Breaking... US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

I asked upthread if anyone here was prepared to fight and die for gay marriage and got zero responses.

I think predictions of civil wars are overblown. Where is the strong motivation to fight and kill going to come from? I don't think banning abortions in South Carolina and limiting them in Texas will do it. These places have always been like by-words for a kind of Christian conservatism.

The idea that there would be a civil war over this is far fetched. There wasn't much reaction this weekend in America.

There probably some collective of Anarchists that might kill some Pro Life campaigner. Burn down some churches, synagogues and centres but they were always looking for a cause anyway and will always be on the political margins.

So no civil war but there could be a few nasty incidents.

No, the Judges basically said it should never have been a supreme court issue,that it was a decision for the electorate as expressed through State legislatures not a small group of Judges.

It wasn't about abortion as such but whether it was an issue for the Court to decide in line with the constitution there. They said no, that decision resides with the people alone.

That's a fairly weak argument.

Judges are allowed give serious matters full consideration.

If that's the line opponents of this are reduced to..

Was there a case before them when asked at the hearing no. They were asked there opinion at that time and gave it.

Some of those hearings were years ago, what relevance bar a curiosity factor do they have to a Supreme court ruling after months of deliberation this year??

Some judges keep faith with the original interpretation, some that it is a living document .

Who knows what is the best way, such is human nature.

Well that entirely depends on what kind of legislation you want. In this country you can abort a child up until birth, which when you think about it, is utterly obscene. It comes down to what you can get the majority of society to accept. My guess would be that you could easily get an abortion bill to pass for first trimester abortion in America and more then that in the case where, medically, the life of the mother was at risk or fatal fetal abnormality was evident, but that would require a compromise of the mantra of 'my body my choice'.

What has become evident lately is that society (if it exists any more) is so fractured that compromise has become a dirty word and a limit to personal choice or the 'good of society at large' is not on the table. We have become very 'everything or nothing', and right now America it seems would prefer nothing rather than an adult debate in which compromise on what is actually best for society or acceptable to society is seen as secondary to a 'I win, you loose' scenario.

I never understood the life of the mother is at risk line. What odds do you want on the mother surviving to stop it? Pregnancies are massively complicated things with a variety of risks and different possible events. I was always amazed that this didn't allow abortion on demand in Ireland, if you are pregnant then your life is at increased risk, even for the most ordinary of pregnancies. This risk also depends on where you live and your financial situation. Especially in the US where outcomes vary massively by state and it has to be considered that any and all abortion laws will only be for the poor and so the odds are naturally worse if/when complications arise. How will a fetus that is likely to not survive factor into this as you mention fatal fetal abnormality? I mean they might survive but are you willing to bet the woman's life on this? Latter treatment can cause more issues than stopping a problem earlier but you also don't have definitives for if a mother or fetus will survive all the time.

There would be no abortion limts if rich people were effected by them. You will find many "pro life" politicians will have had abortions themselves or helped organise the logistics for their partners/ relatives and this will continue into the future because of course theirs is different.

Do you want lawyers making this call or doctors, either of whom could get reputations for being more or less liberal again changing this law pretty heavily. Are you going to have a list of relevant doctors when making these laws. I am curious how many doctors with relevant knowledge (i.e. not brain surgeons or doctors of history) were consulted about the various trigger laws that went up.

Think the point is that it needs medical supervision rather than pills in the post .

So dangerous especially if someone in later stages of pregnancy , unable to legally access abortion or medical services and availing of this.

I've no idea what you are talking about. 97% of abortions in America are for social reasons that have nothing to to with the life or health of the mother or the viability of the fetus. Why are you 'amazed' that there needs to be a conversation about the 93% of abortions that have nothing to do with medial need and pertain so social and societal reasons?

'Social' and 'societal' is a very peculiar way of framing things. The very act of being pregnant for nine months is 100% a health issue (and may have implications for the mother's mental health too).