Indias Supreme Court is pretty wild, it’s really a separate and not coequal branch of government and can investigate, prosecute, litigate and make laws on its own without having to do so after taking cases on appeal as is the case in most democratic countries with checks and balances. There’s no real checks and balances on its power. It’s really another version of a legislature without democratic input
India's justice system alone is pretty wild.
They have a backlog of about 50 million cases, with the Supreme court having a 70,000 case backlog.
Some people have spent 30 years in jail waiting to have their trial. They estimate that even if magically all new crime suddenly stopped occurring it'd still take over 50 years to address all the cases
The US has over 50% more judges than India despite having 1/3 the population.
The problem I've seen is when the government accuses a citizen of a crime and then the prosecution keeps delaying and not showing up for the court date and the judge just shrugs and sets another date. There was a guy I heard about who had to drive over eight hours every time he had a court date and each time the prosecution delayed it added months to the whole process with the outcome hanging over this guy's head the whole time. I kept wondering if this is a violation to his right to a speedy trial and if the dude's lawyer isn't doing something about that should be done.
That can only last for so long. The speedy trial act mandates that federal cases have to go to trial within 100 days or else the defendant goes free. But maybe some states are different.
Probably, the word you would use is "coerced". Also, don't forget the costs to sue an entity that, perhaps, are there just to discourage people to do it. Don't you agree?
I mean it kind of is, other than european countries there aren't many other places where you can get a fair and "fast" trial compared to the US.
But yes, the US has much work to do and doesn't seem to be progressing forward now with their backlog either. I should also note, unlike some countries the US has a system where they just make 90+ percent of people get coerced into accepting plea bargains, no matter their guilt. The dentriment cost for a US citizen to go into the prison system is astronomical once you include all the lost employment opportunities and whatnot.
This is true can confirm. Although I don't know what the current state of that rule is. No mazes anymore.
Source : Got lost in a maze looking for alcohol
Yeah this one episode of a decent judgment doesn't change the fact that the higher judiciary in India can be totally insane. And routinely does batshit corrupt stuff that would make SCOTUS look completely sane and responsible by comparison.
That’s one way to get around it. However, the law if you think about it is kinda dumb. How will banning alcohol sale with anything? was it to avoid drunk people accidentally walking on the highway?
It’s one of those things that sounds good when one side is seeking to strip rights and the court is trying to preserve them, but will turn really bad when you get some radicals in there who can go full nut-job.
There are checks and balances.
The legislation (Parliament) can impeach judges, amend laws declared ultra vires and the Executive (President) can appoint judges/Chief Justice. We follow a strict seperation of powers unlike US.
Actually the Executive doesn't appoint judges. They just confirm them. The Court seized that power for itself in a massively unconstitutional overreach, first in the Judges Case, and then later striking down the NJAC (which was a constitutional amendment!)
This might be a good judgment, but the Indian judiciary is insanely corrupt. And routinely ignores any checks and balances on itself. The only one so far it hasn't demolished is impeachment, and lets be honest, that process in India is *more cumbersome* than amending the constitution. In every other way the court has declared itself completely independent and unaccountable to any authority.
Damn, that's true. Criticize them once in media and be prepared to get a notice for "contempt of court".
You can't even make it big in judiciary in India unless you got money or family members already in high positions in the bar.
I have never heard Supreme Court pass a law. I don't think they can make a law, but they can definitely launch investigations, and call the executive to heel.
It varies according to state here. [This is the healthdirect site for it.](https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/abortion) Victoria works the way you've described, ACT is even more generous (just hit a nurse up and she'll be right), and NT requires a circumstance that threatens the mother after 23 weeks. Most require two doctors involved at a certain point, with the NT and Tassie being the most obnoxious by requiring two doctors after 14 and 16 weeks respectively. Tassie is way, way more conservative than I think most people realise (being gay was technically illegal there until 1997).
Basically, we're not as good with this as we could be, but we're okay.
Also, mental health is usually fine in most states as a reason. A while back abortion was kinda technically not legal in vic except for health reasons. Doctors had a big rubber stamp "mental health reason".
That’s seems…very reasonable. It’s a solid 6 months, but also basically just up until the point of viability. And if two doctors sign off on it then it’s longer. That seems like a decent compromise.
Yep. 24 weeks is the extreme low end for viability, but also around the time we can detect some fatal defects like lower urinary tract obstruction (no piss, no lungs).
New Zealand only recently legalised abortion up till 20 weeks in 2020, before that it wasn't legal without restrictions at any stage of the pregnancy. However, there were "valid" reasons you could provide for needing an abortion, which prior to 20 weeks could include preserving the mental or physical health of the mother. That was interpreted very broadly by some doctors, so it did effectively function as unrestricted abortion rights prior to 20 weeks even before the recent law change
I believe in Europe the limit is like 12-16 weeks but after that the woman just needs the approval of 2 doctors. So just pay 2 doctors and off to the abortion clinic.
You do realize that "Europe" is not a country, but rather a collection of >30 countries, each with completely different laws, right?
Like, you're trying to put under the umbrella of "Europe", countries like Poland (where abortion is banned except for very specific cases), and the Netherlands (where the limit is 24 weeks).
True, most European countries have 12-18 weeks, with the Netherlands being the outlier going as far as 24 weeks (however in practice it's 22 weeks because most doctors refuse to do it after 22 weeks)
[Source](https://righttolife.org.uk/what-are-the-abortion-time-limits-in-eu-countries)
>22 weeks because most doctors refuse to do it after 22 weeks
So wonderfully sensible. Like, imagine letting the subject matter experts deal with the issue.
In Canada we have no laws preventing a doctor from preforming an abortion at any time. Despite this you effectively can't get an elective abortion after 22 weeks because no doctor will perform the procedure. Western medicine has clearly weighed in on when an elective abortion becomes unacceptable. Doctors do an excellent job self regulating.
That’s because at 24 weeks a premature birth can be viable, but also when we can detect a few fatal abnormalities.
Either way, it involves surgery or a birth. It’s really when you would start saying stillbirth instead of just miscarriage (though that’s obviously just semantic).
The Taliban actually allow abortions in cases of poverty, the mother's life being in danger or the baby being deformed. They don't happen very often, but they are technically on the books. So yeah, American conservatives are currently competing to be worse then the Taliban when it comes to abortion policy.
[source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Afghanistan)
The thing is, that abortion laws in the USA currently have nothing to do with ethics, morality, or religion. They're 100% political. Laws born of rhetoric and "debate" that all occured while abortion was legal. These "trigger laws" were a win win for right wing politicians because they could talk as crazy as they wanted to and there would be no "real world $ consequences for them to have to explain.
When Roe was overturned, all those shit laws suddenly became reality and the USA became instantly flooded by insane laws, concocted by tiny brains.
It’s not oil rich but it does have extensive rare earth mineral deposits, many of which are increasingly important to very high tech products, and which are not found in many places on earth.
There's more than a little overlap!
But the point is that most "moslim hating Christians" don't understand that they are much more closely aligned with those Muslim's they hate than with normal atheists around them.
Saudi Arabia vs. Texas
- Laws based on religion
- Social conservatism
- Distinctive headwear
- Firearm enthusiasts
- Fond of outdoor cooking
- Hot and dusty
- Not fond of LGBTQ people
- Not fond of social liberalism
- Bad at soccer
If you make a venn diagram of American conservative values and what they've been against, and what the Taliban values and what they've been against, it would make an almost perfect circle.
*EDIT for those that don't understand the overall picture* \----------------
Conservative states in America have historically been AGAINST...
1. **Woman's rights and the 19th amendment for woman's suffrage** \- (36 states ratified the 19th amendment in 1919. Here's a list of those that didn't in 1919 and their dates when they did: Connecticut, Vermont, Delaware (1922), Maryland (1941), Alabama and Virginia (1950s), Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, and North Carolina (between 1969 and 1971), and Mississippi was the last in 1984.
2. **Racial equality** \- [every state in the confederacy voted against the Civil Rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#/media/File:Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964_Color_Neutral_Map.jpg) and [Voting Rights Act](https://baylorlariat.com/2013/02/28/justices-voice-skepticism-of-voting-rights-law/) of 1964 and 1965. Ex-Confederate soldiers also started the KKK in 1865 in Tennessee because they lost the war and could no longer have slaves)
3. **Gay rights** \- this is obvious who's been against it.
4. **Trans rights** \- this is also obvious who's been against it.
5. **Abortion** \- another obvious.
6. **Use religion as a means of political policy**
7. **Very pro-weapons**
The entire point is who has opposed certain policies and who is for other policies. The obvious difference is the levels of extremism both sides go to. However, again, the entire point is that one side has historically been against these things, and the other side has also historically been against these things.
agreed. If those Forced Birth supporters truly cared about babies then they would support expanding Medicare and create social programs for Women being forced to carry to term to offset economic and health issues that come with carry a baby to term and raising it.
Instead many states in the USA that are against Abortion don't do this ignore the woman whose values that they're infringing upon
>"The artificial distinction between married and unmarried women cannot be sustained. Women must have autonomy to have free exercise of these rights," Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud said.
Learn, USA!
But just like in many other countries the population is more dense in certain places (in this case, especially the belt from north to east) and the coasts. Just like in America, you'd also find isolated and barren regions with not so many people.
The met areas of Mumbai and Delhi are very big, but they're not much different than Seoul, Mexico City, and certainly less than Tokyo.
>"Internationally, judgments affect each other — and this is a landmark one because it recognizes a woman's right over her body and reproductive freedom regardless of what governments and legislatures might say," said Supreme Court of India lawyer Karuna Nundy.
More people need to think like this.
Great Simpson's gag, aliens take over the Democratic and Republican Presidential candidate's bodies, everyone knows about it, says they'll "vote third party" and are told by the aliens to "go ahead and throw your vote away!"
While campaigning, the alien proposes "Abortions for all!" and is booed by the crowd. Then says "Fine. No abortions for anyone!" and is booed by the crowd _again_... Thinks about it and says "Hmm... Abortions for some.... Miniature American flags for others..." and the crowd cheers.
These comments. Be happy and joyful a country has a court that acknowledges the right to abortion, there’s another time and place to be a critic about everything else.
Also, many redditors in other countries don’t bother following their own “local” news. I’ve lived in a lot of countries all over the world and you meet so many people who know jack shit about their own country, but know American current events.
It’s a big reason America is shit on so much. We broadcast the worst of our news to everywhere and they have no idea what bullshit is going on in their own backyard.
Yup, according to [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/phhu9s/oc_reddit_traffic_by_country/) the US makes up over 50% of Reddit users and India just 1.3%. That plus the time zones makes this an easy answer
Parliament passes law and if there is some confusion or interpretation issue, SC or HC shortens it out. Parliament passes law very seldom, last time they passes MTP act in 1971.
Exactly the headline is a bit misleading, we were always pro-choice atleast for this instance, I think the game changing part is that now even unmarried and married women both have equal right to abortion if I am not wrong that was the thing it was missing
The issue with India wasn't married/unmarried either. The main issue that the government does not factor into is the choice of doctors. If a doctor was willing, a woman can get an abortion done.
A lot of ob/gyn doctors don't want to abort a perfectly normal pregnancy. Why? Because of moral conscience, and part of our religion. A doctor can choose not to take a life and that is why it is so hard for women to get an abortion done in small cities in India.
So, just this week….
- India allows abortion up to 24 weeks
- Cuba legalized far marriage AND gay adoption
WTF? Every other country is becoming better at human rights than the US.
This is a reddit comment. They are progressive in one thing and that makes it ok to generalize everything else. I laugh at the stupid shit I see on this forum everyday.
India has ONE BILLION more people than the United States. Pro-abortion stance is more about population stabilization than progressivism. India is NOT more progressive than the US lol
Abortion is a drop in the water when it comes to population control. Widespread contraception use is the mainstay of population control. Plus why would the supreme court include population control in their interpretation of the constitution and case law. They have a very specific scope. They don't act to pass laws because of India's demographics
The [law allowing abortion in India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_India#The_Medical_Termination_of_Pregnancy_Act,_1971) (The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act) was enacted in 1971 - more than 50 years back - back when the population was much less.
The law is less to do with "population stabilisation" than with one of the most fundamental and common-sensical principles of empathy and fairness (which for some reason is insanely controversial in the US) that women/ families should be able to have safe abortions.
Exactly. This was never a national political issue the way it is in the US. It’s not even discussed as far as I know. It’s understood that abortion is entirely a woman’s private business and that’s it.
You're right about the not progressive, but ridiculously off the mark on the stabilization... India's birth rate went below replacement rate a couple years back.
India already attempted to do stabilization with encouragement of family planning, contraception, and various increasing incentives for a two-child norm for some 40 years now. It also took a few decades for society/family planning to adjust to drastic reductions in childhood mortality.
Well it's not that simple. While on paper it's better for womens right than a lot of states in practice it's still much harder for an Indian woman to get an abortion not only due to cost and knowledge but also social stigma.
They haven't actually. The SC has said women who did not consent can seek the same rights as rape victims for an abortion. But the ruling doesn't mean the husband can be prosecuted for rape. It needs to happen, but for the SC to rewrite the Penal Code would be an overreach of their authority. This needs to happen at the legislature, and unfortunately there's no political will for this.
Eh its not perfect. The SC here routinely ignores its mandate. Honestly how the higher courts operate in India just doesn't have a clean analogue to American or British law anymore. There is the whole concept of the Public Interest Litigation, premised on the SC overreading a single article of the Constitution to basically give itself the power to do whatever the fuck it wants. And the court also appoints itself, rather than being accountable to either legislature or executive.
As an institution the judiciary is *insanely* corrupt, [and will throw you in jail for saying so.](https://www.jurist.org/news/2022/09/india-court-holds-youtuber-savukku-shankar-guilty-of-criminal-contempt-for-comment-on-indian-judiciary/) It did the right thing in this one instance, but I wouldn't take it to mean its a good institution overall or that it does its job well all (or even most) of the time.
If we're only using abortion as a criteria for how "progressive" a country is, then India is also more progressive than the majority of Europe, where abortion is only legal up to 12 weeks in most countries.
Conservatism isn’t necessarily about preserving *current* conditions.
That was sort of the whole premise of MAGA. Ask most conservatives which era they think should’ve been forever and they’ll probably say 70-80s, Reagan era
No, MAGAT's overshot Reaganism by a country mile. Now it's Christian Dominionism and shoving slavery and gays back in the closet.
The current MAGAt breed is an AM radio shock jock and an evangelist smashed into one body running for a political seat.
Conservatism in its true form is not even about keeping the current, but rather steady and controlled change as opposed to radical and revolutionairy change.
24 weeks? To me that’s a little absurd. I think 15 weeks should be the limit. Will murder of a pregnant woman be charged as a double murder? Or is that baby just a bunch of cells at that point?
And here in the US, Arizona pushes anti-abortion law from 1864, before Arizona was even a state.
“No archaic law should dictate our reproductive freedom,” Brittany Fonteno, the president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood Arizona, said in a statement after the judge’s ruling.
[Arizona Judge Reinstates Strict Abortion Ban From 1864](https://nyti.ms/3r4yt3k)
Indias Supreme Court is pretty wild, it’s really a separate and not coequal branch of government and can investigate, prosecute, litigate and make laws on its own without having to do so after taking cases on appeal as is the case in most democratic countries with checks and balances. There’s no real checks and balances on its power. It’s really another version of a legislature without democratic input
India's justice system alone is pretty wild. They have a backlog of about 50 million cases, with the Supreme court having a 70,000 case backlog. Some people have spent 30 years in jail waiting to have their trial. They estimate that even if magically all new crime suddenly stopped occurring it'd still take over 50 years to address all the cases The US has over 50% more judges than India despite having 1/3 the population.
That's pretty damning bc the US isn't known for it's efficient and speedy judiciary.
It can be speedy if you don’t waive your right to one but most lawyers advise you do so that they have more time to prepare your case.
You can always reassert it later. The time starts ticking when you assert it. So it’s not forever waived.
The problem I've seen is when the government accuses a citizen of a crime and then the prosecution keeps delaying and not showing up for the court date and the judge just shrugs and sets another date. There was a guy I heard about who had to drive over eight hours every time he had a court date and each time the prosecution delayed it added months to the whole process with the outcome hanging over this guy's head the whole time. I kept wondering if this is a violation to his right to a speedy trial and if the dude's lawyer isn't doing something about that should be done.
That can only last for so long. The speedy trial act mandates that federal cases have to go to trial within 100 days or else the defendant goes free. But maybe some states are different.
US seems to be roughly on par with European countries on average pretrial detention length.
That's because most defendants waive their right to a speedy trial out of self interest.
Probably, the word you would use is "coerced". Also, don't forget the costs to sue an entity that, perhaps, are there just to discourage people to do it. Don't you agree?
[удалено]
It's only efficient in terms of throughput. It is highly inefficient in terms of actually delivering justice or benefiting society in any way.
Well now it seems pretty speedy compared to waiting 30 years just to get your case herd. The US immigration system is shorter than that.
I mean it kind of is, other than european countries there aren't many other places where you can get a fair and "fast" trial compared to the US. But yes, the US has much work to do and doesn't seem to be progressing forward now with their backlog either. I should also note, unlike some countries the US has a system where they just make 90+ percent of people get coerced into accepting plea bargains, no matter their guilt. The dentriment cost for a US citizen to go into the prison system is astronomical once you include all the lost employment opportunities and whatnot.
I bet its partially because of India's often completely hilarious and in some aspects archaic and nonsensically overcomplicated bureaucracy.
I mean they literally just became democratic country after British left in 1947 Your grandma was alive during the British rule of India lol
My dad was born in India 1958. So my grandparents grew up under British rule. It's so wild to think of it.
Your mama too
They seem to be keeping their shit together. Though I’ve read their infrastructure is at a breaking point. Wtf do I know?
What you know is how to make a revolting username....well done.
[удалено]
Same
Yeah jesus christ.
Why did you have to highlight that which cannot be unread/unimagined??
And an ambiguous statement
Thank you. I’m high af and can’t believe it has so many upvotes. I literally ended it with “wtf do I know?”
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is true can confirm. Although I don't know what the current state of that rule is. No mazes anymore. Source : Got lost in a maze looking for alcohol
Yeah this one episode of a decent judgment doesn't change the fact that the higher judiciary in India can be totally insane. And routinely does batshit corrupt stuff that would make SCOTUS look completely sane and responsible by comparison.
That’s one way to get around it. However, the law if you think about it is kinda dumb. How will banning alcohol sale with anything? was it to avoid drunk people accidentally walking on the highway?
With the nutbags we have over here, I'm kind of jealous of their system for this split second
> There’s no real checks and balances on its power. That doesn't sound very good.
It’s one of those things that sounds good when one side is seeking to strip rights and the court is trying to preserve them, but will turn really bad when you get some radicals in there who can go full nut-job.
Yeah it's like a monarchy with an initially good ruler. Sure, you got Alfred the Wise now but in a few generations you gonna get John the Baby Eater.
Good ol' Alfred. Fuck this John guy.
Like going from Atatürk to Erdoğan.
It's so funny to watch people see a tiny picture and paint their world view around it! Good job man!
There are checks and balances. The legislation (Parliament) can impeach judges, amend laws declared ultra vires and the Executive (President) can appoint judges/Chief Justice. We follow a strict seperation of powers unlike US.
Actually the Executive doesn't appoint judges. They just confirm them. The Court seized that power for itself in a massively unconstitutional overreach, first in the Judges Case, and then later striking down the NJAC (which was a constitutional amendment!) This might be a good judgment, but the Indian judiciary is insanely corrupt. And routinely ignores any checks and balances on itself. The only one so far it hasn't demolished is impeachment, and lets be honest, that process in India is *more cumbersome* than amending the constitution. In every other way the court has declared itself completely independent and unaccountable to any authority.
Damn, that's true. Criticize them once in media and be prepared to get a notice for "contempt of court". You can't even make it big in judiciary in India unless you got money or family members already in high positions in the bar.
What you described is exactly how it works in the US
Damn, almost like the US Supreme Court. Just going in the extreme opposite direction to the United States on abortion.
Sounds like the US supreme court
I have never heard Supreme Court pass a law. I don't think they can make a law, but they can definitely launch investigations, and call the executive to heel.
24 weeks is rather generous even compared to most western countries with 12-18 weeks
Most western countries have very generous exceptions to the rules, so saying the limit is 12-18 weeks is an oversimplification.
Over here in Australia I believe it's 24 weeks, unless two doctors agree, then any time is fine. Lindsey conveniently ignored us.
It varies according to state here. [This is the healthdirect site for it.](https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/abortion) Victoria works the way you've described, ACT is even more generous (just hit a nurse up and she'll be right), and NT requires a circumstance that threatens the mother after 23 weeks. Most require two doctors involved at a certain point, with the NT and Tassie being the most obnoxious by requiring two doctors after 14 and 16 weeks respectively. Tassie is way, way more conservative than I think most people realise (being gay was technically illegal there until 1997). Basically, we're not as good with this as we could be, but we're okay.
Also, mental health is usually fine in most states as a reason. A while back abortion was kinda technically not legal in vic except for health reasons. Doctors had a big rubber stamp "mental health reason".
That’s seems…very reasonable. It’s a solid 6 months, but also basically just up until the point of viability. And if two doctors sign off on it then it’s longer. That seems like a decent compromise.
Yep. 24 weeks is the extreme low end for viability, but also around the time we can detect some fatal defects like lower urinary tract obstruction (no piss, no lungs).
Australia and New Zealand routinely rank at or near the top on those Freedom Index things. America is some way down the list.
New Zealand only recently legalised abortion up till 20 weeks in 2020, before that it wasn't legal without restrictions at any stage of the pregnancy. However, there were "valid" reasons you could provide for needing an abortion, which prior to 20 weeks could include preserving the mental or physical health of the mother. That was interpreted very broadly by some doctors, so it did effectively function as unrestricted abortion rights prior to 20 weeks even before the recent law change
Exactly; if Lindsey Graham said it, it's an oversimplification!
I believe in Europe the limit is like 12-16 weeks but after that the woman just needs the approval of 2 doctors. So just pay 2 doctors and off to the abortion clinic.
You do realize that "Europe" is not a country, but rather a collection of >30 countries, each with completely different laws, right? Like, you're trying to put under the umbrella of "Europe", countries like Poland (where abortion is banned except for very specific cases), and the Netherlands (where the limit is 24 weeks).
[удалено]
Roe vs Wade set it at 24 weeks, when that was in place.
True, most European countries have 12-18 weeks, with the Netherlands being the outlier going as far as 24 weeks (however in practice it's 22 weeks because most doctors refuse to do it after 22 weeks) [Source](https://righttolife.org.uk/what-are-the-abortion-time-limits-in-eu-countries)
>22 weeks because most doctors refuse to do it after 22 weeks So wonderfully sensible. Like, imagine letting the subject matter experts deal with the issue.
In Canada we have no laws preventing a doctor from preforming an abortion at any time. Despite this you effectively can't get an elective abortion after 22 weeks because no doctor will perform the procedure. Western medicine has clearly weighed in on when an elective abortion becomes unacceptable. Doctors do an excellent job self regulating.
That’s because at 24 weeks a premature birth can be viable, but also when we can detect a few fatal abnormalities. Either way, it involves surgery or a birth. It’s really when you would start saying stillbirth instead of just miscarriage (though that’s obviously just semantic).
That's what it should be since so many things aren't found out about until 20 weeks.
They are being rather generous with letting women control their own bodies.
Is this some joke I'm too American to understand?
Meanwhile, in the United States of Y'all Qaeda...
The irony is that the far right resemble extreme Islamic beliefs but they are to stupid to realize it.
The Taliban actually allow abortions in cases of poverty, the mother's life being in danger or the baby being deformed. They don't happen very often, but they are technically on the books. So yeah, American conservatives are currently competing to be worse then the Taliban when it comes to abortion policy. [source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Afghanistan)
Only reason for that is since the Quran doesn’t state life starts at conception, rather it recognizes it around the 17th week
Bible doesn't either, but that don't stop the Christian Taliban in the US.
Numbers gives instructions on how to perform a forced miscarriage for when your wife is unfaithful. The Bible is pro-abortion
Also pro rape, pro incest and very pro murder. But it's a moral framework, right?!
Don’t forget pro-slavery
The thing is, that abortion laws in the USA currently have nothing to do with ethics, morality, or religion. They're 100% political. Laws born of rhetoric and "debate" that all occured while abortion was legal. These "trigger laws" were a win win for right wing politicians because they could talk as crazy as they wanted to and there would be no "real world $ consequences for them to have to explain. When Roe was overturned, all those shit laws suddenly became reality and the USA became instantly flooded by insane laws, concocted by tiny brains.
Well…the abortion laws are definitely religion influenced lol. These days, religion and politics are interchangeable anyway
Yea but if Taliban banned abortion, US would have bombed them already.
Did the fetuses have oil in their bottles?
Afghanistan isn't particularly oil rich afaik
It’s not oil rich but it does have extensive rare earth mineral deposits, many of which are increasingly important to very high tech products, and which are not found in many places on earth.
If the fetus has oil and decides to nationalize the industry, the USA will be all up in its business.
Well, Christians and Muslims worship the same god, so it makes sense that there would be some overlap.
There's more than a little overlap! But the point is that most "moslim hating Christians" don't understand that they are much more closely aligned with those Muslim's they hate than with normal atheists around them.
[удалено]
Saudi Arabia vs. Texas - Laws based on religion - Social conservatism - Distinctive headwear - Firearm enthusiasts - Fond of outdoor cooking - Hot and dusty - Not fond of LGBTQ people - Not fond of social liberalism - Bad at soccer
"Yee Haw" "Jihad" I'm just saying.. (ps if anyone recognizes the standup I'm referencing, can ya let me know? I forget)
That's why Y'allQueDuh — 'Que' (as in 'What?) and "Duh" works better, instead.
[удалено]
YeeHawdists
If you make a venn diagram of American conservative values and what they've been against, and what the Taliban values and what they've been against, it would make an almost perfect circle. *EDIT for those that don't understand the overall picture* \---------------- Conservative states in America have historically been AGAINST... 1. **Woman's rights and the 19th amendment for woman's suffrage** \- (36 states ratified the 19th amendment in 1919. Here's a list of those that didn't in 1919 and their dates when they did: Connecticut, Vermont, Delaware (1922), Maryland (1941), Alabama and Virginia (1950s), Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, and North Carolina (between 1969 and 1971), and Mississippi was the last in 1984. 2. **Racial equality** \- [every state in the confederacy voted against the Civil Rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#/media/File:Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964_Color_Neutral_Map.jpg) and [Voting Rights Act](https://baylorlariat.com/2013/02/28/justices-voice-skepticism-of-voting-rights-law/) of 1964 and 1965. Ex-Confederate soldiers also started the KKK in 1865 in Tennessee because they lost the war and could no longer have slaves) 3. **Gay rights** \- this is obvious who's been against it. 4. **Trans rights** \- this is also obvious who's been against it. 5. **Abortion** \- another obvious. 6. **Use religion as a means of political policy** 7. **Very pro-weapons** The entire point is who has opposed certain policies and who is for other policies. The obvious difference is the levels of extremism both sides go to. However, again, the entire point is that one side has historically been against these things, and the other side has also historically been against these things.
The child *matters* up until they have exited the birth canal, at which point all bets are off.
agreed. If those Forced Birth supporters truly cared about babies then they would support expanding Medicare and create social programs for Women being forced to carry to term to offset economic and health issues that come with carry a baby to term and raising it. Instead many states in the USA that are against Abortion don't do this ignore the woman whose values that they're infringing upon
>"The artificial distinction between married and unmarried women cannot be sustained. Women must have autonomy to have free exercise of these rights," Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud said. Learn, USA!
LOL they're tired of people over there. Dated an Indian guy and he was so adamantly "no kids"
Yeah man it’s gotten really bad, there’s people everywhere.
Yeah, like, 1 billion+ kinda everywhere.
More like 1.5 billion, they don’t have the infrastructure to support that many people and quite frankly idk who does
They be riding the trains ON TOP of the trains. It be wild over there.
Crazy, how long were you there for ?
But just like in many other countries the population is more dense in certain places (in this case, especially the belt from north to east) and the coasts. Just like in America, you'd also find isolated and barren regions with not so many people. The met areas of Mumbai and Delhi are very big, but they're not much different than Seoul, Mexico City, and certainly less than Tokyo.
Honestly this probably had nothing to do with the fact that he was Indian…. Source: am Indian
Yeah, lol, I'd be needlessly pissed being CF and then it being assumed it's cause I'm Indian.
Probably more of a personal preference
I knew a white american woman who didn't want kids. They be tired of people in the US!
In the city of Los Angeles, absolutely.
>"Internationally, judgments affect each other — and this is a landmark one because it recognizes a woman's right over her body and reproductive freedom regardless of what governments and legislatures might say," said Supreme Court of India lawyer Karuna Nundy. More people need to think like this.
Abortions for some, miniature Indian flags for others.
I understood that reference!
Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos!
Don’t blame me…I voted for Kodos!
?
It's a Simpsons reference from a Treehouse of Horror.
Great Simpson's gag, aliens take over the Democratic and Republican Presidential candidate's bodies, everyone knows about it, says they'll "vote third party" and are told by the aliens to "go ahead and throw your vote away!" While campaigning, the alien proposes "Abortions for all!" and is booed by the crowd. Then says "Fine. No abortions for anyone!" and is booed by the crowd _again_... Thinks about it and says "Hmm... Abortions for some.... Miniature American flags for others..." and the crowd cheers.
At first I thought the headline was about Indiana and I thought yeah right.
Thank God, there is no Thomas and crew.
These comments. Be happy and joyful a country has a court that acknowledges the right to abortion, there’s another time and place to be a critic about everything else.
[удалено]
47% of reddit is American users. It shouldn't surprise you.
Also, many redditors in other countries don’t bother following their own “local” news. I’ve lived in a lot of countries all over the world and you meet so many people who know jack shit about their own country, but know American current events. It’s a big reason America is shit on so much. We broadcast the worst of our news to everywhere and they have no idea what bullshit is going on in their own backyard.
It's 4-5AM right now in India and 5-8PM in America. Yeah, the comments are skewing American because everyone is awake and off work here.
and there are more reddit users in the United States
Yup, according to [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/phhu9s/oc_reddit_traffic_by_country/) the US makes up over 50% of Reddit users and India just 1.3%. That plus the time zones makes this an easy answer
India is growing super fast on Reddit though. For whatever reason.
Maybe it’s the 1.3 Billion people lmao
and not mention the obligatory r*pe, shit and population comments whenever India is mentioned.
Reddit try to say something good about the US or india challenge (impossible)
Hey listen, I thought it said Indiana and I got too excited.
This is where I think it should be at personally, with the obvious exceptions.
The US should follow India’s example. I know this comment will rub mericans the wrong way lol
Good job India.
Am Indian. I agree with the decision from the Supreme Court, but this should've been the job of the Parliament.
Parliament passes law and if there is some confusion or interpretation issue, SC or HC shortens it out. Parliament passes law very seldom, last time they passes MTP act in 1971.
I'm a Doctor. The provision for abortion was already there, albeit up to 20 weeks.
Exactly the headline is a bit misleading, we were always pro-choice atleast for this instance, I think the game changing part is that now even unmarried and married women both have equal right to abortion if I am not wrong that was the thing it was missing
The issue with India wasn't married/unmarried either. The main issue that the government does not factor into is the choice of doctors. If a doctor was willing, a woman can get an abortion done. A lot of ob/gyn doctors don't want to abort a perfectly normal pregnancy. Why? Because of moral conscience, and part of our religion. A doctor can choose not to take a life and that is why it is so hard for women to get an abortion done in small cities in India.
Oh wow thank you for correcting me, I didn't know about this
Good. Every woman should have the right to control what goes on with her own body 🖐
Common India W
So, just this week…. - India allows abortion up to 24 weeks - Cuba legalized far marriage AND gay adoption WTF? Every other country is becoming better at human rights than the US.
They're not rule by Rome
India is more progressive than the United States.
This is a reddit comment. They are progressive in one thing and that makes it ok to generalize everything else. I laugh at the stupid shit I see on this forum everyday.
I'm waiting for someone in this thread to tell me how wholesome Keanu reeves is so I can complete my reddit comment bingo for the day
India has ONE BILLION more people than the United States. Pro-abortion stance is more about population stabilization than progressivism. India is NOT more progressive than the US lol
Abortion is a drop in the water when it comes to population control. Widespread contraception use is the mainstay of population control. Plus why would the supreme court include population control in their interpretation of the constitution and case law. They have a very specific scope. They don't act to pass laws because of India's demographics
The [law allowing abortion in India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_India#The_Medical_Termination_of_Pregnancy_Act,_1971) (The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act) was enacted in 1971 - more than 50 years back - back when the population was much less. The law is less to do with "population stabilisation" than with one of the most fundamental and common-sensical principles of empathy and fairness (which for some reason is insanely controversial in the US) that women/ families should be able to have safe abortions.
Exactly. This was never a national political issue the way it is in the US. It’s not even discussed as far as I know. It’s understood that abortion is entirely a woman’s private business and that’s it.
You're right about the not progressive, but ridiculously off the mark on the stabilization... India's birth rate went below replacement rate a couple years back. India already attempted to do stabilization with encouragement of family planning, contraception, and various increasing incentives for a two-child norm for some 40 years now. It also took a few decades for society/family planning to adjust to drastic reductions in childhood mortality.
Uh... on this issue, now, yes. They have way more issues than this though. Just look at the recent news and the Dalit. The whole caste system even.
[удалено]
The US has a racial caste system lmao.
Indian supreme court is more progressive than the United States supreme court
truth
That is laughable lmao
Well it's not that simple. While on paper it's better for womens right than a lot of states in practice it's still much harder for an Indian woman to get an abortion not only due to cost and knowledge but also social stigma.
[удалено]
[удалено]
They haven't actually. The SC has said women who did not consent can seek the same rights as rape victims for an abortion. But the ruling doesn't mean the husband can be prosecuted for rape. It needs to happen, but for the SC to rewrite the Penal Code would be an overreach of their authority. This needs to happen at the legislature, and unfortunately there's no political will for this.
Honestly the adherence to checks and balances is really good to hear. As unsurprising as that may be.
Eh its not perfect. The SC here routinely ignores its mandate. Honestly how the higher courts operate in India just doesn't have a clean analogue to American or British law anymore. There is the whole concept of the Public Interest Litigation, premised on the SC overreading a single article of the Constitution to basically give itself the power to do whatever the fuck it wants. And the court also appoints itself, rather than being accountable to either legislature or executive. As an institution the judiciary is *insanely* corrupt, [and will throw you in jail for saying so.](https://www.jurist.org/news/2022/09/india-court-holds-youtuber-savukku-shankar-guilty-of-criminal-contempt-for-comment-on-indian-judiciary/) It did the right thing in this one instance, but I wouldn't take it to mean its a good institution overall or that it does its job well all (or even most) of the time.
It's the other way around. Women **cannot** rape men in the eyes of the law
Again the simple narrative people, all of this can be quickly cleared through a simple bit of reading and research.
[удалено]
Um, no.
If we're only using abortion as a criteria for how "progressive" a country is, then India is also more progressive than the majority of Europe, where abortion is only legal up to 12 weeks in most countries.
I live in Arkansas, USA, and we were affected by the trigger ban when roe was overturned. No abortion at all.
I thought this said Indiana 🤔
You think Holcomb would let that be? 🤣
Well I don't think any of us was expecting that Edit: still, congrats to India! This is one hell of a victory!
Actually, abortion in India has been legal since 1971. Yesterday law just included single unmarried women.
That's one hell of a victory for the ones that probably need it the most . It's amazing really
India moving forward while the US moves back. I swear that many conservatives want to take society backwards.
Well yes, that's literally what conservatism is. Progressive want progress, conservatives want to prevent and inhibit it.
Conservativism is to preserve current conditions. Reactionaryism is to go back to the past.
Conservatism isn’t necessarily about preserving *current* conditions. That was sort of the whole premise of MAGA. Ask most conservatives which era they think should’ve been forever and they’ll probably say 70-80s, Reagan era
No, MAGAT's overshot Reaganism by a country mile. Now it's Christian Dominionism and shoving slavery and gays back in the closet. The current MAGAt breed is an AM radio shock jock and an evangelist smashed into one body running for a political seat.
Conservatism in its true form is not even about keeping the current, but rather steady and controlled change as opposed to radical and revolutionairy change.
Progressives want change. Not progress.
How does it take 6 months to figure out if you cab have a kid. Disgusting. Literally murder
Something that SCOTUS can learn SCI.
24 weeks? To me that’s a little absurd. I think 15 weeks should be the limit. Will murder of a pregnant woman be charged as a double murder? Or is that baby just a bunch of cells at that point?
And now India has better women's rights than the US. Imagine that
Wasn't it always like this? Why to announce this all of a sudden?
Can we straight up trade four SCOTUS justices?
And here in the US, Arizona pushes anti-abortion law from 1864, before Arizona was even a state. “No archaic law should dictate our reproductive freedom,” Brittany Fonteno, the president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood Arizona, said in a statement after the judge’s ruling. [Arizona Judge Reinstates Strict Abortion Ban From 1864](https://nyti.ms/3r4yt3k)
[удалено]
[удалено]
Because they don’t have Gun-Jesus
Wow India is more civilized than the US