn’t the thread for it. It’s irritating as a thrush infection tbh, but I don’t think you’re doing it intentionally, it’s just something I noticed.

Re:24 weeks. There are congenital conditions that aren't detectable with 100% reliability in the first trimester, like Downs. Usually there are tests to confirm in the 2d trimester.

One of the side-effects of repealing Roe in the US is there'll be a flood of Downs kids in US society where they've largely been absent for more than a generation. That may havea big impact on medical resources and care resources.

And that’s a cracker of a compelling argument if I viewed people with Down’s Syndrome as having any impact greater than anyone else, on medical and care resources, as if that justified abortion.

I wouldn’t think Dawkins was particularly wise either when replying to a tweet from a woman who asked him a question about the ethics of it, he suggested she should abort and try again -

Best not suggesting that then as a reason anyone should consider an abortion IMO.

My point was more that the thread should no more be limited to criticism of US conservatives than it should be limited to discussion solely of the overturning of Roe v Wade by the Supreme Court. If the thread could be solely limited to criticism of US conservatives, that would undoubtedly suit a particularly small subset of posters who want to limit the parameters of the discussion to only that which they wish to discuss.

^^^

The GOP will have no purpose once Roe is repealed, and lose fundraising. Plus all the backlash (protests, etc) will cause them even more grief.

Worst thing that can happen to the GOP is if Roe is repealed. I suppose there's a non-zero chance that Alito's daft decision fails, but I don't think it will. It'll pass, probably not exactly in the form its been written, but it'll pass.

It’s arguing in favour of abortion that takes that choice away from women by coercive effect. Even your own argument about the impact of people with disabilities on medical and care resources is admittedly compelling for some, not even approaching a rational or logical argument for other people who don’t think of people in those terms.

It’s a right that shouldn’t just not be taken away by the Federal Government, it’s a duty that the Federal Government has as an obligation, which they have been allowed to absolve themselves of, for as long as Roe v Wade has stood. I’ll be interested to see what happens if Roe v Wade IS overturned.