If Roe V. Wade Was Overturned…

Given that a "definition of life" amendment was defeated by voters in Mississippi of all places, I highly doubt that Roe V. Wade would be overturned.

edited 21st Nov '11 12:28:24 PM by EarlOfSandvich

I now go by Graf von Tirol.

You think so? If the law was subject to change, politicians will be forced to make a clear vocal stand on the issue by the local electorate one way or the other. Admittedly the public would probably have less tolerance for political grandstanding after the law has been changed.

edited 21st Nov '11 10:25:58 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

Okay, since this is a bit of a Berserk Button, I'm going to make this brief.

Before abortion was (theoretically) legalized an estimated between 5,000 and 10,000 women died per year. Also, if history chooses to repeat itself, if Roe versus Wade is overturned, contraception would likely be outlawed as well. One of the more mild effects would be overpopulation.

For more info: http://socialistworker.org/2005-2/562/562_06_Abortion.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_abortion

I believe in Sherlock Holmes. Moriarty is real.

Speaking as an anti-abortion advocate, I must say, if the religious nuts were the ones who did this bad shit indeed would happen...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Overturning Roe v. Wade does not in itself outlaw abortion, it removes abortion from being a constitution right. Of course, to overturn that ruling would require a challenge to a law that, perhaps not outlawing abortion, severely constrains it. Some states would keep it legal while other would take a hard line. There would be a lot of "cross-border shopping", particularly to Canada which has absolutely no abortion laws, although pro-choice theory is unravelling here in the face of gender-selective abortions.

I don't know that contraception would be outlawed as well, and in any event a significant grey or black market would develop for it.

As far as number of people, I guess it depends on your point of view. With a million more native born citizens, America wouldn't rely on immigration as much. A million more people on a planet of 6 billion is like a 0.017% increase, which hardly amounts to an overpopulation boom. Of course, it wouldn't be even that much with out of jurisdiction and illegal abortions. Another reality is that most women who have abortions end up having children later in life anyways. The fertility and birth rates might spike in the near term and then return to very near their previous level within a decade making additional population growth miniscule in the long run.

For those who believe that life begins at conception, some time soon thereafter, or that valuing lives lived can be equated with human lives, then 5000 to 10,000 deaths per year is a no-brainer compared to a million per year.

The overall societal effects would hinge more on three things. First is the availability of contraception. Second would be public policy initiatives to identify and support mothers who would have otherwise aborted their child. Third would be public policy initiatives allow women to give up their babies, once born, in a streamlined fashion.

With no contraception, no support for mothers, and no options to give up the resulting babies, you will certainly end up with a mess including dead women from botched illegal abortions, dead babies found in trash bins and such, and dysfunctional kids brought up by resentful parents.

edited 22nd Jan '12 11:52:42 PM by 66Scorpio

Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, you are probably right.

"If Roe v. Wade was overturned"... why can't you have civil law like normal countries?

Anyway, I don't think it would make that much of a difference. There are countries where abortion is illegal; there are countries where it's legal but controversial; and then there are countries where it's legal and not controversial (like mine). And there don't seem to be any big differences between these countries because of their different stances on abortion. Neither have countries where abortion used to be illegal, radically changed because abortion was legalised, or the other way around.

My general impression of the United States - and, to a lesser extent, Canada and Britain - is that it's a country full of overzealous Moral Guardians, who take a hysterical attitude to drugs, alcohol (*GASP*! A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE IS ENTERING A PLACE WHERE IT IS POSSIBLE TO BUY ALCOHOL! FETCH THE STACK OF BIBLES, HE MUST BE REDEEMED!) and sex. Their preferred way of dealing with these issues seems to be either pretending they don't exist, or telling kids these things are as dangerous as nuclear warheads and as evil as Satan himself. Both methods are, quite obviously, counterproductive (teen pregnancies, anyone?) This kind of attitude, and the problems it creates, would probably get a tad worse in your "no-abortions" US.

Oh, and for reference's sake, I live in a country where the legal drinking age is 16, there are no age restrictions on entering any establishment (unless it's something sex-related), and a rather extensive Sex Ed program is compulsory for every school.

Mache dich, mein Herze, rein...

Well, one thing to consider is the old saying that America can't outlaw abortion in Canada. The implication is that rich people can always get abortions in another nation, so it's the poor who are affected.

Another thing to consider is that back when abortion was outlawed in many places, doctors would simply use euphemisms and excuses to perform abortions. That is, a "D&C" (apparently that stands for 'dilation and curettage') used to be used very widely for abortion by giving the excuse of irregular menstruation.

It's that really an old saying?

hashtagsarestupid

-Jojo

Well, hopefully in twenty-ish years it will be. Then I can take credit for starting it.

Listen, OP, you're playing with fire.

Good on you for being a bright young kid, but the fact remains that people are very passionate about this issue.

People who are against it consider it analogous to legal murder, while people for it consider outlawing it akin to legal torture/slavery. Add to that fears of overpopulation, changes in ethnic demographic in an unfavorable (i.e. "non-white") direction, gender equality, single parent homes, failing marriages, promiscuity, teen pregnancy, welfare, and (my problem with Roe v. Wade) creating rights from thin air; and you've got quite a bit to get angry about.

I could write my opinion in full, but I won't. All I'll say is that this idea, if placed at the heart of a well-written political novel that takes an honest look at the issue and is fair to both sides, has the potential to be a nationwide best-seller.

In short, OP, if you're going to do it, do it well. Otherwise, you're gonna get death threats.

People get scary on these issues sometimes...

edited 15th Feb '12 6:56:53 PM by SgtHydra

Aww.... thanks for compliment

hashtagsarestupid

But, he's not understating the death-threats: keep that in mind. Seriously.

Take that lovely little compliment, but also take that warning!

Good point. D:

hashtagsarestupid

But like I said, it still has the potential to be the greatest political novel of our time.

I mean, the importance of Roe v. Wade hasn't dimmed in the 40 years since the decision was made, so the whole thing is ripe for a good book to take advantage of the situation. Like Alex Haley's "Roots" did for the Civil Rights Movement.

While I was reading this thread I couldn't help but think of this book, which deals with a similar "dangerous but interesting concept." There isn't too much in common for me to discuss it further, but you can see how these sorts of political novels can quickly grab attention.

Just out of curiosity, what sort of story were you planning on having revolve around the premise? After all, that's what your book will be about de facto, even if the back cover summary will play up the "Roe v. Wade overturned" premise. While some idiots will mail death threats just from the summary on the back; if you have good characters, a good story, and treat both sides fairly, you're pretty much on your way to the NYT bestseller list.

I've volunteered at Obama rallies and seen the crazy people outside holding up posters with pictures of aborted fetuses on them. Also, I live in DC, so I occasionally see protestors around the city. So yeah, I think it'd be a bit of a hot button issue. Overturning Roe V. Wade would seriously piss off the left, but as far as I know the right has almost always been more willing to play dirty and twist arms to get what it wants.

Politics aside, I agree with everyone else - huge increase in illegal and dangerous back alley abortions, increased crime rate, and the start of a slippery slope towards a general lack of care for reproductive health beyond "Sex before marriage is sinful! Don't do it! We're not even going to let you do it safely if you choose to because you shouldn't be doing it in the first place! Praise God who loves all his children except the ones who aren't me!"

Oh yeah, did I mention that a certain church that doesn't deserve to be named has protested outside my school?

check out KinitoPET