Abortion Redux.

The Supreme Court's recent decision to consider the legality of Mississippi's restrictive law prohibiting abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy could trigger the most serious and sustained political debate over the procedure since the final decades of the 20th century. And that could dramatically widen the already gaping demographic and geographic fissures between red and blue America...
[https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/25/politics/abortion-mississippi-supreme-court-culture-war/index.html]
​

Here we go again.

Will an American, within the existing parameters, retain the right to follow her own moral beliefs or be controlled by the bureaucracy - big, intrusive government impersonally dictating to citizens in such personal and private matters, or an American controlling her own body and making decisions for herself in consultation with her spiritual and medical advisers and loved ones whom she trusts.

Roe v Wade has been the popular compromise that has endured repeated attacks for nearly half a century, but the Statists descry a chance to restore control to autocrats in the current ideological bent of the Supreme Court.

The international community has increasingly respected personal choice in recent decades, only a handful of regimes in third-world nations still arrogating that right.

Abortion is a reality, regardless of regimes' historical record of attempting to prohibit it (or order it, as has also occurred when the decision is arrogated by the State.) ​

How significant is State control?

The United Staes, with its restrictions under Rove v Wade, has a rate of 20.8 abortions per 1,000 women. Neighboring Canada, that has no restrictions, has a rate of 15.2 abortions per 1,000 women.

[https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/abortion-rates-by-country]

It behooves those who are eager to dictate their notions to others concerning abortion to proselytize rather than legislate if they are convinced of their moral superiority.

 

10th Amendment. If only liberals respected it, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

So............the SC should be dismantled to allow state supreme courts to decide what the law is in each state? If Alabama wants to go back to segregation they should be allowed to?

 

Not exactly no. So let's put it the other would you not be howling bloody had roe v. wade been decided based upon the prevailing standard of that time for all states?

 

making abortion illegal will not stop abortions. based on what i see of kids these days abortion should be mandatory.

 

I think that, more than abortion rights, what the Supreme Court will ultimately decide is if there is a need for more justices. To make sure that partisan ideologues don't swing the country away from being a country that respects Human Rights.

 

9th amendment. If only conservitives respected it, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

If the current Court is guided by its prevailing ideological inclination to legislate from the bench, ignoring the conservative principle of stare decisis in such a consequential case, such an unpopular ruling will foment instability in the Court itself.

Sixty-six percent of adults say they don't believe the Supreme Court should completely overturn the decision that established a woman's right to an abortion nationwide in at least the first three months of a pregnancy. Twenty-nine percent of adults say they do want the court to completely overturn the ruling.

[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...don-t-support-overturning-roe-v-wade-n1241269]​

 

Just stop already! Those seeking a dead baby will still be legally able to obtain one, sheeesh!

 

Killing babies is illegal! Stop promoting criminal behavior., Sheeesh!

 

Good post...I'd like to emphasize : ""The United States, with its restrictions under Rove v Wade, has a rate of 20.8 abortions per 1,000 women. Neighboring Canada, that has no restrictions, has a rate of 15.2 abortions per 1,000 women."""

 

There is nothing wrong with state control per se. It is just a matter of degree and specifics. The state won't permit me to murder someone even if murder is my personal choice. A mother does not have a right to choose to murder a fetus if that fetus is considered to be a human life. But therein lies the rub.

I am against abortion but only if it aborts a human life (with a few exceptions). IMO science has put that at when a fetus displays distinctly human characteristics including human like brain waves, around 4-1/2 to 5 months. I don't in any way think human life begins at conception; there is little human about a zygote or an embryo. .Mississippi's 15 weeks seems a bit too soon; Texas' recent "heartbeat" law is definitely too restrictive, IMO.

As an aside, other than abortion, it is the left, not the right, that is hell bent on state control over every aspect of a citizen's life.

 

The Constitution addresses segregation. It says nothing about abortion which, per the 10th amendment, makes it the sole purview of the states.

 

An interesting but not particularly helpful thought.

 

Interesting thought, but the Supreme Court has no say in how many justices there are in it.

 

Some think the SC should do what’s popular and not what is constitutional.

 

A few questions for you.

#1 Do you believe that abortion should be legal up until birth?

#2 You used the Canadian abortion rate to compare against American. Are you aware that less than 2% of Canadians are black? Are you aware that 13% of Americans are black? Are you also aware that black women have abortions at grossly disproportionate rates than their peers? Are you aware that if you increase the number of black Canadians to match the same proportion of black Americans that their abortion rate would be much higher?

 

Extremists at one end of the ideological spectrum want politicians and bureaucrats to seize control of the womb at the instant of conception, their antipodal opposites demand that the State have no role to play until birth.

Those who regard a female terminating a microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells as "murder" are not given control over her womb.

If and when gestative development reaches the stage of viability (comparable to Christian theologians Aquinas's and Augustine's "quickening") society then has a legitimate interest under law.

That is compatible with Roe v Wade, supported by about two-thirds of Americans.

 

I'm betting Canada has better sex-ed and contraception access than a big swath of the US, though. That's the problem with much of the "pro-life" crowd: they only want to take one route to get to fewer abortions, rather than taking a holistic approach.

 

No. Like most Americans, I support Roe v Wade as a reasonable compromise, and reject both extremes.

Factors such as race, poverty, etc. do not impact a citizen's rights under law. Equal rights are equal rights.

Your speculative claims are without documentation. Is poverty a factor in a woman - in the U.S., Canada, or elsewhere - availing herself of her right? I can see how that could be the case, certainly.

 

To actually believe that, you'd have to think that a person's skin color is more indicative of their behavior than their:

• Country of residence
• Education
• Economic situation
• Relationship status
• Access to healthcare

Or you'd have to believe that a person's skin color correlates to all of those things in the same way. I refuse to accept that anyone capable of using a computer is that dumb.

 

Addressing the societal factors conducive to abortion and availing themselves of their free-speech right to proselytize is not enough for some zealots. They want to co-opt the coercive power of the State to impose their personal beliefs upn the majority who do not share them.

 

Roe is the compromise between fetal viability and bodily autonomy. Going further in either direction is extreme as well as problematic...

 

They do. By signaling that they have become too partisan. Like this one might be (we'll see)

 

Many constitutional rights exist that are not specifically mentioned in the constitution.

That is why we have the 9th amendment.