4 ms·

What a twisted version of reality you just presented. The US has in no way, shape or form returned to the "status quo in most advanced countries". Perhaps with

What a twisted version of reality you just presented. The US has in no way, shape or form returned to the "status quo in most advanced countries". Perhaps with some convoluted rhetoric you can argue that, but in practice the difference is undeniable. Policies regarding abortion have one gone in one direction in recent decades (in both advanced and less advanced economies) and there is only a single massive outlier that has jerked aggressively back in the other direction.

rayiner 4y ago
You’re confusing the concept of “status quo” (the current state) with the direction of change. Roe took the US outside the mainstream among developed countries. Just a couple of years after Roe, the German constitutional court found that legalized abortion violated the Basic Law’s right to life. In the intervening decades, only a handful of other high courts recognized abortion as a right, rather than a legislative decision. The EHCR repeatedly rejected the idea, even though the EU Convention on Human Rights has an explicit right to privacy. So yes, undoing Roe returned us to the mainstream.
- clairity 4y ago
  abortion has been a natural right for thousands of years. women cerainly don’t need you nor the state to intercede in what is essentially a right to bodily autonomy.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    It’s as “essentially” about human life as it is about “bodily autonomy.” As to “women”—they’re voting for these laws. The Mississippi electorate that voted in the 15-week ban at issue in Dobbs had 25% more women than men. And the large majority voted Republican.
    - clairity 4y ago
      ah, well if mississippi is doing it, that just settles it once and for all i guess. diehard partisanship gets us nowhere. women wanting to coerce other women is nothing new, but it’s still against our natural rights. and yes, it’s essentially about the woman’s life too, i agree there.
      - xyzzyz 4y ago
        No, it doesn't settle it once and for all. It settles it once for Mississippi. Other states are free to have different laws. That's the point of Dobbs.
        clairity 4y ago
        ordinarily, i'd agree that by the constitution anything that's not a federal concern (principally international relations and interstate disputes) is a state concern, but the constitution also notes that neither the states nor the federal government can alienate residents from natural rights. bodily autonomy is a natural right, full stop, and it need not rest on a shaky privacy-based foundation, as roe had institutionalized it. in time, this will be a case where the court will be found to be right in the small and wrong in the large.
- standardUser 4y ago
  "So yes, undoing Roe returned us to the mainstream." Repeating that just makes you sound like a pedant more concerned with crafting an argument than grappling with the real world situation. In terms of abortion access, the thing actual humans care about, the US just joined the cultural hinterland in denying abortion access to a vast amount of its populace.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    And prior to Dobbs the US was part of a small handful of countries that guaranteed the “right” to kill humans that had developed a face, feet, hands, and could suck their thumbs. Abortion law requires balancing individual autonomy against a nascent human life. It’s not an issue where “progress” marches in a single direction. That’s why considering the actual legal effect of Dobbs is critical. We replaced a regime that imposes a nationwide viability standard that the majority of Americans oppose (see the second chart: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23167397/abortion-public-opinion-polls-americans https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23167397/abortion-pu...) with the same regime that applies in Europe: voters decide. Yes, the US has more parts that resemble Poland than the EU does. But, on the flip side, the Mississippi law upheld in Dobbs reflects the mainstream view in large European countries: elective abortion in the first trimester, with certain exceptions applying after that.
    - standardUser 4y ago
      Many, many nations allow 2nd trimester and late term abortions, though those are always extremely rare and often have complicating circumstances. I don't tend to respect people who use the fringe case to argue the mainstream point as I find it disingenuous.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - rayiner 4y ago
        Only two EU countries allow elective abortions—what we’re talking about here—significantly into the second trimester. The Netherlands applies a viability standard similar to Roe, and Sweden draws the line at 18 weeks. Every other EU country has found that a fetus is sufficiently developed at 12-14 weeks that its life can’t be extinguished absent extenuating circumstances. For that reason, you can’t sweep them under the rug because they’re rare compared to first trimester abortions. When society draws a moral line—and every EU country recognizes society’s right to draw a line here—we don’t just dismiss conduct in the wrong side of the line on account of it being relatively rare. And drawing the line at 12 weeks versus viability makes a big difference. In Germany, which bans abortions after 12 weeks absent exceptions, 97% of abortions occur in the first trimester. In the Netherlands, which permits abortions to viability, only 82% of abortions occur in the first trimester. Given the 600,000 abortions annually in the US, there are likely tens of thousands of fetuses killed each year that would have been protected under German (or French or Italian or Spanish) law. Your effort to dismiss that as a “fringe” issue underscores how far out of the mainstream Roe took us. It turned conduct that the vast majority of the EU deems illegal, which occurs likely tens of thousands of times annually, into a Constitutional “right.”

rayiner 4y ago

You’re confusing the concept of “status quo” (the current state) with the direction of change. Roe took the US outside the mainstream among developed countries. Just a couple of years after Roe, the German constitutional court found that legalized abortion violated the Basic Law’s right to life. In the intervening decades, only a handful of other high courts recognized abortion as a right, rather than a legislative decision. The EHCR repeatedly rejected the idea, even though the EU Convention on Human Rights has an explicit right to privacy. So yes, undoing Roe returned us to the mainstream.

clairity 4y ago
abortion has been a natural right for thousands of years. women cerainly don’t need you nor the state to intercede in what is essentially a right to bodily autonomy.
- rayiner 4y ago
  It’s as “essentially” about human life as it is about “bodily autonomy.” As to “women”—they’re voting for these laws. The Mississippi electorate that voted in the 15-week ban at issue in Dobbs had 25% more women than men. And the large majority voted Republican.
  - clairity 4y ago
    ah, well if mississippi is doing it, that just settles it once and for all i guess. diehard partisanship gets us nowhere. women wanting to coerce other women is nothing new, but it’s still against our natural rights. and yes, it’s essentially about the woman’s life too, i agree there.
    - xyzzyz 4y ago
      No, it doesn't settle it once and for all. It settles it once for Mississippi. Other states are free to have different laws. That's the point of Dobbs.
      - clairity 4y ago
        ordinarily, i'd agree that by the constitution anything that's not a federal concern (principally international relations and interstate disputes) is a state concern, but the constitution also notes that neither the states nor the federal government can alienate residents from natural rights. bodily autonomy is a natural right, full stop, and it need not rest on a shaky privacy-based foundation, as roe had institutionalized it. in time, this will be a case where the court will be found to be right in the small and wrong in the large.
standardUser 4y ago
"So yes, undoing Roe returned us to the mainstream." Repeating that just makes you sound like a pedant more concerned with crafting an argument than grappling with the real world situation. In terms of abortion access, the thing actual humans care about, the US just joined the cultural hinterland in denying abortion access to a vast amount of its populace.
- rayiner 4y ago
  And prior to Dobbs the US was part of a small handful of countries that guaranteed the “right” to kill humans that had developed a face, feet, hands, and could suck their thumbs. Abortion law requires balancing individual autonomy against a nascent human life. It’s not an issue where “progress” marches in a single direction. That’s why considering the actual legal effect of Dobbs is critical. We replaced a regime that imposes a nationwide viability standard that the majority of Americans oppose (see the second chart: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23167397/abortion-public-opinion-polls-americans https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23167397/abortion-pu...) with the same regime that applies in Europe: voters decide. Yes, the US has more parts that resemble Poland than the EU does. But, on the flip side, the Mississippi law upheld in Dobbs reflects the mainstream view in large European countries: elective abortion in the first trimester, with certain exceptions applying after that.
  - standardUser 4y ago
    Many, many nations allow 2nd trimester and late term abortions, though those are always extremely rare and often have complicating circumstances. I don't tend to respect people who use the fringe case to argue the mainstream point as I find it disingenuous.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - rayiner 4y ago
      Only two EU countries allow elective abortions—what we’re talking about here—significantly into the second trimester. The Netherlands applies a viability standard similar to Roe, and Sweden draws the line at 18 weeks. Every other EU country has found that a fetus is sufficiently developed at 12-14 weeks that its life can’t be extinguished absent extenuating circumstances. For that reason, you can’t sweep them under the rug because they’re rare compared to first trimester abortions. When society draws a moral line—and every EU country recognizes society’s right to draw a line here—we don’t just dismiss conduct in the wrong side of the line on account of it being relatively rare. And drawing the line at 12 weeks versus viability makes a big difference. In Germany, which bans abortions after 12 weeks absent exceptions, 97% of abortions occur in the first trimester. In the Netherlands, which permits abortions to viability, only 82% of abortions occur in the first trimester. Given the 600,000 abortions annually in the US, there are likely tens of thousands of fetuses killed each year that would have been protected under German (or French or Italian or Spanish) law. Your effort to dismiss that as a “fringe” issue underscores how far out of the mainstream Roe took us. It turned conduct that the vast majority of the EU deems illegal, which occurs likely tens of thousands of times annually, into a Constitutional “right.”