You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Interestingly, north of the border, Canada has no laws about abortion; it is a private matter between doctor and patient.
The reality is that mid or late term abortions arise from tragic and exceptional circumstances, from horrific home lives of control, abuse and lack of support, through pregnancy-related life threatening illness, to severe abnormalities discovered late on.
So rather than leaving it up to wvery woman do decide if the cast majority are under 13 weeks we can have laws outlawing late term abortions aside from risk to life of mother etc.
I don’t think we disagree much but leaving it entirely to the choice of the woman regardless is going too far.
@IRC I think that the only thing we disagree on really is the necessity for legislation. In reality it’s never really just ‘up to the woman’ because we are not talking about buying a happy meal here, we are talking about a physician provided medical procedure. The care decision would be in consultation between patient and care provider (that being said, I still think that it certainly should be up to the woman in the vast majority of cases; that’s what bodily autonomy means, after all). I think that ANY healthcare should be a private matter between a patient and a professional healthcare provider, who should be duty bound to act within a moral and ethical framework and in their patients best interests. It has NOTHING TO DO with middle aged, well off, opinionated MEN to decide on what women do with their bodies. Legislation, especially emotive, dog whistle legislation, often gets in the way of decent patient care.
You don’t need to ban late term (or any term) abortions because the only time they would generally happen is when they are be medically and ethically entirely justified.
I'm pro choice, which is not the same as being pro abortion, by the way, but there's something that I feel people often miss.
It has NOTHING TO DO with middle aged, well off, opinionated MEN to decide on what women do with their bodies.
For many anti abortion people it is not about the women's bodies it's about that of the unborn child. They accuse us of supporting the murder of babies but I don't believe a 13 week old foetus is a baby. A religious person might. So this could be argued to be about religious freedom. It's a harder subject than a lot of pro choice people make out, although I still stand by my views.
Religion has no place whatsoever in the debate unless the woman considering an abortion is religious. It is down to the individual woman to discuss with a qualified professional, anything else or anyone else’s opinion isn’t needed or warranted.
Anyone who refers to it as murdering babies, especially in the US, needs to be shown the photos from the scene of a primary school mass shooting. Now that is murdering babies. These people are despicable individuals and are helping to endanger the lives of women. To quote Bill Hicks “If you’re truly pro life go and protest outside a cemetery”
Apologies if this has already been mentioned but I gather that there is a global charity that provides safe abortion drugs by post, and has now started delivering to the USA. So hopefully enough people will be aware of this that it will be an option for some people where the state doesn’t allow it. I’m not sure of the exact details.
I tend to scope issues on how my wife reacts to the news.
Saddened would be a understatement. USA really is a country divided by stupid. I just don't know where the stupid comes from. On the one face it's a normal place 70% of our media output comes from the US and our tec but some of it is just pure old testament with assault rifles
The "pro-life" and "pro-choice" slogans are designed to simplify a complex issue. Unless you knew how they were used, you could not guess just by looking at them what the issue actually was. Life (a good thing) and choice (also a good thing) might come into conflict in a great many causes such as recreational drug use, the wearing of cycle helmets and so on. I wonder/worry how many people base their view of the issue solely on the slogan, without understanding that it is a Bit More Complicated Than That.
I would never call myself "pro choice" but happily say I am in favour of legal abortion.
Completly appaling that it is being discussed here. None of our business. Even worse is that I read that some pop singer has abused her posotion at Glastonbury to rant on about it.
Don't get me wrong, I agree but but there is a time and a place.
Surely the foetuses go straight to heaven to enjoy eternal life? Don’t think the pro-lifers have quite thought this one through.
If you're joking, you're not funny.
If you're not, jog on and don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.
Completly appaling that it is being discussed here. None of our business. Even worse is that I read that some pop singer has abused her posotion at Glastonbury to rant on about it.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree but but there is a time and a place.
there is a time and a place.
Yep. ‘Here’, and ‘now’.
Why is it appalling to discuss it on here? It needs discussing everywhere as far as I’m concerned and it is everyone’s business. What’s the time and place in your opinion then? Why open a thread on a subject just to tell us we shouldn’t be discussing it then offer no context or argument for your reasoning?
Is this the rare instance of a "righty hand-wringer"?
Even worse is that I read that some pop singer has abused her posotion at Glastonbury to rant on about it. Don’t get me wrong
Was it Chrissy Hynde?
Nah Billie Eilish, she's ace and EXACTLY the person who should shout loudly about this.
Edit: ah yeah i see it now well done.
Religion has no place whatsoever in the debate unless the woman considering an abortion is religious.
Religion is a private or personal matter as far as I am concerned. IMO you do as you wish so long as you bear your own consequences by not blaming others. That's just me being religious but others may not see it that way hence the problem ...
The problem is when people use religion to forward their own objective just as their counterpart who don't believe in religion but perceive a "correct" way to move forward in society. Both are quick to dismiss each others at every opportunity. No different. It's a matter who can gain the upper hand to impose.
As for the rights to abortion, different religions tend to view the matter differently but with one commonality being an objection to destroy innocent life (human). However, some tend not to intervene in individual decision while others take that decision away from individual by imposing on their "correct religious" views.
Surely the foetuses go straight to heaven to enjoy eternal life? Don’t think the pro-lifers have quite thought this one through.
No, that's incorrect. On the contrary the fetus might actually suffer an eternal life until such time as it is time for them to come into being again. i.e. being conceived as fetus. No one has the automatic rights to go to heaven regardless.
The basic explanation is this. (In religious views) The fetus coming into being the moment it is conceived whether it is a second, a minute or the moment a person finds out. The fetus coming into being due to the parents' karma (sex) and the karma of the fetus. Since they are all karmic related, especially the fetus, the probability of it going to "heaven" is very slim because being conceived or born is actually due to "bad" karma accumulation. Being "killed" after being conceived is also the karma of the fetus (not to be born but to be reassign to another realm), because their energy or soul etc will have to linger around the human realm for a long time to endure all the suffering and sadness of being rejected.
Hence, many parents who experienced abortion can never be at peace in this life without knowing the energy of the aborted fetus is still hanging around, i.e. all parties will constantly suffer or unhappy etc. Depending on the karma of the parents and fetus, sometimes the energy of the fetus will hang around (like a child growing) the parents until such time as the fetus has exhausted its karma and return to "heaven". At other time the energy of the fetus will continue to "exist" even when the parents are dead, rendering the energy of the fetus as "wondering" spirit roaming the earth in sadness and suffering. The sadness or suffering is immense and until such time as someone guides it back to the original source "heaven", it will continue to suffer. Some (energy of the fetus) will seek help from any energy source (other people) they can hang on to in the hope that they will be loved and guide towards the light to end the suffering.
As for the parents that aborted the fetus (who ever decide), they have two ways to deal with the situation ... only if they believe.
1. Ask for forgiveness and explain to the fetus the reason for the abortion. In the hope that the energy of the fetus will forgive them and detach itself from them. i.e. letting go as in none attachment. The more it doesn't forgive the more it attaches and all will suffer.
2. Depending on the karma of the fetus, a special religious ceremony (your own) has to be performed to either return the energy of the fetus to the source or to reduce its suffering if it is not the time for it to return to source yet.
If anyone of you has experienced abortion, try to recall if your dream ever featured a child or person constantly of the age from the abortion date. If so then it has never leaved you from the day you aborted it. Now, look at your life to see if you are happy. If not, then it might have something to do with the energy of the aborted fetus long time ago. It is trying to gain your attention due to suffering or in worst case scenario taking revenge.
Anyway, do as you wish but remember to bear the consequences.
Completly appaling that it is being discussed here. None of our business. Even worse is that I read that some pop singer has abused her posotion at Glastonbury to rant on about it.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree but but there is a time and a place.
Odd comment. Is it being ironic, or serious? It could go either way to be honest, and I don’t know the poster well enough to judge.
Don't a lot of Americans also say that immediately after a school shooting "is not the right time" to discuss the gun problem that exists in the US?
The basic explanation is this
That probably took a fair while to type out. It was wasted.
That probably took a fair while to type out. It was wasted.
Changed the habit of a lifetime and read the last two paragraphs. No idea what it’s on about.
That probably took a fair while to type out. It was wasted.
The explanation is only relevant to those who try to understand it from religion perspective otherwise it's just another belief. As for bearing the consequences that too is to say that we bear the responsibility for our own actions whatever they are.
Changed the habit of a lifetime and read the last two paragraphs. No idea what it’s on about.
As explained above. It is not for everyone and not many will understand it anyway. I just posted it for those who are curious of the religious action.
Personally, I tend to see it as individual choice ...
Talking about a religious perspective and then going on about Karma?? This is not relevant to the vast majority of pro-life Americans who are generally fundamental Christians. Karma is not a principle that has any relevance to the Bible or Christianity in general.
The explanation is only relevant to those who try to understand it from religion perspective
Yeah. Religion used to suppress the rights of people, especially women, not really news.
Karma is not a principle that has any relevance to the Bible or Christianity in general.
The emphasis is slightly different but there is a parallel. Remember the phrase "You reap what you sow"?
Yeah. Religion used to suppress the rights of people, especially women, not really news.
Not solely a religion thing although they do feature prominently for a long time because the system or society was geared in that way. Modern system, call it what you wish, is just much more sophisticated way of coercing or manipulating others, but fundamentally they are the same but just same trick in different era. i.e. The majority suppressing the minority in the name of whatever (large number rules over smaller number or more power rules over less power whatever)
The majority suppressing the minority in the name of whatever
Or as seems to be the case in the US, the RW Christian nutjobs in a minority, suppressing the majority.
There is no popular mandate for banning abortion, I think there are no states in the US where support support for abortion rights is lower than 55-60%.
.
America is clearly worse in terms of mandates from the people being consistently ignored in favour of the few in power, but not sure the UK is much different these days, with people running the country that couldn’t give a toss that almost nobody in the country wants them there.
Makes you wonder what the point of a so called democracy really is.
I'm now of the opinion that the right wing of the USA doesn't really care about abortion, they are simply using it as a way to set people against the Democrats and move them towards Republicans. As in "this is awful, and by the way we want to ban it so you can vote for us". Same for gun laws and the healthcare thing.
Millions of people irrevocably harmed, millions of lives made shit, just so that someone can win votes. That's actually far more sinister than if they really did care about the foetuses.
CZ - that's a sobering read....
Definitely feels like something significant has shifted over the weekend. The left seems to have finally woken up to the threat it's under. I've read so many articles and opinion pieces that talk about civil war and not in some sort of metaphorical sense, but an actually going out and shooting each other sense.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/26/second-civil-war-us-abortion
But who knows, maybe this was just a weekend of madness and everyone'll log back onto Amazon Prime on Monday morning like nothing ever happened.
This is not driven by party politics. Its driven by religious fundamentalists. They want to make their superstitions apply to all of us. Same groups operste in the UK usually trying to hide behind asecular mask.
Nah Billie Eilish, she’s ace and EXACTLY the person who should shout loudly about this.
this
the right wing of the USA doesn’t really care about abortion, they are simply using it as a way to set people against the Democrats and move them towards Republicans..... Same for gun laws and the healthcare thing.
this
Words fail me really, the US moving toward stronger religious control of the state, a turn back toward the dark ages. And the MPs here calling it a step in the right direction? A pox on all their houses.
Religion has no place whatsoever in the debate
Well, you say that, but both Muslim and Jewish women have a right under Sharia and Talmudic law respectively to abortion. and in fact in Jewish tradition it's been argued that the law of Rodef (which is that act of actively stopping a murderer), even killing them if necessary applies in the case of a foetus that places the mother in danger. Also both religions are very clear about when a person is a human and when they're not: ie when they can be aborted. FWIW the bible does to, but that doesn't seem to be important here for some reason.
I wonder if the SC has realised that they're trampling over religious freedoms
However it does show the success that the US right have managed through their strategy of targeting "single issue" voters. Gay rights next target I'd wager.
FWIW the bible does to, but that doesn’t seem to be important here for some reason.
First breath? Conception? Pick a verse.
I wonder if the SC has realised that they’re trampling over religious freedoms
From their perspective it probably comes as a bonus.
This is not driven by party politics. Its driven by religious fundamentalists.
I disagree, sure there might be some true believers, but it is largely a trigger issue used to manipulate a sector of the electorate so some can obtain and stay in power. I don't even think many of the church leaders in the states are true believers, they are just grifters using and abusing faith for greed and power.
Since when has religion and politics not been almost irredeemably interwoven?
Plenty of believers but yet many really don't understand exactly what they are taught, same goes to other non religious teachings. They end up balancing each others out. The process continues ... never ending.
Since when has religion and politics not been almost irredeemably interwoven?
One thing they have in common if they both go astray is the huger for power. For some reasons human has the natural tendency to be intoxicated with power ... with roots in greed, ignorance and hatred.
I don’t even think many of the church leaders in the states are true believers, they are just grifters using and abusing faith for greed and power.
OT but I’d wager that’s sadly the case in a lot of religions across all faiths and countries. Back to the thread, I fear some other posters are correct and this is just the start. Democracy my arse.
funkmasterp
Full MemberI fear some other posters are correct and this is just the start.
Clarence Thomas has literally told us that this is the case. I mean, it'd be pretty obvious anyway but when they tell you what they're going to do, listen.
I don’t even think many of the church leaders in the states are true believers, they are just grifters using and abusing faith for greed and power.
I think that equally applies to political parties, our expectations of people in faith based positions is just a little higher
Clarence Thomas has literally told us that this is the case. I mean, it’d be pretty obvious anyway but when they tell you what they’re going to do, listen.
Missed that 😕 fortunately it’s not happening over here yet. I’d like to think that it couldn’t but that’s probably me being very naive. I suppose the only slight saving grace for sane US citizens is that he is 74 so hopefully not long left!
fortunately it’s not happening over here yet.
It is though, and has been for a while, just with different trigger issues. Even this week the government are reducing "our" rights under the ECHR by riling up racist support for deportations.
I meant the subject of the OP but take your point
I suppose the only slight saving grace for sane US citizens is that he is 74 so hopefully not long left!
This shouldn’t be a lifetime appointment. Non-elected - fine, means they’re theoretically non-partisan. But there should be a term limit of, say 10 years, and no reappointments.
Roe vs Wade was probably bad law since a) Norma McCorvey lied about being raped so the whole case was based on fiction, and b) the right to abortion was protected through the right to privacy, which was very tenuous as an argument.
Anyway, the SCOTUS has not banned abortion, they have only removed federal protections and let the matter return to the states themselves. Abortion is now a matter for local democracy not of fiat from on high.
@funkmaterp
Democracy my arse.
On the contrary, if Americans now want abortion they get to vote on it.
Not really, it will depend on who controls the state. Can’t see many republican states allowing it. The point is it shouldn’t be an either/or scenario. The only person who should get a say in the matter of abortion is the woman having to make the decision in the first place.
a) Norma McCorvey lied about being raped so the whole case was based on fiction,
This is bollocks. Whether she lied or not is irrelevant; the judgement did not take that into account at all when making its judgment. It was based entirely on the premise of ‘it’s none of your business’ which is exactly the right that’s being attacked at the moment; the right to privacy. It’s not a good time to have a ‘non traditional’ lifestyle in the US right now.
Full fact check
On the contrary, if Americans now want abortion they get to vote on it.
Yeah, unelected partisan officials taking repealing the constitutional rights of an already subjugated group is TOTALLY democratic. <rollseyes>
Dont think it wont be coming here......
https://twitter.com/MirrorPolitics/status/1541778555088011264
See, this is why I could never be an MP.
I'd have punched that smug **** spark out.
Not surprised to see our resident cake scoffer talking about "State's rights".
We've all heard that one before haven't we?
Abortion is now a matter for local democracy not of fiat from on high.
No it isn’t, this decision allows states to override local democracy. It empowers state legislators to overturn decisions made at the local level.
On the contrary, if Americans now want abortion they get to vote on it.
Whereas before, if someone wanted one, they could have one. If they didn’t want one, they didn’t have to have one.
On the contrary, if Americans now want abortion they get to vote on it.
Well that's sorted then.
This is not driven by party politics. Its driven by religious fundamentalists. They want to make their superstitions apply to all of us.
I'd argue the opposite is true. It's republican fundamentalists using religion as a tool for control.
Having said that, ,this map demonstrates what a powerful tool religion is in the USA, compared to here*. People lap it up.
*Well, the EU.
And correlate that religion map to the insta-ban states.
And, er, Gilead...
No it isn’t, this decision allows states to override local democracy. It empowers state legislators to overturn decisions made at the local level.
Whereas before the federal courts could overturn all local decisions re abortion.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.
The US is a federal republic made up of a union of states.
Whereas before, if someone wanted one, they could have one. If they didn’t want one, they didn’t have to have one.
Not many countries treat abortion like buying a tin of beans. Even in the UK we have laws that restrict abortion.
It’s republican fundamentalists using religion as a tool for control.
Is it possible to be a republican fundamentalist?
I thought that was something applied to religion?
I'd say the two are becoming increasingly difficult to separate in the US central state / republican politics.
America #1, fundamentalist Christian poorer Republican states
America #2, secular coastal generally more affluent Democrat states
Is it possible to be a republican fundamentalist?
Well, I dunno. Perhaps? Maybe I meant Republican Extremist. Someone that takes Republican traits and keeps pressing ENHANCE.
The point was supposed to be that Roe vs Wade isn't about religion at all. It's about political oppression in the name of religion - I.e. it's all just politics. The culture war is the librul coastal elites vs 'Christian values'.
Here, we have benefit scroungers vs toffs and lately remoaners vs racists for our culture war.
Not many countries treat abortion like buying a tin of beans. Even in the UK we have laws that restrict abortion.
Do you think what has happened in the states is a good thing, or are you just wanting a debate for funsies?
Even in the UK we have laws that restrict abortion.
Well, yes. I'm fully of the opinion that the six-year old feral horror down the road should be aborted, nasty little ****er that she is. Fortunately for her, abortion in the 24th trimester is legislated against.
Sarcasm aside there has to be safeguarding of course. But as I think someone else here said, outlawing abortion simply restricts safe abortion. The US of all places should understand all too well how effective prohibition is.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue.
That this decision empowers the state legislature in what has been a long hard complicated battle between local governments and state governments. I think your confusion is that you are using "local" where what you really mean is "state"... which does sort of suggest you don't really know what you're talking about as regards levels of government in the USA, or the parts they have played in the battle to deny/allow young women to make difficult choices without fear of the law.
It’s republican fundamentalists using religion as a tool for control.
enlisting single issue voters to vote for them has been a Republican tactic for decades now, Gun control, Religion govt, abortion, equality...It's been pretty successful. (see Trump and the evangelical right)
Sarcasm aside there has to be safeguarding of course. But as I think someone else here said, outlawing abortion simply restricts safe abortion. The US of all places should understand all too well how effective prohibition is.
IMHO it's one of those wicked problems; there is probably no right answer. OTOH when abortion was made a protected right in the US, and this seems to be the same in many western countries, abortions were supposed to be for pathos-ridden 'special cases': the 16-year-old, the rape victim, the incest victim, the very poor women, etc. Now you can go into a family planning clinic and be advised to get an abortion right off the bat because not everything is perfect in your life, or it's simply inconvenient to be pregnant, for example.
The 'pro-choice' argument total erases that a fetus, a baby, a something is collateral in that choice to terminate.
Kelvin - that's just sophism. Roe vs Wade empowered nobody but the federal government to decree that abortion could not be prohibited. Now the decision rests with the state. That there are more local legislatures than the state does not mean that the matter has not now been localised, i.e., at the state level from the federal level. Clearly, and obviously, the state is not absolutely the smallest (and thus most local) form of government, but it is more local that the federal government.
Now you can go into a family planning clinic and be advised to get an abortion right off the bat because not everything is perfect in your life
What??
That is an appallingly value laden statement.
that’s just sophism
No, it isn’t. It is understanding that the battle between local government (which is what it is called in the USA, a general term used across the states, because there are localised names and structures that vary between states and regions) and state legislature is absolutely key in this. States can now overturn decisions made by local government, where as before local government could use federal law to fight for their own decisions to be upheld.
where as before local government could use federal law to fight for their own decisions to be upheld.
Technically, although in reality the decision to allow abortion was a federal one.
If, as you say, local government was able to make the decisions on abortion then why didn't some ban it?
The ability to only make one decision isn't a decision.
They made decisions on access and restrictions. Local government in the USA tends to be more independent (often literally, as in not party affiliated) reflecting what their voters call for, rather than what those with a stranglehold on the Republican Party want, which is the case at the state level in many cases. Most people in America want abortion to be legal and as safe as possible but with safe guards and some restrictions in place.
@Kelvin do you have a source saying that local government had sovereignty over abortion restrictions vis a vis the state after the first trimester?
The ‘pro-choice’ argument total erases that a fetus, a baby, a something is collateral in that choice to terminate.
So outlaw contraception next? I mean effective contraception erases that foetus too.
Hell, go a step further and outlaw male self-pleasure.
Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great.
Some local governments acting to restrict access before this decision, just for you Mr Cake… (sovereignty doesn’t come into it, nothing in the USA is ever that simple)…
@chewk
I find ‘karma’ to be problematic in regards to reincarnation.
Some would argue that your spirit guides may present you with a number of alternative life’s to select from, prior to reincarnation.
That means that the lives you de-select will be available to other souls.
A lot of the pitfalls/ opportunities in these lives may be completely irrelevant to both you and your peers.
So how does karma come into play?
“Oh dude, bad karma, falling off your skateboard”.
But that would have happened to any of the umpteen candidates for that life, regardless of their actions in previous incarnations.
Others would argue that once we select a life, we spend some time, tailoring and tweaking that life to our delectation.
Some things we can’t change, and others we can.
It may be that what we can change before we incarnate are our proclivities to all manner of things, via all the junk dna inside humans.
So, we may like or dislike certain kinds of music, forms of transport, etc.
This applies to our peers too, mutually steering each other in certain directions.
As for souls, incarnating into possibly aborted foetuses?
I don’t think so.
They will be aware that the foetus will be aborted, and thus not select it.
There’s nothing really there, unless the soul interacts with it over the whole nine months.
And that’s quite an involved process of activating all kinds of brain functions.
And we have lift off…
They say that for an incarnate soul, the process of childbirth is more traumatic than that of death.
I think the problem for the lawmakers in America is that it’s not karma they have to deal with.
Skank is distributed fairly evenly across all socioeconomic and ethnic groups.
What’s not so evenly distributed is freedom of opportunity.
Taking the decision making powers out of those without basic economic means is a two-way street.
All that those at the bottom economic rungs have to offer is their inner skank.
It gets soaked up.
Whether in this life or the next, they’ll find themselves drawn to increasingly cruddier life outcomes through manipulation of the junk dna to engender certain valences.
I wouldn’t interact with those at the lower sociological rungs, unless to boost their choices.
To me, having kids is the same as kidnapping a bunch of souls who may have been chilling and kicking back in the spirit realm.
No matter how you dress it up, it’s a form of abduction.
It’s all about how tolerable (quality of life), you make it🤪
You're aware that's local government further restricting abortion in contrast to the gist of your argument above which framed local government as uniformly liberal and now at the mercy of tyrannous Republic state legislatures?
Anyway, I'm a bit unclear about whether local government restricts abortion within limits determined by the state, or they are sovereign on the matter now. It's still a moot point IMHO anyway because both are closer to the people than the federal government.