Mexico’s Supreme Court decriminalizes abortion nationwide

[AU9377 4,970]

I just thought some may want to see what is happening in Mexico regarding women's rights and access to abortion.  I can't think of any other issue where the U.S. is restricting individual rights while other parts of the world are expanding them.  I would personally discourage someone from aborting a child, but I also recognize that it isn't my choice to make.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/06/mexico-supreme-court-decriminalizes-abortion-nationwide-00114327

[I_M4_AU 7,858]

10 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I just thought some may want to see what is happening in Mexico regarding women's rights and access to abortion.  I can't think of any other issue where the U.S. is restricting individual rights while other parts of the world are expanding them.  I would personally discourage someone from aborting a child, but I also recognize that it isn't my choice to make.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/06/mexico-supreme-court-decriminalizes-abortion-nationwide-00114327

I didn’t read in the article that there was a limit as to when the doomed child can’t be aborted.  Is it up until birth depending on the woman’s mental state like in NY?

 

[CoffeeTiger 5,133]

 Good for Mexico. While large parts of the US might be backsliding into regressive policies like abortion bans and book bans, It's good to see our neighbors to the South acting to increase the freedoms of their citizens. 

[AU9377 4,970]

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I didn’t read in the article that there was a limit as to when the doomed child can’t be aborted.  Is it up until birth depending on the woman’s mental state like in NY?

 

It isn't up until birth in NY.  Continuing to pretend that it is only makes your argument seem silly.    Using  that same logic, you could argue that abortion until birth was also the law in Alabama.  After all, you only need a doctor to certify that the mother's life is at risk.

[I_M4_AU 7,858]

12 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

It isn't up until birth in NY.  Continuing to pretend that it is only makes your argument seem silly.    Using  that same logic, you could argue that abortion until birth was also the law in Alabama.  After all, you only need a doctor to certify that the mother's life is at risk.

Do you know what the limit, if any, for an abortion is in Mexico, which was the original question?  Do you think the Doctors/health professionals in NY have the same definition of mother’s life at risk as the ones in Alabama?

[AU9377 4,970]

9 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Do you know what the limit, if any, for an abortion is in Mexico, which was the original question?  Do you think the Doctors/health professionals in NY have the same definition of mother’s life at risk as the ones in Alabama?

I don't know the answer, but I'm certain there are limits and they likely differ from state to state in Mexico.  Mexico is more evolved as a country than many Americans perceive it to be.  They have problems, but they also have a growing middle class and a population that actually wants to solve many of the problems that we want to see solved as well. 

I don't believe that doctors in Alabama value life more than doctors in NY.  I don't believe that any legitimate doctor would willingly kill a child simply for the sake of a mother that wants to abort at 8 months.  There are nut cases out there that shouldn't be practicing medicine, but they will exists regardless of what law is written. 

[I_M4_AU 7,858]

5 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I don't know the answer, but I'm certain there are limits and they likely differ from state to state in Mexico.  Mexico is more evolved as a country than many Americans perceive it to be.  They have problems, but they also have a growing middle class and a population that actually wants to solve many of the problems that we want to see solved as well. 

I don't believe that doctors in Alabama value life more than doctors in NY.  I don't believe that any legitimate doctor would willingly kill a child simply for the sake of a mother that wants to abort at 8 months.  There are nut cases out there that shouldn't be practicing medicine, but they will exists regardless of what law is written. 

Remember when an abortion was supposed to be safe, legal and rare?  That is when Roe was first enacted.  The abortion creep has happened ever since and now abortion is on demand, just because any reason the mother has to abort the child.  No one is going to pass judgement on a woman (birthing person) at this stage of our legal system.  The former Governor of Virginia (a doctor) famously said we should make the baby comfortable while the mother decides whether to keep the child or kill it.

Some nut cases are actually making laws.

[CoffeeTiger 5,133]

37 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Remember when an abortion was supposed to be safe, legal and rare?  That is when Roe was first enacted.

Yep, and now in most Republican States abortion is dangerous, illegal, and done in back alleys and via nonmedial drug overdoses.

 

 

37 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 The abortion creep has happened ever since and now abortion is on demand, just because any reason the mother has to abort the child.  No one is going to pass judgement on a woman (birthing person) at this stage of our legal system.  

No it's not. That's Right Wing propaganda that has no evidence or facts to support it. The pro-life crowd is losing what little credibility it has left by outright lying about abortion to try and justify their authoritarian and draconian bans and legal threats. 

 

37 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The former Governor of Virginia (a doctor) famously said we should make the baby comfortable while the mother decides whether to keep the child or kill it.

Some nut cases are actually making laws.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-virginia-gov-abortion/fact-check-virginia-governors-2019-comments-about-abortion-bill-are-missing-context-idUSKBN27D2HL

This is only "Famous" in right wing media propaganda that doesn't care about facts or context. 

Northam was referring to “third-trimester abortions” that are done in cases “where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s non viable” he said. “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” Northam stated.

This comment was quickly addressed by Republican commentators who, as reported by Vox  here , took his words as “an endorsement of infanticide”.  

At the time, a spokesperson for Northam told Vox the “governor had ‘absolutely not’ been referring to the euthanasia of infants born after a failed abortion” and that he was talking about a “tragic and extremely rare case in which a woman with a nonviable pregnancy or severe fetal abnormalities went into labor.”

Edited September 7, 2023 by CoffeeTiger

[I_M4_AU 7,858]

41 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Yep, and now in most Republican States abortion is dangerous, illegal, and done in back alleys and via nonmedial drug overdoses.

I’m sure you have links to back all this up by some reputable non bias cite.

48 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

No it's not. That's Right Wing propaganda that has no evidence or facts to support it. The pro-life crowd is losing what little credibility it has left by outright lying about abortion to try and justify their authoritarian and draconian bans and legal threats. 

abortion-on-demand

[ uh-bawr-shuhn-on-di-mand, -mahnd, -awn- ]SHOW IPA

noun

the right of a woman to have an abortion during the first six months of a pregnancy.

an abortion performed on a woman solely at her own request.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/abortion-on-demand

Do you think they would have a definition of Abortion on Demand if it weren’t happening?  If it is legally allowed all the woman has to do is agree to it and the is abortion on demand.

And of course Planned Parenthood is making it as easy as possible.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-massachusetts/campaigns/telemedicine-abortion

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

This is only "Famous" in right wing media propaganda that doesn't care about facts or context. 

This is from the VOX imbedded link. 

The controversy has centered on a provision concerning third-trimester abortions. Under current Virginia law, in order for a patient to terminate a pregnancy in the third trimester, three doctors must certify that continuing the pregnancy would likely cause the patient’s death or “substantially and irremediably impair” her mental or physical health. The new bill would reduce the number of doctors to one, and remove the “substantially and irremediably” qualifier — abortions would be allowed in cases where a mother’s mental or physical health is threatened, even if the damage might not be irreversible. 

The bill began inspiring outcry among abortion opponents nationwide after its sponsor, Virginia Delegate Kathy Tran, said in a committee hearing on Monday that it would technically allow abortion until the point of birth, if a doctor agreed it was necessary.

Gov. Northam, a Democrat, was asked about the bill in a radio interview on Wednesday, and his response only added to the controversy. Appearing to discuss what would happen if a child was born after a failed attempt at abortion, he said, “the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/1/18205428/virginia-abortion-bill-kathy-tran-ralph-northam

It is plain to see that the new Virginia bill would allow for a mother to abort her infant just before birth as long as a doctor agreed with her decision to abort on grounds of mental or physical health or in other words abortion on demand up until birth.

What Northam was discussing was a botched abortion where the infant was disfigured and the doctor deliver the child and then they decide with the mother what to do next.

This is next level evil, no matter how you try to spin it.

[I_M4_AU 7,858]

For humor from Babylon Bee:

 

 

[AURex 2,012]

Historically, all the way back to ancient times, and original into Biblical times, the mother ALWAYS took precedence over an unborn fetus. ALWAYS! That continued throughout the middle ages and the Renaissance and into the Victorian era. A fetus has NEVER been predicated over a woman's rights until the right wing fanatics started marching. There is no historical precedent. There is no Biblical precedent. It's just right wing crazoid propaganda crap.

[I_M4_AU 7,858]

9 hours ago, AURex said:

Historically, all the way back to ancient times, and original into Biblical times, the mother ALWAYS took precedence over an unborn fetus. ALWAYS! That continued throughout the middle ages and the Renaissance and into the Victorian era. A fetus has NEVER been predicated over a woman's rights until the right wing fanatics started marching. There is no historical precedent. There is no Biblical precedent. It's just right wing crazoid propaganda crap.

There is a difference in precedence of a woman’s life over a fetus during childbirth and a woman deciding to terminate her pregnancy because it happens to be inconvenient for her or her partner.  That is the debate.

[AU9377 4,970]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

There is a difference in precedence of a woman’s life over a fetus during childbirth and a woman deciding to terminate her pregnancy because it happens to be inconvenient for her or her partner.  That is the debate.

Should a woman be forced to carry a still born child to term?  That is the effect of many of these draconian laws.

[I_M4_AU 7,858]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

Should a woman be forced to carry a still born child to term?  That is the effect of many of these draconian laws.

I believe there is a law suit in Texas to clarify the meaning of what constitutes labor complications.  Let’s wait for that shell we.

[AU9377 4,970]

16 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I believe there is a law suit in Texas to clarify the meaning of what constitutes labor complications.  Let’s wait for that shell we.

I can't contemplate a situation wherein a woman should be forced to carry a child to term that we know with certainty will not be born alive.  That is cruel and inhumane.

[I_M4_AU 7,858]

6 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I can't contemplate a situation wherein a woman should be forced to carry a child to term that we know with certainty will not be born alive.  That is cruel and inhumane.

I guess the courts will decide whether you comtemplate it or not.

[AU9377 4,970]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

I guess the courts will decide whether you comtemplate it or not.

The question was whether you think that is the right thing to do?  Would you want your wife to be forced to carry a non living fetus full term?  I know a couple in Louisiana that traveled to Atlanta to have the procedure performed.  They should not have been forced to do that.  At no point were they doing something that is morally objectionable.

[TexasTiger 12,952]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

I guess the courts will decide whether you comtemplate it or not.

Your compassion continues to be on full display.

[I_M4_AU 7,858]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Your compassion continues to be on full display.

I’m following Biden’s lead on compassion, brother.

[I_M4_AU 7,858]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

The question was whether you think that is the right thing to do?  Would you want your wife to be forced to carry a non living fetus full term?  I know a couple in Louisiana that traveled to Atlanta to have the procedure performed.  They should not have been forced to do that.  At no point were they doing something that is morally objectionable.

What would it matter if I thought it was the right thing to do?  That would seem just to incite rage you seem to attribute to the right wing.  If it happened when we were building a family, we would have to deal with the grief that issue would create and not resort to blaming anyone or anything.

[AU9377 4,970]

6 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

What would it matter if I thought it was the right thing to do?  That would seem just to incite rage you seem to attribute to the right wing.  If it happened when we were building a family, we would have to deal with the grief that issue would create and not resort to blaming anyone or anything.

Rage?  No.  The right thing to do is to allow a woman to have a procedure to end the pregnancy.  At that point, what is growing inside her is nothing more than a cyst, incapable of life.  Things like that aren't a left or right issue.  That is a common sense issue that intelligent compassionate people should be able to agree on.

[I_M4_AU 7,858]

7 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Rage?  No.  The right thing to do is to allow a woman to have a procedure to end the pregnancy.  At that point, what is growing inside her is nothing more than a cyst, incapable of life.  Things like that aren't a left or right issue.  That is a common sense issue that intelligent compassionate people should be able to agree on.

As I said before, that is why the law suit was brought in Texas so they can clarify the ruling. 

[GoAU 1,600]

On 9/7/2023 at 10:11 AM, CoffeeTiger said:

 Good for Mexico. While large parts of the US might be backsliding into regressive policies like abortion bans and book bans, It's good to see our neighbors to the South acting to increase the freedoms of their citizens. 

Book bans?  I mean,  why would anyone NOT want pornography in school libraries, right?   I assume these are the “bans” you are referring to?   

On 9/10/2023 at 11:44 PM, AURex said:

Historically, all the way back to ancient times, and original into Biblical times, the mother ALWAYS took precedence over an unborn fetus. ALWAYS! That continued throughout the middle ages and the Renaissance and into the Victorian era. A fetus has NEVER been predicated over a woman's rights until the right wing fanatics started marching. There is no historical precedent. There is no Biblical precedent. It's just right wing crazoid propaganda crap.

I’m definitely not an expert on abortion law in all 50 states, but I haven’t heard of a single state where the mothers life, if truly at risk, was put behind that of the child.  

21 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Rage?  No.  The right thing to do is to allow a woman to have a procedure to end the pregnancy.  At that point, what is growing inside her is nothing more than a cyst, incapable of life.  Things like that aren't a left or right issue.  That is a common sense issue that intelligent compassionate people should be able to agree on.

Where do you draw the line between a “cyst” and a person and why?  

[AURex 2,012]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

I’m definitely not an expert on abortion law in all 50 states, but I haven’t heard of a single state where the mothers life, if truly at risk, was put behind that of the child. 

Um, like IN PRACTICE all of the right wing anti-abortion states. States are being sued for this, but in many other right wing anti-abortion states, OBGYN doctors are fleeing because they cannot provide care -- even life saving care -- to pregnant women.

 

[GoAU 1,600]

8 hours ago, AURex said:

Um, like IN PRACTICE all of the right wing anti-abortion states. States are being sued for this, but in many other right wing anti-abortion states, OBGYN doctors are fleeing because they cannot provide care -- even life saving care -- to pregnant women.

 

Sorry, but I see absolutely zero evidence of a SINGLE STATE that doesn’t allow abortion when carrying the pregnancy to term endangers the mothers life.  If you can provide the law of any state that doesn’t allow for this exception I will happily withdraw my statement.