50 years after Roe v Wade, abortion again before U.S. Supreme Court

Religious convictions also play a large role: 77 percent of white evangelicals believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

They believe a lot of strange, contradictory and hypocritical things.

If evangelicals want to live by the bible they shouldn’t pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore. Have some integrity.

Leviticus clearly states a very “liberal” stance on immigration, for example.

If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one. If you are pro-life, then look after an unwanted child financially.

Hypothetically, even if someone were pro-life, they should still be supporting abortion alongside better access to contraceptives and sex education.

The alternative would not be no abortions. The alternative is unsafe abortions that put more lives at risk than the current framework. You don't get rid of abortion by banning it, you get rid of it by better access to things to prevent pregnancy in the first place.

Even then, there are cases where wanted pregnancies must be terminated for the safety of the mother. Or for more extreme situations such as rape or incest.

Try as I might, I really cannot wrap my head around the anti-abortion position. Maybe it is just people being naïve enough to assume that banning abortion would stop all abortion and everyone would live happily ever after in their families with 12 kids. If anyone can give me a serious argument that doesn't boil down to "because my religion", I am willing to entertain it.

Bob FosseToday 09:26 am JST

If evangelicals want to live by the bible they shouldn’t pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore. Have some integrity.

Leviticus clearly states a very “liberal” stance on immigration, for example.

Does Leviticus clearly define legal vs illegal immigration?  There is a world of difference.   It is known as obeying the law.  Please explain fully.

> Pukey2Today 10:43 am JST

If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one. If you are pro-life, then look after an unwanted child financially.

Looking after the child financially is the responsibility of the father (and mother, but mostly the father). Oh, that terrible word "responsibility".

To chose the death of the fetus?  It seems most liberals that favor abortion are also against the death penalty, such as for convicted murderer Charles Manson. 

Manson? Really? What on earth are you taking about? Manson!?

Does Leviticus clearly define legal vs illegal immigration?  There is a world of difference.   It is known as obeying the law.  Please explain fully.

Leviticus is the word of god, apparently.

I hope this can explain fully, in the word of god as it were;

“Leviticus 19:33,34 – “When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.”

Looking after the child financially is the responsibility of the father (and mother, but mostly the father). Oh, that terrible word "responsibility".

A child who is born. The father is more financially responsible than the mother? Ooof.

I think this will be the catalyst for a major division in the US, now that the Supreme Court is Republican. They will allow Republican states to effectively ban abortion. It will be wise for women who want the option to move to Democrat states. Given that politics in the US now functions like religion and political supporters are radicalised zealots, this may at least allow all Americans to choose to live in a state, Dem or Rep, where they will feel comfortable, rather than persisting with the antagonism caused by a federal system that flip-flops between a Republican and a Democrat leader. American politicians have deserted the centre ground, and federalism depends upon compromise and consensus. Like the UK after Brexit, the US is now dividing into two.

If Evangelicals want to live by the Bible, which they widely claim, then they should embrace it in the same way as the Taliban embrace the Quran.

I think they probably do already - i.e. they choose the bits they like and ignore the rest. Most religious texts have something for everybody.

By giving an outsized importance to rural voters, the American electoral system enabled someone like Trump, with three million fewer voters than Hillary Clinton, to become President. As President, he was able to transform the Supreme Court into a body which does not reflect the values of the American people.

Consistency is needed by both political parties.

Abortion rights mean the death penalty and assisted suicide should also be fine. I'm in favor of all 3 with abortions for any reason until it isn't safe - based on the mother's health needs and desires. That isn't for me to decide. She and her doctor(s) should be deciding any actions.

Govt shouldn't be in bedrooms or selecting who can love someone else - assuming consenting adults. While I don't have a problem with passports showing whatever "gender" someone wants, I do think that person may want to reconsider or never plan to visit some Islamic countries where it is illegal to be different.

albaleo commented;

If Evangelicals want to live by the Bible, which they widely claim, then they should embrace it in the same way as the Taliban embrace the Quran.

I think they probably do already - i.e. they choose the bits they like and ignore the rest. Most religious texts have something for everybody.

The Bible is so difficult to interpret that there are over 45,000 denominations in today's world, each proclaiming itself as the only correct religion.

The American constitution explicitly separates church and state, but that doesn't stop the religious states from trying to inject religion into law.

The actual case that the supreme court is deciding now is not about abortion so much as technical legal issues. Abortion is protected constitutionally. If they grant it, it could be applied to wider issues, particularly regarding the right of individuals to sue others for undertaking abortions. Once you set a precedent that someone can sue another for undertaking a constitutionally protected right, it could end up anywhere, such as suing gun owners etc.

This is apparently causing the conservative judges to waver.

The American constitution explicitly separates church and state, but that doesn't stop the religious states from trying to inject religion into law.

The most important laws in the US are from the Protestant religion. Belief in a Christian deity is still high in the US, especially for politicians/judges. The vast majority of US citizens will self-identify as "christian". Only 3% will self-identify as atheists. There is prejudice against atheists in the US, even by other atheists.

@theFu

It's a weird ground to tread, because a lot of their laws are also based around separating themselves from religious law. I don't disagree they had a lot of christian background that still colours their laws, even as they tried to separate themselves. In this case, most of the opposition to abortion does seem to stem from these religious laws.

The atheist label is a weird one, because only 3% identify as atheist but 12% also say they don't believe there is a god...which is an atheist. I think the label itself has a negative connotation to a lot of people still. Even though I identify as a strong atheist now, growing up in the states I usually wouldn't tell that to people.