Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Roe vs Wade

  1. #1
    Senior Member Grasshopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    15,132
    Thanks
    1,239
    Thanked 1,196 Times in 880 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Roe vs Wade

    So a half-dozen Christian fundamentalists have been able to withdraw birth-control rights from around 160m American women.

    What a fu*cking shi*tshow of a country the US has become.
    "Beat the price and lose. It's what we do".

    SlimChance, March 2018

  2. #2
    Senior Member Euronymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Leyland
    Posts
    17,668
    Thanks
    208
    Thanked 545 Times in 468 Posts
    It could have been a Utopia. It has a fantastic amount of space and natural resources, and I think most of the people there are decent but **** it's has been ruined by triabalism and greed and religious nonsense. It's Gomorrah instead.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    211
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 29 Times in 24 Posts
    What number of weeks limit do you think it should be?

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2,440
    Thanks
    614
    Thanked 121 Times in 105 Posts
    Interesting ( but not surprising) that the ones who voted to keep it had been appointed by Clinton and Obama. The rest were appointed by Bush and Trump*.People forget ( in fact I think a lot of Americans don’t even know it) but child marriage is allowed in some states. What a strange country America is. Heaven help them ( and us) if they get another Republican president next time.
    *and we all know Trumps attitude towards women

  5. #5
    Senior Member Grasshopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    15,132
    Thanks
    1,239
    Thanked 1,196 Times in 880 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by pawras View Post
    What number of weeks limit do you think it should be?
    Whatever it was before this ruling was over-turned is the logical answer. Beyond that, I don’t have an opinion. Others are better-placed to determine it.
    "Beat the price and lose. It's what we do".

    SlimChance, March 2018

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    8,268
    Thanks
    227
    Thanked 1,867 Times in 1,073 Posts
    The rednecks think its great news,don't have to worry about their sisters getting rid..

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    6,248
    Thanks
    1,042
    Thanked 924 Times in 827 Posts
    Blog Entries
    106
    Agree with the sentimemt on this thread.

    For a country that prides itself on "alledged' liberty this issue is a disgrace.

    The same right wingers that promote this policy then use the same liberty argument, to promote the gun lobby and Americans owning guns.

    Hence it's pretty clear to see that liberty in the minds of many Americans, is something you pick and choose and impose upon those you don't agree with, which obviously is not something that can be called or defined as liberty..

    We in this country and even elsewhere in Europe don't live in such a socially, politically, and I would even venture to say racially divisive and barbaric country, (yet anyway).

    Although I acknowledge we are far from perfect either and have been getting as divided and somewhat deluded as the Americans the past god knows how many years on many different issues.

    I reckon the nuclear threat now posed from Vladimir Putin to Europe and beyond might make a lot of the far right reconsider just how good Adolf was for Europe, (instead of slavering at his political and racial agenda).
    Last edited by Marb; 25th June 2022 at 1:38 PM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member G-G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Not got much to lose.
    Posts
    2,787
    Thanks
    541
    Thanked 332 Times in 213 Posts
    The general problem with the US is that too many of them are living in the past and that attitude reflect a lot of their laws and the way they look at issues/subjects. It's an absolute tragedy.
    Let's go Basil, let's go! Let's go Basil, let's go!

  9. #9
    Senior Member Frankel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,429
    Thanks
    68
    Thanked 142 Times in 130 Posts
    Absolutely fukcing ridiculous decision. Listening to some of these dribbling fukcwits is cringing.
    All comers, all grounds, all beaten!

    This perfect mix of poetry and destruction.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Frankel For This Useful Post:

    moehat (28th June 2022)

  11. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    2,566
    Thanks
    556
    Thanked 657 Times in 459 Posts
    Abortion hasn't been banned. A dubious legal decision (a fairly general consensus) has been reversed. It's up to the individual states what they want to do.

  12. #11
    Senior Member Grasshopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    15,132
    Thanks
    1,239
    Thanked 1,196 Times in 880 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    A woman's right to have an abortion is no longer protected at the Federal level, which effectively equates to a ban in the Cracker states - most of whom have had trigger-bills on their Statutes, just waiting for Roe to be over-turned..

    This ruling will heap misery on huge amounts of poorly-educated, low-income women living in the Cracker states, as they won't have the means to travel to have an unwanted pregnancy terminated in a State that hasn't chosen to turn the clock back 200 years.
    "Beat the price and lose. It's what we do".

    SlimChance, March 2018

  13. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    2,566
    Thanks
    556
    Thanked 657 Times in 459 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Grasshopper View Post
    A woman's right to have an abortion is no longer protected at the Federal level, which effectively equates to a ban in the Cracker states - most of whom have had trigger-bills on their Statutes, just waiting for Roe to be over-turned..

    This ruling will heap misery on huge amounts of poorly-educated, low-income women living in the Cracker states, as they won't have the means to travel to have an unwanted pregnancy terminated in a State that hasn't chosen to turn the clock back 200 years.
    Without going into all the emotion of it, isn't the problem here that the initial decision was not tight enough. Therefore a conservative supreme court was automatically going to overturn it.

  14. #13
    Senior Member Grasshopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    15,132
    Thanks
    1,239
    Thanked 1,196 Times in 880 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    As I understand it, the decision was never codified, which left it open to reversal by a future SCOTUS. I also understand that Obama had intended to codify it, but never got round to it - presumably because he didn't think there was any risk.
    "Beat the price and lose. It's what we do".

    SlimChance, March 2018

  15. #14
    Senior Member Desert Orchid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    20,358
    Thanks
    2,232
    Thanked 2,808 Times in 2,192 Posts
    It's a hugely divisive - polarising, even - subject.

    The worry with USA is that it's seen as a redneck issue.

    In most places worldwide it's a women's rights issue.

    The Catholic Church sees is as a baby's right-to-life issue. (I've no idea how other major world faith groups see it.)

    There will never be any agreement on it.
    Never stop looking for what's not there.

  16. #15
    Senior Member Grasshopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    15,132
    Thanks
    1,239
    Thanked 1,196 Times in 880 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    I don't particularly care that there will never be agreement on it, DO.

    I am quite happy for Catholic women around the globe, or Evangelical Christian women in the US (or any other women for that matter) to choose not to have an abortion, if it is a matter-of-faith to them.

    What is not acceptable to me, and what shouldn't be acceptable to anyone else living in a functioning democracy, is for that matter-of-faith to be imposed on any other woman i.e. that they have their choice removed.
    "Beat the price and lose. It's what we do".

    SlimChance, March 2018

  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Grasshopper For This Useful Post:

    Desert Orchid (29th June 2022), G-G (29th June 2022), Tout Seul (29th June 2022)

  18. #16
    Senior Member barjon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,992
    Thanks
    628
    Thanked 712 Times in 557 Posts
    Blog Entries
    58
    Unfortunately, grassy, it’s not the only thing forced down our throats that is unacceptable. Very often the fanatical few get their way against the moderate majority.

  19. #17
    Senior Member Desert Orchid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    20,358
    Thanks
    2,232
    Thanked 2,808 Times in 2,192 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Grasshopper View Post
    What is not acceptable to me, and what shouldn't be acceptable to anyone else living in a functioning democracy, is for that matter-of-faith to be imposed on any other woman i.e. that they have their choice removed.
    Is it any fairer than pro-life doctors being disciplined (I have no evidence for this, only hearsay from family who are doctors, despite this from the BMA* bma-view-on-the-law-and-ethics-of-abortion-sept-2020.pdf) for refusing to carry out abortions? Or pro-life students being refused entry to university faculties of Medicine because of their beliefs (I personally know someone who was refused entry to Glasgow University and who was told by the Faculty that this was the reason, despite her being the highest qualified applicant)?

    *The stories related to me were some time (10 years?) before 2020.
    Last edited by Desert Orchid; 29th June 2022 at 2:11 PM.
    Never stop looking for what's not there.

  20. #18
    Senior Member Grasshopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    15,132
    Thanks
    1,239
    Thanked 1,196 Times in 880 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Should a Doctor be permitted to choose which operations to conduct, based on his/her faith? That act would deny the right of abortion to someone else, would it not?

    The same applies to anyone wishing to start a career in Medicine/Surgery. On what basis could they refuse to perform an abortion, without infringing on the rights of the pregnant woman to have her abortion? If it's an obligation on Doctors to perform these operations, then that is perhaps a consideration of an intake interview.

    Any individual wishing to go into Medicine, but who is unprepared to meet that obligation, should perhaps consider a different career?
    "Beat the price and lose. It's what we do".

    SlimChance, March 2018

  21. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Grasshopper For This Useful Post:

    Desert Orchid (29th June 2022), G-G (29th June 2022)

  22. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,891
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 318 Times in 204 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Orchid View Post
    Is it any fairer than pro-life doctors being disciplined (I have no evidence for this, only hearsay from family who are doctors, despite this from the BMA* bma-view-on-the-law-and-ethics-of-abortion-sept-2020.pdf) for refusing to carry out abortions? Or pro-life students being refused entry to university faculties of Medicine because of their beliefs (I personally know someone who was refused entry to Glasgow University and who was told by the Faculty that this was the reason, despite her being the highest qualified applicant)?

    *The stories related to me were some time (10 years?) before 2020.
    If the person was the most qualified but refused to carry out legal procedures that are part of their role, its pretty obvious why they might not be seen as the best person for the job. There are 11 more states now where he/she would be a fantastic doctors.

    Maybe its the same in Scotland but the consequences of faith-driven medical decision-making is still very raw in Ireland.
    Last edited by HawkWing; 29th June 2022 at 2:39 PM.

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to HawkWing For This Useful Post:

    Desert Orchid (29th June 2022)

  24. #20
    Senior Member Desert Orchid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    20,358
    Thanks
    2,232
    Thanked 2,808 Times in 2,192 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Grasshopper View Post
    Should a Doctor be permitted to choose which operations to conduct, based on his/her faith? That act would deny the right of abortion to someone else, would it not?

    The same applies to anyone wishing to start a career in Medicine/Surgery. On what basis could they refuse to perform an abortion, without infringing on the rights of the pregnant woman to have her abortion? If it's an obligation on Doctors to perform these operations, then that is perhaps a consideration of an intake interview.

    Any individual wishing to go into Medicine, but who is unprepared to meet that obligation, should perhaps consider a different career?
    The BMA item I linked would suggest it has now accepted conscientious objectors.
    Last edited by Desert Orchid; 29th June 2022 at 3:17 PM.
    Never stop looking for what's not there.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •