U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision

[AlexMCS]

Great news if true. This should be a law, not a SCOTUS ruling.
I also agree that abortion is an evil act, no matter the justification used for it.
It's interesting that this is ("officially") the first thing ever leaked out of the court.

 

[Hanafuda]

what about rape? what about when the semen donor gone missing? what about children? what about those not capable of understanding the consequences? what about those forced?

Can all be addressed by state laws. Assuming this leaked opinion is legit, it bans nothing. States can still legalize abortion either unconditionally, or for the circumstances you pointed out. It's just not a "right" that is identified anywhere in the Constitution, and the Court's opinion in Roe trying to conjure that right into existence out of the 9th and 14th Amendments by inference and desire was bad law.

Personally I'd be ok with Congress legalizing abortion, and every State's legislature backing that up with their own law. But they're right - the Constitution doesn't have anything to say about this, and pretending it does sets a bad precedent.

 

[Stone_Wings]

All I can do is laugh at the fact that most who support this decision are the same ones that have been screaming "MY BODY! MY CHOICE!" and "MEDICAL FREEDOM!!!" for the last couple years.

 

[Cortador]

Can all be addressed by state laws. Assuming this leaked opinion is legit, it bans nothing. States can still legalize abortion either unconditionally, or for the circumstances you pointed out. It's just not a "right" that is identified anywhere in the Constitution, and the Court's opinion in Roe trying to conjure that right into existence out of the 9th and 14th Amendments by inference and desire was bad law.

Personally I'd be ok with Congress legalizing abortion, and every State's legislature backing that up with their own law. But they're right - the Constitution doesn't have anything to say about this, and pretending it does sets a bad precedent.

Outside of issue at hand, this does set a precedent into SCOTUS being able to reverse previous establishes decisions.

It will be interesting to see how things change moving forward.

 

[MikaDubbz]

All I can do is laugh at the fact that most who support this decision are the same ones that have been screaming "MY BODY! MY CHOICE!" and "MEDICAL FREEDOM!!!" for the last couple years.

Also the same people that are all for the death penalty. Life is precious... unless you've been found guilty by the court of law.

 

[JuanMena]

Laughs in Mexico Laws that states that a Woman has the right to choose abortion as long as it's in the first 12 weeks of gestation.


Because a woman's body it's not yours, it's hers and it's her choice.


EDIT: Why can't be like this everywhere else? "Pro Life" only cares about forcing a woman to give birth, but once the baby is here, it suddenly becomes the woman's problem. Fuck them.

 

[AbyssalMonkey]

Outside of issue at hand, this does set a precedent into SCOTUS being able to reverse previous establishes decisions.

It will be interesting to see how things change moving forward.

This is not the first time, nor is it the last time. I don't have any cases on hand, nor off the top of my head. However, the idea of a court reversing a decision isn't a bad thing. Ideals and interpretations change over time. Having a court flexible enough to account for these idiosyncrasies is good.

Something like this probably happened for slavery at one point in time. Probably gay marriage, Jim Crow laws, segregation, and many other social issues too. Just because it's literally gone south this time doesn't mean it's a bad thing, just used by the wrong people.

 

[Hanafuda]

Outside of issue at hand, this does set a precedent into SCOTUS being able to reverse previous establishes decisions.

It will be interesting to see how things change moving forward.

There have been plenty of times when the Supreme Court has reversed its own decisions of the past. Brown v Board of Education, for example.

 

[seany1990]

Life is sacred in or out of the womb. Killing the unborn is wrong. Take responsibility for your actions.

Why should you get to enforce your own morals on others?

 

[chrisrlink]

don't fret i suspect the world will be f-ed on 4/9 as a whole so no rulings will even matter when we're all in a irl "certain bethesda series"

 

[Cyan]

how do you define life ? Should we talk about the life of unicellular bodies ? of your cells ? of spermatozoids and eggs ? what about these wasted life every woman's cycle if she doesn't get pregnant ?
and for men, sperm just dies after 48h... poor billions of murdered possible lives.
Your definition of life only fit what you decide should be cared, and you don't care about other life form.
life form can take a lot of shape, vegetables you kill to eat because you are all vegan, plants, mushroom, viruses, bacteria, etc.

/irony, or not?

If "legal" abortion is not possible, women would just do it anyway with non-medical care, and endanger themselves in the process. Two lives instead of one ! but you are all for that as I can see. you prefer killing the mothers too.
or they will go abroad. they already do that in Europe for surrogate mother where countries doesn't allow it, they just go where they can do it anyway (Ukraine).

not even talking about miscarriage...
should the women be damned for its body rejecting (SACRED) life ?
The body usually doesn't keep a non viable child (genetical anomalies etc.) and does abortion naturally, even while it's "not dead". full of living cells rejected. but I suppose that's act of gods? it's "gods choice" if someone dies. why a baby should dies by god's decision? what a cruel sentient entity you venerate, it didn't even commit sins what about people with other religions ? is abortion authorization based on people's belief or yours ?


Well, that's an USA issue, but I'd be curious to see the outcome too, and I'll be sad.

 

[AlexMCS]

lots of text

Regarding human life: Everyone will draw their line at some point. Embryo is where I draw my line, for instance.
There is no scientific point of view here, since science does not know what life is. Only personal PoVs, guided by whatever criteria one wants, usually related to some sort of ethical boundary, religious or not.

It's up to the country's people to decide where they draw their lines and pass their regulations accordingly.
If the current constitution lacks clarity, amend it or make a new one.

Why should you get to enforce your own morals on others?

We live in a society.

 

[Viri]

I more don't like the idea of the federal gov enforcing laws on state gov. I personally am indifferent towards abortion being legal or not, I just don't like a law being forced onto a state, that didn't vote for it. I feel the same way about gay marriage and weed.

Also, having such things leak out early is just wrong, and should be investigated.

 

[Valwinz]

Good, let the states decide. that's how it should be the people of the states will decide

 

[Foxi4]

Abortion aside, Roe v. Wade was always an awful decision - it’s a ruling pulled out of a hat to get a desired effect, and a textbook example of legislating from the bench. It’s entirely based on a presumed right that’s not enumerated, and a reinterpretation of it at that. The legal foundation for the decision was shaky from day one, it’s an extremely bizarre take on the right to privacy that would have ridiculous implications when applied to any other context. If a right to have an abortion is supposed to be entrenched in law, Roe v. Wade was the dumbest way to do it.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

Abortions themselves aren't going to stop, we're just now going to experince back ally abortions were women commonly die because of unsafe procedures.
I'm surprised I'm not hearing any major celebrations from the Republican party.
I mean come on, they said they would do it, they should be happy they got what they said done. We should talk about the people who choose to courageously remove 50 years of precedent
oh wait... right I forgot. about 70% of people support keeping roe v. wade.... oops

 

[Deleted member 559230]

Laughs in Mexico Laws that states that a Woman has the right to choose abortion as long as it's in the first 12 weeks of gestation.


Because a woman's body it's not yours, it's hers and it's her choice.


EDIT: Why can't be like this everywhere else? "Pro Life" only cares about forcing a woman to give birth, but once the baby is here, it suddenly becomes the woman's problem. Fuck them.

I'm not sure how many times you're going to hear this before it sticks to your thin head, but raising kids is the job of the parents ... not random strangers. The mother and father created life and its their responsibility to care for it.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

Abortion aside, Roe v. Wade was always an awful decision - it’s a ruling pulled out of a hat to get a desired effect, and a textbook example of legislating from the bench. It’s entirely based on a presumed right that’s not enumerated, and a reinterpretation of it at that. The legal foundation for the decision was shaky from day one, it’s an extremely bizarre take on the right to privacy that would have ridiculous implications when applied to any other context. If a right to have an abortion is supposed to be entrenched in law, Roe v. Wade was the dumbest way to do it.

yeah as many as 23 states have laws banning abortions. meanwhile about 70% of the public supports keeping roe v wade.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

Why should you get to enforce your own morals on others?

I'm not enforcing anything. I'm simply stating how I feel about the matter. You're free to ignore me if you like.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

I'm not enforcing anything. I'm simply stating how I feel about the matter. You're free to ignore me if you like.

your enforcing people to not be able to have abortions, your morals are that the parents MUST have a child if pregnant, and removing the option to have a safe abortion. You are enforcing your morals on someone else