With Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court set the standard for the possibility of an abortion at a standard of viability -- approximately at the 24 week mark. With the changes in the Supreme Court, those standards are now changing. The new Texas law on abortion limits availability to that of being able to detect a embryonic heartbeat -- approximately at the 6 week mark.
What's your feeling about these new changes?
Updates
+1 y
I'm rather surprised as to how many comments are being posted pro-life.
What's your opinion of the new rulings of abortion laws from the Supreme Court?
Seems to be a more reasonable standard than viability that varies widely by location, local technology, income and so on. But I'm also pro life with abortion exceptions.
To me there are few reasons to justify ending a life that would otherwise flourish if left untouched. Advocating adoption and improving the adoption system is more reasonable in my opinion.
Current system sucks like most things governments do. That said, can you really argue living a life you have a chance of improving is worse than never having your life to begin with?
That's like arguing against it's better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all. Who are we to say this life should not have a chance? Obviously some exceptions, but those exceptions morally speaking should be very rare
But if you are more on the side of abortions being more or less legal with no exceptions then there's a lot of things you have to open the doors to outside of abortion. Black girls who say that men should have no say in what laws affect women's bodies
You can hold that you point. If you do though, you can't. also be someone who says vaccinations should be mandatory. Because you as a woman are trying to dictate what other people are doing with their bodies
I'm gonna get hate for saying this but if you think you may need to abort your pregnancy maybe you shouldn't have unpredicted sex to begin with. Don't have unpredicted sex if you aren't ready for a child. If you do its your own fault. Sometimes mistakes happen that are beyond control in that case abortion may be a viable option that should be done ASAP to avoid any possible suffering. Bottom line be responsible.
The person should have had safer sex. They should've used one of the contraception methods. It's their fault. Anyone killing their own child, only reflects badly on their character. At the same time, a mother should be in a good mental state to carry the baby up to term. Tbh, I'm on the fence with this one. Even if I did get pregnant (unexpected pregnancy) out of wedlock, or with a ONS, I'd never abort my baby. Actions have consequences. It's MY baby, why would I abort it? I'd never have the heart to kill my own child. That's the worst thing a person could do. Especially, a mother killing her own child? That's the cruelest of the sins.
This is an order denying an application to vacate a stay issued by a federal district court. It is NOT a ruling on the merits of the case, and there are many reasons why a request to vacate a stay may be denied. No where in this order is there a statement that shorter time periods are okay with SCOTUS.
It appear, then, that to not vacate was to accept the law as written.
I can appreciate that there are those who feel one should have the right to abort all the way up until giving birth. Then there are those that believe the option to abort should be allowed in any way. If you're of the former, that's okay. I appreciate you being involved in the discussion.
Actually, there are reasons for SCOTUS to deny an application for the stay that do not constitute a ruling on the merits of the claim, but it involves some deep legal analysis. And I understand why most people would view this as an indication of how SCOTUS might rule on such a case if it was before them on the merits.
It is curious how people are up in arms about TX deciding to push back the standard of viability to 6 weeks, yet there was not a peep about California and the Northeast now allowing for legal abortion well into the 3rd trimester, which, even if you are not anti abortion, (and I am not) is, to be honest, gruesome.
It will be interesting to see what happens if and when the Court decides that Roe was judicial overreach and that the 9th and 10th amendments mean what they say and say what they mean.
It's fucked up. Heartbeat? Give me a break. It's barely possible for a woman to suspect if she's even pregnant by 6 weeks. I was ok with the 24 week standard.
These old men need to fuck themselves. If they could get pregnant, abortion would be free and unrestricted.
How would a woman not know if she's pregnant? They literally have a morning after pill. Is that useless too because how does someone know they might need it just one day after sex? Smh.
I don't particularly care... I'd just prefer it if those who were supportive of killing babies in the womb would shut the fuck up about what's moral or not or how society should be managed when they can't even manage their own reproductive system.
Horrifying. The number of abortions won’t go down, but the number of women dying from unsafe abortions will go way up. There is a proven way to reduce abortions: comprehensive sex education and freely available birth control. But that’s not what the anti-abortion people want. They want women to suffer for having unapproved sex.
I'm all for comprehensive sex education, parents should be teaching that to their children.
Free birth control, I support that too, so long as it is not covered by tax payer money. Maybe someone could start a donation program, where people can voluntarily donate money to buy free birth control items.
As for criminals dying in the act of a crime, generally I'm okay with criminals killing themselves, while committing a crime.
I am not a fan of the government taxing one person to give someone else something free, that they should be responsible enough to go buy themselves. Doesn't matter on political affiliation to me, that should not be happening.
Where does it stop if it is allowed? we already have too much wealth transfer happening, and both sides are guilty of it.
I'm against any type of wealth transfer, no matter what. I however would donate if asked to support the cause.
@Dragonpurple I used to feel like you, then I realized that our relative comfort is mostly a matter of luck. I'm a highly paid software developer. Why? My talent runs that way. Did I work hard to get where I am? Not particularly. Just lucky to be able to do something that is in high demand. I would rather not live in a country where basic comforts are denied to people who weren't so lucky.
States can make any laws they want. Going to SCOTUS is to say that a law violates The Constitution. SCOTUS didn't say that the Texas law is not a violation of The Constitution, they said that until they see how it's enacted they can't rule on it. The first time it's tried it probably will go up to SCOTUS.
What new rulings from the Supreme Court? Everything that's been done so far has been on the state level. They've punted on everything related to the Texas law so far.
That's not a ruling, that's responding to a request for injunctive relief. That's basically the court responding to a request to stop imminent action that could lead to future harm, and the court saying we're not going to stop that action.
That's the literal definition of a punt. They're kicking the responsibility back into the hands of the states.
funny how there is 9 guy's opinions and only one woman's. I personally think that it's disgusting how old men that are in power are deciding these issues for young women. It doesn't make sense.
The government should and does regulate a great deal of what happens within a given society; especially those things that pertain to one's body.
In this case, hopefully everyone agrees that a woman has the say so as to what happens prior to conception. After which, though, there's the mother, faster and child involved.
Most Helpful Opinions