US's supreme court ruling to ban abortions is stupid, unaware and biased

in Abundance Tribe9 months ago

The (United States's) Supreme Court overturned the landmark 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion, ruling Friday that Roe v. Wade was wrong from the start and that the issue should be taken out of the courts and returned to the states. [source:]



In this ruling, the US Supreme Court has failed miserably!

People mistakenly measure the transition between fetal status and human status according to physical metrics (from the moment of conception to the birth itself). But the proper measure is the presence of the consciousness of the soul within the physical body. Sometimes the soul fully enters the body (into the material world) at the moment of conception; other times after several months, and sometimes only right at the moment of birth; sometimes never. For example, in certain situations of autism the personality is never fully present in the physical reality plane and therefore disconnection and dysfunction are felt.

Who decides at what moment the consciousness will enter the body fully if at all? The psyche of the fetus in consultation with the pregnant mother. Thus it happens that an abortion is an expression of the soul's decision to retreat and not be born at all.

Throughout all stages of pregnancy there is a dialogue between the mother and the consciousness of the future baby (so mothers sometimes know by what name to call the newborn). Therefore only the mother can know if it would be right for the particular baby to be born or if an abortion is the right thing to do.

Only the mother! And certainly not a bunch of people, judges in the title, being misled by politicians and self-interested clerics and opportunists.


The Supreme Court didn't ban anything. They simply ruled (correctly) that the Federal government didn't have authority over the issue since it is not a power granted to them in the Constitution and that it is up to the individual states to make laws (or not) regarding abortion.

For simplicity's sake I refrained from detailing the legal details. And yet, in such a crucial matter if the court wanted to permit abortions nation-wide it would not use a technical (=authority) reason to cast away its power.

But this isn't so much refraining from the legal details as it is misstating what the Supreme Court did. The Supreme Court did not ban anything in this ruling. And if you really think the Constitution is a technicality then you profoundly misunderstand the nature of Constitutional government.

I reply to you in my hat as a former lawyer.
There are times in life when it is our duty to put aside small quarrels, forget about bureaucracy and formalities and remember the law of nature. What is really at the base of our lives as human beings, the values we want to develop and promote.
Above all man-made law are super-principles, some of which are:

  1. Man's full ownership of her body,
  2. Man's responsibility for her life as a sovereign being,
  3. And the multidimensionality of human existence.

It is clear to me that this debate is endless. I respect your opinion, but stand firm in mine.

Law of nature? How many intentionally caused abortions occur in nature (outside of humans)?

I respect that there are strong differences of opinions on this issue and I don't have a problem discussing them or a problem with others who feel differently than me on the subject in general. Where I have a problem is when people, on either side of the argument, result to personal attacks or mistruths in an attempt to further their argument. In extreme cases (which actually seems to be the norm) someone who is pro-life will accuse those getting or performing abortions of being murderers. On the other hand, those that are pro-choice will spew some nonsense about old men wanting to control women's' bodies as being the primary motivation of the pro-life philosophy. In real life, the vast majority of the time, I find that both of those accusations are extreme mischaracterizations at best.

Similarly, regardless of your opinion on the subject, the Supreme Court didn't ban anything and as a former lawyer I assume that you know that. So why state that they did? Disagreeing with the decision is no reason to misrepresent it.

To your three points above:

  1. I agree 100% with this statement. But when does one gain ownership of one's body? As a corollary, when does the right to life begin? You made a statement about a woman and child knowing when there is the "presence of the consciousness of the soul within the physical body". While I don't discount that possibility I don't accept it as a given for every mother and child either. Biologically speaking, life begins at conception. Speaking in terms of the soul or consciousness, that is a much harder question to answer (or depends on specific faith). I tend to err on the side of life as I believe the right to life is paramount. You can't own your body if you are deprived of it. That doesn't mean I think abortion should be outlawed...I don't think that is the right answer or would accomplish what those that seek to preserve life would hope.

  2. At some level, adults are responsible for their children up to some level of maturity. It does not mean that they can murder them (for example). A woman is certainly responsible for her own body. But is she not also responsible for the child growing inside of her as she would be a child that has been born? Should an adult (man or woman) be able to simply decide that they are no longer responsible or have any obligation, whether before birth or after?

  3. This is a statement that can mean many things and I don't know what relevance it has to the conversation.

I read your articulated comments a few times.
I will leave things as they are, and will not further comment as the main points have been made from both sides, and both you and me have laid out the basic precepts for other readers to make their own discretion on this subject.
Thank you.

I will quote you in two parts:
"certainly not a bunch of people, judges in the title, being misled by politicians and self-interested clerics and opportunists." - This is exactly what they said. They should not be the arbitrators of that kind of a life decision.
Abortion is not in the Constitution so there for it is relegated to the individual states. Those kinds of decisions should be made closer to the individuals home.
"Only the mother!" - Not true at all because it takes two to make the third. The father has just as much rights and responsibility as the mother. It should be a decision made between the two of them. One individuals rights do not supersede another. Women are EQUAL to men.
If the mother decides to keep the child and the father doesnt want it he should have the right to give up all responibilty. Including child support. But that isnt at all what happens in this country. Men are usually forced to give up 50-75% of their salary for 18 years whether they waive their parental rights or not.
Not very equal now is it?
I honestly dont see where all these people are saying they took away women's rights. This was probably the single biggest equality decision the court has made in 100 years.

As for the "Throughout all stages of pregnancy there is a dialogue between the mother and the consciousness of the future baby" part. You do know that during an abortion the baby actively flees the doctor with a fight or flight response, correct? That seems to be a pretty basic "human" trait.

Abortion is a major surgery and typically causes massive mental trauma to the mother and the immediate family circle including the father. And is it really worth it for 10-15 minutes of sexual satisfaction?
The decision was correctly made that an abortion should be made at the local level and not federal.

It would appear that the author believes that humanity is only bestowed when the "personality" is "present" in the physical body. Thus it would seem the author advocates for abortion "rights" all the way up to natural death from old age. Mentally disabled people aren't "present" and are "disconnected" therefore they are subhuman and it is perfectly acceptable to put them down for the sake of society.

No, 'the author' does not think like that at all.
On the contrary - i claim that the soul and the personality are connected. All souls are connected. in that light you are advised to reared what I wrote.

good god that is some serious word-salad right there. That is not what she is saying at all. Although the author exudes spirituality that is not entirely relatable to me, it is the humanity behind her words that resonates with me. You seem concerned about the elderly and mentally disabled but what are you doing to advocate for their care? Or does your concern end after 9 months?

She is a he 😉

look at me being all presumptuous. Wow. That is even more incredible. Thank you so much for this post and for standing with all women. We need support desperately: From other women and from men. It's a humanity problem. Not a gender problem.

I am merely following the logic of the argument as I understand it (which is difficult to understand given the word salad-y-ness of it). If one can say that it is possible that a soul/consciousness never fully enters into a human body then one can say that some human bodies lack a soul/consciousness. Therefore one can conclude that it is acceptable to kill such a human body at anytime, given that one has concluded that the soul/consciousness is not present in that human body. Or if I'm understanding correctly, it is acceptable to kill another human if the soul of that person has communicated in some way that it wishes to exit this plane of existence, whatever that means. My concern for well-being applies to all humans, regardless of age or ability.

Do we not already make that kind of decision that when it is established that someone is brain dead after a traumatic head injury? Or perhaps the decision is made by the family of a cancer patient who has been placed in an induced coma to alleviate suffering? I mean, I'm not saying we should be going around having abortions like a bunch of psychopaths, but for those with no other option, there should, be reasonable understanding and options available for mothers who cannot, for whatever reason, carry a baby to term.

"Abortion is a major surgery and typically causes massive mental trauma to the mother and the immediate family circle including the father. And is it really worth it for 10-15 minutes of sexual satisfaction?"

wait. What?

Yes. Of course abortion is traumatic. which is why it should be performed in a hospital and counselling should be provided before and after, to the mother and father as well as the family circle. We do not live in an ideal world though. Presuming that there was any pleasure involved what so ever is also immensely shortsighted and offensive.

"Throughout all stages of pregnancy there is a dialogue between the mother and the consciousness of the future baby" part. You do know that during an abortion the baby actively flees the doctor with a fight or flight response, correct? That seems to be a pretty basic "human" trait.

This is my favourite part. Do you think the fetus will gravitate towards the crochet needle/ coat hanger of a self inflicted or backstreet abortion?

Why do you assume there would be "self inflicted or backstreet abortions"? The decision did not make abortion illegal. It just said it is not a federal issue and handed it back to the states for their own laws. If your state has made it illegal there are two options.

  1. Vote for candidates to make it legal in your state.
  2. Move to a state that has made it legal.
    Something of this nature (not specified in the constitution) has always been handled by the individual states. Its why we have states to begin with.

"Presuming that there was any pleasure involved what so ever is also immensely shortsighted and offensive"
I can only assume you are implicating rape or some other criminal act. That is also a state or local issue. Not a federal issue. If you are not meaning a criminal act then I ask. Why would anyone have the sex if there is no pleasure in it? If one party isnt interested, states No and is forced into that then becomes rape and is a crime. I understand fear and not wanting to "cause trouble". But doing nothing will only reinforce the offender to harm others.
Seriously? No it wont gravitate towards the crochet needle/coat hanger. It will run just as fast if it was a doctor in a hospital doing it.
Why do people always jump to the most extreme situation thinking they are proving a point. Im not saying those things wont happen. But its highly unlikely they are going to be piling up bodies within weeks of this decision. Sorry to be blunt and sound callous but I dont believe the world or humanity is that far gone.

Why do you assume there would be "self inflicted or backstreet abortions"? The decision did not make abortion illegal. It just said it is not a federal issue and handed it back to the states for their own laws. If your state has made it illegal there are two options.

Unfortunately, my assumption is based on a painful history of women globally, which seems to be repeating itself. I am starting to understand the politics far better now that I am engaging in debates like this, so, from what I understand, the Federal government has washed its hands of the issue, and chosen to not intervene with states who have already made abortions illegal. Which is a terrible blow to human rights.

I am not American, so voting is not an option for me. I do, however, live in a third-world country. I'm not sure if you are aware, but pre-Trump administration, there were thousands of women's reproductive health care centers, across the world, in developing countries that were only able to operate thanks to funding from the US government (and other 1st world contires) and due to amended American policies on these issues, this funding has been cut, putting millions of women in a position where they have no access to contraception or abortion.

I am not saying that bodies will be piling up, but I am definitely standing by my statement that by taking away a woman's access to safe and legal abortion will definitely, without a doubt lead her to seek desperate measures: from backstreet abortions and even self-inflicted abortions to abandoning their babies out of desperation. The alternative is raising a baby they're not ready for and causing immense psychological and physical damage to themselves and the child they have been forced to birth (especially if conception was achieved through force: eg rape). These gruesome and tragic eventualities are far more common than you would like to think, regardless of what you might like to believe.

I found it personally, extremely painful that you went out of your way to express the behavior of an unborn fetus during the abortion process, especially when your knowledge on the matter is disturbingly lacking. There are many factors to consider and many different procedures and situations, depending on the term of the pregnancy. If, such as in my case, the termination occurs in the first three months, medication is administered to the pregnant mother 24 to 48 hours before the actual removal of the fetus, which renders it non-viable (or to put it bluntly, chemically aborts the fetus in vitro). This ensures the least amount of pain or trauma for either the mother or the developing fetus.

As for motivations for sexual activity, this is a massive debate. People have sex for many reasons, and this is especially true for women - that it is not always for the sake of pleasure. It is also not correct to say that the alternative to pleasurable sex is always rape. Sometimes it is to ensure job security or a roof over one's head, a tool to survive abusive relationships or the only option of income. The definition of rape is also blurry when it comes to coercion. However, that all being said, whether pleasurable or not, women should have every much of a right to have sex and walk away as men do. Biologically though, we are left to carry the consequences and therefore, should also be the ones to decide whether or not a pregnancy can be carried to term.

While not speaking to the abortion issue specifically here, even if Trump removed funding from health care centers in third world countries (and budget issues are really the job of Congress, not the President) I guess that Biden hasn't reinstated such funding. Also, I don't believe it is the job of government to steal money from its citizens to give to other countries. Given the level of debt the U.S. government currently has I don't think giving away money makes sense either. I do support voluntary giving by individuals though.

Agreed. As far as I can tell, The new administration has failed miserably in doing, well anything at all about anything. We have similar problems here in South Africa where our government pledges billions of rands to other corrupt but underdeveloped African countries, while our own infrastructure falls apart and citizens are neglected. It's not sustainable or ethical.

I do understand what you mean about your country. And it was wrong for our country to be funding all of that around the world. I can only speak about things in my country that I reside in. I do not and will not attempt to speak on another country's laws because I simply do not know them.
Here in the USA the people have two options. Vote in local elections to change the laws in that state or move to another one that more aligns with their beliefs. But the decision wasnt about whether an abortion is a human right. It was about it not being in the constitution. The states are free to do a Constitutional Convention and change the Constitution if they wish.
My whole point isnt that abortion is good or bad. My whole point is that one person's rights do not supersede anothers. The father has just as much right and responsibility as the mother does. If does not want it he can give it up and let the mother do as she wishes. Its a pretty simple and sane choice at that point.
But the government shouldnt be involved at any level is the problem. And they shouldnt be funding it the world over.
As far as expressing the behaviour of an unborn fetus and my lacking knowledge of how an abortion is done. I guess you know all about my 52 years of experience and my lifes history of dealing with this crap better than I do. I've seen and watched personal friends and family live through that shit. I've been in consultations with nieces and family friends because they were too afraid to go by themselves or their parents. What the doctor told me of just one of the procedures I will never forget.
Again, I do apologize if I seem harsh. But this was a case for our country and not the worlds other countries.

Thank you very much for shedding light on the litigation side.

I agree with you partially on the point you made regarding countries worrying about their own internal affairs and minding their own businesses, but unfortunately, as our world becomes more and more globalized and foreign relation policies blur borders and politicians pockets, it's important for us, from an ethical and humanitarian standpoint, to check on each other.

It was wrong of me to make assumptions about your own experiences and I apologise for that.

I do realise, that there are cases where fathers are left out of the decision entirely and I don't agree with that (depending on the circumstance). Abortion is a horrific and painful experience emotionally and physically and I can promise you that any sane woman will never completely emotionally heal or find closure.

12 years after my abortion, I fell pregnant with my son. The 1st scan I saw of him was real time video and projected for my ex husband and I to see with the heartbeat at full volume. Matthew was at the exact same gestation period as the fetus I aborted when I was 16. I spent my whole pregnancy convinced that God would punish me and either me or my son or both of us would die before he was able to take his 1st breath. He's 10 years old next month. In order for me to be the mother I am for him today, it was necessary to make that incredibly painful decision I made, 22 years ago. If I had to go back in time, I would make the same decision again. I agree with you fully that there is a miniscule proportion of women who abuse the system because of their poor contraception management and that should be managed better. I do believe that that miniscule percentage does not justify putting the rest of the female poplutation at risk and taking their right to safe abortion away.

My heart does bleed for every woman who is now stuck in a position where they cant have a baby, for whatever reason, and now there is no choice left for them. I'm sure you realise that proving you've been raped is a lengthy legal process and pregnancy only lasts 9 months. I'm not sure how the time discrepancy can be mitigated unless rape cases are treated as guilty until proven innocent.

I personally don't think the guilty till proven innocent is the answer. The answer would be to streamline the investigation and judicial process. The courts and law enforcement are overwhelmed with smaller useless cases the hold higher fines being collected. And as such those get pushed through as "revenue" to the local and state municipalities. It's a bunch bull shit that needs to change.
Of course if they just put the word punish back in punishment people might actually change behaviors. But since money is a get out consequences thing. They just don't care and continue to do as they wish. Just pay the fine and move on. It's all about the money.

As far as human rights go.
This list is pretty much most countries go by that I know of.
I've skimmed through it several times. Still dont see "abortion", "healthcare" or "reproductive rights" listed as human rights.

there are a number of articles listed that could be interpreted as such, but there is no specific article that relates to reproductive health, and that's incredibly frightening, considering that that's exactly how we all get here in the 1st place.

On a certain level your arguments are solid but look what reasons (excuses) you use to avoid the basic premise - A human being is sovereign to her own existence! How can any external force/authority tell a mother how to deal with her own body? In particular when she is well connected with the fetus's soul-level.
Alas, science has not proven yet the existence of a soul; hence, my arguments seem to you and many others to be bizarre or even whacky.
Yet, I stand firm in my opinion. Only the mother (who is healthy and in her capacity to make conscious choices) has the right to choose regarding an abortion. She may consult with the father or other people in her community but at the end the choice is hers.

You assume my premise was an external force or authority telling the mother how to deal with her body and is nothing of the sort.
Again. Regardless of whether there is a soul or not. And whether science can determine if a soul exists. It's still a part of a human that required two other humans to come together to create. Therefore it should be at the very least a decision of those same two humans to terminate it. One individual's choice does not over rule the other.
Abortion is a major surgery and can have many major consequences both physically and mentally for all parties involved. You are correct that it shouldn't be a decision made by a ruling authority and that is exactly what the court agreed with. It should be a decision made closer to home for the people involved. It is not a Federal issue.

For the sake of the argument, and following you line of thought - if the father agrees to leave the decision solely to the mother, would then abortion be accepted?

Yes. Absolutely 100% agree. If he is waiving his rights he waives his rights.
But its still not a federal issue.

Lol. Sorry about the other comment. I didnt realize you could edit a comment.

But its still not a federal issue.

Not federal, not state either.
It's inconceivable to me that someone else would tell a woman what to do with her body. To advise, yes, by all means.

We agree there 100%. Except that its inconceivable that someone else would tell anybody what to do with their body. Woman or man. Government should stay out of our lives period. Government should only provide border security & infrastructure.
And stay out our pockets, lol.

One unique aspect of pregnancy though is that there are two bodies involved. Not just one. I agree with a woman's right to do whatever she wants with her body. I also believe that there exists a right to life. But if the right of a woman to do whatever she wants with her body conflicts with the right to life then I see the right to life as being more important. That is why to me the important question is about when the right to life begins. If I understand correctly, you believe that the woman an child can determine that on their own, I'm not so sure. I say that because I think many abortions happen out of fear vs. a "conversation" (for lack of a better word) between mother and child.

@nomad-magus This is incredibly beautiful. Thank you for sharing your support for other women. I am horrified at the comments you have received. Honestly. So much assumption and privilege I could vomit. Which ever way you spin it, the reality is that women in the US and across the globe are now at risk of turning to illegal/ backstreet abortion clinics for assistance. It doesn't matter what you put on paper or promulgate into law. Abortion is as old as time. What matters is that women of all races and economic statuses are afforded access to safe abortions. Right now, I am incredibly grateful that I do not live in the United States and I weep for every woman, who is in an unimaginable amount of anguish over an unwanted pregnancy. I am also shocked at the assumptions of pro-lifers and conservatives of how a woman may have ended up pregnant in the 1st place. Good lord. How immensely short sighted of you.
Mommy's Mental Health: Chapter 11 - Don't Go Messing With My Baby Box

Thank you @clairemobey
We are living in times of great shift in consciousness. And it's obvious that facing the new paradigms the old doctrines raise their heads to fight back. Alas, it's nothing but their swan's song. Resistance is futile.

I fully support! Aren't we a democracy !? No one can decide for you whether you will become a parent or not. This law will make illegal abortions much more expensive.

When you take a step back from the alleged issue at hand and look at the deeper meaning of the ruling, you begin to see things that you were not aware of such as the incredibly racist element to the ruling.

Roe v Wade was the replacement for Jim Crow. They saw us “minorities” becoming the majority population and were desperate for a way to curb our population growth. They encourage us “darkies” to kill our babies, be unemployed and underemployed and cut our access to education while white women have near unlimited access to education and are encouraged to use contraception rather than head straight to abortion.

This ruling is a step in the right direction where ALL are equal and it is representative of the collective will of the majority population of the US which is mixed race people!

It is not lost on me that almost all of those complaining the loudest are white females. The Anglo female has spoken from a position of extreme privilege for generations and until now has lived nearly consequence free. The loss of such privilege may seem like tyranny but I assure you that the rest of the country is delighted that finally you will be held to scrutiny and treated as an equal! Marie Antionette Syndrome aside, you will be okay. This is exactly what it looks like when the laws passed under the guidance of the Nazi monsters (who escaped justice via Operation Paperclip) is reversed.

I find it hard to see the equality.
privileged women will still find ways to get an abortion. Poor women, mostly belong to the populations you referred to, will have to remain put in their conservative countries and carry unwanted fetuses.

The solution is to use discretion. You know, like an adult.

@nathanpieters thank you for mainsplaining how to manage our uteruses. What ever would we do without you.

It wasn’t just me. Everyone responsible adult in your life (beginning in middle school) has told you the same thing.

But you do you. I’ll be over here laughing at your dumb ass.

I’m over here trying to figure out why you’re so angry when it’s obvious that nobody would willingly copulate with you. 🤔

that is incredibly presumptuous of you to think that all white females are privileged and have access to the kind of reproductive healthcare you describe. I personally am a woman who has been in this position and have many friends who's partners and family refused to fork out money for private terminations, thus resulting in backstreet abortions. If you think abortions in a clinical setting are horrific, believe me you have NO IDEA what you're inviting here.

Oh yes the poor disadvantaged white female who can openly lie, throw public tantrums and apparently finds it tyrannical that it might be expected to use contraception. She is above reproach and says “just believe me” and throws an epic tantrum when we say “prove it.” How could I forget her royal highness?

What happens when a man says he doesn’t want to use contraception? He’s vilified. A pervert. Classified as a “rapist” even if the woman decides she wants to continue without protection. And hey, it’s just adorable if a woman makes advances and even meddles in someone’s personal life because she has a “work crush” but if a man respectfully shoots his shot in any environment he’s automatically labeled a pervert.

Only in the US can a woman decide a month later that she regrets the decision to have sex and accuse a man of rape, after giving consent, and live consequence free when he is later released from prison. Only in the US can a woman say she is “oppressed” by having to use fucking contraception while living off public assistance, sitting in a Starbucks with her unfinished $8 coffee, playing on a $1200 phone while unemployed and completely unafraid to walk out in public alone and unarmed, which cannot be done in any other part of the world.

You’re so accustomed to your luxury that you think personal responsibility and discretion is tyranny!

Yes, you are privileged. Society has given you an eternal crutch. You look like you’re about 50, so I’ll say this…you’re old enough to know better. If your friends keep finding themselves in backalley “clinics” with unlicensed people chopping their babies out, then they’re idiots. A $5 box of condoms would have prevented it all. I’m sure they can do just as much whining from a $1195 phone as they can from a $1200 phone. There’s no excuse for willful ignorance. Grow up.

@clairemobrey i notice your profile says you’re from Cape Town

You’re not even American or in the US.

You have no fucking interest here but hey here comes another white female who feels she’s so privileged that she can tell other countries people what to think and act outraged like ANY of this affects her.

Ah yes, the “endangered” white female.

Go ahead. Call me something racist. Its in your blood, don’t deny yourself the opportunity to impose your white will on someone else.

It’s too bad Mandela didn’t blow up your school bus.

Yay! 🤗
Your content has been boosted with Ecency Points, by @nomad-magus.
Use Ecency daily to boost your growth on platform!

Support Ecency
Vote for new Proposal
Delegate HP and earn more

This may be one of the first times I downvoted.

This showed up in my feed because it was sponsored. I neither follow this community nor this account and frankly do not want this content in my feed.

You’re welcome to the discussion, but by forcing it into my feed I’m showing that I do find it welcome.

My feed my choice.

You are welcome to downvote as you please.
I do promote my posts through Ecency as I wish them to reach different types of people. However, the promotion is automatic, based on criteria that I am not aware of.