Mexico’s Supreme Court Decriminalizes Abortion Nationwide

It amusing that you are accusing the right of not understanding context.

Let's face it; you're just trying to claim this is "apples and oranges" to deflect from the seemingly obvious hypocrisy.

Okay, so tell us, how exactly is the "context" different in Mexico?

 

I was tempted to ask if you are joking, but then I remembered you are the guy who assumes abused children are liars.

How is the context different? Well, lets see, up until recently laws at national AND state level in Mexico restricted abortion, often very heavily. That sounds a LOT like a different context, doesn't it? This recent law did the following:

....and the court said the following:

Sounds like a different context to me. See, this stuff is really easy if you can read.

Speaking of which, did you notice something about the decision I quoted? No? OK, I'll spell it out - it is NOT about allowing procedures on a state by state basis. Its about repealing a Federal law. If you had read the first paragraph properly you would know that. In fact, if you had read past the first paragraph you would see THAT was a 2021 decision. So, you and your buddies couldn't even read a single, short paragraph properly and set about attacking 'the left' based on that ignorance.

Its almost as if the right not only put no value on being informed, but are positively proud about being uninformed. If you had set out to prove my point you could not have done a better job.

 

No, you are the person who believes any person who claims they are abused should automatically be given lots of money, in the absence of any other evidence.
(And then on top of that, you want to 100% believe them, even though they're being paid lots of money to accuse the person!)

You're obviously disingenuously misrepresenting my position.

 

Yes, that is a different "context". But not in a way that detracts from your side's blatant hypocrisy.

You're just acting... not very smart.

As I stated before, your side seems to only care about desired outcomes, rather than holding to any fixed principles. You support the decision going to the states if you think it will help expand abortion access, but you oppose the decision going to the states if you think it will lead to abortion being restricted.

The double standards proves that you and your side really care nothing about the principle of whether decisions should go to individual states to decide.
It's not a universal principle for you.

 

No, you represented it very effectively elsewhere - no financial compensation without video evidence. Happy to quote you and link to posts if you wish.

 

Gee, not a mention of the fact that this thread was about a Federal law, NOT a ruling giving more power to individual states. As you have now been corrected this can only be characterized as being deliberately misleading. You know that you got caught not reading the article and misrepresenting what this thread was about, but you just pretend it didn't happen.

How profoundly dishonest.

As for 'principle', the key principle here is that women own & control their own bodies, not the state or misogynist conservative activists. I realize that you don't think women have a right to control their own bodies under a variety of circumstances, so you wouldn't understand. Mexico has a different history & legal system than America, so the path to fulfilling that principle will necessarily be different. Again, I understand that you don't care about that.

Your posts here were never factually based, so I suppose trying to appeal to the facts is fairly pointless.

 

The decision to become pregnant is the decision that the resulting fertilized entity will eventually die. The decision not to get pregnant is the decision that only an egg will die. Women make the decision all the time. What is so complicated about allowing that natural fact, that choice, to reign?

 

The difference between Right & Left, you somehow miss, in your depiction, is that the "fixed PRINCIPLE" that liberals value and "hold to," is that of bodily autonomy being a HUMAN right-- not a decision to be left to government, regardless of whether that is at a state or federal level. Whereas, in your example, the principle that the Right would value, would be to put the state's right ahead of the mother's, to choose the fate of a fetus. Of course, it is bullshit that the Right adheres to this "principle." In truth, it is the Right which "seems to only care about desired outcomes, rather than holding to any fixed principles," evidenced by the fact that, after the Dobbs decision said that abortion was none of the federal government's business, some Republicans, like Senator Lindsey Graham, almost immediately started talking about national limits, on abortion.

Recognize hypocrisy, much?

 

The end result is they are now in the same place as we are post-Dobbs. That's the point. I'm not sure what's confusing about this. This thread is about discussing how Mexico is now a bastion of abortion rights in contrast to the US when, in reality, they're in the same place as us. The thread starter is talking down to the US on our current status of abortion rights while praising Mexico for being in the same place as he is talking down on us over.

 

Can he prove without a doubt he did that for the sake to propagate a new life, in the full knowledge of the woman he did it?
I would find it extremely dubious you would claim that this is the culture within the US about abortion / sex.

 

I didn’t even come close to claiming that’s anyones culture. In fact it would probably be a rare ‘for instance’.

 

You are very, very confused. I'm betting you didn't even read the article in the OP. Reading is hard work, isn't it.

 

There was no federal law in the U.S. legalizing abortion. There was only a court case.

 

Yes, I know.

Have you not read this thread from the start? Have you not read the article in the OP? Do ANY of the conservatives here actually read ANYTHING they comment on?

There WERE Federal laws in Mexico which have now been declared unconstitutional. The poster I was replying to falsely claimed this court case was about returning power to the states and that this somehow proved something bad about US 'liberals'. He continued to claim this even after being corrected.

Predictably a number of others jumped on the bandwagon. Clearly none of them actually read the article they were referring to, making them look particularly foolish. I guess we can add you to the list.

 

Just surprised to learn that he wasn't already on that list.

 

When did reading a few lines get to be so hard?

 

Yep, they pretty much said the exact same thing the U.S. Supreme Court said yet the American left is spinning it the exact opposite direction. Like in the U.S. the Mexican court said it is up to the individual states to decide and that the federal government should stay out of it.

 

I cannot think of a more important right for any human than the right to decide what happens with their own body. Can you give me an example of a more fundamental human right?

 

With this move in Mexico, it gives women in Texas a place to go for an abortion.

 

Would that include the right to not have sex?

If yes, I don't see a problem.

 

One more person who didn't read the article in the OP. Its like a disease.

 

So since we're clear the male in general has no interest in creating life, you can totally dump that idea that a male gets to have a say in a woman having an abortion.

 

The article supports the idea that it is getting harder in the U.S., to get an abortion, while getting easier in Mexico, and other Latin American countries. Your spin on this, is that we are now at essentially the same place, here and there. But this is not really true, because even in Mexican states in which abortion is utterly outlawed, it is completely legal for citizens to get abortions in federal hospitals & clinics, within those states.

<Snip>
Wednesday’s ruling has no effect on local laws, and abortion remains illegal in 20 of the country’s 32 states. But even in those states, women can now legally seek abortion in federal hospitals and clinics. The ruling also prohibits employees at these facilities from being penalized for carrying out abortions.

“Hopefully, this is the preamble so that the court can go state by state helping local legislatures eliminate the crime of abortion, since legislators do not do their job,” said Verónica Cruz, founder of the feminist group Las Libres in Guanajuato, Mexico.

In addition to Mexico, countries such as Colombia, Argentina, Uruguay and Guyana have moved to either legalize or decriminalize abortion. The regional trend stands in contrast to the United States, where the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022 placed the country among a small group of nations making it harder for women to end their pregnancies.
<End Snip>

So, if all states have at least one federal clinic or hospital, then they all have a place where abortions can be legally obtained, which puts them ahead of the U.S.


Also note that having our SCOTUS leave abortion to the states, has not been enough for some federal elected officials, like Senator Graham, who already have indicated a desire to, in contradiction to the Supreme Court ruling, push through national abortion limits, as to the first trimester. And I think that Clarence Thomas may have already signalled receptivity to the idea-- since, for some in our current High Court, consistency in employment of principles is not a concern; so national limits may be seen as Constitutional, while national protections are not.

 

Some males do have an inherent ability to live up to their responsibilities, especially on such a grand level as bringing a new life into this world. If the man having any influence over the woman’s rights…. I don’t see that as a bad thing. And yes I mean having an influence, without making the ultimate decision. I’m also not sure the law should be able to make that decision. All cases and circumstances vary. It’s impossible for anyone else to make the correct decision for them both.