Mexico’s Supreme Court Decriminalizes Abortion Nationwide

Mexico’s Supreme Court Decriminalizes Abortion Nationwide
The decision builds on an earlier high court ruling and reflects how Latin American countries are expanding women’s rights.

Okay, so does it need to be said that the USA is now behind Mexico in women's rights? Because many US states now ban abortion? Can it be said that Mexico looked at America's failing rights and decided to get off its laurels and do something for its women? What's our excuse?

 

One can ask what effect on immigration trends this policy might lead to in the future.


The Supreme Court's decision doesn't exactly "legalize" abortion, but sends the decision back to Mexico's states to decide.

It is kind of ironic how the same court decision that progressives say "criminalized" abortion in the U.S., these same progressives say it has "legalized" abortion in Mexico.

 

There is no national law in the United States to allow, ban, or regulate abortion in the United States. Its all up to the VOTERS in each state. There is no federal law because the Constitution doesn't allow a federal law on the subject. Each state will decide... a very good way for democracy to win actually.

 

So abortion is the sole metric of women's rights in the world?

Sounds kind of ridiculous to me.

 

Your article says the Supreme Court ruled that abortion will now be decided on a state by state basis. In other words, they effectively just passed their version of a Dobbs decision. It's hilarious to see you support Dobbs while thinking you're taking a shot at it.

 

It's hilarious how many on the Left seem to have no "principles". What they agree with or oppose seems very situational.

 

This is, indeed, an interesting development, for whenever the story is about the decline in the number, and fervency, of practicing U.S. Catholics, at any rate-- and I would assume there is some similarity, to Protestant Christian faiths-- Latin America is cited as the place where Catholicism is still thriving, and where people are still manifestly devout, so where the Vatican & the Church have been focusing their attention.

This reminds me of something I'd just read in the "Post Your Quote of the Day" thread, posted by @FatBack , that said everyone has a unique purpose-- even if it is only to serve as a cautionary warning, to others.
I guess the same thing can apply to countries.

 

I think it means we (in The US) will have less to worry about border insurrections.

I know - bad joke.

 

For a more serious reply: What about the man’s rights? I mean this is about an instance when he propagated a new life. Should he not have some say in the matter when the woman was willing to the circumstances resulting in the pregnancy?

 

Most Americans are pro-Choice, this is a losing fight for Republicans

 

when they come up with a way to remove the fetus and place it in a man, let us know, then I agree, let the man do it

at that point, the man gets custody and the women pays child support

 

Funny,… maybe it is true that possession is 9 10th of the law

 

means you need another place to grow those cells into a person, can't force anyone

invest in the science, make virtual wombs, then not a issue

 

Yes, that would be ironic, but it would not mean there was any inaccuracy, in the depiction of either of those situations. Rather, the irony would involve the differences in the governing of Mexican states, which are apparently more responsive to their citizens, at least on this issue, than many American state legislatures, whose allegiance, is instead to some religious philosophy/view/theology.

 

I was just making an off-the-wall point that there are two players involved with the creation of a new life.

Seems there’s only player making the decision if that seed of life lives or dies…

 

and like I said, when the second player can request the fetus be moved to their own body, then they should have the choice

if they invent virtual wombs, those will be used... probably for most pregnancy, and this won't even be an issue anymore

course then the right will be whining how unnatural virtual wombs are and they should be outlawed

 

Your analogizing the Mexican Supreme Court's Decriminalizing abortion, with the U.S. Supreme Court's removing of federal protections, is beyond lame thinking.

Yes but, once again, not the way you mean it. Look at my reply above, to Corn Pop, and see if you are smart enough to recognize that the status quo in the two situations, was very different. Therefore, the two decisions, will have opposite effects, from each other. It is actually the intelligent practice, to take the particulars of a situation into consideration, as opposed to having the same reaction to one piece of a situation, no matter how vastly different, the context.

 

Ultimately, in any decision system in which there are only two votes, one of those two must have primacy, in order to break the ties. And the one with the larger stake-- namely, her physical well-being-- it seems logical to be the one, whose vote should be preeminent. Feel free, however, to make a case as to why the man's vote, should count for more than the woman's.

 

You really think the woman is the one with the larger stake? (cough, cough, the fetus)

 

When MEN get PREGNANT they will have the SAME rights as WOMEN who are pregnant.

Can I AFFORD to raise a(nother) child?

If men COULD get pregnant there would be an abortion clinic next to every Starbucks nationwide.

CONSENT to sexual intercourse is NOT consent to PREGNANCY.

Apparently you don't seem to understand that 3 MINUTES of sex is NOT equivalent to 9 MONTHS of pregnancy and 18 YEARS of child rearing.

A Reality Check appears to be MISSING.

 

Yup!

HER uterus means that it is HER choice!

 

The fetus has NO RIGHTS!

The fetus has "protections"!

The women gets to DECIDE as to whether or not those "protections" will apply WITHIN her own BODY.

No one ELSE can DICTATE what SHE does with HER body!

Why do Xtofascists HATE women and their FREEDOM to exercise their reproductive RIGHTS?

 

I was just commenting that between the fetus and the father, maybe the woman better think twice about her decision.

Even if we were to concede that a fetus, in general, has fewer overall rights and less inherent worth than the woman has, that would still not necessarily automatically mean the decision should be all hers.

 

Its predictable how people on the right don't seem to understand that different nations have different histories, political and legal structures and that those provide the CONTEXT for understanding any legal decision. Its almost as if people on the right don't understand CONTEXT or put any value on actually being informed.

 

WTAF?

Are you SERIOUSLY alleging that women do NOT "think twice" about having an abortion?

Thanks for DISCREDITING your position all by yourself.

You are clearly UNINFORMED about the REALITY of actually having to THINK about ALL of the ramifications involved when it comes to whether or not to have an abortion.

An abortion is NOT a light switch, it is a MEDICAL PROCEDURE.

Again WTAF?