US internal repression to come?

[Danllan]

Two rather concerning things in one; firstly that the Supreme Court should 'leak' and, secondly, that something so well established for nearly fifty years has a genuine chance of being struck down.

Roe v Wade: US Supreme Court may overturn abortion rights, leak suggests

Millions could lose the legal right to abortion this summer, a leaked Supreme Court document shows.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Muck Spreader]

America still seems to be overly influenced by large numbers of evangelical nutjobs.

 

[nivilla1982]

Some commentators seem to be stating if this "leak" is accurate, that it removes the issue from the Courts and places it in the hands of elected politicians?

 

[ollie989898]

Proof, if it was ever needed, that America seems to be populated by a large proportion of people who wish to return their country to the days of the wild wild west or something approximating it.

Their individual state laws and governments mystify me, why bother.

There should always be a right for women to choose, end of story.

 

[MRT]

There should always be a right for women to choose, end of story.

Abortion at 39 weeks is baby killing and I think 99% would agree. There must, therefore, circumstance dependant be a point where the womens right to choose becomes diminished or less important than the babies right to life. So to say "always" is wrong IMO. Generally, nearly always, in nearly all circumstances, in all but extreme cases etc I would agree with you.

 

[Ashtree]

USA is destined to become ungovernable, within a matter of just a few years I believe. The scale of the current culture wars being played out, the obvious nut jobs taking control of the Republican Party in particular, the NRA, the second amendment itself, and the sheer volume of weapons in the hands of citizens, all add up to make a giant incendiary bomb, just waiting for what’s now becoming an inevitable spark.

 

[The Agrarian]

It's a strange old setup. The social consciences against freedom of choice on the supreme court are, correct me if I'm wrong, Roman Catholic in persuasion. But they are heavily backed by protestant evangelicalism.

In Europe and the UK and Ireland, there are various shades of evangelicalism. While there will be a range of views on freedom of choice within that group, it's pretty difficult to know how the numbers split, and would be difficult to depend on an accurate sample given how much guilt bullying the hard right of evangelicals and catholics do within their own circles. Meanwhile, on many other matters, Roman Catholics and protestant evangelicals are often diametrically opposed to each other. It's less usual to see that level of unity here.

The astonishing thing is how little attention hard right Christians pay to the welfare and the needs of the woman/girl, given that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels was rather centre left in his dealings with people. Despite being male, he displays what can quite easily described as the maternal caring characteristics of God, rather than the harsh legalistic patriarchal interpretation by Jewish culture and the religious hierarchy of the period. So, yes, those inclined to the legalistic and unsympathetic patriarchal style in today's Christianity (in both Catholicism and Evangelicalism) are doomed to repeat the same errors as the ancient Jews - and it's made all the more damaging by the fact that they seek to gain and exert power so that people must conform to their ways. Bear in mind that they seek to do this also within their own Christian denominations where diversity of thinking exists.

 

[The Agrarian]

Abortion at 39 weeks is baby killing and I think 99% would agree. There must, therefore, circumstance dependant be a point where the womens right to choose becomes diminished or less important than the babies right to life. So to say "always" is wrong IMO. Generally, nearly always, in nearly all circumstances, in all but extreme cases etc I would agree with you.

The nail on the head here is that there becomes an unresolvable conflict in many of these cases between the rights of the woman and the rights of the foetus. I do think it's fair to say that they are not perceived to be equal at every point in the process of pregnancy. Nonetheless, neither the enforced maintenance of a pregnancy against a woman's will, nor the deliberate abortion of a pregnancy, will satisfy the full protection of whatever rights might be due to each. A curtailment of rights is implicit - it's simply a matter of choosing which ones to take sides with.

And I think this is the part that is lost on hard right Christians. That a ban on abortion simply removes any moral problem or transgression of rights. It doesn't.

 

[ollie989898]

Abortion at 39 weeks is baby killing and I think 99% would agree. There must, therefore, circumstance dependant be a point where the womens right to choose becomes diminished or less important than the babies right to life. So to say "always" is wrong IMO. Generally, nearly always, in nearly all circumstances, in all but extreme cases etc I would agree with you.

The woman's life is of paramount importance and I have no issue with late term abortion provided it is done for the purpose of preserving the mother's life. Of course, beyond certain stages of a pregnancy it becomes perfectly feasible to preserve the life of the child as well however early it may be born. I do agree there is a moral argument to be had to establish the limits at which an abortion should be carried out by, though I could not tell where this range should lie and advancements in modern medicine are starting to make this limit very cloudy.

It is an emotive topic, I admit. But the rights of women to choose should be acknowledged by all, it is so very important.

 

[MRT]

The woman's life is of paramount importance and I have no issue with late term abortion provided it is done for the purpose of preserving the mother's life. Of course, beyond certain stages of a pregnancy it becomes perfectly feasible to preserve the life of the child as well however early it may be born. I do agree there is a moral argument to be had to establish the limits at which an abortion should be carried out by, though I could not tell where this range should lie and advancements in modern medicine are starting to make this limit very cloudy.

It is an emotive topic, I admit. But the rights of women to choose should be acknowledged by all, it is so very important.

I agree, your previous post was rather more absolute! The late term abortion eg. you cite is not really a choice however as abortion/death would be forced on both through inaction

 

[ollie989898]

I agree, your previous post was rather more absolute! The late term abortion eg. you cite is not really a choice however as abortion/death would be forced on both through inaction

It's an unpalatable topic for many and it has become a bit cloudy in recent times due to advances in medical science. I'm just uncomfortable with religion or the like coming into such a debate.

 

[JohnGalway]

I think abortion should be available, I think it should be a decision made between the couple and their medical advisors, but ultimately it's one for the woman herself to make. I don't think it's anyone else's business, particularly religious and government.

 

[ollie989898]

I think abortion should be available, I think it should be a decision made between the couple and their medical advisors, but ultimately it's one for the woman herself to make. I don't think it's anyone else's business, particularly religious and government.

Even planned parenthood and emergency contraception are within with sights of some 'pressure-groups' in the USA. Some states are also pursuing legislation that would make it illegal to take a child to another state for any kind of transgender type health consultation or treatment. This is literally religious fundamentalism or even extremism.

 

[Devil's advocate]

Two rather concerning things in one; firstly that the Supreme Court should 'leak' and, secondly, that something so well established for nearly fifty years has a genuine chance of being struck down.

Roe v Wade: US Supreme Court may overturn abortion rights, leak suggests

Millions could lose the legal right to abortion this summer, a leaked Supreme Court document shows.

www.bbc.co.uk

You turning into a leftie Danilan.

Welcome, I've made a similar journey

 

[The Agrarian]

I think abortion should be available, I think it should be a decision made between the couple and their medical advisors, but ultimately it's one for the woman herself to make. I don't think it's anyone else's business, particularly religious and government.

I do agree that it's a personal affair. No one else has to live with the consequences of the decisions taken.

I think Christianity can have opinions on these things, and that's ok. That's freedom. But it's always counterproductive to pursue them with oppressive methods. That is an insult to the freedom of speech afforded by society to the faith.

Instead, Christianity should look to the vibrant liberation of its roots in the early church, in which it's adherents were set free by their faith from the harsh judgement and the oppressive legalism of Judaism. The faith that held that salvation (and that word can mean several different things) didn't depend on the quality of their own law keeping or morality or personal righteousness. And again as a result of the Reformation, which restated this principle, adding that it was no longer tolerable for the church to control and repress the people by its institutional power. It's a sorry irony that the christians most likely to sing about being set free may be among the least liberated. But that's the pattern of Judeo-Christian faith. God setting the people free, but the people keep falling back into their old ways. Rinse and repeat.

 

[Hindsight]

I do agree that it's a personal affair. No one else has to live with the consequences of the decisions taken.

I think Christianity can have opinions on these things, and that's ok. That's freedom. But it's always counterproductive to pursue them with oppressive methods. That is an insult to the freedom of speech afforded by society to the faith.

Instead, Christianity should look to the vibrant liberation of its roots in the early church, in which it's adherents were set free by their faith from the harsh judgement and the oppressive legalism of Judaism. The faith that held that salvation (and that word can mean several different things) didn't depend on the quality of their own law keeping or morality or personal righteousness. And again as a result of the Reformation, which restated this principle, adding that it was no longer tolerable for the church to control and repress the people by its institutional power. It's a sorry irony that the christians most likely to sing about being set free may be among the least liberated. But that's the pattern of Judeo-Christian faith. God setting the people free, but the people keep falling back into their old ways. Rinse and repeat.

All very well and I respect your faith. But what about those who do not believe in this ancient mumbo jumbo, but find our lives affected by those who are religious and members of the various clubs.

 

[Hindsight]

You turning into a leftie Danilan.

Welcome, I've made a similar journey

Appreciate you little leg pull. But this is not left or right. It is about personal liberty and integrity. A very sad state of affairs in a leading democratic free society.

 

[MRT]

No one else has to live with the consequences

Dark humour understatement!!!

 

[The Agrarian]

Dark humour understatement!!!

Yes, quite.

 

[The Agrarian]

All very well and I respect your faith. But what about those who do not believe in this ancient mumbo jumbo, but find our lives affected by those who are religious and members of the various clubs.

To many it isn't ancient mumbo jumbo. Spirituality, in what ever form you find it across the world, tends to be a living practice - it has ancient roots because humanity has had a long history of being in touch with its spiritual side. You should try some yoga!

Anyhow. Some choose to heckle and pour contempt and condemnation on vulnerable and traumatized women going to and fro clinics. I don't think that's what the Jesus of the gospels would have done. Instead, I think he'd have been holding their hand, crying with them in that quite maternal way. And he'd have been spat on as he left by the religious people, just as he was during his trial and execution - which was conspired by, yes, the religious people and the occupying Roman governor. (Sometimes it's worth stating the obvious, just in case it gets overlooked, that Jesus wasn't a Christian.)

Those are the religious voices you hear most, because they shout the loudest. But you have what the Americans call mainline denominations - Episcopal (Anglican), Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian. You would find they take a different tack. They tend not to be represented at the protests, but are more likely to be active in victim support services etc. Then you even get some who are very outgoing in their support for choice, and after care. Here is one example from Northern Ireland.

So perhaps demonstrates that there is not just one religious or Christian stance on anything, and that faith need not necessarily be automatically associated with condemnation, negativity and religious oppression.