macliam

I guess it was inevitable that this would end up as a slanging match between people of opposing views..... but it doesn't really help, does it?

Up front, I am pro-choice. However, as far as I am concerned, I do not see a woman's right to choose a termination as the imposition of terminations on ALL women, but I do see opposition to that right as denying a termination to those who currently choose it. I don’t wish to become embroiled in the minutiae of what constitutes a late abortion, or what provides cause for an abortion, because neither are my field of expertise, nor my experience, but I would expect there to be a common set of principles upon which such decisions should be based - on an individual basis - and which can be changed, if and when significant exceptions are found. I also have no real interest in the constitutional law of the US.... though it does seem to be a dinosaur attempting to be a racehorse and to limit progress. So, in my simplistic world, a country which claims to be a country should have an unambiguous set of laws nationwide.... difficult as that might seem.

After that, the details of who and what and when and why can be addressed by those involved and those charged with ensuring that the principles are met, not by a public slanging match - and those who disagree with the principles can take it up with those who design them, not via acts of social terrorism and bullying. Oddly, it seems to work that way in other countries.......

kimilseung

You generally seem to be agreeing, more or less with one of the sides of the argument, that you have joined and describe as "a slanging match between people of opposing views".
Or so I thought until I read "acts of social terrorism and bullying" I don't know what that means, so I am a bit confused by your post now, what is, in particular, "social terrorism"?

Lion in Winter

No doubt, but nobody is making them do something with their own bodies that they don't want to do, are they?

macliam

I think the expression "I am pro-choice" might have given you a clue to my stance and "up-front" because I see no point in hiding it.

I have no truck with those who seek to turn back the clock to darker days and close their eyes to the realities of life - however, the slanging match is something different - is that so difficult to understand? Unlike others, I admit that I am neither qualified nor experienced to make a case for the hypothetical - and that, as a man, my role is only to empower a woman to take that decision, knowing that few, if any, whould take such a decision lightly.

As to "social terrorism and bullying" What would you call violent demonstrations outside clinics and threatened, if not actual, personal violence against those who are engaged in an activity with which the perpetrator idoes not agree? Finally, since it appears that nothing is clear, I do accept that the law should play a part in the authorization of such processes, but I do not see it as a matter for local opinion, rather for national law that can be aproved and amended at a national level - not used by those who seek multiple opportunities to find justification for restrictive views.

Are we clear now?

Leslie

You don't seem to even know how the system works nor how it is supposed to work.

The loony-left (as you call them) should never have been put in the position of having to protect abortion rights once Roe was decided. When one group goes forward with the destruction of laws and rights then it is that group that is wrong and should hold the blame. You're lecturing us about how to change the system from within but .... WE DON'T WANT CHANGE. Roe is settled and we want it left alone. The quasi-judicial hodgepodge of laws? That's been forced on us through connivance and dirty tricks. The federal law (Roe) was to get rid of the quasi-judicial hodgepodge but the religious fanatics and misogynists are willing to spend all their money buying seats, suppressing votes and gerrymandering. The "loony-left" doesn't have that kind of money nor should they be forced to cough it up. You've got this all twisted around in your head but I guess you have to do that in order to live with yourself.

You're pro-choice? But you don't understand that a doctor is necessary for an abortion? Or maybe that was a joke? Maybe this is all just HILARIOUS to you.

Steerpike

But, very clearly, based on actual facts that are unfolding as we speak, Roe is NOT settled and I think his (civilservant) point is therefore valid. He's dealing with reality, you are dealing with wishful thinking at this point. I'm sure he wants Roe to remain in place, but he's pointing out that Roe was always vulnerable and that vulnerability has just been exploited. I don't understand why his stating this fact is so contentious.

Civilservant's original post in this thread, way back on page 1, 5-4 Roe vs. Wade leak is a perfectly reasonable assessment of the facts as they stand today. Basing such a vital issue as a woman's right to choose on the 14th amendment ('right to privacy') has always been tenuous.

Perhaps we can all focus on the best way forward; I don't think anyone on this thread disagrees that a woman's right to choose should be protected.

Steerpike

I just came across this thread for the first time today and read most of it - at least the first 10 pages, anyway. What is crystal clear, from reading from the start, is that everyone on this thread, without exception I would say, agrees that a woman should have the right to choose an abortion, and that it is unfortunate that Roe is about to be overturned. There is ZERO contention on this. The problem is, the BE disease sets in at some point; I have to wonder if people just get tired of being in agreement and want contention. It started out with everyone in agreement but as with any topic, there are 'fringe' or 'boundary' conditions where people have differing opinions (for example, issues relating to late-term abortions), and these become the central bone of contention.

The other thing that's rather sad about this thread is that a few people are trying to point out what I see as a basic fact - that Roe was always vulnerable, as confirmed even by RBG (Ginsburg) - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/u...oe-v-wade.html - and they are being attacked because of it.
Your mistake was to use the qualifier 'however'. Never a good thing with the BE elders ...

macliam

On your first point, whilst people here might not actually say they are anti-abortion, some seem happy to have legal restrictions or local variations put in place that would make it unworkable in some places. Of course, that is unlike in the "real world" where one state representative actually said on TV that, in the case of a rape victim, she was "on the side of the baby" - and when it was pointed out that people could travel elsewhere for a termination said "I only legislate for my state". Leaving no doubt that any interpretation on a state-by-state basis to people like these would clearly leave a woman's right to choose in peril and subject to variabililty according to place of residence. This then descended into people apparently trying to decide "on the hoof" what should, and should not, be "legal"......

As to your second point.... I assume that BE readers can read. My use of "However" (to start a new sentence) does not roll back on the preceding statement but merely introduces a clarification that "pro choice" means exactly that.....

civilservant

If you are referring to me, I think you are willfully misrepresenting my stance. I want abortion to be legal. I also feel there should be limits, and if I had my way those limits would be Federal law, and therefore apply throughout the country.

However I am a realist, realize that RvW is a goner, and therefore know that the next thing, per the Constitution, is states legislating. I am not in favor of their being 50 different laws, and I am not in favor of abortion being made illegal, but I am in favor of our system of Government working as intended. This is hardly the only issue where the States differ wildly.

People are free to elect the representatives that will pass the law they want. If we want to talk about money and influence in politics, that is an entirely separate matter.

Vaccine mandates anyone? (Another thing I am in favor of, BTW, but the point stands) This non-sequitur is what leads me to think that both political poles are arguing against their own natural instincts on this topic.

macliam

As it happens, I was not referring to you - but I think clarification of your standpoint is useful.... and it seems close to my own, although the catch might be on the "limits" and who decides them. For me, this is a clinical matter and variable on a case-by-case basis, so I fear the law is too blunt an instrument to work in all but the most extreme cases.... but at least a single law is capable of amendment and improvement. The same applies to vaccine mandates..... as an outsider, it seems to me that the division between federal law and state law is something that suggests the USA is caught in a political timewarp every bit as bad as that of the UK, when it comes to performing as a modern, democratic nation within the world community.

civilservant

History has taught us that democracy does not work in the long run. It is inevitably replaced by dictatorship, if it takes 10 years or 1,000 years. Those that fail to understand the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. One human is too different from another, and their views too solidly formed, to be able to coexist without serious division unless compromise is soliticited.

macliam

I'd disagree with your viewpoint only to the extent that I would replace "dictatorship" by "authoritarianism"..... there are plenty of places that have never had the former, but where the latter comes and goes with the tide - the UK is one. Some authoritarian regimes can be broadly progressive and others regressive, most are both in varying quantities.

However, I also think that "democracy" like "communism" is a term oft used but seldom understood, think of the "German Denocratic Republic" or the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" - even the UK, with its FPTP voting system, regularly sees governments who were elected by a minority, has an unelected second chamber and Crown privilege, yet calls itself democratic. On the other hand, countries normally desctibed as "communist" have rarely met the requirements to achieve that status - for example, China follows its own flavour of autocracy and has its own definition of "communist".

However, that's a long way off topic for this thread!

Leslie

I'm not the only one that has noticed the troublesome remarks that have been made by the poster you are defending. I'm one of several. The OP that started this thread, started this thread because Roe is in trouble. We don't need a news-reader. The thread wouldn't exist if Roe wasn't in trouble. Okay?

Understanding that Roe is in trouble does not mean we have to admire the legal pathway that is being taken to dismantle the law. That's where it gets into "opinion" and, as with many legal arguments, the legal pathway being used is a test theory presented to see if the law can be interpreted in such a way to support said theory.

SOME of what civilservant said was factual and much of what he said was his opinion. That's how critical reading works.

civilservant

So basically you've continued to attack me because you don't have anything but emotive arguments, and you understand that the 'legal pathway' while not being something you like or admirable, is actually a petty sound legal theory for the topic in question because of the way it was enacted in the first place.

If you're willing to agree with that, then we really have no argument. Yes I'm for limits on abortion, but I'm not about to take to the streets to protest them. So I'll leave it at that.

BristolUK

Was anyone forced into taking a vaccine? Wasn't it only that for certain occupations a vaccine would be a requirement?
Rather like a valid driving licence or, indeed, other licences that might need renewing or like current safety/hygiene certificates might need to be up to date.
Or like being a civil servant and the rules require or prevent certain actions and if you choose not to fulfil those conditions you also cannot continue to be a civil servant?