48 Years After Roe v. Wade, Mexico's Supreme Court Decriminalizes Abortion

Arcangl86 · Sep 8, 2021

JSRG said:
Does anyone have any information on why the Mexican Supreme Court ruled this way? That is, what their rationale was? In the articles I've found on this, they just say the Mexican Supreme Court said this and the effects it would have, but not why they declared it as such. If the claim is that it's unconstitutional, which part of the constitution does it offend and why? Does anyone know of any analysis--preferably in English, but I'll take Spanish if I have to--that explains this? Ideally I could look at the opinion, but I can't actually find it (the articles don't link to it and I don't see a place on the Mexican Supreme Court's website where there seems to be a list of opinions like there is for our Supreme Court's website), and even if I could, I doubt my Spanish is good enough to be able to make much sense out of a lengthy court opinion.

I was able to find one article that indicated that despite the claim it was unanimous, there was some disagreement among the justices as to how far the ruling should extend. But it didn't give much in the way of specifics.

So anyone know of anything that explains this kind of information about the decision?

Here is the official press release. Listado de Comunicados

It reads a lot to me as if they came to a decision that is similar to our Roe V. Wade in that absolute criminalization of all abortions are illegal, but that there might be cases where it is legal to ba them. So it's going to require a lot of development probably.

RaymondG · Sep 8, 2021

Hammster said:
Are you okay with all murderers and rapists roaming the streets? Or do you think there should be laws?

You are pushing moral agendas and compliance with your personal form of morality. You are trying to change the definition of abortion and get others to subconsciously agree with you. All the while the unborn is being lost in the discussion and not helped at all.....the end goal is to change abortion to murder.....not to save the unborn from being terminated.

You seem to desire to hid their demise and form of demise by grouping them into larger categories of people that die. The fact that they never got a chance to live, seems to be inconsequential to you.

If a mother drowns her 3 children (2, 5 and 6 year olds) in water because raising them was too stressful....would you tell everyone that she had three abortions? You would, only if you wanted to hid the fact that they lived some time after the womb before their demise.

Now if a teen had an abortion, for whatever reason.....likewise, you would tell people that she committed murder only if you wanted to hid the fact that there was no time spent outside of the womb.

Now why would one desire to hid the fact that a fetus never got a chance to live outside of the womb....and, instead, group them into the same category as an 50 year old person who was shot, or gang member who dies in a shoot out?

If one cares about saving the unborn, they would not be afraid to use the terms created to describe them and only their situation.

If one care only about moral agendas....they will instead, try to change the name of action and talk about what should be done after the unborn is terminated based off their new definitions.

Larniavc · Sep 8, 2021

grasping the after wind said:
The most direct root cause of the desire to have an abortion is irresponsible sexual intercourse on the part of individuals.

I think it’s more an accident when people get caught up in the moment.

Which I think all of us can relate to.

RaymondG · Sep 8, 2021

Larnievc said:
I think it’s more an accident when people get caught up in the moment.

Which I think all of us can relate to.

It is still irresponsible and caused by a lack of education. I knew the risk of and primary reason for intercourse...therefore I decided myself not to engage in it until after I had a degree.....as i thought a degree would signify my ability to take care of a child adequately. This was a moral decision, not religious.

Today the primary reason has shifted to pleasure....this is why these "accidents" happen. Reeducation should be part of the solution.

grasping the after wind · Sep 8, 2021

Larnievc said:
I think it’s more an accident when people get caught up in the moment.

Which I think all of us can relate to.

People often get caught up in moments . That doesn't relieve them of the responsibility for their own actions and then place that responsibility for those momentary indiscretions upon those that did not participate in that moment.

Hammster · Sep 8, 2021

RaymondG said:
You are pushing moral agendas and compliance with your personal form of morality.

Actually I’m pushing biblical justice. As a fellow Christian, I figured you’d support that.

Yttrium · Sep 8, 2021

Hammster said:
Actually I’m pushing biblical justice. As a fellow Christian, I figured you’d support that.

Oh, are you promoting the death penalty for adulterers too? Have to be consistent about these things.

BBAS 64 · Sep 8, 2021

RaymondG said:
This thread is not about killing children, it is about aborting fetuses. If you care about them, try to use to terms creates specifically for them, that can be applied to no one else.....instead of trying obscure their demise by grouping them into a larger group that includes children that had a chance to live outside of the womb.

Good Day, Raymonmd

It is still about killing children, the human off spring, or young of 2 humans would be in fact a human child. I am sure you would suggest that a fetus in a woman's body from the view of micro biology could be some other type of offspring, or other than human?

Like a dog, a bird, a reptile???

Etymology. The word fetus (plural fetuses or feti) is related to the Latin fētus ("offspring", "bringing forth", "hatching of young")

In Him,

Bill

BBAS 64 · Sep 8, 2021

tstor said:
It sounds like a better plan than forcing women to carry a child to term against their will. Providing pregnant women with the support they'll need to have a child is an actual solution. Forcing them into a bad situation isn't a solution; it's moral posturing.

Yeah Murder is much more appealing (the damage to the woman is live changing) , never could understand why a women would chose to be the parent of a dead baby...

Pregnancy care center is very good at providing support.

In Him,

Bill

BBAS 64 · Sep 8, 2021

Yttrium said:
Oh, are you promoting the death penalty for adulterers too? Have to be consistent about these things.

I vote yes as a victim of that sounds great to me.. just sayin

Hammster · Sep 8, 2021

Yttrium said:
Oh, are you promoting the death penalty for adulterers too? Have to be consistent about these things.

We should look into that.

RaymondG · Sep 8, 2021

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day, Raymonmd

It is still about killing children, the human off spring, or young of 2 humans would be in fact a human child. I am sure you would suggest that a fetus in a woman's body from the view of micro biology could be some other type of offspring, or other than human?

Like a dog, a bird, a reptile???

Etymology. The word fetus (plural fetuses or feti) is related to the Latin fētus ("offspring", "bringing forth", "hatching of young")

In Him,

Bill

While you are looking up definitions, look up the words toddler and teenager and adult. Would you be offended if I referred to you as a child? Arent you the offspring of two parents? Arent you a human being? So is it therefore right to continue to refer to you as a child?

Or would calling you a child give others an impression concerning the age group you are a part of.

There goes your motive.....you care not about saving the unborn....you desire to confuse others concerning the age group of the subject.....thereby hurting them while pretending to care about them.

I say toddler when I want the audience to know Im talking about those between the ages of 1 and 3.....I say teenager to identify subjects between 13 and 19......I say adult for those over 17. we say Child for those below 17..

You see some of these over lap as well.... But the unborn are so important that they have a name that no other group can use: fetus.

Yet you support using a word that can be used for those anywhere between 0 and 17, and not the word dedicated to the unborn. Why would you add the fetus to that group if you want us to focus only on saving the unborn?

Nay, you desire to promote your personal beliefs and condemn others who dont believe as you do... And you decide to enter a thread aimed at saving the unborn to do so.

Is one who terminates fetuses different from those who aim to change the conversation when other desire to discuss saving them?

I say, lets discuss saving the unborn fetus.....you tell me no, lets save all children instead.

I like the idea of saving children too......But why is it so wrong to you to focus only on the unborn fetus, when that is the topic being discussed? What do you have against them?

Fantine · Sep 8, 2021

Grasping: In what way is an infant, toddler or child responsible for the poverty of their parents?

What kind of person does not feel compassion for a hungry child?

Who is unrealistic enough to think private charities are all that is needed?

Who would look an under fed child living in a slum motel and say, "Yeah, that will teach your parents to be irresponsible! Take that!"

Have you ever heard of "intergenerational poverty?" Obviously a cause some pro-lifers with an expiration date support.

Mayzoo · Sep 8, 2021

Fantine said:
Hmmm....

It's obvious that society thinks of children as a burden and not a blessing.

You don't see pro-choicers complaining about paid parental leave, expanding the children's tax credit to reduce child poverty by 50%, free community college, universal pre-K.

You don't see pro-choicers advocating abortion. You see them supporting a decision between women and their doctors.

Let's face it. It is very difficult to demonstrate that children are a blessing without supporting education, healthcare, etc.

Have you heard the phrase "preschool to prison pipeline?" Societies that value children invest in them on the front end to avoid the cost of prisons later.

What I think is most upsetting is that many churchgoers, despite their lip service, vote as if children are a burden.

Children are a blessing, until we are asked to help support those children in poverty, then they are not a burden, they are just not worth helping as any funds given to help them are considered harmful not helpful (at least that is what I read here).

The mother (as the father is rarely considered part of the equation) just needs to get herself out of poverty without any help or educational resources. She alone just needs to find a way fix all her financial problems, period. Bootstrap theory from what I have read.

RaymondG · Sep 8, 2021

Larnievc said:
Crikey. You could have just used contraception. You missed out on a lot of fun, my dude.

I guess one could look at it that way....... One could also say that my experiences after marriage was the best in my life, while you may have a host of good times with other that you can remember for the rest of your life that may have been better and may cause greater temptation for you, to re-enter that lifestyle.

I commend all those who stay/get married after having multiple partners beforehand......for it is a greater accomplishment for you than it is for me.

Hammster · Sep 8, 2021

Fantine said:
Grasping: In what way is an infant, toddler or child responsible for the poverty of their parents?

What kind of person does not feel compassion for a hungry child?

Who is unrealistic enough to think private charities are all that is needed?

Who would look an under fed child living in a slum motel and say, "Yeah, that will teach your parents to be irresponsible! Take that!"

Have you ever heard of "intergenerational poverty?" Obviously a cause some pro-lifers with an expiration date support.

I see these types of responses and want to say (sarcastically), “yeah, we should just kill them before they become such a burden.”

TLK Valentine · Sep 8, 2021

Hammster said:
I see these types of responses and want to say (sarcastically), “yeah, we should just kill them before they become such a burden.”

Too many people in this country, noting that this is Mexico we're talking about, might not be so sarcastic.

Larniavc · Sep 8, 2021

RaymondG said:
I guess one could look at it that way....... One could also say that my experiences after marriage was the best in my life, while you may have a host of good times with other that you can remember for the rest of your life that may have been better and may cause greater temptation for you, to re-enter that lifestyle.

I commend all those who say/get married after having multiple partners beforehand......for it is a greater accomplishment for you than it is for me.

Happily married for 13 years and never once even considered playing away from home.

The way I see it you can gain a huge head start on being a better partner after having experience in relationships. Many of the pitfalls can be effectively side stepped by knowing what to do and what not to do.

Hammster · Sep 8, 2021

TLK Valentine said:
Too many people in this country, noting that this is Mexico we're talking about, might not be so sarcastic.

I know. And it’s incredibly sad.

BBAS 64 · Sep 8, 2021

RaymondG said:
While you are looking up definitions, look up the words toddler and teenager and adult. Would you be offended if I referred to you as a child? Arent you the offspring of two parents? Arent you a human being? So is it therefore right to continue to refer to you as a child?

Or would calling you a child given others the impression concerning the age group you are a part of.

There goes your motive.....you care not about saving the unborn....you desire to confuse others concerning the age group of the subject.....thereby hurting them while pretending to care about them.

I say toddler when I want the audience to know Im talking about those between the ages of 1 and 3.....I say teenager to identify subjects between 13 and 19......I say adult for those over 17. we say Child for those below 17..

You see these some of these over lap as well.... But the unborn are so important that they have a name that no other group can use: fetus.

Yet you support using a word that can be used for those anywhere between 0 and 17, and not the word dedicated to the unborn. Why would you add the fetus to that group if you want us to focus only on saving the unborn?

Nay, you desire to promote your personal beliefs and condemn others who dont believe as you do... And you decide to enter a thread aimed at saving the unborn to do so.

Is one who terminates fetuses different from those who aim to change the conversation when other desire to discuss saving them?

I say, lets discuss saving the unborn fetus.....you tell me no, lets save all children instead.

I like the idea of saving children too......But why is it so wrong to you to focus only on the unborn fetus, when that is the topic being discussed? What do you have against them?

Good Day,

Wow talk about conflating.... It is about killing children defacto and that you can not get away from.

So when you said it is not about "killing children" you were incorrect and you tried to use a word to hide behind.

In Him,

Bill

48 Years After Roe v. Wade, Mexico's Supreme Court Decriminalizes Abortion

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Leading a blameless life

Well-Known Member

That's grasping after the wind

Psalm 144:1

Independent Centrist

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Psalm 144:1

Well-Known Member

Dona Quixote

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Psalm 144:1

I've already read the books you want burned.

Leading a blameless life

Psalm 144:1

Contributor

Similar threads