- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Mexico’s supreme court has decriminalized abortion across the country, two years after ruling that abortion was not a crime in one northern state.
That earlier ruling had set off a grinding process of decriminalizing abortion state by state. Last week, the central state of Aguascalientes became the 12th state to decriminalize the procedure. Judges in states that still criminalize abortion will have to take account of the top court’s ruling.
The supreme court wrote on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, that it had decided that “the legal system that criminalized abortion in the Federal Penal Code is unconstitutional, [because] it violates the human rights of women and people with the ability to gestate.”
You must log in or register to comment.
Mexico to reap millions on US abortion tourists.
if only they still controlled texas
As a Mexican, no thank you, its yours now.
California returning to Mexico would be a good thing for the US
What kind of silly notion is that?
California generates about 15% of the United States GDP. If it was its own country it’d have about the 6th highest GDP in the world.
So no, it returning to Mexico would in fact not be a good thing for the U.S.
Probably one of those people who buys the social media BS claiming California is a “liberal hellscape”.
That notion is hilarious to me as a Texan that used to travel up and down the west coast regularly for work. I’ve been to many areas of California that are just as red as any rural areas in Texas. It’s exactly the same as every other state(I’ve been to 48 of the 50 at least several times each state). Rural areas tend to be skewed red, urban tends to be skewed blue. I guess the simplicity of that is hard to see if all the online content you consume is propaganda…
are hawaii and alaska the 2/50 you haven’t visited?
Its either that or its Maine and Utah.
We’d rather take Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, and Idaho make a demented little western federation of sorts. Also Idaho and Arizona are being taken for resource rights.
Idaho is right next to Utah. You wouldn’t want to be there when the Great Salt Lake dries up in a few years.
That would take a lot of federal tax dollars away from states you probably like.
deleted by creator
Now we’re gonna pay for the wall to keep us in!
That’s quite the Uno reverse they pulled. Makes sense they’d be great at Uno.
Reverse psychology!
The technical term is ‘Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart’.
Pretty crazy. Mexico has traditionally been VERY catholic. The fact that it has become more progressive than the US on women’s rights really speaks volumes about how terrible the US has become.
I suspect a LOT of abortions happening down in the west texas town of el paso.
Well, most Americans are progressive on the issues, including abortion, but due to absurd things like the Electoral College, and the way our power is distributed through states and the way in which rural areas have much more influence than they should, conservatives are given way too much power in relation to their numbers.
But without that, the majority would be tyrants!
Oh please, if we didn’t have the electoral college the south wouldn’t be able to serve as the moral compass of the country and couldn’t guide us away from such evils as slavery and racism.
But… But democracy. And the land of the free! Say it ain’t so…
Pretty crazy. Mexico has traditionally been VERY catholic. The fact that it has become more progressive than the US on women’s rights really speaks volumes about how terrible the US has become.
In some ways it might be about sending a clear signal that they arent interested in following the political or cultural leadership of the US.
Fuck. You mean trump actually made [North] America great again?
Nonono, in SPITE of! 😆
Mexico is finally gonna pay for the wall. The wall to keep fleeing Americans out of Mexico.
Now we just need a wall on Kentucky’s border with Tennessee.
How many Ds in those chess? We may never know…
How many Ds in Vs is the question
did you fall in love with a Mexican girl?
It seems even the pope is more progressive than American right now.
The pope doesn’t do shit agains his organisations centuries long paedophilia problem.
Not even the US is that bad.
The sbc has a vastly worse pedophilia problem, has for decades, but they can cover it up well because they drive the girls to suicide because nobody would ever believe a good man like their daddy touched them there.
You don’t have to literally be a pedophile to be truly truly terrible, there’s lots of ways to be that.
That is to say, that does not excuse anyone. “At least we didn’t fuck children” is not a defense or an excuse. The deeper right wing in the US still utter scum that needs to be shown the door and then have a fence built after them (and make them pay for it!) to make sure they don’t come back. Independent of whether the vatican state tried to cover up the church’s massive and systemic pedophilia.
Legitimately wild for the Pope to point blank call the US regressive.
Not out of hypocrisy (though, yeah - solidarity with survivors and the colonised) - but because he was actually really justified in what he said to reach that.
Wild. Absolutely wild. The US is so comically bad faith a society even the pope can eloquate why it’s awful.
It boggles my minds that in the USA the catholics are considered the reasonable christians.
Because like 40% of our people are literally insane and living in a different reality
Mexico’s constitution always allowed for abortions in cases of rape or danger to the mother or fetus.
Catholics might be against abortion, but they are no where near as vocal as some other Christian sects in the US.
Also the Catholic church believed abortions were fine until ~5 months for a long time.
That’s absolutely not true, it was just viewed as a sexual sin before. The catholic church has been against abortion since the 1500s, arguably you could even say it goes back to the early 600s when they tried to find ways to distance themselves from pagans. It wasn’t until the late 1960s when public opinion changed about it being a sin against taking life, then I believe in the 70s the Pope made a public statement, which made it canonical.
As a random side note, St. Thomas of Aquinas take on fetal status was kind of interesting. He viewed a fetus as having 3 states or “souls”; a vegetative soul, an animal soul, and finally a rational soul once the body was completely developed.
" In 1591 the new Pope Gregory XIV reversed the decision, declaring abortion to only be homicide if it took place after ensoulment, which he determined took place 166 days into a pregnancy, or well over halfway through the second trimester. This decision lasted for 278 years until Pope Pius IX reversed the decision yet again in 1869 and made abortion after conception a sin that automatically excommunicated those involved in its procurement from the Catholic Church."
166 days would be over 5 months.
From at least 1500s on it was never “fine” it has always been a sexual sin, that can lead to excommunication from the church. How that works in practice is extremely regional. Even prior to the 1500s it was still an excommunicable offense in most areas, there just isn’t documented policy that I know of.
I also love how whatever quote that is from is using the word “trimester” in relation to something from 1591 when the US Supreme Court coined the term centuries later.
They use trimester to make it meaningful to modern readers, not to imply the rule used that language originally. Like if you were to say “a cubit, or about a foot and a half.”
All the ignorant [American] ass wipes that bemoan and slander Mexico: They’re more progressive than the USA. I know that scares the republican snowflakes. I’m glad women’s rights matter more in some areas. It should have always been about all human rights, but I’ll stop being nieve now.
Ah.
So white ladies are going to start fleeing across the border to get abortions that they can’t get in the States.
Conservatives really ARE trying to bring us back to the 1950s, aren’t they?
deleted by creator
How is Europe back to 1920s?
deleted by creator
Hrm, I would say you’re overstating things, at least in comparison to the very real issues mentioned here that pertain to the US.
Don’t get me wrong, the evolution of politics in countries such as France, Germany, Poland and so on is more than just worrying, it’s downright alarming.
But even in places where the right wing has managed to achieve political power, they have not managed to effect much regressive political change yet. That is to say, the US situation shows what will happen in the EU if this slide continues. And sure, it could be worse if “parties” (I dread to call people who want to abolish the current democracy a political party, tbh) like the AfD attain power, but again that hasn’t happened yet, unlike some clearly xenophobic and active nazi-sympathizers in the US, or people like Santis or MTG.
Both are shit, but compared to the deeper red states in the US and the truly crazy places, most countries in Europe are a massive improvement, even with all their own problems.
At least in Czechia we do no have (or about to have) a psychopath president. So we should be okay for the next 3 years at least.
It’s a nice change after 20 years of misery. I still haven’t gotten used to it.
I think that depends on your definition on Nationalism and far right movements. I personally wouldnt say we are back in the 1920s, but I guess we all have different opinions
I mean, that’s kind of their whole shtick lol
Let them bring back the 1950s tax rate first
… wrote on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter,
It’s amazing how many times online and on TV I hear people phrase things just like this.
No one is just calling “X”, X.
It’s like when Prince became “the artist formerly known as Prince”…
In that case it’s because he chose an unpronounceable symbol as his name. X is just stupid.
“The artist formerly known as Twitter”
deleted by creator
Xitter.
This is great, considering in Chinese Xi sounds like shi
Precisely correct. Not sure Elmo really thought it through.
I’ve been interpreting it like “the artist formerly known as Prince”
deleted by creator
Just call it twitter. Lonnie doesn’t respect name changes for Trans people. Don’t respect his company’s name change.
Did y’all know that Mexico also has a form of universal healthcare. Pretty soon the flow of illegal immigrants might start going the other way.
There is already a good amount of medical tourism to Mexico from the US.
Like how Utahans were buying insulin from Mexico because it was something like 1/100 the price.
Given how the population of Utah votes that makes them hypocritical
Hah, boomers being hypocritical? They don’t even know the meaning of the word!
I need burn cream by proxy from that comment. Well done.
An insult with a few different layers, well done.
That said, the entire mexican public health service system is absolute shit, so much so that the president acknowleged it as recently a last year.
Actually… No
The facilities could use some work, yeah, red tape and waiting times are terrible, for sure, medicines availability, thanks for this president have been inconsistent as of late, yes
But… thanks to the perks offered in the job, many of the best doctors and surgeons treat there, the ones that treat also in the expensive hospital are treating in the IMSS (name of the service), so yeah, great surgeons for free if you are willing to go through the long bureaucratic process.
I’ve indeed heard frequently that the best practitioners are found in the IMSS, although in my own experience, whether you have a good experience with the medical professionals and procedures is basically a coin toss, unless you have connections and are able to ask for someone in particular, or personally know one of the practitioners.
so much so that the president acknowleged it
Acknowledging it is the first step to improving it. We have Republicans who have the gall to claim that we have the best healthcare in the world.
deleted by creator
Completely agree. The fact they’re restructuring and allocating funds at least seems to suggest that they’re taking it seriously, and even if it’s baby steps, it’s something
Lot of folks hop the border for a bit for the far cheaper dental care down there.
I’ve heard of a lot of people doing this. Pretty bad when driving to an entire other country for dental care is cheaper.
I’ve done this with my wife. It saved us thousands of dollars. And the place was very clean and professional.
I’ve heard horror stories, ironically all from dentists in the US, about dentists in Mexico. But I hear a lot more stories like yours about how it was great, and they managed to save a ton of money.
I’m sure there are scammers, but my wife did a lot of research before we went. The dentist we went to in TJ actually got her degree in San Bernardino, CA like 40 mins from where we live. If you do your due diligence the process can go pretty smoothly, and yes, save a ton of cash.
Driving? Hell I had a coworker who would fly there from Alaska to get dental work done and even with his week long hotel stay while he recuperated still saved thousands of dollars
Pretty sure Palin admitted to her family hopping the border for cheaper healthcare in Canada.
I’m picturing her going to Russia for cheaper healthcare. She did claim she could see Russia from her house.
That was Tina Fey. Palin said that you can see Russia from part of Alaska which is true since there are a couple islands that are like 10 miles away from some Russian islands. Saying that that gives you some sort of foreign policy experience is idiotic though.
I do remember something about that.
deleted by creator
Good for Mexico, that’s awesome! Too bad the U.S. is such a fucking backwards excuse of a country.
tfw Mexico becomes more desirable than the USA in the future
Some states in Mexico than some states in the USA quite possibly.
You ladies ever been to Mexico?
“you boys like MexICOO?! Whooooooo!”
Does burn out donut, in cop car
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The supreme court wrote on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, that it had decided that “the legal system that criminalized abortion in the Federal Penal Code is unconstitutional, [because] it violates the human rights of women and people with the ability to gestate.”
The court’s sweeping decision on Wednesday comes amid a trend in Latin America of loosening restrictions on abortion, even as access has been limited in parts of the United States.
GIRE, a reproductive rights organization based in Mexico City, said the court decided that the portion of the federal penal code that criminalized abortion no longer has any effect.
Across Latin America, countries have made moves to lift abortion restrictions in recent years, often referred to as a “green wave”.
After decades of work by feminist activists across the region, the wave picked up speed in Argentina, which in 2020 legalized the procedure.
Many organizers worry, however, that the lifting of restrictions may not translate to expanded access in highly conservative and religious countries.
The original article contains 346 words, the summary contains 169 words. Saved 51%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
…people with the ability to gestate.
Got that 1-2 punch of abortion progress and inclusive language.
Edit: shit, I thought this was the other comment about Texas towns arresting people trying to get abortions just as they were driving through.
‐----------
Texas should start dusting off their pride flags if they are discouraging men and women from having sex, lmao.
(Not how sexuality works, of course, but it makes me chuckle at the amazing irony of the situation, particularly in light of conspiracy theories like the great replacement and all that nonsense.)
so… women?
People that can’t gestate rarely need abortions.
…rarely.
Well there are some days I’d like to abort my neighbor.
If that doesn’t work, retry and eventually ignore.
Something to do with things that mostly come out at night
… mostly.
So far that record is 1/0 for can’t gestate/ got abortion
traaaaaaaaaannnnnnns
Seems like big government overreach. Next thing you know they’ll be forcing everybody to have an abortion. That’s probably why so many people are fleeing that country to come here where we have the freedom to let states decide.
How very authoritarian of you, shrew…
This is a parody account, I take it? Poe’s Law strikes again.
Why would a state - any state - have anything to do with letting a woman control her body?
Because bodily autonomy is a complete farce? Society can force conscious action and everyone cheers and thinks it’s grand (because it is), but saying that you can’t take certain actions is abominable merely because it has a slightly different psychological effect.
Controlling people’s actions is literally a core function of society. Taxation, or even contracts are all vastly more extreme violations of bodily autonomy than a state simply prohibiting a conscious choice.
Not sure about the anatomy (though I can agree that some of it is rather funny, when you think about it), but the ability to control your own body is, as I see it, one of the core liberties that can never be taken away from an able person. The ethics of “supporting” people with some mental disabilities is much more convoluted, I do not have a strong opinion there.
Would be curious to see how you do your tax returns if that violates your anatomy!
“Autonomy” not “anatomy”, very different things.
“I’m curious to see how you do your taxes if that violates your autonomy”
Easy, as I pretty clearly laid out violating autonomy is a requirement of society. Social norms require forcing people to engage in certain actions or face punishment (either literal imprisonment or social repercussions like faced by rude people.) If this is permissible, then why is merely prohibiting certain actions to be considered an unacceptable violation of bodily autonomy? Prohibiting something is no where near as severe as forcing someone to do something.
Ultimately nobody actually cares about bodily autonomy, it is simply a post hoc attempt at justifying that people ascribe moral value based solely on how they personally feel.
(A good example of this is forced blood donation, everyone apparently thinks it’s somehow reprehensible (on principle not by making medical risk arguments) even though it is only temporary harm and arguably less harmful than income tax).
That said, I do my taxes just fine, even though the state violates my bodily autonomy by forcing me to do them.
FYI, when people talk about a right to bodily autonomy they aren’t saying you aren’t allowed to mind-control people, they are saying you aren’t allowed to coerce someone since all norms and laws are enforced by coercion rather than rendering people physically incapable of violating the norms.
Oh, my bad, apologies. Scan reading sometimes leads to mistakes like that, and that one was too funny for my brain to let go.
But now it makes even less sense to me with the body thing. I would never accept someone else forcing me to do (or not do) something with my own body - and i see no reason whatsoever for anyone to accept that.
There is an issue of vaccination where some enforcement is justifiable, as there is a true risk for other people in you not doing it. How does someone’s decision of not having a child threatens you?
Any and all restrictions or instructions should be based on a rational argument, otherwise it is just a limitation of your freedom.
And given that the argument in favor of imposing the limitations in question lies in the area of someone else’s beliefs - that becomes even more ridiculous.
On the taxes side - there i can see a strong argument for it in principle, as it allows the society as a whole to do better. You want to use infrastructure built by society - you pay. Now, there is a whole other problem of how exactly the monies collected on the basis of a rational idea are spent. Holding the people in charge accountable is truly a big issue, not for this thread though.
“How does someone not having a child threaten you”
A serial killer that only targets blondes doesn’t pose any threat to me at all. I might even personally benefit from their actions. Why do I still want them to be stopped?
“I see no reason whatsoever to accept that”
But you already do. You even give vaccination as an example where it would be permitted.
You are perfectly fine with one bodily autonomy violation to save lives (vaccination), but are against another (weaker form) violation that also saves lives.
The logical resolution to this is to say that prohibiting abortion doesn’t save lives (i.e the fetus has no moral value or atleast insufficient moral value to outweigh personal feelings). But this renders the bodily autonomy argument worthless, because it is now the moral status of the fetus that matters not any idea of bodily autonomy. This pretty much establishes why I think the right to bodily autonomy is not actually accepted by anyone.
“Any and all restrictions and instructions should be based on rational arguments”
There is tons of academic papers on the immorality of abortion, of course there are tons that argue in the opposite of direction. I would consider most on both sides to have somewhat rational arguments it just depends on what premises you want to accept as true. I find the premises behind permitting abortion to be bit more far-fetched, things like mind-body dualism or continuity of mind as somehow granting greater moral value to be unsupported or impractical.
Blondes are people, fetuses are not - that is my view. Moral arguments can form opinions, not legislation.It is ok for you to hate me if you choose to do so, it however does not grant you a right to stop me doing my immoral in your view thing. That is, unless my immoral thing infringes your rights, then we can talk and see what can be done.
As mentioned, I am always keen to accept a rational argument (as in vaccination, where there is science behind), so can i please politely ask you to point me in the direction of academic studies on the immorality of abortion? Never saw one, so forgive my ignorance.
Because not letting the state choose means the federal government is telling the state what to do and that’s big government overreach
There is a world outside the US, as they say… Regardless, why would a federal government enforce the control of someone’s body? There are in general 2 people involved in this, and they should be the only ones responsible for this type of decisions. Not a state, not feds.
“They should”- Very serious moral claim there.
But … states have different partial authonomy. Again, PARTIAL. Otherwise, they arent really part of federal government in the first place.
By ur logic texas can say “well, now we wont have a president but we will have a ruling dynasty.” For me even the authonomy american states actually have is too high. Like how can in a same country have different laws about BASIC human rights?
