DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site

General => Political and Religious Forum (aka the echo chamber) => Topic started by: Phoenix87x on January 30, 2019, 04:40:41 PM

Title: Abortion
Post by: Phoenix87x on January 30, 2019, 04:40:41 PM
New york just passed a bill that allows abortion up to the time of birth

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/01/30/new-york-abortion-law-3/

Virginia is considering doing something similar

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/va-gov-northam-faces-backlash-over-no-limits-abortion-bill/2019/01/30/c5e13cd8-24c0-11e9-90cd-dedb0c92dc17_story.html?utm_term=.d81f01657e4b

Thoughts or thoughts on abortion in general?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Adami on January 30, 2019, 04:49:01 PM
I just browsed the bill, so maybe I'm wrong here, but it doesn't allow blanket abortion til the time of birth.

It allows it for 24 weeks, or up til the time of birth if the mother's life is at risk.


That is very different than abortion til birth.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: lordxizor on January 30, 2019, 05:53:50 PM
It allows it for 24 weeks, or up til the time of birth if the mother's life is at risk.
Personally, I think this sounds reasonable.

I'm a guy who falls into the "I would never get an abortion, but I think it should be legal for those who choose to get one" camp. Of course, I can't get one since I'm a man, but you get my meaning. In an ideal world there would be no need for them, but I'm a realist. As much as I hate the thought of unborn babies not getting a chance at life, I think there are more than enough people in the world and I don't want unwanted babies to be forced on unwilling parents.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Chino on January 31, 2019, 05:49:44 AM
Abortion is a necessary evil. I don't particularly like it. If Victoria got pregnant, I'd do everything I could to convince her to not have one. I also really hate the defense "it's a woman's body, it's her decision". Well, not really. The thing she's aborting has a different and completely unique genome. It is a person, regardless of stage. If you're going to abort your child, at least call a spade a spade. Don't sugar coat it as "a woman's body" like she's deciding whether or not to get a breast reduction or botox injections. At least admit you're making the conscious decision to terminate the life of another human being early.

Also, the 24 week thing means nothing to me. A good friend of mine and his wife had been trying to conceive for almost 5 years. Two years ago they used in vitro fertilization (his sperm) and she ended up getting pregnant with twins. At 20 weeks in, she thought she was having a heart attack and was rushed to the hospital. Turns out she was in labor. The first one came out dead, and the second one died minutes after coming out. My friend held both of them in his hands. They had faces and hands with fingers. They were given names. They received death certificates. They were cremated. Those were people a full month before that 24 week cutoff.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: TAC on January 31, 2019, 06:37:15 AM
Abortion is a necessary evil. I don't particularly like it. If Victoria got pregnant, I'd do everything I could to convince her to not have one. I also really hate the defense "it's a woman's body, it's her decision", well, not really. The thing she's aborting has a different and completely unique genome. It is a person, regardless of stage. If you're going to abort your child, at least call a spade a spade. Don't sugar coat it as "a woman's body" like she's deciding whether or not to get a breast reduction or botox injections. At least admit you're making the conscious decision to terminate the life of another human being early.

That's an interesting take. I like it.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on January 31, 2019, 06:45:41 AM
Abortion is a necessary evil. I don't particularly like it. If Victoria got pregnant, I'd do everything I could to convince her to not have one. I also really hate the defense "it's a woman's body, it's her decision", well, not really. The thing she's aborting has a different and completely unique genome. It is a person, regardless of stage. If you're going to abort your child, at least call a spade a spade. Don't sugar coat it as "a woman's body" like she's deciding whether or not to get a breast reduction or botox injections. At least admit you're making the conscious decision to terminate the life of another human being early.

That's an interesting take. I like it.

As do I.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: gmillerdrake on January 31, 2019, 07:41:25 AM
Also, the 24 week thing means nothing to me.

You and me both.

My nephew Maximus was born at 23 weeks 3 days:


(https://i.imgur.com/MemgfBZ.jpg)

He turns 6 in March:

(https://i.imgur.com/DPD5pyo.jpg)







I think abortion as a form of birth control is absolutely wrong.....and unfortunately the majority of abortions are just that. 'I' don't want to be pregnant or have a kid. Not life threatening situations for mother or child or incest or whatever.....simple, I don't want a kid. That's where you lose me on the issue. I'm compassionate and understanding to the health risk side (both mother and child) but when you're having your second and third abortion because you keep getting knocked up....seems to me the surgery you need is a tubal ligation not an abortion.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Chino on January 31, 2019, 07:47:53 AM
Damn. Do you know what Maximus' weight was when he was born?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: gmillerdrake on January 31, 2019, 07:52:23 AM
Damn. Do you know what Maximus' weight was when he was born?

He was 1 lb 5 oz.



The NICU Nurses Started calling him 'Mighty Max' as he kept battling and getting stronger

   (https://i.imgur.com/XS4u8bI.jpg)
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on January 31, 2019, 08:17:15 AM
At the same time you've got blue states seeking to allow late term abortions, you've got red states passing "fetal heartbeat" bills that effectively ban abortions after 6 weeks. That means abortions are prohibited before ~50% or so women will even know they done been knocked up. Those who do will have a very narrow window to work within, and I suspect a subsequent bill will mandate a 2 week period of reading bedtime stories to your unborn fetus, pretty much shutting them down, as well.

We seem to have something of an arms race going on.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: gmillerdrake on January 31, 2019, 08:39:37 AM
Well this guy wants to allow the mom and doctor to be able to talk about if she wants the baby or not AFTER it's been born. So now the mothers 'feelings' are being evaluated as well....not just if it's a physical threat but after you have the baby....how are you feeling 'mentally'.

This type of idea is insane and a perfect example of if you move the needle just a hair at the 'start point' by the time you get 200 yards down range you're off by a foot.

https://freebeacon.com/issues/northman-on-40-week-abortion-bill-infant-would-be-delivered-and-then-a-discussion-would-ensue-between-the-physicians-and-the-mother/




I suspect a subsequent bill will mandate a 2 week period of reading bedtime stories to your unborn fetus, pretty much shutting them down, as well.

I know you were just being cute to make a point with this statement but there should be some period of education for the women prior to her deciding to having the procedure. I thought about posting pics and vids that explain the abortion procedure....especially the ones that happen after 24 weeks but you guys are all grown ups and know what happens. It's brutal.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Ruba on January 31, 2019, 08:59:33 AM
One thing to keep in mind about abortions is that they will be performed, whether they are legal or not. If they are illegal or made very difficult to get, women might have to travel elsewhere to get abortions or in worst case scenario, get a "back alley"-abortion, which are significantly more dangerous and might end the woman's life as well. Even if you hate the idea of "babies being killed", it is better that abortions are performed by health care professionals in hospitals.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: bosk1 on January 31, 2019, 09:05:37 AM
Home invasion robberies are going to happen.  That being the case, we are better off as a society if home invasion robberies are performed legally, by highly trained experts who are more efficient at it. 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on January 31, 2019, 09:06:58 AM
Well this guy wants to allow the mom and doctor to be able to talk about if she wants the baby or not AFTER it's been born. So now the mothers 'feelings' are being evaluated as well....not just if it's a physical threat but after you have the baby....how are you feeling 'mentally'.

This type of idea is insane and a perfect example of if you move the needle just a hair at the 'start point' by the time you get 200 yards down range you're off by a foot.

https://freebeacon.com/issues/northman-on-40-week-abortion-bill-infant-would-be-delivered-and-then-a-discussion-would-ensue-between-the-physicians-and-the-mother/

Quote
Attempts to extrapolate these comments otherwise is in bad faith and underscores exactly why the governor believes physicians and women, not legislators, should make these difficult and deeply personal medical decisions,
Yep. He's creating an highly unrealistic scenario to make a point. Also, AFAIK abortion doctors don't deliver children. Obstetricians do. You're going to run into a massive problem with medical ethics at that point.

And you can ridicule "feelings" all you like, but of course they're a key factor in all decisions that we make.


Quote
I know you were just being cute to make a point with this statement but there should be some period of education for the women prior to her deciding to having the procedure. I thought about posting pics and vids that explain the abortion procedure....especially the ones that happen after 24 weeks but you guys are all grown ups and know what happens. It's brutal.
I'd say it's about 50/50 cute and serious. The 1A gets kind of glossed over when it comes to abortion (the pro-life side, that is), leading to all manner of oddball stuff, clearly intended to humanize the foetus.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: gmillerdrake on January 31, 2019, 09:14:36 AM
And you can ridicule "feelings" all you like, but of course they're a key factor in all decisions that we make.

I understand that completely. But, I don't know how a woman/mother who just went through a delivery (presumably) medicated and also naturally jacked full of the bodies own hormones that are released in childbirth....can be expected to make a clear choice? And, if they wait until she's 'sober minded'....that baby has now been alive for what.....three minutes.....five, ten....half hour...hour? There's no circumstance in the world where then she can say 'I don't want it' and it's OK to kill that person. None.

Quote
I know you were just being cute to make a point with this statement but there should be some period of education for the women prior to her deciding to having the procedure. I thought about posting pics and vids that explain the abortion procedure....especially the ones that happen after 24 weeks but you guys are all grown ups and know what happens. It's brutal.
I'd say it's about 50/50 cute and serious. The 1A gets kind of glossed over when it comes to abortion (the pro-life side, that is), leading to all manner of oddball stuff, clearly intended to humanize the foetus.

And thus there is the crux of the issue. One camp sees it as a 'foetus'.....another a 'person'. And both sides can dig in and defend their perspective with a strong fight. I'm sure you know what side I'd defend and certainly don't see the evidence offered as 'oddball stuff'...ESPECIALLY in the instances of after 24 weeks.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on January 31, 2019, 09:23:51 AM
One thing to keep in mind about abortions is that they will be performed, whether they are legal or not. If they are illegal or made very difficult to get, women might have to travel elsewhere to get abortions or in worst case scenario, get a "back alley"-abortion, which are significantly more dangerous and might end the woman's life as well. Even if you hate the idea of "babies being killed", it is better that abortions are performed by health care professionals in hospitals.

Jealous husbands are going to kill their whore wife's lovers whether it's illegal or not, so we should just allow that to happen. 

EDIT:  Ninja'd by Bosk. 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: MirrorMask on January 31, 2019, 09:42:45 AM
So you're comparing abortion to a selfish crime just like robberies and passion driver murders? and do you realistically think there could ever be a moment when robberies or murders become socially acceptable?

Just to make an example, I'm sure back in the days when the debate about voting rights for women was rampant, there must have been people saying "Well, if we give voting rights to women what's next? allowing our dogs to vote?" no, obviously dogs will never ever be allowed to vote. And murders will never, ever be justified, even if it'a a crime of passion. So I don't see the reason or the need to consider abortion aking to robbery or murder.

As people already posted it's silly and irresponsable to use abortion as a late anti pregnancy measure, but it is a right that should be granted for any variety of medical and psychological reasons (victims of rape getting pregnant for example), and yes, it's absolutely and totally necessary to regulate it.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: bosk1 on January 31, 2019, 09:52:01 AM
So you're comparing abortion to a selfish crime just like robberies and passion driver murders?

No.  Because that would be off topic.  But it is an apt comparison in many aspects, so if you'd like to, go for it.

...and do you realistically think there could ever be a moment when ... murders become socially acceptable?

They already are.  That's what this thread is about.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: MirrorMask on January 31, 2019, 10:00:04 AM
Maybe not the best source for the defition, but Wikipedia states "Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought."

Interrupting a pregnancy in its early stages because of fatal complications for the mother or not wanting to keep the result of a rape does not seem to me to fall in that category. Calling abortion a murder is a gross oversimplification.

Also, don't think that - stupid and irresponsable people aforementioned who consider it a more invasive day-after pill - women who decide to get an abortion do it like they do a haircut.... it's something they'll carry the memory of forever, don't assume it's something they do joyfully or without emotional scars that will last a lifetime.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on January 31, 2019, 10:14:36 AM
So you're comparing abortion to a selfish crime just like robberies and passion driver murders? and do you realistically think there could ever be a moment when robberies or murders become socially acceptable?

Just to make an example, I'm sure back in the days when the debate about voting rights for women was rampant, there must have been people saying "Well, if we give voting rights to women what's next? allowing our dogs to vote?" no, obviously dogs will never ever be allowed to vote. And murders will never, ever be justified, even if it'a a crime of passion. So I don't see the reason or the need to consider abortion aking to robbery or murder.

Well, point of fact, "murder" (in quotes because murder is a specific crime dependent on jurisdiction; I'm referring to the general idea of "unlawfully killing another human being with intent") is often and regularly justified.  I think the idea here is not to "equate" certain acts, but rather to say that if you're going to make that distinction, then the legal justification requires more than just "common sense" rationality.  I am adamantly, FIERCELY pro-choice, but I also believe Chino is right as rain. It is what it is, and we ought to face that if we're going to have an intelligent informed discussion about it.  We have an interesting and curious tendency as humans to delude ourselves with our language.   

EDIT:  Again ninja'd by Bosk.  Dammit.

Quote
As people already posted it's silly and irresponsable to use abortion as a late anti pregnancy measure, but it is a right that should be granted for any variety of medical and psychological reasons (victims of rape getting pregnant for example), and yes, it's absolutely and totally necessary to regulate it.

No argument.  I think the subject here, though is in those vast grey areas that don't neatly fit into the categories you listed above.  I've told the story before; my daughter was "diagnosed" with Down's syndrome during pregnancy and we were "offered" the option of abortion.  It would clearly have been for "medical reasons" and would have absolutely been my wife's choice (meaning, all perfectly legal and reasonable).  That girl will be turning 18 on Saturday, in June will be graduating with honors from one of the top five high schools in the COUNTRY, and already has a free ride (via merit scholarships) to three of the four schools she's heard back from so far.  I don't say that to argue that the "medical reasons" aren't valid, or that my wife shouldn't have had the choice back then, but to say that this stuff is not as simple as words like "should" and "right" imply. 

If we're really as interested in the health and well-being of our mothers as we say, we need to be prepared for that discussion of "well, uh, we were wrong about that diagnosis of Down's".  Or, conversely, be prepared to accept that the abortion was done because of the "medical reason" that the dad turned out to be a cheating piece of shit that has no intention of supporting this kid.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Grappler on January 31, 2019, 10:23:14 AM
Also, don't think that - stupid and irresponsable people aforementioned who consider it a more invasive day-after pill - women who decide to get an abortion do it like they do a haircut.... it's something they'll carry the memory of forever, don't assume it's something they do joyfully or without emotional scars that will last a lifetime.

This is definitely true, and I can't stand when people think that women have abortions on a whim.  15 years ago, I had a friend that got pregnant.  She asked me what I thought - I gave her my advice and I"m sure I was one of many she asked.  Based on the entire situation of her pregnancy, she chose to have an abortion.  The next time I hung out with her and she told me about it, I could see the pain in her eyes.  Women don't choose this as a non-nonchalant option.  It is a life-altering decision that they make, and they should have that right to make it. 

My college friend's wife had an abortion.  They conceived and during the pregnancy, they learned that the fetus did not have a brain.  It had zero chance of survival at birth.  But it still had a fetal heartbeat.  Should a family be forced to carry a baby to term when they know that the baby will die immediately upon being born because someone else thinks that it's wrong to *kill* a fetus.    There are way too many variables in the human gestation to fully outlaw abortions. 

For me, regardless of the end result of the procedure, I really dislike the fact that the government needs to legislate whether or not a person can choose to undergo a medical procedure.  I think that's a slippery slope.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: eric42434224 on January 31, 2019, 10:32:39 AM
It is a bit sad to me that there is such strong reaction to the welfare of these unborn children, yet there are millions of actual children suffering for a variety of reasons..... reasons that could easily be mitigated by society if we really cared.  I get the feeling people want to fight for the unborn child, but once youíre born, hey you are on your own.
Not saying all are like that , but is really does seem that way sometimes.

As far as my personal views, as am pro- choice.  But I can certainly empathize with how pro- lifers feel
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Harmony on January 31, 2019, 10:40:48 AM
I know, I know.....tldr.  But a worthy read IMO.  I know there will be a lot of defensiveness after I post this.  That's ok.  Expected.  Just ask yourself why you might feel defensive is all that I ask before commenting.

Author:  Gabrielle Blair; link at the bottom

Iím a mother of six, and a Mormon. I have a good understanding of arguments surrounding abortion, religious and otherwise. I've been listening to men grandstand about women's reproductive rights, and I'm convinced men actually have zero interest in stopping abortion. Here's whyÖ

If you want to stop abortion, you need to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And men are 100% responsible for unwanted pregnancies. No for real, they are. Perhaps you are thinking: IT TAKES TWO! And yes, it does take two for _intentional_ pregnancies.

But ALL unwanted pregnancies are caused by the irresponsible ejaculations of men. Period. Donít believe me? Let me walk you through it. Letís start with this: women can only get pregnant about 2 days each month. And thatís for a limited number of years.

That makes 24 days a year a women might get pregnant. But men can _cause_ pregnancy 365 days a year. In fact, if youíre a man who ejaculates multiple times a day, you could cause multiple pregnancies daily. In theory a man could cause 1000+ unwanted pregnancies in just one year.

And though their sperm gets crappier as they age, men can cause unwanted pregnancies from puberty till death. So just starting with basic biology + the calendar itís easy to see men are the issue here.

But what about birth control? If a woman doesnít want to risk an unwanted pregnancy, why wouldnít she just use birth control? If a women can manage to figure out how to get an abortion, surely she can get birth control, right? Great questions.

Modern birth control is possibly the greatest invention of the last century, and I am very grateful for it. Itís also brutal. The side effects for many women are ridiculously harmful. So ridiculous, that when an oral contraception for men was created, it wasnít approvedÖ

Ö because of the side effects. And the list of side effects was about 1/3 as long as the known side effects for women's oral contraception.

Thereís a lot to be unpacked just in that story, but Iíll simply point out (in case you didnít know) that as a society, we really donít mind if women suffer, physically or mentally, as long as it makes things easier for men.

But good news, Men: Even with the horrible side effects, women are still very willing to use birth control. Unfortunately itís harder to get than it should be. Birth control options for women require a doctorís appointment and a prescription. Itís not free, and often not cheap.
In fact there are many people trying to make it more expensive by fighting to make sure insurance companies refuse to cover it. Oral contraceptives for women canít be acquired easily, or at the last minute. And they don't work instantly.

If weíre talking about the pill, it requires consistent daily use and doesnít leave much room for mistakes, forgetfulness, or unexpected disruptions to daily schedules. And again, the side effects can be brutal. IíM STILL GRATEFUL FOR IT PLEASE DONíT TAKE IT AWAY.

Iím just saying women's birth control isnít simple or easy. In contrast, letís look at birth control for men, meaning condoms. Condoms are readily available at all hours, inexpensive, convenient, and donít require a prescription. Theyíre effective, and work on demand, instantly.

Men can keep them stocked up just in case, so theyíre always prepared. Amazing! They are so much easier than birth control options for women. As a bonus, in general, women love when men use condoms. They keep us from getting STDs, they donít lessen our pleasure during sexÖ

Ö or prevent us from climaxing. And the best part? Clean up is so much easier ó no waddling to the toilet as your smile drips down our legs. So why in the world are there ever unwanted pregnancies? Why don't men just use condoms every time they have sex? Seems so simple, right?

Oh. I remember. Men _donít_ love condoms. In fact, men frequently pressure women to have sex without a condom. And itís not unheard of for men to remove the condom during sex, without the womenís permission or knowledge. (Pro-tip: That's assault.)

Why would men want to have sex without a condom? Good question. Apparently itís because for the minutes they are penetrating their partner, having no condom on gives the experience more pleasure.

SoÖ there are men willing to risk getting a woman pregnant ó which means literally risking her life, her health, her social status, her relationships, and her career, so that they can experience a few minutes of _slightly_ more pleasure? Is that for real? Yes. Yes it is.

What are we talking about here pleasure-wise? If thereís a pleasure scale, with pain beginning at zero and going down into the negatives, a back-scratch falling at 5, and an orgasm without a condom being a 10, where would sex _with_ a condom fall? Like a 7 or 8?

So itís not like sex with a condom is _not_ pleasurable, itís just not _as_ pleasurable. An 8 instead of a 10. Let me emphasize that again: Men regularly choose to put women at massive risk by having non-condom sex, in order to experience a few minutes of slightly more pleasure.

Now keep in mind, for the truly condom-averse, men also have a non-condom, always-ready birth control built right in, called the pull out. Itís not perfect, and it's a favorite joke, but it is also 96% effective.

So surely, we can expect men who arenít wearing a condom to at least pull out every time they have sex, right?

Nope.

And why not?

Well, again, apparently itís _slightly_ more pleasurable to climax inside a vagina than, say, on their partnerís stomach. So men are willing to risk the life, health and well-being of women, in order to experience a tiny bit more pleasure for like 5 seconds during orgasm.

Itís mind-boggling and disturbing when you realize thatís the choice men are making. And honestly, Iím not as mad as I should be about this, because weíve trained men from birth that their pleasure is of utmost importance in the world. (And to dis-associate sex and pregnancy.)

While weíre here, letís talk a bit more about pleasure and biology. Did you know that a man CAN'T get a woman pregnant without having an orgasm? Which means that we can conclude getting a woman pregnant is a pleasurable act for men.

But did you further know that men CAN get a woman pregnant without HER feeling any pleasure at all? In fact, itís totally possible for a man to impregnate a woman even while causing her excruciating pain, trauma or horror.

In contrast, a woman can have non-stop orgasms with or without a partner and never once get herself pregnant. A womanís orgasm has literally nothing to do with pregnancy or fertility ó her clitoris exists not for creating new babies, but simply for pleasure.

No matter how many orgasms she has, they wonít make her pregnant. Pregnancies can only happen when men have an orgasm. Unwanted pregnancies can only happen when men orgasm irresponsibly.

What this means is a women can be the sluttliest slut in the entire world who loves having orgasms all day long and all night long and she will never find herself with an unwanted pregnancy unless a man shows up and ejaculates irresponsibly.

Women enjoying sex does not equal unwanted pregnancy and abortion. Men enjoying sex and having irresponsible ejaculations is what causes unwanted pregnancies and abortion.

Letís talk more about responsibility. Men often donít know, and donít ask, and donít think to ask, if theyíve caused a pregnancy. They may never think of it, or associate sex with making babies at all. Why? Because there are 0 consequences for men who cause unwanted pregnancies.

If the woman decides to have an abortion, the man may never know he caused an unwanted pregnancy with his irresponsible ejaculation.

If the woman decides to have the baby, or put the baby up for adoption, the man may never know he caused an unwanted pregnancy with his irresponsible ejaculation, or that thereís now a child walking around with 50% of his DNA.

If the woman does tell him that he caused an unwanted pregnancy and that sheís having the baby, the closest thing to a consequence for him, is that he may need to pay child support. But our current child support system is well-known to be a joke.

61% of men (or women) who are legally required to pay it, simply donít. With little or no repercussions. Their credit isnít even affected. So, many men keep going as is, causing unwanted pregnancies with irresponsible ejaculations and never giving it thought.

When the topic of abortion comes up, men might think: Abortion is horrible; women should not have abortions. And never once consider the man who CAUSED the unwanted pregnancy. If youíre not holding men responsible for unwanted pregnancies, then you are wasting your time.

Stop protesting at clinics. Stop shaming women. Stop trying to overturn abortion laws. If you actually care about reducing or eliminating the number of abortions in our country, simply HOLD MEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.

What would that look like? What if there was a real and immediate consequence for men who cause an unwanted pregnancy? What kind of consequence would make sense? Should it be as harsh, painful, nauseating, scarring, expensive, risky, and life-alteringÖ

Ö as forcing a woman to go through a 9-month unwanted pregnancy?

In my experience, men really like their testicles. If irresponsible ejaculations were putting their balls at risk, they would stop being irresponsible. Does castration seem like a cruel and unusual punishment? Definitely.

But is it worse than forcing 500,000 women a year to puke daily for months, gain 40 pounds, and then rip their bodies apart in childbirth? Is a handful of castrations worse than women dying during forced pregnancy & childbirth?

Put a castration law on the books, implement the law, let the media tell the story, and in 3 months or less, tada! abortions will have virtually disappeared. Can you picture it? No more abortions in less than 3 months, without ever trying to outlaw them. Amazing.

For those of you who consider abortion to be murder, wouldnít you be on board with having a handful of men castrated, if it prevented 500,000 murders each year?

And if not, is that because you actually care more about policing womenís bodies, morality, and sexuality, than you do about reducing or eliminating abortions? (Thatís a rhetorical question.)

Hey, you can even have the men who will be castrated bank their sperm before it happens ó just in case they want to responsibly have kids some day.

Canít wrap your head around a physical punishment for men? Even though you seem to be more than fine with physical punishments for women? Okay. Then how about this prevention idea: At the onset of puberty, all males in the U.S. could be required by law to get a vasectomy.

Vasectomies are very safe, totally reversible, and about as invasive as an doctor's exam for a woman getting a birth control prescription. There is some soreness afterwards for about 24 hours, but thatís pretty much it for side effects.

(So much better than The Pill, which is taken by millions of women in our country, the side effects of which are well known and can be brutal.)

If/when the male becomes a responsible adult, and perhaps finds a mate, if they want to have a baby, the vasectomy can be reversed, and then redone once the childbearing stage is over. And each male can bank their sperm before the vasectomy, just in case.

It's not that wild of an idea. 80% of males in the U.S. are circumcised, most as babies. And that's not reversible.

Donít like my ideas? Thatís fine. Iím sure there are better ones. Go ahead and suggest your own ideas. My point is that itís nonsense to focus on women if youíre trying to get rid of abortions. Abortion is the ďcureĒ for an unwanted pregnancy.

If you want to stop abortions, you need to prevent the ďdisease" - meaning, unwanted pregnancies. And the only way to do that, is by focusing on men, because: MEN CAUSE 100% OF UNWANTED PREGNANCIES. Or. IRRESPONSIBLE EJACULATIONS BY MEN CAUSE 100% OF UNWANTED PREGNANCIES.

If youíre a man, what would the consequence need to be for you to never again ejaculate irresponsibly? Would it be money related? Maybe a loss of rights or freedoms? Physical pain?

Ask yourselves: What would it take for you to value the life of your sexual partner more than your own temporary pleasure or convenience?

Are you someone who learns better with analogies? Letís try this one: Think of another great pleasure in life, letís say food. Think of your favorite meal, dessert, or drink.

What if you found out that every time you indulge in that favorite food you risked causing great physical and mental pain for someone you know intimately. You might not cause any pain, but itís a real risk.

Well, youíd probably be sad, but never indulge in that food again, right? Not worth the risk!

And then, what if you further found out, there was a simple thing you could do before you ate that favorite food, and it would eliminate the risk of causing pain to someone else. Which is great news!

BUT the simple thing you need to do makes the experience of eating the food slightly less pleasurable. To be clear, it would still be VERY pleasurable, but slightly less so. Like maybe you have to eat the food with a fork or spoon that you donít particularly like.

Would you be willing to do that simple thing, and eliminate the risk of causing pain to someone you know intimately, every single time you ate your favorite food?

OF COURSE YOU WOULD.

Condoms (or even pulling out) is that simple thing. Donít put women at risk. Donít choose to maximize your own pleasure if it risks causing women pain.

Men mostly run our government. Men mostly make the laws. And men could eliminate abortions in 3 months or less without ever touching an abortion law or evening mentioning women.

In summary: STOP TRYING TO CONTROL WOMEN'S BODIES AND SEXUALITY. UNWANTED PREGNANCIES ARE CAUSED BY MEN.

The end.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1040363431893725184.html
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: gmillerdrake on January 31, 2019, 10:43:02 AM
Interrupting a pregnancy in its early stages because of fatal complications for the mother or not wanting to keep the result of a rape does not seem to me to fall in that category.

When compared to the number of abortions that have been performed legally to date.....60 million plus.....the percentage of them performed for the reasons you stated is extremely low. Fact is abortion is largely a form or extension of birth control plain and simple.

The debate can carry on all day long and forever but to pollute the conversation with 'saving the moms life' or instances of incest or rape is intentionally trying to take away from the fact that 95% plus of these abortions are simply birth control.

I don't think you'd find many people who would argue against allowing an abortion if the mother was gravely threatened by carrying or delivering a baby....or if she'd been raped....or if the baby was going to have a horrific experience. But those aren't the instances that dominate the overwhelming majority of abortions.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: ? on January 31, 2019, 10:44:02 AM
Maybe not the best source for the defition, but Wikipedia states "Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought."

Interrupting a pregnancy in its early stages because of fatal complications for the mother or not wanting to keep the result of a rape does not seem to me to fall in that category. Calling abortion a murder is a gross oversimplification.

Also, don't think that - stupid and irresponsable people aforementioned who consider it a more invasive day-after pill - women who decide to get an abortion do it like they do a haircut.... it's something they'll carry the memory of forever, don't assume it's something they do joyfully or without emotional scars that will last a lifetime.
I agree with everything you've said in this thread. Comparing abortion to murder is insulting to all the medical professionals who perform them, and as you said, it's not like women go "Whoops, I got pregnant! Oh well, no biggie - let's just abort the fetus!" A while ago I read a newspaper article where women talked about their abortion experiences, and it was not light reading.

Another point worth considering is that no form of contraception works in 100% of the cases, and it's not always the couple's fault if it fails. Should we punish (I apologize for not coming up with a more appropriate word here) them if, say, the woman's IUD is not perfectly in place and she gets pregnant? I believe every child deserves to be wanted (not saying every unwanted baby should've been aborted!).

Having said all that, I believe 24 weeks is a bit too much (unless the mother is in danger), given that there are examples - such as Gary's nephew - of children who were born before that point and continue to live healthily. I personally would only limit it to the point where you can be totally sure that the fetus would not survive outside the womb, which I suppose would be somewhere around 20 weeks, given that the most premature surviving baby was born after 21 weeks and 4 days according to news reports.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: gmillerdrake on January 31, 2019, 10:47:12 AM
I know, I know.....tldr.  But a worthy read IMO.  I know there will be a lot of defensiveness after I post this.  That's ok.  Expected.  Just ask yourself why you might feel defensive is all that I ask before commenting.

Worthy? Ha ha..Not at all. The article should have ended at 'it takes two to tango'. That's it. If you're having underaged (or not) unprotected sex....when you can't afford to become a parent....that's it....both parties are responsible. Period. This 'article' if you can call it that does nothing more than try to place blame and take blame away....which is a common occurrence in today's society. "Ain't my fault....it's his/hers"
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on January 31, 2019, 11:10:55 AM
And you can ridicule "feelings" all you like, but of course they're a key factor in all decisions that we make.

I understand that completely. But, I don't know how a woman/mother who just went through a delivery (presumably) medicated and also naturally jacked full of the bodies own hormones that are released in childbirth....can be expected to make a clear choice? And, if they wait until she's 'sober minded'....that baby has now been alive for what.....three minutes.....five, ten....half hour...hour? There's no circumstance in the world where then she can say 'I don't want it' and it's OK to kill that person. None.
Again, you're using a made up scenario that will never happen. Joseph Mengele is neither alive nor an obstetrician. But since you do seem to be concerned that a woman immediately post-partum ins't capable of making a rational decision, are you willing to extend that sympathy to the dumb, terrified girl who squirts a kid out in the women's room at Arby's and drives off into the sunset?


Quote
Quote
I know you were just being cute to make a point with this statement but there should be some period of education for the women prior to her deciding to having the procedure. I thought about posting pics and vids that explain the abortion procedure....especially the ones that happen after 24 weeks but you guys are all grown ups and know what happens. It's brutal.
I'd say it's about 50/50 cute and serious. The 1A gets kind of glossed over when it comes to abortion (the pro-life side, that is), leading to all manner of oddball stuff, clearly intended to humanize the foetus.

And thus there is the crux of the issue. One camp sees it as a 'foetus'.....another a 'person'. And both sides can dig in and defend their perspective with a strong fight. I'm sure you know what side I'd defend and certainly don't see the evidence offered as 'oddball stuff'...ESPECIALLY in the instances of after 24 weeks.
Oddball didn't refer to the legitimacy of either sides argument, but rather the weird laws we're willing to enact.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on January 31, 2019, 11:11:55 AM
I know, I know.....tldr.  But a worthy read IMO.  I know there will be a lot of defensiveness after I post this.  That's ok.  Expected.  Just ask yourself why you might feel defensive is all that I ask before commenting.

Worthy? Ha ha..Not at all. The article should have ended at 'it takes two to tango'. That's it. If you're having underaged (or not) unprotected sex....when you can't afford to become a parent....that's it....both parties are responsible. Period. This 'article' if you can call it that does nothing more than try to place blame and take blame away....which is a common occurrence in today's society. "Ain't my fault....it's his/hers"

I'd go one further; there are threads here with post after post about "#MeToo" and where I can't even complement a woman's selection of wardrobe without making her "uncomfortable" and creating a "hostile environment" - and potentially facing consequences for same, including loss of job, and even jail time -  and now, somehow, I'm 100% - not 95, not 99, not even 99.9999% but 100% - responsible for her pregnancy?   So what, "consent" is situational AND contextual, not just in time but in scope too? "I consent to fuck you, but I do not consent to any resulting pregnancy, whether real or imagined, healthy or not, carried to term or aborted, still born or miscarried"?    And don't get me started on the relative subjectivity of "pleasure" (point of scientific fact: the male orgasm and the Mal ejaculation are NOT the same thing; they can and do happen independently.)

Yeah, there are some worthy thoughts in there but the premise is faulty enough (coupled with the snarky judgmental writing style) that it undermines what few nuggets are there.

(To be fair, I believe that "pregnancies" are joint and several, meaning we're BOTH "100% responsible" for the resulting pregnancy.  The rights and obligations may be different, but welcome to the real world.  If we're both consenting adults, we're both responsible for our actions.)
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on January 31, 2019, 11:17:15 AM
So you're comparing abortion to a selfish crime just like robberies and passion driver murders?

No.  Because that would be off topic.  But it is an apt comparison in many aspects, so if you'd like to, go for it.
Not an apt comparison. It relies on your subjective opinion that abortion is tantamount to a home invasion robbery. An act that is necessarily harmful and destructive which serves no beneficial purpose. Many of us would disagree with that assessment. From my perspective it would be taking an act that can be safe and beneficial for any number of reasons and forcing an unsafe alternative. Nobody here is going to move you from that particular assessment, and that's fine, but you don't get to use it as a cornerstone in an analogy.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: gmillerdrake on January 31, 2019, 11:24:35 AM
are you willing to extend that sympathy to the dumb, terrified girl who squirts a kid out in the women's room at Arby's and drives off into the sunset?

Absolutely. I don't think anything in my posting history would say otherwise? It's tough To imagine what type of thought process and all that has happened in their life to convince them that leaving a newborn to die is the 'right' thing to do. In my mind that's a whole other conversation because that would start to point back to the state of our culture....it's just a broader conversation that 'she' was just scared and didn't know what to do or 'she' was a heartless evil wench and wanted to get rid of the baby so it wouldn't affect her life.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on January 31, 2019, 11:34:06 AM
are you willing to extend that sympathy to the dumb, terrified girl who squirts a kid out in the women's room at Arby's and drives off into the sunset?

Absolutely. I don't think anything in my posting history would say otherwise? It's tough To imagine what type of thought process and all that has happened in their life to convince them that leaving a newborn to die is the 'right' thing to do. In my mind that's a whole other conversation because that would start to point back to the state of our culture....it's just a broader conversation that 'she' was just scared and didn't know what to do or 'she' was a heartless evil wench and wanted to get rid of the baby so it wouldn't affect her life.
Fair enough. And I'm not sure of anything in your posting history, either. You've just expressed a very harsh opinion towards the punishment criminals, and she'd qualify, and not so much concern for the circumstances that led to their criminality. I was just curious as to your boundaries. There is no shortage of people who'd call for her summary execution. "What kind of inhuman monster could ever do such a thing!"
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: kaos2900 on January 31, 2019, 11:35:24 AM
I'll just add to conversation with a real-life scenario. My sister has had at least 3 and maybe 4 abortions. All as a result of being irresponsible sexually. She also has 3 living children all with different fathers whom only 1 is (barely) in the picture. There is no defense for her actions and she has essentially destroyed the family through her bad choices. Is she fucked up mentally for killing 3 of her other kids? Probably, but I've never seen a single ounce of proof showing she is remorseful for her choices. I agree with Gary that the vast majority of abortions are related to being a form of birth control.

I 100% agree that an abortion should be attainable if there is a risk to the mother's life.  That is her choice on whether or not she want to risk her life for the life of her child.  That being said I also 100% agree that soon as conception occurs there is a living human being. So use what ever word you want to defend the woman's right to have the choice, you are still killing the baby. Is it murder, based on the law of the land no. But, abortion is killing a baby. Period.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Ruba on January 31, 2019, 11:46:57 AM
Home invasion robberies are going to happen.  That being the case, we are better off as a society if home invasion robberies are performed legally, by highly trained experts who are more efficient at it.

I do get your point. But I will stand by my stance: legal abortions are safer than illegal ones. And that's what matter to me. Of course I am not thrilled about the idea of ending a life of a foetus (hardly anyone is), but if there is a valid reason for it, fine by me. But I agree that abortion is by no means a form of birth control, like gmillerdrake put it.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: gmillerdrake on January 31, 2019, 11:47:38 AM
You've just expressed a very harsh opinion towards the punishment criminals, and she'd qualify, and not so much concern for the circumstances that led to their criminality. I was just curious as to your boundaries. There is no shortage of people who'd call for her summary execution. "What kind of inhuman monster could ever do such a thing!"

True....especially when it comes to hurting kids I tend to let emotion get the best of me and suggest a quick and definite penalty. But....in the case of these kids/women abandoning newborns to die.....there's just seems to be something SO unnatural about that act that you have to wonder 'how and why'....like above it just being a 'normal' act of murder. Maybe some instances are just simple evil....but I don't think that's the prevalent reason. Maybe my judgement is off by saying I think there's just a natural instinct for women to want to nurture and love that kid having watched my wife for the past 12 years be a mother....I just wonder what would trump that instinct and lead one to abandon it and the child?   

Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Ruba on January 31, 2019, 12:05:14 PM
Quote
As people already posted it's silly and irresponsable to use abortion as a late anti pregnancy measure, but it is a right that should be granted for any variety of medical and psychological reasons (victims of rape getting pregnant for example), and yes, it's absolutely and totally necessary to regulate it.

No argument.  I think the subject here, though is in those vast grey areas that don't neatly fit into the categories you listed above.  I've told the story before; my daughter was "diagnosed" with Down's syndrome during pregnancy and we were "offered" the option of abortion.  It would clearly have been for "medical reasons" and would have absolutely been my wife's choice (meaning, all perfectly legal and reasonable).  That girl will be turning 18 on Saturday, in June will be graduating with honors from one of the top five high schools in the COUNTRY, and already has a free ride (via merit scholarships) to three of the four schools she's heard back from so far.  I don't say that to argue that the "medical reasons" aren't valid, or that my wife shouldn't have had the choice back then, but to say that this stuff is not as simple as words like "should" and "right" imply. 

If we're really as interested in the health and well-being of our mothers as we say, we need to be prepared for that discussion of "well, uh, we were wrong about that diagnosis of Down's".  Or, conversely, be prepared to accept that the abortion was done because of the "medical reason" that the dad turned out to be a cheating piece of shit that has no intention of supporting this kid.

This I find somewhat problematic. Unless we are talking about some condition that makes it rather certain the baby will not survive childbirth or might die soon after, should a doctor really offer a choice of abortion? Since people with for example Down's or cerebral palsy can after live a long, healthy and happy life. I find it dehumanizing and it also reminds me of the concept of "designer babies". You can correct me if you think I'm wrong, but I feel most parents will love their children the same even though they might be born with a medical condition.

And of course, happy birthday to your daughter.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: bosk1 on January 31, 2019, 12:20:27 PM
Home invasion robberies are going to happen.  That being the case, we are better off as a society if home invasion robberies are performed legally, by highly trained experts who are more efficient at it.

I do get your point. But I will stand by my stance: legal abortions are safer than illegal ones.

Thanks, Ruba.  And I get your point as well.  Mine is simply that, the fact that legal abortions are safer shouldn't be relevant.  Whether or not people will choose to undergo them whether legal or not is irrelevant.  We do not generally make decisions about what is legal or illegal simply by saying, "well, some people are going to do it anyway, so let's just let them I guess."  There's a LOT more to it than that.  And there should be.

So you're comparing abortion to a selfish crime just like robberies and passion driver murders?

No.  Because that would be off topic.  But it is an apt comparison in many aspects, so if you'd like to, go for it.
Not an apt comparison. It relies on your subjective opinion that abortion is tantamount to a home invasion robbery.

Not at all.  I do not hold the opinion that abortion is tantamount to a home invasion robbery.  That is irrelevant.  The point is that there are a lot of things that are illegal for a variety of reasons.  None of which, outside a very small number of issues, are made simply because "well, a lot of people will do it anyway, so let's just make it legal."

Many of us would disagree with that assessment.

And that also is largely irrelevant.  And for what I think are probably obvious reasons.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: MirrorMask on January 31, 2019, 12:59:33 PM
I think the examples brought in this topic of the different situations - where we've seen examples of where getting an abortion and NOT getting an abortion were in those cases the right choice - point out how a simple law cannot cover all the aspects of society, and how people approach this issue. What I mean is: I'm fervently pro-choice if that was not obvious, but even the most pefect and fair law about abortion won't still solve the problems of the selected (and maybe rare) situations in which people carelessly approach it as an afterthough birth control (but again, as someone said before, go and read some abortion experiences from women who chose it.... not a pretty read for sure).

If people are dumb and irresponsable, they are dumb and irresponsable regardless of a law. A woman selfishly going for an abortion the day she wakes from a drunken weekend should not put at risk the rights of other women who find themselves in the position to make the most difficult choice of their lives. A law sets a rule, but it's people living in a society that, more than following the rule, should realize how to properly behave with other people and the risks they face with unprotected sex. A law can grant the right to a woman to chose abortion for legitimate reason, but can't beat some sense into a woman who hasn't learn that unprotected sex results in pregnancy, or in an asshole guys that asks for said unprotected sex and then disappears from the girl's life the moment they realizes he knocked her up. That's not what laws are for, there has to be a lot of work behind to make sure that a right granted by a law is not abused - and it's not this or that law's fault, but people making stupid choices or behaviours even if they had been taught better (and their fault should not fall on the shoulders of the others).

Also, let me say that - not that I found any example of this in this topic, mind you, I'm speaking from my experience of living in a very bigot country that hosts the Pope, Italy - I found that, at least here in Italy many people who are anti abortion, they are so by default, as a firm and unmovable choice, and do not give a damn about the quality of the life they are supposedly defending. The example made before of the children brain dead in the fetus - there are people who would insist for that pregnacy to be carried on, and then 10 minutes later would post on FB a scathing anti immigration post. I swear that around here there are scores and scores people who actively wish death to immigrants on the ships in the Mediterranean Sea, and no later than today I've seen people happy that a migrant whose VISA was refused killed himself, that at the same time would object fervently and completely to any kind of abortion.

Again, not something I've seen in this thread, just offering my perspective of how people from where I live can be hypocrites about the situation, and focusing only on "life" as an abstract concept not giving a damn about the quality of said life.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on January 31, 2019, 01:01:17 PM
Home invasion robberies are going to happen.  That being the case, we are better off as a society if home invasion robberies are performed legally, by highly trained experts who are more efficient at it.

I do get your point. But I will stand by my stance: legal abortions are safer than illegal ones.

Thanks, Ruba.  And I get your point as well.  Mine is simply that, the fact that legal abortions are safer shouldn't be relevant.  Whether or not people will choose to undergo them whether legal or not is irrelevant.  We do not generally make decisions about what is legal or illegal simply by saying, "well, some people are going to do it anyway, so let's just let them I guess."  There's a LOT more to it than that.  And there should be.
Don't we make such decisions in part by weighing the intended public interest against the negative consequences of that law, though? Whether the ramifications of a law will be greater than the benefit it provides is a meaningful part of the calculus. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here, but I am saying it's not irrelevant. The home invasion tack avoids that as there are no benefits to allowing them and no harms from prohibiting them.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: gmillerdrake on January 31, 2019, 01:38:45 PM
I think the examples brought in this topic of the different situations - where we've seen examples of where getting an abortion and NOT getting an abortion were in those cases the right choice - point out how a simple law cannot cover all the aspects of society, and how people approach this issue. What I mean is: I'm fervently pro-choice if that was not obvious, but even the most pefect and fair law about abortion won't still solve the problems of the selected (and maybe rare) situations in which people carelessly approach it as an afterthough birth control (but again, as someone said before, go and read some abortion experiences from women who chose it.... not a pretty read for sure).

If people are dumb and irresponsable, they are dumb and irresponsable regardless of a law. A woman selfishly going for an abortion the day she wakes from a drunken weekend should not put at risk the rights of other women who find themselves in the position to make the most difficult choice of their lives. A law sets a rule, but it's people living in a society that, more than following the rule, should realize how to properly behave with other people and the risks they face with unprotected sex. A law can grant the right to a woman to chose abortion for legitimate reason, but can't beat some sense into a woman who hasn't learn that unprotected sex results in pregnancy, or in an asshole guys that asks for said unprotected sex and then disappears from the girl's life the moment they realizes he knocked her up. That's not what laws are for, there has to be a lot of work behind to make sure that a right granted by a law is not abused - and it's not this or that law's fault, but people making stupid choices or behaviours even if they had been taught better (and their fault should not fall on the shoulders of the others).

Also, let me say that - not that I found any example of this in this topic, mind you, I'm speaking from my experience of living in a very bigot country that hosts the Pope, Italy - I found that, at least here in Italy many people who are anti abortion, they are so by default, as a firm and unmovable choice, and do not give a damn about the quality of the life they are supposedly defending. The example made before of the children brain dead in the fetus - there are people who would insist for that pregnacy to be carried on, and then 10 minutes later would post on FB a scathing anti immigration post. I swear that around here there are scores and scores people who actively wish death to immigrants on the ships in the Mediterranean Sea, and no later than today I've seen people happy that a migrant whose VISA was refused killed himself, that at the same time would object fervently and completely to any kind of abortion.

Again, not something I've seen in this thread, just offering my perspective of how people from where I live can be hypocrites about the situation, and focusing only on "life" as an abstract concept not giving a damn about the quality of said life.

great post
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: cramx3 on January 31, 2019, 03:28:28 PM
Abortion is a necessary evil. I don't particularly like it. If Victoria got pregnant, I'd do everything I could to convince her to not have one. I also really hate the defense "it's a woman's body, it's her decision". Well, not really. The thing she's aborting has a different and completely unique genome. It is a person, regardless of stage. If you're going to abort your child, at least call a spade a spade. Don't sugar coat it as "a woman's body" like she's deciding whether or not to get a breast reduction or botox injections. At least admit you're making the conscious decision to terminate the life of another human being early.

Also, the 24 week thing means nothing to me. A good friend of mine and his wife had been trying to conceive for almost 5 years. Two years ago they used in vitro fertilization (his sperm) and she ended up getting pregnant with twins. At 20 weeks in, she thought she was having a heart attack and was rushed to the hospital. Turns out she was in labor. The first one came out dead, and the second one died minutes after coming out. My friend held both of them in his hands. They had faces and hands with fingers. They were given names. They received death certificates. They were cremated. Those were people a full month before that 24 week cutoff.

While that story is sad and I'm imagining seeing/holding them to make them feel more people like, but I just don't think I agree with the bolded.  It's a fetus, not a person.  To me, it's not that different than an egg, it's not yet a chicken but it is a living being.  I really don't believe having an abortion is equivalent to killing a person.  I'm going to say that as you get closer to birth that line not only gets super thin but eventually is gone before birth and I'll say the fetus has become a person,  I'm not exactly sure where that is, maybe 24 weeks, maybe its not but I'd say up to that point would be where I start thinking it's a person and not just a fetus anymore.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Implode on January 31, 2019, 04:28:42 PM
Sad that the only female perspective here is immediately dismissed/ignored.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: bosk1 on January 31, 2019, 04:33:02 PM
Not really.  If it was a perspective that actually contributed something useful to the discussion, it likely would not have been.  "It's all men's fault and men don't really care about saving lives" isn't really productive (or accurate).
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Harmony on January 31, 2019, 05:10:40 PM
Sad that the only female perspective here is immediately dismissed/ignored.

It went about as I suspected, really.  It is much easier to blame women as a whole - those baby killers who are obviously disturbed if they don't have instant maternal instincts - than it is to look inward at our own behaviors and ask if we are in any way contributing to the problem or have any ability to ameliorate any solution.

Women have always been looked upon in this way.  It is our bodies, our lives, our health, our families, our education, our occupation, our psyches that have born (pardon the pun) the brunt of the burden in this regard.  I held no illusions things would be any different here.  You should've seen the reactions to the woman who had the audacity to write the posts to begin with.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: bosk1 on January 31, 2019, 05:32:46 PM
It is much easier to blame women as a whole - those baby killers who are obviously disturbed if they don't have instant maternal instincts - than it is to look inward at our own behaviors and ask if we are in any way contributing to the problem or have any ability to ameliorate any solution.

Yeah, right.  There has been absolutely none of that here.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Harmony on January 31, 2019, 05:38:25 PM
It is much easier to blame women as a whole - those baby killers who are obviously disturbed if they don't have instant maternal instincts - than it is to look inward at our own behaviors and ask if we are in any way contributing to the problem or have any ability to ameliorate any solution.

Yeah, right.  There has been absolutely none of that here.

If you say so.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: eric42434224 on January 31, 2019, 05:40:07 PM
Her post provided a different perspective and experience on the subject.  It may not jive with your sensibilities, but that doesnít make it an unproductive addition to the conversation.  I donít think comparing abortion to home invasions was appropriate, but at least respect for your viewpoint was shown.  As a moderator, you should be the leader in showing that respect to others and their viewpoints, yes?

Edit: especially in such an emotionally charged subject as this.  There is no right and wrong here, so we need to take extra care in being empathetic and accepting to others views.  JMHO
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: gmillerdrake on January 31, 2019, 05:56:10 PM
Her post provided a different perspective and experience on the subject.  It may not jive with your sensibilities, but that doesnít make it an unproductive addition to the conversation.  I donít think comparing abortion to home invasions was appropriate, but at least respect for your viewpoint was shown.  As a moderator, you should be the leader in showing that respect to others and their viewpoints, yes?

Edit: especially in such an emotionally charged subject as this.  There is no right and wrong here, so we need to take extra care in being empathetic and accepting to others views.  JMHO

Iím sorry but that article or essay that Harmony posted was pretty bad. It started off hostile towards men and kept flowing all the way through. Blaming men for 100% of pregnancies and abortions because we control when/where we ejaculate sounds like a position a freshman in high school would argue.

I would love to listen to Harmonyís point of view.....story....anything on the subject because I agree that itís a sensitive one with MANY facets. But that article deserved to be dismissed quickly because it was for all intents and purposes.....irrelevant and poorly done.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: KevShmev on January 31, 2019, 06:29:35 PM
Once the article went down the "it's 100% the fault of men" rabbit hole, I stopped reading and went to the next post.  Sure, the blame is not always equal, but saying unwanted pregnancies are always 100% the man's fault comes off as man-bashing feminism at its worst (regardless of what long-winded rationale they used).

As for abortion, I agree with the comment that it is necessary evil.  My long-held stance has been that it should be legal, but regulated more closely than it is, which I get would be extremely difficult to do.  This idea of late term abortions where neither the baby nor mom's life is at stake is horse hockey.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: cramx3 on January 31, 2019, 06:35:40 PM
Once the article went down the "it's 100% the fault of men" rabbit hole, I stopped reading and went to the next post.  Sure, the blame is not always equal, but saying unwanted pregnancies are always 100% the man's fault comes off as man-bashing feminism at its worst (regardless of what long-winded rationale they used).

Yea pretty much.  The article makes lots of great points but none of them prove her initial point about "100%" because nothing in this debate is 100% anything and by trying to make that point, the author really misses the bigger picture of just saying men are a big part of the problem.  No doubt we are, but it's not a man only issue and putting a foot down to start the article with such a harsh one sided statement really makes the rest of the article uninteresting even with making great points. 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Harmony on January 31, 2019, 06:48:37 PM
Women are almost 100% blamed for abortions, aren't they?  I find it amusing that when the shoe is put on the other foot the response is so knee-jerk.  But whatever.  As I said in my OP, I expected the defensiveness about it.

FWIW, if you are on Twitter and look for that woman's post, you'll see the vast women were applauding what she said.  Even if she didn't need to go to that extreme, is the point so lost in the weeds that you can't at least entertain the notion behind the POINT of saying it?  Because women are always to blame.  Even in the extreme cases of rape and incest.  What was she wearing, how was she acting, what did SHE DO to cause it?

But yeah, that article read like it was written by a freshman in high school who couldn't possibly have any understanding of what she was writing about.  We should dismiss her POV entirely because it's irrelevant and so poorly done.

Pardon me for not wishing to post any more about my own personal opinions on the subject.  LoL.



Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: cramx3 on January 31, 2019, 06:54:53 PM
Women are almost 100% blamed for abortions, aren't they?  I find it amusing that when the shoe is put on the other foot the response is so knee-jerk.  But whatever.  As I said in my OP, I expected the defensiveness about it.

Of course Women aren't 100% to blame, I'd probably put it more like 70-30 men are at fault, because I do believe men can be and often are huge assholes to women.  Unwanted pregnancies no exception to me, but women play a role too many times.

FWIW, if you are on Twitter and look for that woman's post, you'll see the vast women were applauding what she said. 

This is totally meaningless.

Even if she didn't need to go to that extreme, is the point so lost in the weeds that you can't at least entertain the notion behind the POINT of saying it? 

Yes actually.  I made sure to say she made good points because she certainly did.  She's not wrong in much of her point of view, but yes, when she in the beginning puts all blame on men, it is hard to actually take her point seriously.  I'd say the same thing if someone wrote women were 100% to blame.  It's just a ridiculous statement.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: gmillerdrake on January 31, 2019, 07:15:43 PM
Women are almost 100% blamed for abortions, aren't they?  I find it amusing that when the shoe is put on the other foot the response is so knee-jerk.  But whatever.  As I said in my OP, I expected the defensiveness about it.

FWIW, if you are on Twitter and look for that woman's post, you'll see the vast women were applauding what she said.  Even if she didn't need to go to that extreme, is the point so lost in the weeds that you can't at least entertain the notion behind the POINT of saying it?  Because women are always to blame.  Even in the extreme cases of rape and incest.  What was she wearing, how was she acting, what did SHE DO to cause it?

But yeah, that article read like it was written by a freshman in high school who couldn't possibly have any understanding of what she was writing about.  We should dismiss her POV entirely because it's irrelevant and so poorly done.

Pardon me for not wishing to post any more about my own personal opinions on the subject.  LoL.

Knee jerk? 5th sentence in that rant it was declared that men are 100% responsible for unwanted pregnancies. Because of Ďirresponsible ejaculationsí.

An Ďunwantedí pregnancy happens when two people are acting irresponsibly. The moment you have unprotected sex.....even if itís a wife and her husband that donít want another kids.....you run the risk of having a pregnancy.

That article was ridiculous. I can handle criticism when itís warranted. But to try and pawn off all unwanted pregnancies onto men because we ejaculated irresponsibility immediately negates any Ďseriousnessí of that article.

I can sympathize with many of the points that were made in the article. Thereís no denying that a large part of the onus has been placed on women as far as sexual responsibility. But I do think that the Ďoldí way of thinking is being eroded and a Ďnewí era is being ushered in. But that article read as a lecture and a scolding and wasnít crafted to make a point to men who might listen but to rebuke all men because in that ladies eyes weíre all bad apparently.

Sorry that you wonít speak to your own thoughts/opinions on the matter.....as has been mentioned itís a touchy subject and the only reference I have on the subject is that I lived with a girl for a year who had an abortion in the relationship prior to me. Correction.....she was forced by that guys parents to have an abortion so that their Ďlives wouldnít be ruinedí. Anyway, your point of view is certainly valuable and my post(s) about that article arenít intended to immediately rebuke your feelings on the matter. I just donít think that article was done very well. It was definitely crafted for a particular audience. 

Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Harmony on January 31, 2019, 07:29:05 PM
FWIW, if you are on Twitter and look for that woman's post, you'll see the vast women were applauding what she said. 

This is totally meaningless.

OMG the irony of this.  That it resonated with a majority of women while pissing men off is EXACTLY the point.   :P

Who is deciding our health choices for us?  Because it doesn't appear to be women and their doctors.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: cramx3 on January 31, 2019, 07:38:39 PM
FWIW, if you are on Twitter and look for that woman's post, you'll see the vast women were applauding what she said. 

This is totally meaningless.

OMG the irony of this.  That it resonated with a majority of women while pissing men off is EXACTLY the point.   :P

Huh?  Since when does twitter responses make points that I should consider as meaningful on a political hot topic?  Sorry but there is no irony of me finding twitter to be meaningless.  And if the point was to piss men off and resonate with women, then yea the article totally does hit that point while missing the more important one.

I'd imagine if she took out the 100% part, she would have still been applauded by women and pissed off men, but I think she would have had a better argument because her point would have made more sense in a debate.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: KevShmev on January 31, 2019, 07:41:55 PM

Who is deciding our health choices for us? Because it doesn't appear to be women and their doctors.

If you are trying to imply that men are making health choices for you, abortion is currently legal, so that...

(https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.radiantrecords.com%2Fimages%2Fthumbs%2F0002254_300.jpeg&hash=b8430b11dc8e52043a2a6f15c7a033b9)


Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Harmony on January 31, 2019, 08:06:14 PM
FWIW, if you are on Twitter and look for that woman's post, you'll see the vast women were applauding what she said. 

This is totally meaningless.

OMG the irony of this.  That it resonated with a majority of women while pissing men off is EXACTLY the point.   :P

Huh?  Since when does twitter responses make points that I should consider as meaningful on a political hot topic?  Sorry but there is no irony of me finding twitter to be meaningless. 

Ah...I read that as that it resonated with a majority of women was meaningless, not that it was a post on Twitter.  Sorry, I thought the resident Twitter hater was Stadler.  Haha
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Harmony on January 31, 2019, 08:08:04 PM

Who is deciding our health choices for us? Because it doesn't appear to be women and their doctors.

If you are trying to imply that men are making health choices for you, abortion is currently legal, so that...

(https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.radiantrecords.com%2Fimages%2Fthumbs%2F0002254_300.jpeg&hash=b8430b11dc8e52043a2a6f15c7a033b9)

Let's take a look at an overview of Abortion Laws.  Do you think these laws are written mostly by men or women?  Do you think these laws make it easier or harder for a woman to obtain a safe abortion?

https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws#
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: KevShmev on January 31, 2019, 08:13:07 PM
Are you saying it is impossible for women to have safe abortions in 2019?

The YouTube comment section is the sewer of the internet, but Twitter is not far behind. 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Harmony on January 31, 2019, 08:15:10 PM
Are you saying it is impossible for women to have safe abortions in 2019?

The YouTube comment section is the sewer of the internet, but Twitter is not far behind.

Your opinion about Twitter is noted.

Are you saying that some states are not finding ways to restrict abortion rights making it more difficult for women in those states to access abortion?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: KevShmev on January 31, 2019, 08:18:10 PM


Are you saying that some states are not finding ways to restrict abortion rights making it more difficult for women in those states to access abortion?

Are you saying that one sex should not make laws that affect the opposite sex?  Men should not make laws that affect women, and women should not make laws that affect men?   
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: TAC on January 31, 2019, 08:19:38 PM
...and do you realistically think there could ever be a moment when ... murders become socially acceptable?

They already are.  That's what this thread is about.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/3JdqT8QehRKj6/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Harmony on January 31, 2019, 08:19:56 PM


Are you saying that some states are not finding ways to restrict abortion rights making it more difficult for women in those states to access abortion?

Are you saying that one sex should not make laws that affect the opposite sex?  Men should not make laws that affect women, and women should not make laws that affect men?

Are you saying politicians should come between a patient and their doctor when it comes to their healthcare decisions?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: KevShmev on January 31, 2019, 08:21:46 PM

Are you saying politicians should come between a patient and their doctor when it comes to their healthcare decisions?

Are you saying that politicians should not make laws to prevent the murder of an innocent human being?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Harmony on January 31, 2019, 08:23:22 PM

Are you saying politicians should come between a patient and their doctor when it comes to their healthcare decisions?

Are you saying that politicians should not make laws to prevent the murder of an innocent human being?

Are you saying politicians never make laws that cause the "murder" of innocents?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: KevShmev on January 31, 2019, 08:27:54 PM

 

Are you saying politicians never make laws that cause the "murder" of innocents?

Are you saying that female politicians make laws that cause the "murder" of innocents?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Harmony on January 31, 2019, 08:28:51 PM

 

Are you saying politicians never make laws that cause the "murder" of innocents?

Are you saying that female politicians make laws that cause the "murder" of innocents?

Are you saying that male politicians do not?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: eric42434224 on January 31, 2019, 08:29:19 PM
...and do you realistically think there could ever be a moment when ... murders become socially acceptable?

They already are.  That's what this thread is about.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/3JdqT8QehRKj6/giphy.gif)

Murder is the unlawful killing of a person.
Clearly not what this thread is about.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: KevShmev on January 31, 2019, 08:33:54 PM


Are you saying that male politicians do not?

Are you saying that male politicians do not make laws that benefit women?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Harmony on January 31, 2019, 08:35:58 PM


Are you saying that male politicians do not?

Are you saying that male politicians do not make laws that benefit women?

Are you saying male politicians should make laws regulating the bodies of intelligent, competent women?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Implode on January 31, 2019, 10:18:13 PM
Even if I didn't agree with some of what Harmony posted, I do think that her post has very insightful points if nothing else but he and many others' perspective along. I don't think that should be ignored/dismissed because of knee-jerk reactions to a couple "hurtful" sentences.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Chino on February 01, 2019, 05:57:53 AM
FWIW, if you are on Twitter and look for that woman's post, you'll see the vast women were applauding what she said. 

This is totally meaningless.

OMG the irony of this.  That it resonated with a majority of women while pissing men off is EXACTLY the point.   :P

Who is deciding our health choices for us?  Because it doesn't appear to be women and their doctors.

I think the issue for a lot of people when arguing the bolded point is that it isn't about a "health choice". If the baby is deemed by a doctor to be healthy, and the mother isn't expected to have any complications during the gestation period or during delivery process, is it really a health issue? What, if any, is the health issue in that situation? 

Ignoring situations of rape, I can totally understand why some view that as nothing more than a blinder to shield the fact that the only reason someone is receiving an abortion is to not have the child. That baby could be carried to term and adopted by a couple who for whatever can't conceive a child of their own.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on February 01, 2019, 07:47:13 AM
Quote
As people already posted it's silly and irresponsable to use abortion as a late anti pregnancy measure, but it is a right that should be granted for any variety of medical and psychological reasons (victims of rape getting pregnant for example), and yes, it's absolutely and totally necessary to regulate it.

No argument.  I think the subject here, though is in those vast grey areas that don't neatly fit into the categories you listed above.  I've told the story before; my daughter was "diagnosed" with Down's syndrome during pregnancy and we were "offered" the option of abortion.  It would clearly have been for "medical reasons" and would have absolutely been my wife's choice (meaning, all perfectly legal and reasonable).  That girl will be turning 18 on Saturday, in June will be graduating with honors from one of the top five high schools in the COUNTRY, and already has a free ride (via merit scholarships) to three of the four schools she's heard back from so far.  I don't say that to argue that the "medical reasons" aren't valid, or that my wife shouldn't have had the choice back then, but to say that this stuff is not as simple as words like "should" and "right" imply. 

If we're really as interested in the health and well-being of our mothers as we say, we need to be prepared for that discussion of "well, uh, we were wrong about that diagnosis of Down's".  Or, conversely, be prepared to accept that the abortion was done because of the "medical reason" that the dad turned out to be a cheating piece of shit that has no intention of supporting this kid.

This I find somewhat problematic. Unless we are talking about some condition that makes it rather certain the baby will not survive childbirth or might die soon after, should a doctor really offer a choice of abortion? Since people with for example Down's or cerebral palsy can after live a long, healthy and happy life. I find it dehumanizing and it also reminds me of the concept of "designer babies". You can correct me if you think I'm wrong, but I feel most parents will love their children the same even though they might be born with a medical condition.

And of course, happy birthday to your daughter.

Nothing to correct; I think you are as right as rain.   That was basically our thought process when we - my wife, let's be honest - didn't even consider abortion for even a second.   The doctor - a Christian, ironically, who would not have done the procedure himself for his own ethical reasons - offered, she looked at me, nodded, and turned back and said "that won't be necessary".    We had already had two miscarriages, and we were going to love that kid hell or high water.   She had had an abortion before (that I didn't know about at the time) and she wasn't going to go through that again, for any reason that wasn't totally out of her control.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: kaos2900 on February 01, 2019, 07:48:01 AM
FWIW, if you are on Twitter and look for that woman's post, you'll see the vast women were applauding what she said. 

This is totally meaningless.

OMG the irony of this.  That it resonated with a majority of women while pissing men off is EXACTLY the point.   :P

Who is deciding our health choices for us?  Because it doesn't appear to be women and their doctors.

I think the issue for a lot of people when arguing the bolded point is that it isn't about a "health choice". If the baby is deemed by a doctor to be healthy, and the mother isn't expected to have any complications during the gestation period or during delivery process, is it really a health issue? What, if any, is the health issue in that situation? 

Ignoring situations of rape, I can totally understand why some view that as nothing more than a blinder to shield the fact that the only reason someone is receiving an abortion is to not have the child. That baby could be carried to term and adopted by a couple who for whatever can't conceive a child of their own.

This. If the mother's life is in danger than that is definitely a decision she needs to make with her doctor. If not and she just doesn't want the baby for what ever reason (rape/incest, etc. you could still put the kid up for adoption but I could see why the choice would be made) then it's not a women's right's issue at that point. It all goes back to when does life begin. I believe life starts at conception so any abortion at any time equates to killing a human being.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on February 01, 2019, 07:54:18 AM
Sad that the only female perspective here is immediately dismissed/ignored.

It went about as I suspected, really.  It is much easier to blame women as a whole - those baby killers who are obviously disturbed if they don't have instant maternal instincts - than it is to look inward at our own behaviors and ask if we are in any way contributing to the problem or have any ability to ameliorate any solution.

Women have always been looked upon in this way.  It is our bodies, our lives, our health, our families, our education, our occupation, our psyches that have born (pardon the pun) the brunt of the burden in this regard.  I held no illusions things would be any different here.  You should've seen the reactions to the woman who had the audacity to write the posts to begin with.

But, as one of the people that responded significantly to the post, there was absolutely no blame to women.   Let's be clear, the "women's perspective" was not at all "ignored" or "dismissed".   As Bosk said, though, it was a controversial and some would say radical (and I would say, contradictory) position to take.   "Respecting a position" doesn't mean "accepting with no scrutiny, analysis or critical thinking".  I think I am as understanding and as accepting of the woman's point of view on this as any man can be. That doesn't mean I have to accept every aspect of every woman's opinion, no matter how adversarial.   

Her position literally runs afoul of the law, of society, of many feminists, and in fact, the most recent victory for women, celebrated across the world over the last 24 (or so) months.   We're allowed to comment on that without the disdain and condescension of "Men!".

Can I ask you, given your post, what WOULD have been an acceptable response? 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on February 01, 2019, 08:00:33 AM
Women are almost 100% blamed for abortions, aren't they?  I find it amusing that when the shoe is put on the other foot the response is so knee-jerk.  But whatever.  As I said in my OP, I expected the defensiveness about it.

FWIW, if you are on Twitter and look for that woman's post, you'll see the vast women were applauding what she said.  Even if she didn't need to go to that extreme, is the point so lost in the weeds that you can't at least entertain the notion behind the POINT of saying it?  Because women are always to blame.  Even in the extreme cases of rape and incest.  What was she wearing, how was she acting, what did SHE DO to cause it?

But yeah, that article read like it was written by a freshman in high school who couldn't possibly have any understanding of what she was writing about.  We should dismiss her POV entirely because it's irrelevant and so poorly done.

Pardon me for not wishing to post any more about my own personal opinions on the subject.  LoL.

But that's a false equivalency; the very argument put forth is that "IT'S A WOMAN'S BODY, IT'S HER CHOICE."   It's not incongruous or insensitive to suggest that with a choice, with authority, comes responsibility and accountability.   It works both ways, to be sure.  It's MY choice how I approach a woman, sexually (or romantically, if you will) and I therefore take responsibility and accountability if that approach is offensive in ANY way, and in recent months that accountability has expanded into having my livelihood impacted and perhaps criminal sanctions.  I accept that.  Why is it different here? 

"Blame" doesn't factor into it; it's a simple and necessary facet of a democratic society:  with the choice (the good) comes the responsibility of those choices (the bad).  That's not "misogyny", that's the rule of law.  I can't speak for anyone else here, but I have not in any sense of the word cast "blame" on a woman for her choice.   It's her right and her prerogative, nothing more.   
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on February 01, 2019, 08:02:11 AM
FWIW, if you are on Twitter and look for that woman's post, you'll see the vast women were applauding what she said. 

This is totally meaningless.

OMG the irony of this.  That it resonated with a majority of women while pissing men off is EXACTLY the point.   :P

Huh?  Since when does twitter responses make points that I should consider as meaningful on a political hot topic?  Sorry but there is no irony of me finding twitter to be meaningless. 

Ah...I read that as that it resonated with a majority of women was meaningless, not that it was a post on Twitter.  Sorry, I thought the resident Twitter hater was Stadler.  Haha

I'm spreading the word wherever I can. :). 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: bosk1 on February 01, 2019, 08:07:55 AM
I don't think that should be ignored/dismissed because of knee-jerk reactions to a couple "hurtful" sentences.

I didn't see any "hurtful sentences."  I'm not sure who would be "hurt" by reading anything in that article.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: cramx3 on February 01, 2019, 08:49:12 AM
FWIW, if you are on Twitter and look for that woman's post, you'll see the vast women were applauding what she said. 

This is totally meaningless.

OMG the irony of this.  That it resonated with a majority of women while pissing men off is EXACTLY the point.   :P

Huh?  Since when does twitter responses make points that I should consider as meaningful on a political hot topic?  Sorry but there is no irony of me finding twitter to be meaningless. 

Ah...I read that as that it resonated with a majority of women was meaningless, not that it was a post on Twitter.  Sorry, I thought the resident Twitter hater was Stadler.  Haha

I actually like twitter, maybe my favorite social media, but I'm not a fan of following people's opinions on any social media platform and when it comes to that, I find twitter to be the worst.  So I'm kind of a a twitter lover/hater, but I have a general dislike of social media political garbage.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Implode on February 01, 2019, 09:07:06 AM
I don't think that should be ignored/dismissed because of knee-jerk reactions to a couple "hurtful" sentences.

I didn't see any "hurtful sentences."  I'm not sure who would be "hurt" by reading anything in that article.

I couldn't think of a better word. I was referring to the article saying pregnancies are 100% men's faults, which is a statement that will immediately rile up a lot of people. It's....provoking? Offensive? It rustles jimmies? This is a situation when I can't exactly remember the right word, but it's a statement that evokes a strong negative response in people very quickly.

And personally, I find that to be very worthy of discussion, especially when it's the only voice coming from a demographic in this situation. I really don't necessarily agree with it either, but I think there's a lot of good in trying to understand why people think that way.

Over all abortion is a very tough thing to discuss for people since on both sides, their beliefs are held at an extremely deep level. That's fascinating to me. It's abortion is murder vs "why are a bunch of men trying to control women". The conversation never seems to really come to a head because everyone is talking around each other and making strawmen or false equivalencies and refusing to even get past the first few levels of disagreement. This thread shows all of that. Now I'm just rambling, but my point is that, even an article like that is worth picking through to understand the perspective of others imo.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: bosk1 on February 01, 2019, 10:08:26 AM
I don't think that should be ignored/dismissed because of knee-jerk reactions to a couple "hurtful" sentences.

I didn't see any "hurtful sentences."  I'm not sure who would be "hurt" by reading anything in that article.

I couldn't think of a better word. I was referring to the article saying pregnancies are 100% men's faults, which is a statement that will immediately rile up a lot of people. It's....provoking? Offensive? It rustles jimmies? This is a situation when I can't exactly remember the right word, but it's a statement that evokes a strong negative response in people very quickly.

I can't speak for others, but for me it's just that that opinion piece is laughably misguided.  It does have a few good points, but they are so buried beneath the pile of self-righteousness, empty but inflammatory rhetoric, and failure to make a cogent argument that I don't find them worth addressing.

And when it is posted with an introduction of, basically, "This article says it all, and if you dare disagree with ANY of it, you are part of the problem and you want women to be oppressed," that does not exactly invite any sort of critical analysis or give-and-take discussion either.  :lol  It really only says that the person presenting that point of view does not have the ability to make a cogent argument and engage in discussion in the first place. 

But, again, the latter point is a fairly minor one.  The main point is just that there was very little there substantively to begin with.

Over all abortion is a very tough thing to discuss for people since on both sides, their beliefs are held at an extremely deep level. That's fascinating to me. It's abortion is murder vs "why are a bunch of men trying to control women". The conversation never seems to really come to a head because everyone is talking around each other and making strawmen or false equivalencies and refusing to even get past the first few levels of disagreement.

It is a difficult issue with VERY strong concerns on both sides of it.  And that can make it difficult to discuss.  But not necessarily.  It just depends on whether the two sides are willing to truly discuss it.  I know I have had some very good discussions on the topic in the past, both hear and in face-to-face conversations with people.  But that cannot really happen where the logic (i.e., lack thereof) on one or both sides boils down to logic that is the equivalent of Internet memes.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on February 01, 2019, 10:18:00 AM
I don't think that should be ignored/dismissed because of knee-jerk reactions to a couple "hurtful" sentences.

I didn't see any "hurtful sentences."  I'm not sure who would be "hurt" by reading anything in that article.

I couldn't think of a better word. I was referring to the article saying pregnancies are 100% men's faults, which is a statement that will immediately rile up a lot of people. It's....provoking? Offensive? It rustles jimmies? This is a situation when I can't exactly remember the right word, but it's a statement that evokes a strong negative response in people very quickly.

And personally, I find that to be very worthy of discussion, especially when it's the only voice coming from a demographic in this situation. I really don't necessarily agree with it either, but I think there's a lot of good in trying to understand why people think that way.

Over all abortion is a very tough thing to discuss for people since on both sides, their beliefs are held at an extremely deep level. That's fascinating to me. It's abortion is murder vs "why are a bunch of men trying to control women". The conversation never seems to really come to a head because everyone is talking around each other and making strawmen or false equivalencies and refusing to even get past the first few levels of disagreement. This thread shows all of that. Now I'm just rambling, but my point is that, even an article like that is worth picking through to understand the perspective of others imo.

Of course it is; but "picking through" shouldn't mean "agree with".  "[P]icking through" should allow for reasoned, rational disagreement.    My beef with that article isn't about "women" in any way, and my reaction would have been no different if the author's name was "Bob Manly"; it's about the use of the word "blame" and the allocation of 100% of that blame in one direction with no consideration - in fact, an explicit REJECTION of any consideration - of the circumstances.   

I think the other aspect of this, and it's not exclusive to "abortion" as a subject, is the propensity these days to demand black and white, with little consideration for degrees of grey.  For example, "abortion is murder" and "a bunch of men trying to control women" are not mutually exclusive.  We've really gotten away from letting people make their own decisions good or bad.  I don't need government telling me what decisions I SHOULD make, only, perhaps, in the interest of the greater good, what decisions are available to me.  I don't think it occurs to a lot of people that because THEY think a certain way that it is perfectly acceptable for someone else to think the opposite. 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: bosk1 on February 01, 2019, 10:19:38 AM
^Exactly.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: KevShmev on February 01, 2019, 12:30:00 PM

Over all abortion is a very tough thing to discuss for people since on both sides, their beliefs are held at an extremely deep level. That's fascinating to me. It's abortion is murder vs "why are a bunch of men trying to control women". The conversation never seems to really come to a head because everyone is talking around each other and making strawmen or false equivalencies and refusing to even get past the first few levels of disagreement. This thread shows all of that. Now I'm just rambling, but my point is that, even an article like that is worth picking through to understand the perspective of others imo.

Agreed.

Last night's silliness aside (which I am sure most of you realize was shtick, apologies if it derailed the thread), extreme and hyperbolic statements on abortion always make me roll my eyes.  Heck, I think abortion should be legal, but saying, "it is men trying to control the bodies of women," sounds like crazy talk.  I find it fascinating, and kinda sad, that some on the far left are so in favor of protecting all of the non-American children suffering because of what is going on at the southern border, but they have so little regard for unborn American children.  And of course that goes both ways, when you think of those on the far right who don't care about the kids being torn from their parents after crossing the border, but care about the unborn kids.  The whole thing is maddening.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on February 01, 2019, 01:02:53 PM

Over all abortion is a very tough thing to discuss for people since on both sides, their beliefs are held at an extremely deep level. That's fascinating to me. It's abortion is murder vs "why are a bunch of men trying to control women". The conversation never seems to really come to a head because everyone is talking around each other and making strawmen or false equivalencies and refusing to even get past the first few levels of disagreement. This thread shows all of that. Now I'm just rambling, but my point is that, even an article like that is worth picking through to understand the perspective of others imo.

Agreed.

Last night's silliness aside (which I am sure most of you realize was shtick, apologies if it derailed the thread), extreme and hyperbolic statements on abortion always make me roll my eyes.  Heck, I think abortion should be legal, but saying, "it is men trying to control the bodies of women," sounds like crazy talk.  I find it fascinating, and kinda sad, that some on the far left are so in favor of protecting all of the non-American children suffering because of what is going on at the southern border, but they have so little regard for unborn American children.  And of course that goes both ways, when you think of those on the far right who don't care about the kids being torn from their parents after crossing the border, but care about the unborn kids.  The whole thing is maddening.
Don't misconstrue someone like myself who is pro-choice as being unconcerned about the unborn. To me there's an argument to be made for protecting children from being born into a shitty life. None of us ask to be born and we have zero input into how things will go once it happens. When looking at people who are unwilling an unable to care for someone for the next 18 years, who are we to say that their progeny would prefer existence with a highly questionable outcome over nonexistence?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: FreezingPoint on February 01, 2019, 01:43:16 PM

Over all abortion is a very tough thing to discuss for people since on both sides, their beliefs are held at an extremely deep level. That's fascinating to me. It's abortion is murder vs "why are a bunch of men trying to control women". The conversation never seems to really come to a head because everyone is talking around each other and making strawmen or false equivalencies and refusing to even get past the first few levels of disagreement. This thread shows all of that. Now I'm just rambling, but my point is that, even an article like that is worth picking through to understand the perspective of others imo.

Agreed.

Last night's silliness aside (which I am sure most of you realize was shtick, apologies if it derailed the thread), extreme and hyperbolic statements on abortion always make me roll my eyes.  Heck, I think abortion should be legal, but saying, "it is men trying to control the bodies of women," sounds like crazy talk.  I find it fascinating, and kinda sad, that some on the far left are so in favor of protecting all of the non-American children suffering because of what is going on at the southern border, but they have so little regard for unborn American children.  And of course that goes both ways, when you think of those on the far right who don't care about the kids being torn from their parents after crossing the border, but care about the unborn kids.  The whole thing is maddening.
Don't misconstrue someone like myself who is pro-choice as being unconcerned about the unborn. To me there's an argument to be made for protecting children from being born into a shitty life. None of us ask to be born and we have zero input into how things will go once it happens. When looking at people who are unwilling an unable to care for someone for the next 18 years, who are we to say that their progeny would prefer existence with a highly questionable outcome over nonexistence?

Who's to say what that shitty life is though? Shitty is relative. A person born into extreme affluence might see a middle-class childhood as shitty, etc.

If we are okay saying that nonexistence is better than existence with a highly questionable outcome, doesn't that apply to a wide range of human existence and not just the ability of the parents wanting and able to care for children? Does it not apply to those with disabilities and disorders and diseases and all other manners of highly questionable outcomes?

Furthermore, there are also plenty of parents out there that are perfectly willing to have many children, knowing perfectly well that they will be born into bad situations, or knowing that they will be unable to care for their children. Should they be allowed to have children?

Sure, if one looks at the outcomes and crunches the numbers, those born into undesirable and uncared for situations might likely have a higher percentage of unhappiness, crime, less success in life. Say only 5% succeed. 100% of those births have a chance at life and success though.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on February 01, 2019, 03:14:23 PM

Over all abortion is a very tough thing to discuss for people since on both sides, their beliefs are held at an extremely deep level. That's fascinating to me. It's abortion is murder vs "why are a bunch of men trying to control women". The conversation never seems to really come to a head because everyone is talking around each other and making strawmen or false equivalencies and refusing to even get past the first few levels of disagreement. This thread shows all of that. Now I'm just rambling, but my point is that, even an article like that is worth picking through to understand the perspective of others imo.

Agreed.

Last night's silliness aside (which I am sure most of you realize was shtick, apologies if it derailed the thread), extreme and hyperbolic statements on abortion always make me roll my eyes.  Heck, I think abortion should be legal, but saying, "it is men trying to control the bodies of women," sounds like crazy talk.  I find it fascinating, and kinda sad, that some on the far left are so in favor of protecting all of the non-American children suffering because of what is going on at the southern border, but they have so little regard for unborn American children.  And of course that goes both ways, when you think of those on the far right who don't care about the kids being torn from their parents after crossing the border, but care about the unborn kids.  The whole thing is maddening.
Don't misconstrue someone like myself who is pro-choice as being unconcerned about the unborn. To me there's an argument to be made for protecting children from being born into a shitty life. None of us ask to be born and we have zero input into how things will go once it happens. When looking at people who are unwilling an unable to care for someone for the next 18 years, who are we to say that their progeny would prefer existence with a highly questionable outcome over nonexistence?


Who's to say what that shitty life is though? Shitty is relative. A person born into extreme affluence might see a middle-class childhood as shitty, etc.
I agree.

Quote
If we are okay saying that nonexistence is better than existence with a highly questionable outcome, doesn't that apply to a wide range of human existence and not just the ability of the parents wanting and able to care for children? Does it not apply to those with disabilities and disorders and diseases and all other manners of highly questionable outcomes?
Absolutely it does.

Quote
Sure, if one looks at the outcomes and crunches the numbers, those born into undesirable and uncared for situations might likely have a higher percentage of unhappiness, crime, less success in life. Say only 5% succeed. 100% of those births have a chance at life and success though.
Sounds about right.

This is kind of my point. I'm not suggesting that we can determine who should or should not be born based on a prediction of how things will go. I am suggesting that the idea that every conception must result in a child who may or may not want the existence they're born into is similarly misguided. Is it any more right to force existence on somebody than it is to deny them existence?

Quote
Furthermore, there are also plenty of parents out there that are perfectly willing to have many children, knowing perfectly well that they will be born into bad situations, or knowing that they will be unable to care for their children. Should they be allowed to have children?
The mill's closed! There's no more work. We're destitute. I've got no option but to sell you all for scientific experiments.

I'd probably try to talk them out of it, but I'm not comfortable telling people they can't procreate. I'd want them kept on a very short leash, though. Just remember that if we're willing to allow people to do such a thing we have to be just as willing to foot the bill for their irresponsibility.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Jaffa on February 01, 2019, 10:35:32 PM
That baby could be carried to term and adopted by a couple who for whatever can't conceive a child of their own.

Whenever I hear this argument, there is something I wonder about.  I hope you will humor me here.

How would you feel if such pregnancies and adoptions were funded by taxpayers?

Here's my thought process: if a woman wants an abortion and the law forbids it, then (assuming she follows the law, of course) she is essentially obligated to carry her baby to term against her wishes.  I'll accept it as given here that the woman is pregnant because she had consensual unprotected sex.  I will also accept as given (though I don't necessarily agree with it) the argument that any discomfort or health issues she experiences during the pregnancy will be deserved because they will be a result of her own irresponsible choices.  But what of the expenses? According to parents.com, the average U.S. hospital delivery costs $3,500.  That number excludes prenatal, delivery-related and post-partum healthcare - after factoring those in, the average birth apparently costs $8,802.  In most cases, it also causes lost wages, since mothers usually need to miss some work while they're pregnant.  So, there's a bill for $8,800 and loss of income. This is not to mention actual adoption fees, which, according to creatingafamily.org (yes, I'm getting these from Google searches - feel free to dispute my numbers if you have better sources), can be upwards of $30,000. 

Should the birth mother, who is being obligated to carry this child to term against her wishes, also be obligated to shoulder all of the financial costs?  If not, who should?  It seems to me that if we, as a society, decide that we cannot morally tolerate abortion, then we, as a society, should have some idea what to do about the costs associated with upholding our morality. 

I realize it may seem callous or shallow to bring up finances in a discussion about the lives of unborn children.  But it is a practical consideration, and I'm curious as to your perspective: if the law dictates that women must go through with pregnancies they can't necessarily afford, who is going to pay to make sure that these children are taken care of after they are born?  Who is going to pay to make sure they get the medical care they need?  Who is going to pay to make sure they get adopted rather than ending up on the street or in foster care? 

I ask these questions because it doesn't seem reasonable to me to take steps to ensure that children are born if we are not also going to take steps to ensure that they have decent lives. 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: MirrorMask on February 02, 2019, 04:51:41 AM
I ask these questions because it doesn't seem reasonable to me to take steps to ensure that children are born if we are not also going to take steps to ensure that they have decent lives.

This is one of my main gripes about people (not people in this thread, people in general) who are so strongly, almost in a dogmatic way, against abortion: all they care about is to protect the abstract concept of "life", as when they oppose euthanasia, and they don't care about the quality of said life.

In countries with low nativity rates there are political discussion of financial incentives and support to encourage people to have more children; to make a specific example, I've heard on the news the other day of a factory owner who promised an additional bonus for 7 years to any employee who would have children. At the same time, I agree on the general condition (of course put all of this into a realistic law is a long and hard road) that if you insist so much on having women not use abortions, you should properly encourage them, also financially, to carry the child to term.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on February 02, 2019, 06:48:20 PM
I ask these questions because it doesn't seem reasonable to me to take steps to ensure that children are born if we are not also going to take steps to ensure that they have decent lives.

This is one of my main gripes about people (not people in this thread, people in general) who are so strongly, almost in a dogmatic way, against abortion: all they care about is to protect the abstract concept of "life", as when they oppose euthanasia, and they don't care about the quality of said life.

In countries with low nativity rates there are political discussion of financial incentives and support to encourage people to have more children; to make a specific example, I've heard on the news the other day of a factory owner who promised an additional bonus for 7 years to any employee who would have children. At the same time, I agree on the general condition (of course put all of this into a realistic law is a long and hard road) that if you insist so much on having women not use abortions, you should properly encourage them, also financially, to carry the child to term.

I get it, and I applaud the notion, but there's a RIGHT here.  The RIGHT to life.  There's not a corresponding "right" to any of the other things that flow from that.   We don't require advocates of other laws to correspondingly pony up financially to justify their position.   And we shouldn't here.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: senecadawg2 on February 02, 2019, 10:50:18 PM
I ask these questions because it doesn't seem reasonable to me to take steps to ensure that children are born if we are not also going to take steps to ensure that they have decent lives.

This is one of my main gripes about people (not people in this thread, people in general) who are so strongly, almost in a dogmatic way, against abortion: all they care about is to protect the abstract concept of "life", as when they oppose euthanasia, and they don't care about the quality of said life.

In countries with low nativity rates there are political discussion of financial incentives and support to encourage people to have more children; to make a specific example, I've heard on the news the other day of a factory owner who promised an additional bonus for 7 years to any employee who would have children. At the same time, I agree on the general condition (of course put all of this into a realistic law is a long and hard road) that if you insist so much on having women not use abortions, you should properly encourage them, also financially, to carry the child to term.

I get it, and I applaud the notion, but there's a RIGHT here.  The RIGHT to life.  There's not a corresponding "right" to any of the other things that flow from that.   We don't require advocates of other laws to correspondingly pony up financially to justify their position.   And we shouldn't here.

That's perfectly reasonable, but are we any closer to solving the issue that Jaffa brings up? Namely, regardless of whether pro-life advocates "pony up" or not, there remains a financial burden that many women won't be able to carry. The impact of that burdenóon mother, baby, and ultimately society as a whole, needs to be addressed.

I'm not suggesting that pro-lifers should pay that bill, but I'd love to hear some practical ideas from that camp. Instead (and, to be clear, this isn't directed at you in particular) we mostly get moral posturing. It's the principle obstacle, in this and seemingly every other polarized debate of consequence: too much moral posturing. Too many (on both sides) committed to ignoring the practical questions. Liberals are always (and I think rightfully) picked on for this, particularly as it relates to identity politics, but conservatives aren't any better when it comes to abortion.

I have no idea whether life begins at conception or whether a woman has a moral right to kill the human life inside her, but some consistency would be nice. Surely the pro-life argument ought to consider the consequences of life, both during and beyond pregnancy, right?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: gmillerdrake on February 03, 2019, 08:12:09 AM
I would start with an overhaul of the adoption industry. Because, thatís what itís become.....an industry. It costs anywhere from $10-40k to adopt a child depending on the variables like where from, how Ďselectiveí you are etc etc.

It shouldnít cost that much to adopt a child. For instance, my wife and I have thought many times about adopting but simply cannot afford to drop $15-20k on being able to provide a stable, loving home to a child.

I think were the adoption process more streamlined and less expensive thereíd be more of a Ďdemandí from families to adopt children. Just my opinion though.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on February 03, 2019, 09:41:56 AM


I have no idea whether life begins at conception or whether a woman has a moral right to kill the human life inside her, but some consistency would be nice. Surely the pro-life argument ought to consider the consequences of life, both during and beyond pregnancy, right?

I am a lot less understanding to the left than you are - they are the party of "morals" after all - but on this point we could not agree more.   I have a HUGE problem with the inconsistency of BOTH sides across the board.   

It's sort of like the resurgence in the media of the Kavanaugh hearings; there was a headline today (I forget what outlet) that noted just that:  "in the wake of Kavanaugh's confirmation, abortion is at the forefront of our political discourse" or something like that.  but that's disingenuous.  Because we're not at that point because of Kavanaugh, or even the Supreme Court.  We're here because of a law that pushes the boundaries of abortion availability to their utmost.  LITERALLY.   To the point of birth.   Even if the Court does curtail that law, it's not at all a case of the court "exerting their will" regarding abortion.  But anything for a sound bite or photo op....
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: sylvan on February 03, 2019, 09:54:29 AM
I would start with an overhaul of the adoption industry. Because, thatís what itís become.....an industry. It costs anywhere from $10-40k to adopt a child depending on the variables like where from, how Ďselectiveí you are etc etc.

It shouldnít cost that much to adopt a child. For instance, my wife and I have thought many times about adopting but simply cannot afford to drop $15-20k on being able to provide a stable, loving home to a child.

I think were the adoption process more streamlined and less expensive thereíd be more of a Ďdemandí from families to adopt children. Just my opinion though.

I've been reading from a distance here, but this is the best "outside" point I've heard. It's irrelevant what someone "feels" when we have legitimate problems like this. And honestly, I had no idea it costs that much. Adoption is one of the most important avenues we have regarding the welfare of children, and the idea is still a slave to the SYSTEM.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on February 03, 2019, 10:11:37 PM
I would start with an overhaul of the adoption industry. Because, thatís what itís become.....an industry. It costs anywhere from $10-40k to adopt a child depending on the variables like where from, how Ďselectiveí you are etc etc.

It shouldnít cost that much to adopt a child. For instance, my wife and I have thought many times about adopting but simply cannot afford to drop $15-20k on being able to provide a stable, loving home to a child.

I think were the adoption process more streamlined and less expensive thereíd be more of a Ďdemandí from families to adopt children. Just my opinion though.

I've been reading from a distance here, but this is the best "outside" point I've heard. It's irrelevant what someone "feels" when we have legitimate problems like this. And honestly, I had no idea it costs that much. Adoption is one of the most important avenues we have regarding the welfare of children, and the idea is still a slave to the SYSTEM.

I'm as much a capitalist as anyone here, and I almost always opt for government to stay the f*** out of things, but I'd have zero problem if abortions were free - read: subsidized by the government.   I'd rather pay for that as a taxpayer than 90% of the nonsense I'm paying for now.  Why not pay for parents (or would-be parents) that DESPERATELY want to be parents, than paying to FORCE someone who doesn't want to to pay for insurance?   Or force companies - who shouldn't be in the healthcare business to begin with - to pay for abortions and/or contraception.  (Not at all to say that healthcare shouldn't pay for abortions and/or contraception; they should.  But if you want a comprehensive program for women's health and the well-being of EVERYBODY, then you have to cover all the bases). 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Chino on February 04, 2019, 06:15:18 AM
That baby could be carried to term and adopted by a couple who for whatever can't conceive a child of their own.

Whenever I hear this argument, there is something I wonder about.  I hope you will humor me here.

How would you feel if such pregnancies and adoptions were funded by taxpayers?

Here's my thought process: if a woman wants an abortion and the law forbids it, then (assuming she follows the law, of course) she is essentially obligated to carry her baby to term against her wishes.  I'll accept it as given here that the woman is pregnant because she had consensual unprotected sex.  I will also accept as given (though I don't necessarily agree with it) the argument that any discomfort or health issues she experiences during the pregnancy will be deserved because they will be a result of her own irresponsible choices.  But what of the expenses? According to parents.com, the average U.S. hospital delivery costs $3,500.  That number excludes prenatal, delivery-related and post-partum healthcare - after factoring those in, the average birth apparently costs $8,802.  In most cases, it also causes lost wages, since mothers usually need to miss some work while they're pregnant.  So, there's a bill for $8,800 and loss of income. This is not to mention actual adoption fees, which, according to creatingafamily.org (yes, I'm getting these from Google searches - feel free to dispute my numbers if you have better sources), can be upwards of $30,000. 

Should the birth mother, who is being obligated to carry this child to term against her wishes, also be obligated to shoulder all of the financial costs?  If not, who should?  It seems to me that if we, as a society, decide that we cannot morally tolerate abortion, then we, as a society, should have some idea what to do about the costs associated with upholding our morality. 

I realize it may seem callous or shallow to bring up finances in a discussion about the lives of unborn children.  But it is a practical consideration, and I'm curious as to your perspective: if the law dictates that women must go through with pregnancies they can't necessarily afford, who is going to pay to make sure that these children are taken care of after they are born?  Who is going to pay to make sure they get the medical care they need?  Who is going to pay to make sure they get adopted rather than ending up on the street or in foster care? 

I ask these questions because it doesn't seem reasonable to me to take steps to ensure that children are born if we are not also going to take steps to ensure that they have decent lives.

I would absolutely get behind the tax payer funded adoption, but as alluded to in responses prior to mine, the system needs an overall as well. That child left in foster care and then released into the wild at the age of 18 is probably going to cost the taxpayer far more money in the long run than they would have had a nice family been able to take them in at an early age. I would even be perfectly fine with the tax payers paying for the carrying mother's medical expenses along the way as well.

Also, I'm not suggesting we outlaw abortion. I mean, we need to be realistic. Even if adoption became 100% free for those who wanted to take in a child, the number of babies that would likely need to be adopted would exceed the number of available parents.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: gmillerdrake on February 04, 2019, 06:40:56 AM
Thatís the thing that Ďconvervativesí need to get past. Abortions are not going away.....besides, itís not like if they were banned or whatever that they wouldnít happen. As much as I personally donít agree or donít like it at all I also donít want some 18 year old girl getting hacked up in a make shift abortion clinic because thatís her only choice.

But as Iíve mentioned before Iíd just like to make sure the women whoíve come to this decisions are making a good...informed decsion.

I think there has to be some sort of very uncomfortable Ďmiddle groundí as far as how far along these abortions can be performed. Me personally, Iíd go as low as (16) weeks....thatís (4) months of pregnancy. Iím sure thatís too low for abortion proponents so then do you make it (18-20) weeks and call it even? Neither Ďsideí is happy but you establish a cut off and thatís that?

And Anything after (18-20) weeks has to be deemed a danger to the mothers health.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: lordxizor on February 04, 2019, 06:49:59 AM
I don't think it's been mentioned yet in this thread, but to reduce abortion rates, the best thing to do is have good education about birth control and easy access to it. Of course, the same people who are the most anti-abortion also tend to be anti-birth control and anti-sex-ed.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: senecadawg2 on February 04, 2019, 06:54:41 AM
I don't think it's been mentioned yet in this thread, but to reduce abortion rates, the best thing to do is have good education about birth control and easy access to it. Of course, the same people who are the most anti-abortion also tend to be anti-birth control and anti-sex-ed.

Yesóanother of those inconsistencies that makes absolutely no sense.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Chino on February 04, 2019, 07:19:57 AM
Yup. I'd be on board with the government giving that stuff out like candy on Halloween to whoever wants it. A lifetime's worth of IUDs is cheaper than just the delivery fee for a baby.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on February 04, 2019, 08:22:23 AM
I don't think it's been mentioned yet in this thread, but to reduce abortion rates, the best thing to do is have good education about birth control and easy access to it. Of course, the same people who are the most anti-abortion also tend to be anti-birth control and anti-sex-ed.
Yep. Texas is a fine example of that. I'd say that easy access to reproductive health clinics is just as important, though. Ending the war against Planned Parenthood would actually help the pro-life cause quite a bit.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: KevShmev on February 04, 2019, 08:33:28 AM
I don't think it's been mentioned yet in this thread, but to reduce abortion rates, the best thing to do is have good education about birth control and easy access to it. Of course, the same people who are the most anti-abortion also tend to be anti-birth control and anti-sex-ed.

I've said for 15 years now that sex ed should be required for all four years of high school.  In public schools of course, as you cannot enforce that in private schools (many of which would just preach abstinence anyway).
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on February 04, 2019, 08:46:48 AM
I don't think it's been mentioned yet in this thread, but to reduce abortion rates, the best thing to do is have good education about birth control and easy access to it. Of course, the same people who are the most anti-abortion also tend to be anti-birth control and anti-sex-ed.

I've said for 15 years now that sex ed should be required for all four years of high school.  In public schools of course, as you cannot enforce that in private schools (many of which would just preach abstinence anyway).
Private schools? Most public schools in Texas are abstinence only with predictable results.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: gmillerdrake on February 04, 2019, 08:50:49 AM
I don't think it's been mentioned yet in this thread, but to reduce abortion rates, the best thing to do is have good education about birth control and easy access to it. Of course, the same people who are the most anti-abortion also tend to be anti-birth control and anti-sex-ed.

I've said for 15 years now that sex ed should be required for all four years of high school.  In public schools of course, as you cannot enforce that in private schools (many of which would just preach abstinence anyway).

My oldest is 12 and he has a sex education class right now in Middle School. I'm totally fine/happy about that. My wife and I have had really good conversations with him about sex/girls. I really think you can't talk to your kids enough about this stuff. This isn't a 'one and done' conversation by any means.

And, our Young Adult Pastor at Church has started a series with the 'older' kids as well. Obviously his approach is a little different....but the crux of his approach is about respecting yourself and others and trying to instill 'worth' to both the boys and girls.

 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: MirrorMask on February 04, 2019, 08:58:56 AM
That's also one side to the issue to be taught, respect for yourself and the others. Teaching kids how sex works and how to have protected sex is fine and useful, but also the proper way to respect each other in relationship and the demolition of old myths and attitudes is due.

I mean, we live in a society where female rape victims were "asking for it", and male rape victims don't even exist because "you can't rape a man", this toxic attitude has to stop and has to end starting from school, growing a new generations of people who will have more consideration for their partner and other people in general.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: KevShmev on February 04, 2019, 09:15:58 AM
Private schools? Most public schools in Texas are abstinence only with predictable results.

It's an inexact method, but you gotta start somewhere.

My oldest is 12 and he has a sex education class right now in Middle School. I'm totally fine/happy about that. My wife and I have had really good conversations with him about sex/girls. I really think you can't talk to your kids enough about this stuff. This isn't a 'one and done' conversation by any means.

And, our Young Adult Pastor at Church has started a series with the 'older' kids as well. Obviously his approach is a little different....but the crux of his approach is about respecting yourself and others and trying to instill 'worth' to both the boys and girls.

This makes a lot of sense.  :tup :tup
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on February 04, 2019, 10:07:14 AM
Private schools? Most public schools in Texas are abstinence only with predictable results.

It's an inexact method, but you gotta start somewhere.
We did start somewhere. There was sensible sex-ed in Texas during my education years. Then we moved into the land of make-believe.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: gmillerdrake on February 04, 2019, 10:11:00 AM
Then we moved into the land of make-believe.

California?  :biggrin:
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on February 04, 2019, 10:33:02 AM
Then we moved into the land of make-believe.

California?  :biggrin:
They're beating the holy crap out of both of our states.  :lol  They're ranked 16th in teen pregnancy, which is kind of impressive given their size, population, and demographics. Texas has actually improved to 45th.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on February 04, 2019, 01:32:20 PM
I don't think it's been mentioned yet in this thread, but to reduce abortion rates, the best thing to do is have good education about birth control and easy access to it. Of course, the same people who are the most anti-abortion also tend to be anti-birth control and anti-sex-ed.

I've said for 15 years now that sex ed should be required for all four years of high school.  In public schools of course, as you cannot enforce that in private schools (many of which would just preach abstinence anyway).

My oldest is 12 and he has a sex education class right now in Middle School. I'm totally fine/happy about that. My wife and I have had really good conversations with him about sex/girls. I really think you can't talk to your kids enough about this stuff. This isn't a 'one and done' conversation by any means.

And, our Young Adult Pastor at Church has started a series with the 'older' kids as well. Obviously his approach is a little different....but the crux of his approach is about respecting yourself and others and trying to instill 'worth' to both the boys and girls.

But let's not kid ourselves here; nothing is absolute.  We DID have sex ed in high school, and rather in depth at that.   Having said that, we had a girl that "graduated" (I say in quotes, because I don't know that she graduated) with two children with two different fathers.   Oh well.   
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Chino on February 04, 2019, 01:45:28 PM
I don't think it's been mentioned yet in this thread, but to reduce abortion rates, the best thing to do is have good education about birth control and easy access to it. Of course, the same people who are the most anti-abortion also tend to be anti-birth control and anti-sex-ed.

I've said for 15 years now that sex ed should be required for all four years of high school.  In public schools of course, as you cannot enforce that in private schools (many of which would just preach abstinence anyway).

My oldest is 12 and he has a sex education class right now in Middle School. I'm totally fine/happy about that. My wife and I have had really good conversations with him about sex/girls. I really think you can't talk to your kids enough about this stuff. This isn't a 'one and done' conversation by any means.

And, our Young Adult Pastor at Church has started a series with the 'older' kids as well. Obviously his approach is a little different....but the crux of his approach is about respecting yourself and others and trying to instill 'worth' to both the boys and girls.

But let's not kid ourselves here; nothing is absolute.  We DID have sex ed in high school, and rather in depth at that.   Having said that, we had a girl that "graduated" (I say in quotes, because I don't know that she graduated) with two children with two different fathers.   Oh well.

I went to a catholic school where we had 8 weeks of sex ed in 5th grade. We basically spent 8 weeks (one thirty minute session per week) learning that women have eggs and men have sperm. We learned on the last day that the penis had to be in the vagina to make a baby. There was no talk about "sex" in any real capacity. STDs were never mentioned. Sexual abuse was ignored completely. Sex never came up again in school until my junior year health class in high school. 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: gmillerdrake on February 04, 2019, 01:50:11 PM
I don't think it's been mentioned yet in this thread, but to reduce abortion rates, the best thing to do is have good education about birth control and easy access to it. Of course, the same people who are the most anti-abortion also tend to be anti-birth control and anti-sex-ed.

I've said for 15 years now that sex ed should be required for all four years of high school.  In public schools of course, as you cannot enforce that in private schools (many of which would just preach abstinence anyway).

My oldest is 12 and he has a sex education class right now in Middle School. I'm totally fine/happy about that. My wife and I have had really good conversations with him about sex/girls. I really think you can't talk to your kids enough about this stuff. This isn't a 'one and done' conversation by any means.

And, our Young Adult Pastor at Church has started a series with the 'older' kids as well. Obviously his approach is a little different....but the crux of his approach is about respecting yourself and others and trying to instill 'worth' to both the boys and girls.

But let's not kid ourselves here; nothing is absolute.  We DID have sex ed in high school, and rather in depth at that.   Having said that, we had a girl that "graduated" (I say in quotes, because I don't know that she graduated) with two children with two different fathers.   Oh well.

No. as for my case.....I don't think my wife and I are living in la la land and believe that this isn't an issue that needs to be constantly addressed. Let's be realistic.....our culture is so over sexualized and permissive right now. All you see everywhere is that it's 'ok' to do 'whatever'....."be you man"......it's your life.....satisfy your needs and wants. I'm not demonizing sex or anything....it's a wonderful thing.

But in our case with our sons we're really trying to help them grasp and understand that yes....you're going to see this all over....your going to have friends that will probably end up doing it.....your going to have those same desires......but our largest goal is to help them establish the respect for themselves and their bodies/feelings......and respect for women and their bodies/feelings. I can tell  you right now (not proudly) but given the circumstances in which I found myself having been exposed to pornography and abuse at a very young age.....I grew up looking at women as an object. It wasn't well into my mid to late 20's that I even began to consider that there was more to a woman than just what she could do for me. That's horrible to admit and even as I typed it ......sounds awful.

My wish and goal is for me to help my sons combat that objectification of women and help them realize everyone has worth and deserves to be respected and that they need to keep that in consideration. I think if they can have that groundwork it'd help them in the inevitable struggle and pressure their going to face when it comes to sex at a young age.

Like I said in my earlier post.....that conversation is not a one and done. It'll be ever evolving as they age but it's one I'm committed to because I'd love for them to be able to appreciate a truly beautiful woman without their immediate thought being 'boy I'd like to  :censored the  :censored out of her and  :censored it in her  :censored :censored'   
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Cool Chris on February 04, 2019, 01:57:36 PM
I went to a catholic school where we had 8 weeks of sex ed in 5th grade. We basically spent 8 weeks (one thirty minute session per week) learning that women have eggs and men have sperm. We learned on the last day that the penis had to be in the vagina to make a baby. There was no talk about "sex" in any real capacity. STDs were never mentioned. Sexual abuse was ignored completely. Sex never came up again in school until my junior year health class in high school. 

I've said this before but I went to a Jesuit high school and we had an extensive section of our freshman year health class - that every student had to take - devoted sex ed, that included every facet of what I believe sex ed should cover.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on February 04, 2019, 02:18:24 PM
Like I said in my earlier post.....that conversation is not a one and done. It'll be ever evolving as they age but it's one I'm committed to because I'd love for them to be able to appreciate a truly beautiful woman without their immediate thought being 'boy I'd like to  :censored the  :censored out of her and  :censored it in her  :censored :censored'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW510JMwU8w
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on February 04, 2019, 02:22:16 PM
I don't think it's been mentioned yet in this thread, but to reduce abortion rates, the best thing to do is have good education about birth control and easy access to it. Of course, the same people who are the most anti-abortion also tend to be anti-birth control and anti-sex-ed.

I've said for 15 years now that sex ed should be required for all four years of high school.  In public schools of course, as you cannot enforce that in private schools (many of which would just preach abstinence anyway).

My oldest is 12 and he has a sex education class right now in Middle School. I'm totally fine/happy about that. My wife and I have had really good conversations with him about sex/girls. I really think you can't talk to your kids enough about this stuff. This isn't a 'one and done' conversation by any means.

And, our Young Adult Pastor at Church has started a series with the 'older' kids as well. Obviously his approach is a little different....but the crux of his approach is about respecting yourself and others and trying to instill 'worth' to both the boys and girls.

But let's not kid ourselves here; nothing is absolute.  We DID have sex ed in high school, and rather in depth at that.   Having said that, we had a girl that "graduated" (I say in quotes, because I don't know that she graduated) with two children with two different fathers.   Oh well.

No. as for my case.....I don't think my wife and I are living in la la land and believe that this isn't an issue that needs to be constantly addressed. Let's be realistic.....our culture is so over sexualized and permissive right now. All you see everywhere is that it's 'ok' to do 'whatever'....."be you man"......it's your life.....satisfy your needs and wants. I'm not demonizing sex or anything....it's a wonderful thing.

But in our case with our sons we're really trying to help them grasp and understand that yes....you're going to see this all over....your going to have friends that will probably end up doing it.....your going to have those same desires......but our largest goal is to help them establish the respect for themselves and their bodies/feelings......and respect for women and their bodies/feelings. I can tell  you right now (not proudly) but given the circumstances in which I found myself having been exposed to pornography and abuse at a very young age.....I grew up looking at women as an object. It wasn't well into my mid to late 20's that I even began to consider that there was more to a woman than just what she could do for me. That's horrible to admit and even as I typed it ......sounds awful.

My wish and goal is for me to help my sons combat that objectification of women and help them realize everyone has worth and deserves to be respected and that they need to keep that in consideration. I think if they can have that groundwork it'd help them in the inevitable struggle and pressure their going to face when it comes to sex at a young age.

Like I said in my earlier post.....that conversation is not a one and done. It'll be ever evolving as they age but it's one I'm committed to because I'd love for them to be able to appreciate a truly beautiful woman without their immediate thought being 'boy I'd like to  :censored the  :censored out of her and  :censored it in her  :censored :censored'

I love that, and as a father of a daughter, I appreciate that very, very much.  Most of my discussions (and by "my" I mean me, my wife and ex-wife, her mom) are not about the mechanics of sex; that much my kid knows.  It's about the psychology of sex.   That sending texts of your boobies is a short term win and a long term, never ending loss.   That life doesn't have "do-overs", and while there are few mistakes that you can't overcome in some fashion, there are many many mistakes that you can't erase completely negate their consequences.

I firmly believe that there are just some things in this life that you cannot really know until you experience it.  I call it the "hot stove theory"; there are just some times you have to touch the stove to know what it's like.  (You just pray that your kid doesn't burn themselves too badly in doing so).   I had a luxury of going to a large state school for college; I was a virgin when I went, and it was in some respects like a kid in a candy store.  But there was a lot of consent going around, and it was a relatively healthy experience.   Same with substances.  But I didn't have to worry about fentanyl, or Snapchat, or worrying that photos of my c*** were going to be spread all over the internet.   
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: gmillerdrake on February 04, 2019, 03:13:09 PM
Like I said in my earlier post.....that conversation is not a one and done. It'll be ever evolving as they age but it's one I'm committed to because I'd love for them to be able to appreciate a truly beautiful woman without their immediate thought being 'boy I'd like to  :censored the  :censored out of her and  :censored it in her  :censored :censored'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW510JMwU8w

 :rollin
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on March 21, 2019, 09:42:55 PM
So things are progressing exactly as I said they would. Mississippi officially has a "fetal heartbeat bill" now which will prohibit abortions right around the time a woman might figure out that she's pregnant. Six to eight weeks is generally when a woman pieces it all together. Six to seven weeks is around the point when a doctor will go to prison for performing the procedure. Knock off a few days to allow the local Christians to shame you and at best a woman might have 3 days to figure out she's pregnant and start the process.

The common refrain I've heard from the republicans is that RvW isn't ever going to go away. It's lost on me because I've always known that. It'll just get danced around. An injunction will be in place almost immediately. Trump will bash it as the work of Obama-judges in league with the baby-killing liberals. It'll take a while to get to the SCOTUS. When it does it will have 3-5 justices staunchly defending the idea that a right is still a right even if it doesn't actually apply to anybody.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Cool Chris on March 21, 2019, 09:53:31 PM
Just saw that news and generally agree with your sentiments. Kinda like how the right to own a firearm is eroding away. Each side gets a victory. The only losers are all of us.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: KevShmev on May 15, 2019, 01:28:15 PM
Note to self: never step foot in the state of Alabama again.

What a freaking joke.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 15, 2019, 01:49:27 PM
Note to self: never step foot in the state of Alabama again.

What a freaking joke.
Yeah, I've already planned on visiting the rocket museum in August, but I'll definitely be making it a point to not spend any money in their backwards-ass state. Meaningless in the grand scheme of things, but it means something to me.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Adami on May 15, 2019, 02:50:22 PM
Note to self: never step foot in the state of Alabama again.

What a freaking joke.

Unless there are any girls there you hate. Then you can just knock them up and let them be forced to deal with it.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 15, 2019, 02:51:11 PM
Note to self: never step foot in the state of Alabama again.

What a freaking joke.
Yeah, I've already planned on visiting the rocket museum in August, but I'll definitely be making it a point to not spend any money in their backwards-ass state. Meaningless in the grand scheme of things, but it means something to me.

A shame, too, because that rocket museum kicks ass.  FYI, I still have my security badge somewhere from the facility; I was PM on a project to remediate one of the cooling ponds (where they sent the cooling water from the testing of the Saturn-model of rockets).
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: cramx3 on May 15, 2019, 03:00:51 PM
Note to self: never step foot in the state of Alabama again.

What a freaking joke.

I can't really think of much of a reason to go there anyway.  I was considering it a couple years ago when I was in Atlanta to one evening drive out there just to say I visited the state, essentially a check mark on a map really.  And opted to check out a cool restaurant in Atlanta instead and can't say I regretted it.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: MirrorMask on May 15, 2019, 03:16:45 PM
I saw a picture of the people that passed up that law: all white old men. Without exception.

It's like if a group of people who make a vow of celibacy and never marry and never have sex would try to dictate moral, if not actual, laws about sex. Dunno, members of a religion or something, I'm pulling examples out of thin air, that would never happen for real.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Dave_Manchester on May 15, 2019, 03:20:57 PM
On an entirely separate subject, I can't wait for the Republican Party to invade Iran and liberate the free world from those backwards-assed fundamentalist whack jobs who want to impose their archaic religious morality upon the rest of us.

Interesting case this one though. There was a lengthy article on the BBC asking "why now?", concerning the Supreme Court, Roe, all that jazz. The writer seemed to think this was more of a gesture that didn't stand much of a chance of actually becoming law, whether the appeals process brings it to the SCOTUS or not (has Kavanaugh been the partisan Attila many feared? He seems to have been siding with the liberal wing on some issues here and there, such as the recent antitrust lawsuit against Apple). We'll see I guess.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 15, 2019, 03:32:18 PM
Note to self: never step foot in the state of Alabama again.

What a freaking joke.
Yeah, I've already planned on visiting the rocket museum in August, but I'll definitely be making it a point to not spend any money in their backwards-ass state. Meaningless in the grand scheme of things, but it means something to me.

A shame, too, because that rocket museum kicks ass.  FYI, I still have my security badge somewhere from the facility; I was PM on a project to remediate one of the cooling ponds (where they sent the cooling water from the testing of the Saturn-model of rockets).
Oh, I'm still going to the museum. I'm just gonna make sure nobody in that state makes any money from me.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Dave_Manchester on May 15, 2019, 03:37:06 PM
Note to self: never step foot in the state of Alabama again.

What a freaking joke.

I can't really think of much of a reason to go there anyway.  I was considering it a couple years ago when I was in Atlanta to one evening drive out there just to say I visited the state, essentially a check mark on a map really.  And opted to check out a cool restaurant in Atlanta instead and can't say I regretted it.

A couple of the boys here (Barto, Stadler, 311) know that it's my number 1 bucket list item to take a long trip through the American 'heartland' one day (don't know if that's the correct term, but I mean places like Montana, Kentucky, Idaho, Alabama, Wyoming, Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa...). Places that aren't the traditional tourist spots (I've been to the east and west coasts of the US). Chat to the people, feel the life there, get a sense of a side of America that we (foreigners) always never see in movies or news broadcasts but which in my mind are closer to the 'real' soul of the country. Maybe it's only a romantic idealisation but the prospect of driving past an endless cornfield in Nebraska watching the towns roll by excites me far more than Manhattan or LA, great though those places are too. 

(sorry for the off-topic post)
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 15, 2019, 03:38:24 PM
On an entirely separate subject, I can't wait for the Republican Party to invade Iran and liberate the free world from those backwards-assed fundamentalist whack jobs who want to impose their archaic religious morality upon the rest of us.

Interesting case this one though. There was a lengthy article on the BBC asking "why now?", concerning the Supreme Court, Roe, all that jazz. The writer seemed to think this was more of a gesture that didn't stand much of a chance of actually becoming law, whether the appeals process brings it to the SCOTUS or not (has Kavanaugh been the partisan Attila many feared? He seems to have been siding with the liberal wing on some issues here and there, such as the recent antitrust lawsuit against Apple). We'll see I guess.
Kavanaugh is still a wildcard. Because of him and Roberts there's really no way of knowing which way this will fall. Seven of the votes are likely cast in stone at this point.

And as I mentioned in the SCOTUS thread, Kavanaugh really hates government overreach. He won't be a centrist, but he'll certainly side with the liberals in certain matters. At some point he's very likely to burn Trump the ground, which will lead to one of the all time great tweetstorms.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 15, 2019, 03:46:14 PM
Note to self: never step foot in the state of Alabama again.

What a freaking joke.

I can't really think of much of a reason to go there anyway.  I was considering it a couple years ago when I was in Atlanta to one evening drive out there just to say I visited the state, essentially a check mark on a map really.  And opted to check out a cool restaurant in Atlanta instead and can't say I regretted it.

A couple of the boys here (Barto, Stadler, 311) know that it's my number 1 bucket list item to take a long trip through the American 'heartland' one day (don't know if that's the correct term, but I mean places like Montana, Kentucky, Idaho, Alabama, Wyoming, Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa...). Places that aren't the traditional tourist spots (I've been to the east and west coasts of the US). Chat to the people, feel the life there, get a sense of a side of America that we (foreigners) always never see in movies or news broadcasts but which in my mind are closer to the 'real' soul of the country. Maybe it's only a romantic idealisation but driving past an endless cornfield in Nebraska watching the towns roll by excites me far more than Manhattan or LA, great though those places are too. 

(sorry for the off-topic post)
Some of it's quite scenic. Some of it's just depressing. I dug Wyoming far more than I thought I would, and South Dakota is wonderful. I honestly found Kentucky/Tennessee fairly boring. The rivers are the only thing that make it at all interesting. When you do it take the audiobook of Huckleberry Finn. That bit of nostalgia goes along way to making Tennessee not suck balls.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: cramx3 on May 15, 2019, 03:58:47 PM
I think driving through the heartland is an awesome idea, but I feel like Alabama is not a must see place though.  I went to Wyoming one day while off on a business trip in Denver and thought that state not only smelled bad but was so uninteresting, but I'm sure there's cooler spots.  The drive through cornfields is only interesting for 5 minutes too.  I feel like from my own experience, the best place for road trips and beautiful scenery is probably on the pacific north west.  Mountains, forests, rivers, just beautiful.  I am working on my next trip, Salt Lake City to Las Vegas via some national parks in Utah.  I think that might be very scenic too, but I can't comment until I do it.  Places like Alabama never make my list of states that I want to visit other than to just say I've been there.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: XJDenton on May 15, 2019, 04:50:54 PM
I think i'll hold off visiting Alabama until it has joined the 20th century.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: gmillerdrake on May 15, 2019, 06:10:59 PM
Note to self: never step foot in the state of Alabama again.

What a freaking joke.

Well Kev......our State is fixing to pass our own version of the Ďheartbeatí bill.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Adami on May 15, 2019, 06:12:24 PM
Note to self: never step foot in the state of Alabama again.

What a freaking joke.

Well Kev......our State is fixing to pass our own version of the Ďheartbeatí bill.

Oh come on!!

I know some people there who will not be happy about that.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: XeRocks81 on May 15, 2019, 06:41:17 PM
Jeez guys, Handmaidís Tale is a good show and all but this live action re-enactment is getting a little much.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2019, 07:52:06 AM
I saw a picture of the people that passed up that law: all white old men. Without exception.

It's like if a group of people who make a vow of celibacy and never marry and never have sex would try to dictate moral, if not actual, laws about sex. Dunno, members of a religion or something, I'm pulling examples out of thin air, that would never happen for real.

Not entirely accurate.  A version of that bill was originally proposed by a woman, and the current governor that signed the bill into law is, as I understand it, a woman. 

The law is bad enough as it stands; we don't have to pile on to make it more than it is.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: KevShmev on May 16, 2019, 07:54:58 AM
Note to self: never step foot in the state of Alabama again.

What a freaking joke.

Well Kev......our State is fixing to pass our own version of the Ďheartbeatí bill.

I can't imagine it will be anything close to as reprehensible as the one Alabama just passed.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 16, 2019, 08:27:07 AM
Note to self: never step foot in the state of Alabama again.

What a freaking joke.

Well Kev......our State is fixing to pass our own version of the Ďheartbeatí bill.

I can't imagine it will be anything close to as reprehensible as the one Alabama just passed.
What's the difference? The practical upshot is the same either way. The only real difference I can see is that the other Southern/Midwestern states are trying to be subtle about it, and Bama is being blunt and obvious about its intent.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2019, 08:36:58 AM
"Why now"?  This is almost entirely political, and entirely to make a statement. A "flexing of muscles" if you will.  For better or worse (although it's the process as intended, I think it's ultimately "for worse") the courts have literally become a court - in the sporting venue sense of the word - because the legislatures have become incapable of bipartisan compromise, and courts provide, in the form of a concise decision with a final judgment, a Twitter-ready finiteness. 

For anyone watching, and anyone interested in the real interplay between the three branches of government, the ironies here are almost dizzying.  Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler are beating the (also political) drums of "monarchy" and "dictatorship" against Trump - because these are buzzwords/code words that will land with their "base" - and asserting the "power" of Congress to provide oversight, and yet, in cases like Alabama, are almost completely abdicating their responsibility to effectively lead their constituents by deferring to the courts. 

I'm becoming more and more, day-by-day, convinced that both sides are going to be deeply disappointed by this process as it unfolds.   I don't literally mean it will be a "compromise", but I do know that there are several competing legal and political concerns at play, and they don't all lead to the same place ideologically.  The Alabama law is almost certainly not going to stand as written. I think even the proponents in state know that.  The question is whether the right to privacy is going to continue to control (which is the essence of Roe, at heart).    Having said that, abortion in Alabama - or anywhere else - is not going to be available from conception to birth, with no restrictions or no regulations.   

I think also, it's important to note that this is not going to happen in the next few weeks or months.   The stunning lack of "civics" knowledge is far more concerning to me than the substantive concepts at issue here.   The law passed, but it has to go into effect.  A woman who is pregnant and is denied an abortion under this new law.  She has to sue (and yes, timing is at issue here).  She has to win ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS and the state has to appeal (or she has to lose on constitutional grounds and she appeals).  The appellate court has to weigh in.  If the original case is in state court, the STATE Supreme Court has to weigh in.  At that point, the "loser" - assuming we're still talking about CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES - prepares a writ of certiori, which is effectively a request for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.   They can "grant certiori (or "cert")" and hear the case, or they can "deny certiori (or "cert")" and let the final ruling stand.   

It should be noted that the Supreme Court generally takes about 1% of the cases offered to it, and a denial of certiori has NO precedential meaning (in other words, if, for example, the Alabama State Supreme Court upholds the denial of an abortion, for whatever reason, and the U.S. Supreme Court decides not to hear the appeal, that DOES NOT mean that the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the law, or believes that the lower court reached the correct decision on the merits of the case.

Why is all this important?   Because it's going to take TIME.  And in that time, we're going to get a master class of what Dr. Phil calls "outrageous overshadowing".    The Alabama law is so restrictive, that if, say, Missouri passes one that is objectively very restrictive, but subjectively not nearly as restrictive as Alabama, it may end up escaping scrutiny.  Vice versa, EVERY law with a restriction on abortion in it is going to be thrown into the "Alabama Jambalaya" by pro-choice advocates, and so the debate is going to rage for quite some time now.     
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2019, 08:37:52 AM
Note to self: never step foot in the state of Alabama again.

What a freaking joke.

Well Kev......our State is fixing to pass our own version of the Ďheartbeatí bill.

I can't imagine it will be anything close to as reprehensible as the one Alabama just passed.

The proper terminology is "deplorable". 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: KevShmev on May 16, 2019, 08:45:02 AM
Note to self: never step foot in the state of Alabama again.

What a freaking joke.

Well Kev......our State is fixing to pass our own version of the Ďheartbeatí bill.

I can't imagine it will be anything close to as reprehensible as the one Alabama just passed.
What's the difference? The practical upshot is the same either way. The only real difference I can see is that the other Southern/Midwestern states are trying to be subtle about it, and Bama is being blunt and obvious about its intent.

I guess time will tell, but I am not blowing smoke when I say that this kind of BS has me ready to vote for Democrats across the board in every election for the foreseeable future.  I hate the rhetoric from the left about this topic as well, but passing these laws is deplorable (happy, Stadler? :P ).
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 16, 2019, 09:00:18 AM
"Why now"?  This is almost entirely political, and entirely to make a statement. A "flexing of muscles" if you will.  For better or worse (although it's the process as intended, I think it's ultimately "for worse") the courts have literally become a court - in the sporting venue sense of the word - because the legislatures have become incapable of bipartisan compromise, and courts provide, in the form of a concise decision with a final judgment, a Twitter-ready finiteness. 

For anyone watching, and anyone interested in the real interplay between the three branches of government, the ironies here are almost dizzying.  Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler are beating the (also political) drums of "monarchy" and "dictatorship" against Trump - because these are buzzwords/code words that will land with their "base" - and asserting the "power" of Congress to provide oversight, and yet, in cases like Alabama, are almost completely abdicating their responsibility to effectively lead their constituents by deferring to the courts. 

I'm becoming more and more, day-by-day, convinced that both sides are going to be deeply disappointed by this process as it unfolds.   I don't literally mean it will be a "compromise", but I do know that there are several competing legal and political concerns at play, and they don't all lead to the same place ideologically.  The Alabama law is almost certainly not going to stand as written. I think even the proponents in state know that.  The question is whether the right to privacy is going to continue to control (which is the essence of Roe, at heart).    Having said that, abortion in Alabama - or anywhere else - is not going to be available from conception to birth, with no restrictions or no regulations.   

I think also, it's important to note that this is not going to happen in the next few weeks or months.   The stunning lack of "civics" knowledge is far more concerning to me than the substantive concepts at issue here.   The law passed, but it has to go into effect.  A woman who is pregnant and is denied an abortion under this new law.  She has to sue (and yes, timing is at issue here).  She has to win ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS and the state has to appeal (or she has to lose on constitutional grounds and she appeals).  The appellate court has to weigh in.  If the original case is in state court, the STATE Supreme Court has to weigh in.  At that point, the "loser" - assuming we're still talking about CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES - prepares a writ of certiori, which is effectively a request for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.   They can "grant certiori (or "cert")" and hear the case, or they can "deny certiori (or "cert")" and let the final ruling stand.   

It should be noted that the Supreme Court generally takes about 1% of the cases offered to it, and a denial of certiori has NO precedential meaning (in other words, if, for example, the Alabama State Supreme Court upholds the denial of an abortion, for whatever reason, and the U.S. Supreme Court decides not to hear the appeal, that DOES NOT mean that the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the law, or believes that the lower court reached the correct decision on the merits of the case.

Why is all this important?   Because it's going to take TIME.  And in that time, we're going to get a master class of what Dr. Phil calls "outrageous overshadowing".    The Alabama law is so restrictive, that if, say, Missouri passes one that is objectively very restrictive, but subjectively not nearly as restrictive as Alabama, it may end up escaping scrutiny.  Vice versa, EVERY law with a restriction on abortion in it is going to be thrown into the "Alabama Jambalaya" by pro-choice advocates, and so the debate is going to rage for quite some time now.     
You're overlooking another possibility. There are other "less restrictive" bans already winding through he courts. It's possible that by the time Bama's case reaches the SCOTUS, and we know that it will, it will be rendered moot one way or the other.

And the why now should concern you. It's happening now because a great number of republicans think that Trump's SCOTUS appointments means that they can pass any ultra-conservative legislation they please. This shows both a fundamental lack of understanding in the nature of the court, and a great deal of faith that Trump is essentially a tyrant.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2019, 09:33:52 AM
Note to self: never step foot in the state of Alabama again.

What a freaking joke.

Well Kev......our State is fixing to pass our own version of the Ďheartbeatí bill.

I can't imagine it will be anything close to as reprehensible as the one Alabama just passed.
What's the difference? The practical upshot is the same either way. The only real difference I can see is that the other Southern/Midwestern states are trying to be subtle about it, and Bama is being blunt and obvious about its intent.

I guess time will tell, but I am not blowing smoke when I say that this kind of BS has me ready to vote for Democrats across the board in every election for the foreseeable future.  I hate the rhetoric from the left about this topic as well, but passing these laws is deplorable (happy, Stadler? :P ).

Do what you will, but that's a dangerous way to make the decision, since neither side is immune to that strategy of "passing stuff to see what sticks".   
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2019, 09:38:59 AM
You're overlooking another possibility. There are other "less restrictive" bans already winding through he courts. It's possible that by the time Bama's case reaches the SCOTUS, and we know that it will, it will be rendered moot one way or the other.

And the why now should concern you. It's happening now because a great number of republicans think that Trump's SCOTUS appointments means that they can pass any ultra-conservative legislation they please. This shows both a fundamental lack of understanding in the nature of the court, and a great deal of faith that Trump is essentially a tyrant.

Totally agree with the first paragraph; it will be interesting to watch the hamster race (though that goes to my point of most people not being well versed in civics).  Kind of agree with the first half of the second paragraph. 

But I don't get the second half of the second paragraph, especially about the "tyrant".   There's literally NOTHING about the Trump Administration that REALLY says "tyrant".  Sure, he's pushing boundaries on the three-branch check and balance, but if the check and balance REALLY works (and it does) that will even out.  I think this rhetoric from Nadler and Schiff about a "monarchy" has to stop, because it shows a marked lack of awareness on their part.  Trump is a target, there's no two ways about that, and while I nominally agree with the "if you're innocent you have nothing to worry about", Trump is, in a very real sense, that black guy "Quentin" ("that's not my name!" "That's not his name!") in the video you and I watched the other day.   Yeah, he should nominally cooperate, but I don't think it's unreasonable to except him not to walk willingly into his own firing squad. 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 16, 2019, 09:44:34 AM
This was from the election 2020 thread, but I'm moving it here where it's OT.

1.  Is there a compelling state interest?  This is the key here; how does this get framed?  We're talking "life", in some form or fashion, and that's really going to be where this stands or falls.
2.  Is the law narrowly tailored to address the state interest?  Again, if you're talking about "life", and whether it can be taken or not, this isn't a very broad (pardon the pun) question.
3.  The law must be the least restrictive for achieving the state interest.  Here's where there's room to move.  Are there other ways of achieving the goal?  I don't know myself, but depending on how 1. is framed, this is where the law will survive or fail.

I've been pondering this a lot since you posted it. (Yeah, I do that too.) Regarding 1, the cornerstone, is it the place of the state to address that which is by its very nature unknowable? We're talking about something that at its essence has been a philosophical question for as long as man has been philosophizing. Why should a thoughtful conservative think that the government should be enacting law based on it's own philosophical interpretation of an unanswerable question, as opposed to leaving it in the rightful purview of the individual? If we're to accept that elected officials can enact law based on their own philosophical interpretations of spiritual matters, couldn't a law mandating baptism be viewed as a compelling state interest, as well? It's looking out for the well being of children incapable of looking after themselves.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 16, 2019, 09:47:19 AM
You're overlooking another possibility. There are other "less restrictive" bans already winding through he courts. It's possible that by the time Bama's case reaches the SCOTUS, and we know that it will, it will be rendered moot one way or the other.

And the why now should concern you. It's happening now because a great number of republicans think that Trump's SCOTUS appointments means that they can pass any ultra-conservative legislation they please. This shows both a fundamental lack of understanding in the nature of the court, and a great deal of faith that Trump is essentially a tyrant.

Totally agree with the first paragraph; it will be interesting to watch the hamster race (though that goes to my point of most people not being well versed in civics).  Kind of agree with the first half of the second paragraph. 

But I don't get the second half of the second paragraph, especially about the "tyrant".   There's literally NOTHING about the Trump Administration that REALLY says "tyrant".  Sure, he's pushing boundaries on the three-branch check and balance, but if the check and balance REALLY works (and it does) that will even out.  I think this rhetoric from Nadler and Schiff about a "monarchy" has to stop, because it shows a marked lack of awareness on their part.  Trump is a target, there's no two ways about that, and while I nominally agree with the "if you're innocent you have nothing to worry about", Trump is, in a very real sense, that black guy "Quentin" ("that's not my name!" "That's not his name!") in the video you and I watched the other day.   Yeah, he should nominally cooperate, but I don't think it's unreasonable to except him not to walk willingly into his own firing squad.
From the perspective of people who rushed to push through a bill that is facially unconstitutional, they're relying on the fact that Trump has appointed people who will do what he wants them to do regardless of whether the law supports it. To them he is a benevolent tyrant.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: hefdaddy42 on May 16, 2019, 09:52:16 AM
^Agreed^
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2019, 12:27:50 PM
I think they are overstating the degree to which those people - judges - are going to "do what he says".   

Not the people here, and I fully mean that sincerely, but generally, people are all over the map on Trump, and fatally.  He's so dumb that he can't walk and chew gum at the same time, but at the same time he's so smart that he's been able to manipulate not only our government (in effect and purring like a kitten for 243 years) but implement what would by far be the most comprehensive act of treason in the history of the planet.  And I don't mean this as a non sequitor; one of the basic, cornerstone premises of the "check and balance" is that judges AREN'T elected, and DON'T have terms.  The idea here is that judges are free from tactical political considerations, and can both rely on and be part of a body of law that transcends the other two branches.   Are there corrupt judges?  Sure.  The sun rises every day, so of course there will be at least one bad judge here and there.   But generally, you don't get to that level of jurisprudence without some eye to the bigger picture.  You're seeing that now with Chief Justice Roberts, once claimed (by liberals) to the harbinger of the end of Roe/Casey, and now looked at as a likely "swing voter" and (in my view, anyway) likely NOT a proponent of demolishing the precedent. 

TL;DR, I have way more faith in our judicial branch to take a long view, and maintain the strength of precedent.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 16, 2019, 12:36:55 PM
I think they are overstating the degree to which those people - judges - are going to "do what he says".   
That's my point.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: lonestar on May 18, 2019, 04:39:55 PM


TL;DR, I have way more faith in our judicial branch to take a long view, and maintain the strength of precedent.

I completely agree, but unfortunately the long view will do nothing towards the rift that is getting ripped through our country.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 18, 2019, 09:35:19 PM


TL;DR, I have way more faith in our judicial branch to take a long view, and maintain the strength of precedent.

I completely agree, but unfortunately the long view will do nothing towards the rift that is getting ripped through our country.

No doubt, but I don't see that as the responsibility of the judicial branch.  That's the responsibility of ELECTED officials, to represent their ENTIRE constituency, not just the one's from the party that voted for them, not just the "non-deplorable" ones, not just the ones with donation money, not just the ones with lobby group ID cards...
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Cool Chris on May 18, 2019, 10:30:24 PM
Thinking out loud here for a sec... bear with me. Was reading an article (sorry was at work and didn't save the link) that said where we could ultimately end up is (simplified) abortion is legal in "blue" states and illegal in "red" ones. I don't feel this is ideal for a nation to best function if different regions, in this case states, have different laws. We are supposed to be the UNITED States, after all. But we already have this in place in various forms. So it got me thinking, would that really be a terrible end game? Alyssa Milano goes on a Sex Strike because of a law in a state she would likely never visit in her life. Can we not function as a country happily if NY says its ok for docs to kill newborns after they've been delivered at full term while AL sends docs to Old Sparky if they perform an abortion on a gal who gets pregnant after being raped by her brother?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 19, 2019, 12:42:24 AM
Thinking out loud here for a sec... bear with me. Was reading an article (sorry was at work and didn't save the link) that said where we could ultimately end up is (simplified) abortion is legal in "blue" states and illegal in "red" ones. I don't feel this is ideal for a nation to best function if different regions, in this case states, have different laws. We are supposed to be the UNITED States, after all. But we already have this in place in various forms. So it got me thinking, would that really be a terrible end game? Alyssa Milano goes on a Sex Strike because of a law in a state she would likely never visit in her life. Can we not function as a country happily if NY says its ok for docs to kill newborns after they've been delivered at full term while AL sends docs to Old Sparky if they perform an abortion on a gal who gets pregnant after being raped by her brother?
If the supreme court decides that Alabama can criminalize all abortions, what's to stop congress from passing a national law once they get a conservative majority?

Also, it's probably best not to get legal interpretations from Donald Trump. The dude's got issues with the truth.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: lonestar on May 19, 2019, 10:49:16 AM


TL;DR, I have way more faith in our judicial branch to take a long view, and maintain the strength of precedent.

I completely agree, but unfortunately the long view will do nothing towards the rift that is getting ripped through our country.

No doubt, but I don't see that as the responsibility of the judicial branch.  That's the responsibility of ELECTED officials, to represent their ENTIRE constituency, not just the one's from the party that voted for them, not just the "non-deplorable" ones, not just the ones with donation money, not just the ones with lobby group ID cards...

Again, completely agree. Twice in as many days...what the fuck is happening?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 19, 2019, 11:53:34 AM


TL;DR, I have way more faith in our judicial branch to take a long view, and maintain the strength of precedent.

I completely agree, but unfortunately the long view will do nothing towards the rift that is getting ripped through our country.

No doubt, but I don't see that as the responsibility of the judicial branch.  That's the responsibility of ELECTED officials, to represent their ENTIRE constituency, not just the one's from the party that voted for them, not just the "non-deplorable" ones, not just the ones with donation money, not just the ones with lobby group ID cards...

Again, completely agree. Twice in as many days...what the fuck is happening?

HAHA! 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: XeRocks81 on May 19, 2019, 11:58:26 AM
Itís not that I disagree per se,  but Iím not sure itís possible to do that.  An official gets elected by telling the population what he or she believes in and what they intend to do.  Thereís no objective standard for what is good for the biggest number of people, a whole electorate could never agree on that. 

edit: for example In this case one person may think access to legal abortion everywhere in america is whatís best for everyone but obviously a lot of people disagree.  Doesnít mean that shouldnít be the goal.  Iím sure thereís arguments on both sides but I donít believe thereís an objective answer that will satisfy everyone. 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 19, 2019, 12:47:33 PM
Thinking out loud here for a sec... bear with me. Was reading an article (sorry was at work and didn't save the link) that said where we could ultimately end up is (simplified) abortion is legal in "blue" states and illegal in "red" ones. I don't feel this is ideal for a nation to best function if different regions, in this case states, have different laws. We are supposed to be the UNITED States, after all. But we already have this in place in various forms. So it got me thinking, would that really be a terrible end game? Alyssa Milano goes on a Sex Strike because of a law in a state she would likely never visit in her life. Can we not function as a country happily if NY says its ok for docs to kill newborns after they've been delivered at full term while AL sends docs to Old Sparky if they perform an abortion on a gal who gets pregnant after being raped by her brother?
If the supreme court decides that Alabama can criminalize all abortions, what's to stop congress from passing a national law once they get a conservative majority?

Also, it's probably best not to get legal interpretations from Donald Trump. The dude's got issues with the truth.

But all this can happen independently; one is not necessarily a trigger for the other.   I also think that's a part of the concern for a justice like Roberts.  I have zero belief that extremes will not be accommodated; the heartbeat law isn't going to stay, and that nonsense where Democrats were accused of wanting to kill live babies isn't going to happen.   But there's room for compromise in between.

Cool Chris isn't wrong; I used to drive to New York to buy booze.  Driver's licenses, property taxes, healthcare (generally, if you're in the state program, specifically, because of the interstate commerce restrictions of the insurance regulation), free speech, guns, marriage (gay or otherwise)... there are many, many issues, even "fundamental rights" issues, that differ state to state.  I live in Connecticut, and I'm not convinced I could RENEW (not get new) my pistol license because of the state of the laws, yet I visit Florida, and I hit the pawn shops (to look for guitars) and there more guns there than socket wrenches. 

I think the "who's to stop..." is something I've been harping on for months now.  This is part and parcel to the "scorched earth" partisan politics we've been seeing for some time now.  When Mitch McConnell takes the easy way out, or Harry Reid unilaterally invokes the nuclear option because it works for him, we get circumstances like this, where it becomes a group-think policy to elevate YOUR personal issue, YOUR personal agenda to the level of "sledgehammer".  Here, there is little difference between "abortion" and, say, something like the ACA.     
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 19, 2019, 12:54:40 PM
Itís not that I disagree per se,  but Iím not sure itís possible to do that.  An official gets elected by telling the population what he or she believes in and what they intend to do.  Thereís no objective standard for what is good for the biggest number of people, a whole electorate could never agree on that. 

edit: for example In this case one person may think access to legal abortion everywhere in america is whatís best for everyone but obviously a lot of people disagree.  Doesnít mean that shouldnít be the goal.  Iím sure thereís arguments on both sides but I donít believe thereís an objective answer that will satisfy everyone.
It's really not that simple, though. What you say is of course correct in a broad sense, but once you get into the details politicians vote against the wishes of their constituents all the time. If you call every household in Texas and ask if they support ACA, 66% of them are going to say no with varying amounts of profanity and references to Lenin. Go on to ask them about covering pre-existing conditions: "Of course we should. That's only reasonable." Being able to insure you kids up to 25? "Oh, man, that's helped me out a great deal." Should policies have meet minimum standards of coverage? "Of course. Otherwise insurers would be selling junk policies just built to exploit people." Yet every representative in our state voted to axe ACA with no replacement in sight to safeguard these things.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 19, 2019, 12:58:11 PM
Thinking out loud here for a sec... bear with me. Was reading an article (sorry was at work and didn't save the link) that said where we could ultimately end up is (simplified) abortion is legal in "blue" states and illegal in "red" ones. I don't feel this is ideal for a nation to best function if different regions, in this case states, have different laws. We are supposed to be the UNITED States, after all. But we already have this in place in various forms. So it got me thinking, would that really be a terrible end game? Alyssa Milano goes on a Sex Strike because of a law in a state she would likely never visit in her life. Can we not function as a country happily if NY says its ok for docs to kill newborns after they've been delivered at full term while AL sends docs to Old Sparky if they perform an abortion on a gal who gets pregnant after being raped by her brother?
If the supreme court decides that Alabama can criminalize all abortions, what's to stop congress from passing a national law once they get a conservative majority?

Also, it's probably best not to get legal interpretations from Donald Trump. The dude's got issues with the truth.

But all this can happen independently; one is not necessarily a trigger for the other.   I also think that's a part of the concern for a justice like Roberts.  I have zero belief that extremes will not be accommodated; the heartbeat law isn't going to stay, and that nonsense where Democrats were accused of wanting to kill live babies isn't going to happen.   But there's room for compromise in between.

Cool Chris isn't wrong; I used to drive to New York to buy booze.  Driver's licenses, property taxes, healthcare (generally, if you're in the state program, specifically, because of the interstate commerce restrictions of the insurance regulation), free speech, guns, marriage (gay or otherwise)... there are many, many issues, even "fundamental rights" issues, that differ state to state.  I live in Connecticut, and I'm not convinced I could RENEW (not get new) my pistol license because of the state of the laws, yet I visit Florida, and I hit the pawn shops (to look for guitars) and there more guns there than socket wrenches. 

I think the "who's to stop..." is something I've been harping on for months now.  This is part and parcel to the "scorched earth" partisan politics we've been seeing for some time now.  When Mitch McConnell takes the easy way out, or Harry Reid unilaterally invokes the nuclear option because it works for him, we get circumstances like this, where it becomes a group-think policy to elevate YOUR personal issue, YOUR personal agenda to the level of "sledgehammer".  Here, there is little difference between "abortion" and, say, something like the ACA.     
Do all citizens have the same opportunity to do these things? On the surface, sure. In practice, not a chance.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Jaffa on May 19, 2019, 01:06:54 PM
I have zero belief that extremes will not be accommodated; the heartbeat law isn't going to stay, and that nonsense where Democrats were accused of wanting to kill live babies isn't going to happen.   But there's room for compromise in between.

Is there, though?

I mean, obviously there is a ton of room between those two extremes.  But compromise relies on the idea of both sides being willing to sacrifice and settle.  If two parties disagree over who owns an acre of land, with each of them thinking they own the whole acre, it's easy to say that they can split the acre in half and each take 50% as a compromise.  But if both sides are thoroughly convinced that they deserve the whole acre, is there any real room for compromise? 

The problem with an issue like abortion is that so many people believe they need the full acre.  I'm making up numbers here for ease of discussion, but imagine that 30% of people believe absolutely no abortions should be allowed whatsoever, and 30% of people believe there should be absolutely no restrictions on abortion.  That means that absolutely any compromise we come up with, no matter how hard we try to work together, no matter how much each side concedes, is going to enrage at least 60% of the country. 

I want to believe that there's room for compromise on an issue like this, but a cynical part of me is fairly convinced that there isn't, really.  That we'll just be arguing about this issue until the end of time. 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 19, 2019, 01:08:56 PM
Itís not that I disagree per se,  but Iím not sure itís possible to do that.  An official gets elected by telling the population what he or she believes in and what they intend to do.  Thereís no objective standard for what is good for the biggest number of people, a whole electorate could never agree on that. 

edit: for example In this case one person may think access to legal abortion everywhere in america is whatís best for everyone but obviously a lot of people disagree.  Doesnít mean that shouldnít be the goal.  Iím sure thereís arguments on both sides but I donít believe thereís an objective answer that will satisfy everyone.

Isn't that, though, the unspoken (and in my view, forgotten) beauty of a representative democracy?   Isn't it supposed to be implicit in the "I will fight for meaningful healthcare for all" or "I will fight for a woman's access to abortion" that it be "in such a way that those that oppose can see some benefit, since I have to represent my ENTIRE constituency, not just those that voted for me". 

This is why, for me, some of Trump's rhetoric, and "deplorable", and Ocasio-Cortez, who "will be damned" about taking a middle of the road approach, is ultimately harmful, even if, in the moment, it feels right and necessary.   Long before Trump, we've betrayed the trust that says "I'm going to advocate for my cause, but in a way that is respectful and understanding that the tide may change someday, and you're not going to f--- me in return."

Now?  No such luck. Every moment is a "Spartacus" moment.  Pfffft. 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 19, 2019, 01:12:45 PM
Itís not that I disagree per se,  but Iím not sure itís possible to do that.  An official gets elected by telling the population what he or she believes in and what they intend to do.  Thereís no objective standard for what is good for the biggest number of people, a whole electorate could never agree on that. 

edit: for example In this case one person may think access to legal abortion everywhere in america is whatís best for everyone but obviously a lot of people disagree.  Doesnít mean that shouldnít be the goal.  Iím sure thereís arguments on both sides but I donít believe thereís an objective answer that will satisfy everyone.
It's really not that simple, though. What you say is of course correct in a broad sense, but once you get into the details politicians vote against the wishes of their constituents all the time. If you call every household in Texas and ask if they support ACA, 66% of them are going to say no with varying amounts of profanity and references to Lenin. Go on to ask them about covering pre-existing conditions: "Of course we should. That's only reasonable." Being able to insure you kids up to 25? "Oh, man, that's helped me out a great deal." Should policies have meet minimum standards of coverage? "Of course. Otherwise insurers would be selling junk policies just built to exploit people." Yet every representative in our state voted to axe ACA with no replacement in sight to safeguard these things.

Well, I'm guilty too, for using the ACA as an example, but it's a poor one.  I'm nominally for those things you individually list out - except for the minimum coverages - but I'm very much against the ACA, and while I didn't actually read the entire ACA (as I did with Mueller and the GND) it's more the "how" than the "what".   Those are all good things, but the ACA is not the best - not even a good, not even an ACCEPTABLE, to me - way of going about it.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 19, 2019, 01:28:31 PM
I have zero belief that extremes will not be accommodated; the heartbeat law isn't going to stay, and that nonsense where Democrats were accused of wanting to kill live babies isn't going to happen.   But there's room for compromise in between.

Is there, though?

I mean, obviously there is a ton of room between those two extremes.  But compromise relies on the idea of both sides being willing to sacrifice and settle.  If two parties disagree over who owns an acre of land, with each of them thinking they own the whole acre, it's easy to say that they can split the acre in half and each take 50% as a compromise.  But if both sides are thoroughly convinced that they deserve the whole acre, is there any real room for compromise? 

The problem with an issue like abortion is that so many people believe they need the full acre.  I'm making up numbers here for ease of discussion, but imagine that 30% of people believe absolutely no abortions should be allowed whatsoever, and 30% of people believe there should be absolutely no restrictions on abortion.  That means that absolutely any compromise we come up with, no matter how hard we try to work together, no matter how much each side concedes, is going to enrage at least 60% of the country. 

I want to believe that there's room for compromise on an issue like this, but a cynical part of me is fairly convinced that there isn't, really.  That we'll just be arguing about this issue until the end of time.

But abortion isn't the same as the acre.  There's incentive - for reasonable people - with the acre.   You can be a dick and hold out for the whole shooting match, but you're as likely to get nothing as you are to get your moral victory.   And that assumes, of course, that there aren't other, suitable, acres to share.  It also depends on how you get there, and there are clear rules for how a court would adjudicate that dispute depending on how you did get there. 

Abortion - and guns, if you want to - are in a different boat. My beef with abortion (guns) has almost nothing to do with the subject matter.  Personally?  I don't own a gun (not worth the risk in my situation), and I personally would have very limited circumstances where I would opt for an abortion (and before you respond, I very much in agreement that as a male, I am never, ever in the position to be making that decision).  For me it's all about autonomy.   I care for my child up to the age of 18 in thousands of ways that are life and death, and so I don't understand why for some it's all of a sudden paramount for the state to interject their interpretation into the mix).

I think there is a compromise for those that are willing to accept that others may have a different view.   That's a real problem in America today (and a cornerstone of my criticism of the left moralizing their platform).  POINT BLANK: In America today, you are NOT ALLOWED to have certain beliefs.  Not actions, BELIEFS.   If you're a god-fearing Christian family, and you adhere to your abstinance, and only have intercourse for conception, abortion need never cross your doorstep.  The legality of "abortion" in another state is not your concern.  Yet, it is.  Just like that guy in Michigan or Tennessee, if they THINK that homosexuality is a sin, it does not impact Rob Halford in his bedroom one bit.  (There are likely far more people that think he sucks as a vocalist now as are bugged by his sexual preferences). 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Jaffa on May 19, 2019, 02:27:01 PM
I have zero belief that extremes will not be accommodated; the heartbeat law isn't going to stay, and that nonsense where Democrats were accused of wanting to kill live babies isn't going to happen.   But there's room for compromise in between.

Is there, though?

I mean, obviously there is a ton of room between those two extremes.  But compromise relies on the idea of both sides being willing to sacrifice and settle.  If two parties disagree over who owns an acre of land, with each of them thinking they own the whole acre, it's easy to say that they can split the acre in half and each take 50% as a compromise.  But if both sides are thoroughly convinced that they deserve the whole acre, is there any real room for compromise? 

The problem with an issue like abortion is that so many people believe they need the full acre.  I'm making up numbers here for ease of discussion, but imagine that 30% of people believe absolutely no abortions should be allowed whatsoever, and 30% of people believe there should be absolutely no restrictions on abortion.  That means that absolutely any compromise we come up with, no matter how hard we try to work together, no matter how much each side concedes, is going to enrage at least 60% of the country. 

I want to believe that there's room for compromise on an issue like this, but a cynical part of me is fairly convinced that there isn't, really.  That we'll just be arguing about this issue until the end of time.

But abortion isn't the same as the acre.  There's incentive - for reasonable people - with the acre.   You can be a dick and hold out for the whole shooting match, but you're as likely to get nothing as you are to get your moral victory.   And that assumes, of course, that there aren't other, suitable, acres to share.  It also depends on how you get there, and there are clear rules for how a court would adjudicate that dispute depending on how you did get there. 

Abortion - and guns, if you want to - are in a different boat. My beef with abortion (guns) has almost nothing to do with the subject matter.  Personally?  I don't own a gun (not worth the risk in my situation), and I personally would have very limited circumstances where I would opt for an abortion (and before you respond, I very much in agreement that as a male, I am never, ever in the position to be making that decision).  For me it's all about autonomy.   I care for my child up to the age of 18 in thousands of ways that are life and death, and so I don't understand why for some it's all of a sudden paramount for the state to interject their interpretation into the mix).

I think there is a compromise for those that are willing to accept that others may have a different view.   That's a real problem in America today (and a cornerstone of my criticism of the left moralizing their platform).  POINT BLANK: In America today, you are NOT ALLOWED to have certain beliefs.  Not actions, BELIEFS.   If you're a god-fearing Christian family, and you adhere to your abstinance, and only have intercourse for conception, abortion need never cross your doorstep.  The legality of "abortion" in another state is not your concern.  Yet, it is.  Just like that guy in Michigan or Tennessee, if they THINK that homosexuality is a sin, it does not impact Rob Halford in his bedroom one bit.  (There are likely far more people that think he sucks as a vocalist now as are bugged by his sexual preferences).

First of all, let me admit that I'm not fully certain I understand the intended nuances of this post.  So if my response fails to address your point, please let me know.  I may need clarification. 

That being said, I feel like you are dismissing the intensity of people's beliefs. 

If you're a God-fearing Christian family, you might want America to be a God-fearing Christian country.  You might believe that the nation as a whole is doomed if we cannot enforce Christian values.  For the record, I don't believe this - in fact, I strenuously disagree with this belief.  But it's there. 

You say there is a compromise for those of us who are willing to accept that others may hold a different view, and I agree.  But on these deeply divisive issues, a lot of people - and here I would honestly argue that it might be a majority of people - feel that different views must be held as unacceptable. 

Is there any room for compromise between two viewpoints which each indicate that the other viewpoint is totally unacceptable?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 19, 2019, 07:16:43 PM
I understand your point.  I think "dismiss" is a harsh word; I think it's not "dismiss", but at some point, when EVERYONE'S belief is reaching a level of intensity that is untenable, when everyone's opinion is now accepted as fact, or at least is the standard for these opinions (the identity politics movement has abandoned "tolerance" and jumped to "acceptance") it's not just religious fervor we're talking about.

But I understand what you're saying, and that is in part a function of leadership, and part of what we need from our politicians.  There has always been that sector of society that wasn't interested in compromise, but rather than that being the platform, that was the "Bernie Effect", whereby it served not as the position itself, but a fulcrum to move others, or at least provide an anchor. 

(I know you know this, but) compromise isn't "everyone agrees", it's drawing circle that maximizes the number of people that can fit inside it.  There will always be people that don't fit, but we can fit as many as possible.   This is the role of politicians, especially representative politicians.   There was a time - before politics became about "lanes", and popularity, where this is what politicians did.   In an odd way, Trump does get this.  He doesn't get there the right way, and in some cases, doesn't get there at all, but every RESISTER! that criticized Trump for supposedly waffling on his wall is part of the problem here.  That whole government shutdown, if in the hands of real politicians not those hacks Schumer and (especially) McConnell, and we would not have had a shutdown, we would have had a barrier akin to the Security Fence Act of 2006, and we would have had Schumer and Trump claiming victory like jackasses.   

But when you have Kirsten Gillebrand making this an absolute issue, as a mainstream candidate for President (there is no mainstream candidate for President right now that is actively advocating the "Alabama Doctrine" (my words)) this isn't about "God-fearing country".  Roe survived - handily, and without serious threat - the Moral Majority.    There is a point of compromise, it's up to the politicians to broker it.   "Spartacus" is not the person we need to do that.   
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: portnoy311 on May 19, 2019, 09:01:34 PM
But, again, we know that when abortion is made illegal women do die. Abortion doesn't go away, it's just done in back alleys with coat hangers. Why should she favor a position that includes in the circle people who have no skin in the game and statistically has been proven to endanger women? Especially when a position is based on religious views, the US should NOT be trying to meet the other side in the middle just because it exists.

This is a crude example, forgive me, but for a thought experiment go with it. Alabama does away with all ages of consent. 7 years old and say yes? That's enough. Passed with flying colors. State's rights, they should be allowed to pass that legislation. Should the US compromise and meet them half way? Or at some point realize that this is going to wreck a lot of lives of people laws should be protecting?

Less crude example that is still relevant - Alabama votes 4,999,999 - 1 to kill the richest man in the state and spread his wealth. That circle is virtually everyone. Shouldn't the one guy standing up saying "Hold up, this will literally kill me" have some weight behind his words rather than just being dwarfed by the 4,999,999? Should he go along with a deal where we meet in the middle and still make fillets out of him but only take half his wealth, his family can keep the other half?


I know I'm gonna get push back for these examples being outlandish, but are they really when we are talking about something we KNOW will result in women's deaths? When we're trying to paint Gillibrand as a shrieking partisan hack for saying so?

Also, for years and years all my conservative friends (you included, and 2 of my 4 closest friends in 'the real world') have told me that abortion is a non issue. That one shouldn't listen to any GOP politician when they talk about rolling back Roe, that it's just empty talk. This administration has shown that just wasn't true. If Roe is settled law but only technically in a legal sense, whereas these 'heartbeat bills' are able to stand, everyone who has ever used abortion as a voting issue, or Gillibrand using it as a campaign issue has been proven completely correct.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Cool Chris on May 19, 2019, 09:26:52 PM
Less crude example that is still relevant - Alabama votes 4,999,999 - 1 to kill the richest man in the state and spread his wealth.

Don't give Ocasio-Cortez any ideas.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 21, 2019, 11:32:39 AM
But, again, we know that when abortion is made illegal women do die. Abortion doesn't go away, it's just done in back alleys with coat hangers. Why should she favor a position that includes in the circle people who have no skin in the game and statistically has been proven to endanger women? Especially when a position is based on religious views, the US should NOT be trying to meet the other side in the middle just because it exists.

This is a crude example, forgive me, but for a thought experiment go with it. Alabama does away with all ages of consent. 7 years old and say yes? That's enough. Passed with flying colors. State's rights, they should be allowed to pass that legislation. Should the US compromise and meet them half way? Or at some point realize that this is going to wreck a lot of lives of people laws should be protecting?

Less crude example that is still relevant - Alabama votes 4,999,999 - 1 to kill the richest man in the state and spread his wealth. That circle is virtually everyone. Shouldn't the one guy standing up saying "Hold up, this will literally kill me" have some weight behind his words rather than just being dwarfed by the 4,999,999? Should he go along with a deal where we meet in the middle and still make fillets out of him but only take half his wealth, his family can keep the other half?


I know I'm gonna get push back for these examples being outlandish, but are they really when we are talking about something we KNOW will result in women's deaths? When we're trying to paint Gillibrand as a shrieking partisan hack for saying so?

We don't "know".   We have cases where we can allege that happened, and certainly, in cases where there isn't an exception for the health of the mother (and to my knowledge even the so-called "extreme bans" have that exception) but we don't "know".  And even if we did, that one example is outlandish doesn't at all impact even one other example.  I do agree with your premise about voting, though (and I'll welcome your support the next time the "we should abolish the electoral college" nonsense rears it's ugly head).   But this is slightly out of context.   Abortion support is something like 80% UP TO THE FIRST TRIMESTER (that's week 12, for those who don't know/remember) and it drops off precipitously thereafter.   Alabama is a case of extremes to the right, but there are several examples of choice laws that go much further in the extreme the other direction (New York's for example). 

And now we have Missouri's law to contend with (allowing abortions before eight weeks, essentially).  But the hyperbole continues, with many sources calling that "harsh".   Well, something like 65% of abortions happen at or before eight weeks, so it's really hard to call this a "near ban" or "extreme ban" of abortion (as several sources have done).

*  "According to a 2018 report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, based on 2015 data, the majority of abortions in the country ó 65 percent ó were performed within the first eight weeks of pregnancy. Only about 1 percent were done after 21 weeks."  https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/

(Oh, and not every "anti-abortion" position is religious based. I am personally against abortion - though legally I agree that all women should have the choice up to a certain point - and that is not even a little bit related to any religious beliefs I have (which are few)).   

Quote
Also, for years and years all my conservative friends (you included, and 2 of my 4 closest friends in 'the real world') have told me that abortion is a non issue. That one shouldn't listen to any GOP politician when they talk about rolling back Roe, that it's just empty talk. This administration has shown that just wasn't true. If Roe is settled law but only technically in a legal sense, whereas these 'heartbeat bills' are able to stand, everyone who has ever used abortion as a voting issue, or Gillibrand using it as a campaign issue has been proven completely correct.

"This administration" has done nothing of the kind.  This has little if anything to do with Trump.  This is a battle of legislative extremists on both sides, upping the ante.   I stand by my position that Roe (and Casey) are going nowhere.  And read what I wrote above; let's make sure we're being accurate when we refer to "heartbeat bills". 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 21, 2019, 11:54:28 AM
We don't "know".   We have cases where we can allege that happened, and certainly, in cases where there isn't an exception for the health of the mother (and to my knowledge even the so-called "extreme bans" have that exception) but we don't "know".  And even if we did, that one example is outlandish doesn't at all impact even one other example.  I do agree with your premise about voting, though (and I'll welcome your support the next time the "we should abolish the electoral college" nonsense rears it's ugly head).   But this is slightly out of context.   Abortion support is something like 80% UP TO THE FIRST TRIMESTER (that's week 12, for those who don't know/remember) and it drops off precipitously thereafter.   Alabama is a case of extremes to the right, but there are several examples of choice laws that go much further in the extreme the other direction (New York's for example). 
How so? Are you familiar with what NY actually did, aside from Trump's bullshit?



Quote
And now we have Missouri's law to contend with (allowing abortions before eight weeks, essentially).  But the hyperbole continues, with many sources calling that "harsh".   Well, something like 65% of abortions happen at or before eight weeks, so it's really hard to call this a "near ban" or "extreme ban" of abortion (as several sources have done).

*  "According to a 2018 report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, based on 2015 data, the majority of abortions in the country ó 65 percent ó were performed within the first eight weeks of pregnancy. Only about 1 percent were done after 21 weeks."  https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/
Your "eight weeks, essentially" is using the high side. The average is 6 weeks to detect a heartbeat, and 5 isn't uncommon. As I understand it, that's right around the time a woman knows she's knocked up. You're giving women 7-14 days to figure it out, decide what they want to do, and then make it happen. My hunch is that a state like Missouri probably requires a 3 day wait period, as well. Enough time to be bombarded with anti-abortion propaganda. I would suggest that a right isn't actually a right if it's only available to a lucky few.


Quote
I stand by my position that Roe (and Casey) are going nowhere.  And read what I wrote above; let's make sure we're being accurate when we refer to "heartbeat bills". 
You keep saying that, and yet you agree with my interpretation of how things are likely to unfold. If it becomes legal to prohibit abortions after 5-8 weeks, then Roe is meaningless and Casey is ashes.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: XJDenton on May 22, 2019, 04:06:45 AM
To add on to those good points: New York City and the surrounding suburbs have around 7-8 providers so you are probably within an hour of a provider by public transport. The entire state of Missouri has one. Alabama has the luxury of three.

https://prochoice.org/think-youre-pregnant/find-a-provider/

If you need to drive a good few hours to even get to a provider I would suggest that the (in the best case scenario) 2 weeks grace period between realizing you are late, and before a heartbeat is detected is, practically, not that useful in quite a number of cases, especially for those lower on the economic ladder who might be working most days for most hours.

In and of itself it may not technically constitute a complete ban, but it's quite clear when taking into account the other policies in place in those states (limiting providers, defunding planned parenthood, wait times and counselling for women who have made the choice to abort, making the service less accessible and more restricted as to what circumstances "justify" an abortion), it is quite clear that near eradication of the practice is certainly the end goal of the people passing these laws, and is why people are concerned by such laws and why women probably aren't too comforted by the fact that this law, statistically, will "only" make a third of abortions Illegal according to Stadler's best case scenario where the heartbeat starts at 8 weeks.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 22, 2019, 08:22:48 AM
We don't "know".   We have cases where we can allege that happened, and certainly, in cases where there isn't an exception for the health of the mother (and to my knowledge even the so-called "extreme bans" have that exception) but we don't "know".  And even if we did, that one example is outlandish doesn't at all impact even one other example.  I do agree with your premise about voting, though (and I'll welcome your support the next time the "we should abolish the electoral college" nonsense rears it's ugly head).   But this is slightly out of context.   Abortion support is something like 80% UP TO THE FIRST TRIMESTER (that's week 12, for those who don't know/remember) and it drops off precipitously thereafter.   Alabama is a case of extremes to the right, but there are several examples of choice laws that go much further in the extreme the other direction (New York's for example). 
How so? Are you familiar with what NY actually did, aside from Trump's bullshit?

I take almost* zero policy information from Trump or those immediately around him.  I feel I am as familiar as I can be without reading the actual law, using various news sources, some legit, some, perhaps, with bias (on both sides).  I can't say I have a complete infallable understanding, but enough to make the statement I did.   

* I can't think of ANY case, but I'll allow for a mistake to creep in somewhere.

Quote
Quote
And now we have Missouri's law to contend with (allowing abortions before eight weeks, essentially).  But the hyperbole continues, with many sources calling that "harsh".   Well, something like 65% of abortions happen at or before eight weeks, so it's really hard to call this a "near ban" or "extreme ban" of abortion (as several sources have done).

*  "According to a 2018 report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, based on 2015 data, the majority of abortions in the country ó 65 percent ó were performed within the first eight weeks of pregnancy. Only about 1 percent were done after 21 weeks."  https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/
Your "eight weeks, essentially" is using the high side. The average is 6 weeks to detect a heartbeat, and 5 isn't uncommon. As I understand it, that's right around the time a woman knows she's knocked up. You're giving women 7-14 days to figure it out, decide what they want to do, and then make it happen. My hunch is that a state like Missouri probably requires a 3 day wait period, as well. Enough time to be bombarded with anti-abortion propaganda. I would suggest that a right isn't actually a right if it's only available to a lucky few.

I'm not sure I'm ready to argue with you here, except to say that i wrote what I did in the context of the discussion about COMPROMISE.  Again, remember that something like 80% of Americans would support an abortion bill if it was limited to the first trimester (12 weeks) and had exclusions for rape, incest and imminent danger to the mother.  That's closer to Missouri than New York.   311 was - and this is my interpretation, since he didn't ACTUALLY say it - that the hard-liners were the religious freaks in the whacko states (i.e. red states, though I know 311 may not be looking at this in a partisan way), and I would argue that there is enough extremism on both sides in that 20% that isn't okay with "12 weeks/reasonable exceptions". 

Quote
Quote
I stand by my position that Roe (and Casey) are going nowhere.  And read what I wrote above; let's make sure we're being accurate when we refer to "heartbeat bills". 
You keep saying that, and yet you agree with my interpretation of how things are likely to unfold. If it becomes legal to prohibit abortions after 5-8 weeks, then Roe is meaningless and Casey is ashes.

Well, the fact is, I don't know where the line will be drawn with the heartbeat bills. I really don't, though I'm positing above a reasonable and fair outcome.   The important thing, though, is whether it's even a "fundamental right" or not.  Because we can boycott Alabama.   If the Court upholds Roe and upholds the Alabama law, then we have a problem, but it's a very different (and easier solved) problem than if the Court overturns Roe entirely.     

And I won't beat around the bush: part of this is my annoyance - profound annoyance - at the sloppiness of the arguments even from smart, knowledgeable people.   I'm less concerned about the actual line than what this debate is doing to our country.  Kirsten Gillebrand - who I generally like, but who seems to be showing her least attractive, politically, side here - isn't bothering to take even five seconds to clean up her argument, though she'd be the first to scream "LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!" at Trump.   

Sidebar: if we REALLY don't like Trump's malfeasance with the truth, if we REALLY don't like his semantics games that don't amount to more than a screen door on a submarine, then we are OBLIGATED to call it out everywhere else, and I don't see even a whiff of that.  Gillebrand is making no bones about the REVERSAL of Roe (not even Casey, and she knows better there, too).   Kay Ivey is making no bones about the REVERSAL of Roe (again, Casey, and for the record, she said this: she already conceded that "her" law may not pass muster with the Supreme Court, but that it wasn't the point to have an effective, defensible law, but rather to tee up the reversal).   
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 22, 2019, 08:53:23 AM
We don't "know".   We have cases where we can allege that happened, and certainly, in cases where there isn't an exception for the health of the mother (and to my knowledge even the so-called "extreme bans" have that exception) but we don't "know".  And even if we did, that one example is outlandish doesn't at all impact even one other example.  I do agree with your premise about voting, though (and I'll welcome your support the next time the "we should abolish the electoral college" nonsense rears it's ugly head).   But this is slightly out of context.   Abortion support is something like 80% UP TO THE FIRST TRIMESTER (that's week 12, for those who don't know/remember) and it drops off precipitously thereafter.   Alabama is a case of extremes to the right, but there are several examples of choice laws that go much further in the extreme the other direction (New York's for example). 
How so? Are you familiar with what NY actually did, aside from Trump's bullshit?

I take almost* zero policy information from Trump or those immediately around him.  I feel I am as familiar as I can be without reading the actual law, using various news sources, some legit, some, perhaps, with bias (on both sides).  I can't say I have a complete infallable understanding, but enough to make the statement I did.   

* I can't think of ANY case, but I'll allow for a mistake to creep in somewhere.
What NY's bill did was to decriminalize late term abortions when there was a major problem. Non-viable foetus. Risk to mother's safety. Something else that would make forcing the woman to carry it to term unconscionable. They're still prohibited in the vast majority of cases, though it's no longer a felony for the doctor who performs them. At the same time they shot down a bill by Sasse that was a political stunt. It criminalized something that was already illegal, while creating loopholes that might trip otherwise law-abiding doctors up. Infanticide is a crime in every state, has been, and will be. If a child is born with zero chance of survival it's going to get palliative care without the need for heroic measures to try and save it that the law might have required. Neither of these are extreme, in my book. And no part of either of them suggest that NY has legalized abortion after birth, like many on the right are saying thank's to one of Trump's tweets.

I gotta say, insofar as Trumpian bullshit goes, the NY abortion thing might be his masterpiece. It's absolute nonsense on a factual level, and people on the right accepted it without any real question. And as far as political stunts go, Sasse's was pretty damned good, as well. He crafted a bill that didn't really do anything but force the democrats to stand up for something that could be misconstrued the way it was.


Quote
If the Court upholds Roe and upholds the Alabama law, then we have a problem, but it's a very different (and easier solved) problem than if the Court overturns Roe entirely.
I would call it a much worse problem. If they uphold the Alabama law (which they won't) then we just recognize that the court is partisanized to the point of uselessness and get on with our lives. If it upholds a bill making abortion legal in principle but impossible in practice it continues a trend and we've greatly undermined liberty in this country as a result. "Of course you can protest a politician's rally, that's your constitutional right. You just have to follow these simple rules: remain 100 miles away, do it no less than one week before or one week after the event in question, don't speak loud enough for passersby to hear what you're saying, and if anybody sees your placard and becomes offended you'll face civil and criminal penalties. Just be glad you live in a country where the freedom to speak is a fundamental right, and have a nice day."


Quote
And I won't beat around the bush: part of this is my annoyance - profound annoyance - at the sloppiness of the arguments even from smart, knowledgeable people.   I'm less concerned about the actual line than what this debate is doing to our country.  Kirsten Gillebrand - who I generally like, but who seems to be showing her least attractive, politically, side here - isn't bothering to take even five seconds to clean up her argument, though she'd be the first to scream "LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!" at Trump.   
Gillebrand knows the relevant laws, as do I. Citing Roe is simply convenient shorthand since that's what everybody knows. What percentage of people in this country would understand if you referred to Casey while discussing this? Moreover, as I keep trying to say, Casey is an integral part of Roe. You toss Casey in the waste bin and Roe no longer stands, outside of now worthless book of law. An attack on one is an attack on the other.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 22, 2019, 01:34:20 PM
We don't "know".   We have cases where we can allege that happened, and certainly, in cases where there isn't an exception for the health of the mother (and to my knowledge even the so-called "extreme bans" have that exception) but we don't "know".  And even if we did, that one example is outlandish doesn't at all impact even one other example.  I do agree with your premise about voting, though (and I'll welcome your support the next time the "we should abolish the electoral college" nonsense rears it's ugly head).   But this is slightly out of context.   Abortion support is something like 80% UP TO THE FIRST TRIMESTER (that's week 12, for those who don't know/remember) and it drops off precipitously thereafter.   Alabama is a case of extremes to the right, but there are several examples of choice laws that go much further in the extreme the other direction (New York's for example). 
How so? Are you familiar with what NY actually did, aside from Trump's bullshit?

I take almost* zero policy information from Trump or those immediately around him.  I feel I am as familiar as I can be without reading the actual law, using various news sources, some legit, some, perhaps, with bias (on both sides).  I can't say I have a complete infallable understanding, but enough to make the statement I did.   

* I can't think of ANY case, but I'll allow for a mistake to creep in somewhere.
What NY's bill did was to decriminalize late term abortions when there was a major problem. Non-viable foetus. Risk to mother's safety. Something else that would make forcing the woman to carry it to term unconscionable. They're still prohibited in the vast majority of cases, though it's no longer a felony for the doctor who performs them. At the same time they shot down a bill by Sasse that was a political stunt. It criminalized something that was already illegal, while creating loopholes that might trip otherwise law-abiding doctors up. Infanticide is a crime in every state, has been, and will be. If a child is born with zero chance of survival it's going to get palliative care without the need for heroic measures to try and save it that the law might have required. Neither of these are extreme, in my book. And no part of either of them suggest that NY has legalized abortion after birth, like many on the right are saying thank's to one of Trump's tweets.

I gotta say, insofar as Trumpian bullshit goes, the NY abortion thing might be his masterpiece. It's absolute nonsense on a factual level, and people on the right accepted it without any real question. And as far as political stunts go, Sasse's was pretty damned good, as well. He crafted a bill that didn't really do anything but force the democrats to stand up for something that could be misconstrued the way it was.

Well, we can debate the "extreme-ness" of this law, but the problematic part of the NY law was that it took "harm to the mother's LIFE" and added, per Roe, "or HEALTH", though Roe didn't define "health".   Later, in another case, "Doe" (don't know if there is a relationship there), they DID define "health".  In the context of the NY law, though, what we have is a case - and the argument is akin to yours about abortion; if it's a PRACTICAL limitation (or extension), that might be enough - where abortions are allowed when a threat to mom's HEALTH, broadly defined. Will having that child create emotional harm or distress?  Yes?   Then the abortion is legal at any point AFTER 24 weeks.   

Quote
Quote
If the Court upholds Roe and upholds the Alabama law, then we have a problem, but it's a very different (and easier solved) problem than if the Court overturns Roe entirely.
I would call it a much worse problem. If they uphold the Alabama law (which they won't) then we just recognize that the court is partisanized to the point of uselessness and get on with our lives. If it upholds a bill making abortion legal in principle but impossible in practice it continues a trend and we've greatly undermined liberty in this country as a result. "Of course you can protest a politician's rally, that's your constitutional right. You just have to follow these simple rules: remain 100 miles away, do it no less than one week before or one week after the event in question, don't speak loud enough for passersby to hear what you're saying, and if anybody sees your placard and becomes offended you'll face civil and criminal penalties. Just be glad you live in a country where the freedom to speak is a fundamental right, and have a nice day."

But here's the thing; if Roe is overturned, it affects Alabama to Washington (and I mean that grammatically, geographically, and ideologically).   If the Alabama law is upheld, do you honestly think that California, and New York, and Connecticut and Oregon are going to say "wow, we fucked that up.  Need to tighten up those abortion laws!"?  Of course not; we've just tabled the fight for another day.  Ugly? Sure; but as long as there is at least ONE state that can and does allow abortion, there's a foot in the door. 

And all those other applications are ripe even now; free speech is constantly under review (right now in the States, "hate speech" is actually protected speech, and I'm sure there are a couple people here that are a) surprised at that, and b) want to see that changed yesterday).  Gun laws; there are laws now that restrict an American citizen from having a gun.  Maybe not EVERY American citizen, but some.   Imagine if abortions could be restricted if the woman sought psychological help?  Or some other action as decided by someone applying a judgmental observation?

Quote
Quote
And I won't beat around the bush: part of this is my annoyance - profound annoyance - at the sloppiness of the arguments even from smart, knowledgeable people.   I'm less concerned about the actual line than what this debate is doing to our country.  Kirsten Gillebrand - who I generally like, but who seems to be showing her least attractive, politically, side here - isn't bothering to take even five seconds to clean up her argument, though she'd be the first to scream "LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!" at Trump.   
Gillebrand knows the relevant laws, as do I. Citing Roe is simply convenient shorthand since that's what everybody knows. What percentage of people in this country would understand if you referred to Casey while discussing this? Moreover, as I keep trying to say, Casey is an integral part of Roe. You toss Casey in the waste bin and Roe no longer stands, outside of now worthless book of law. An attack on one is an attack on the other.

But we lambaste Trump for this every day!  Dave - and I say this with respect, because he's usually right - calls Trump out for this at least three times a week.    I get shorthand, and I do it too, but at some point when dealing with laws that attempt to adjudicate the rights of 320 million people who all have potentially different views on the lines around those rights, we need to be more precise.  We have a whole thread on the blatant misrepresentation of the facts against a freshman representative, on the grounds that it's not accurate.   We have too many issues here that are problematic in part because of the inexactness of language (I know that just as some people hear "Laurel" and some hear "Yanni", so do some people hear "travel ban" and others hear "Muslim ban".)
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 22, 2019, 10:05:53 PM
Well, we can debate the "extreme-ness" of this law, but the problematic part of the NY law was that it took "harm to the mother's LIFE" and added, per Roe, "or HEALTH", though Roe didn't define "health".   Later, in another case, "Doe" (don't know if there is a relationship there), they DID define "health".  In the context of the NY law, though, what we have is a case - and the argument is akin to yours about abortion; if it's a PRACTICAL limitation (or extension), that might be enough - where abortions are allowed when a threat to mom's HEALTH, broadly defined. Will having that child create emotional harm or distress?  Yes?   Then the abortion is legal at any point AFTER 24 weeks.   
Well, you're certainly extrapolating to the extreme, but you do make a valid point. What I will point out is that "health" is defined by the medical practitioner. Is that unreasonable or extreme? Is a woman's health better determined by politicians? And is it something that should be ignored, as it appears to have been up until the RHA? From my perspective I see this as an act that could lead to extreme scenarios. I see some of the Southern heartbeat bills as intrinsically extreme by design.

Quote
But here's the thing; if Roe is overturned, it affects Alabama to Washington (and I mean that grammatically, geographically, and ideologically).   If the Alabama law is upheld, do you honestly think that California, and New York, and Connecticut and Oregon are going to say "wow, we fucked that up.  Need to tighten up those abortion laws!"?  Of course not; we've just tabled the fight for another day.  Ugly? Sure; but as long as there is at least ONE state that can and does allow abortion, there's a foot in the door.
So your suggestion if they scrap Roe is to wait until new justices arrive and bring it back? Also, I asked this of someone else but it might have been dismissed as rhetorical. I'm asking you an honest question, if a state can restrict abortion to the point of it being a practical impossibility, is there anything to stop the US congress from doing the same? Do we now go to situation where its legality is in a constant state of flux? Changing with the various justices and congressmen both state and local, and some women will always be SOL?

Quote
And all those other applications are ripe even now; free speech is constantly under review (right now in the States, "hate speech" is actually protected speech, and I'm sure there are a couple people here that are a) surprised at that, and b) want to see that changed yesterday).  Gun laws; there are laws now that restrict an American citizen from having a gun.  Maybe not EVERY American citizen, but some.   Imagine if abortions could be restricted if the woman sought psychological help?  Or some other action as decided by someone applying a judgmental observation?
These are examples where we apply strict scrutiny in a steadfast deference to liberty. We do infringe upon speech and gun ownership and I understand that, just as I understand reasonable restrictions on abortion. You don't see me complain about those. What we're seeing here is something that effectively negates a fundamental right. You're talking about yelling fire in the proverbial theater and I'm talking about banning all political speech unless you utter it while running backwards down the wrong way of the 405. 

Quote
But we lambaste Trump for this every day!  Dave - and I say this with respect, because he's usually right - calls Trump out for this at least three times a week.    I get shorthand, and I do it too, but at some point when dealing with laws that attempt to adjudicate the rights of 320 million people who all have potentially different views on the lines around those rights, we need to be more precise.  We have a whole thread on the blatant misrepresentation of the facts against a freshman representative, on the grounds that it's not accurate.   We have too many issues here that are problematic in part because of the inexactness of language (I know that just as some people hear "Laurel" and some hear "Yanni", so do some people hear "travel ban" and others hear "Muslim ban".)
We lambaste Trump for his deceitfulness and his idiocy, not for his shorthand. I guess I don't get your problem with this. Is she being exact? No. Is that exactness necessary when summing up a point in thirty words or less for 300 million people with a superficial understanding of what she's on about? I don't think so. When she's enacting law I hope she's precise. When she's tweeting out her opinion I think shorthand works alright.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 23, 2019, 09:23:44 AM
Well, you're certainly extrapolating to the extreme, but you do make a valid point. What I will point out is that "health" is defined by the medical practitioner. Is that unreasonable or extreme? Is a woman's health better determined by politicians? And is it something that should be ignored, as it appears to have been up until the RHA? From my perspective I see this as an act that could lead to extreme scenarios. I see some of the Southern heartbeat bills as intrinsically extreme by design.

I don't think I'm extrapolating any more than anyone else.  But anytime you allow for the extreme to happen, then theoretically it can lead to extreme scenarios.  I don't argue with you that the "heartbeat bills" are more intrinsic.   I think, though, they are in part a reaction to the other bills that don't really seek to compromise - intrinsic or not - but seek to appeal to the base. 

Quote
So your suggestion if they scrap Roe is to wait until new justices arrive and bring it back? Also, I asked this of someone else but it might have been dismissed as rhetorical. I'm asking you an honest question, if a state can restrict abortion to the point of it being a practical impossibility, is there anything to stop the US congress from doing the same? Do we now go to situation where its legality is in a constant state of flux? Changing with the various justices and congressmen both state and local, and some women will always be SOL?

Well, that is one possible outcome, but it's not my "suggestion" in terms of a preferred solution.   I don't have a suitable analogy here, but the law is at it's heart a fluid thing in most cases.  Laws get passed.  Laws get passed and refined.  Laws get passed and repealed.  Laws get repealed and replaced.   Cases get decided and serve to "sharpen the pencil" in terms of precedential law for others to use as a roadmap.   Cases get decided, and legislatures - at the state and Federal level - pass laws to answer or modify those case holdings.   It happens thousands of times a session, in courts all over the country, but in this age of "Twitter" and "Right fucking now", it's all of a sudden an issue to wring hands over and lament the demise of democracy and the uprising of fascism.   I'm being hyperbolic to be funny, not antagonistic, but the point is valid. 

As for your question:   Is it possible? Yes.  What's to prevent it?  The check and balance of the court, the veto power of the President, the power of the ballot box, the strength of the relationships between the heads of the House and the Senate and their minority leadership (trashed in the wake of the ACA, but most people don't register that fact).   

Quote
These are examples where we apply strict scrutiny in a steadfast deference to liberty. We do infringe upon speech and gun ownership and I understand that, just as I understand reasonable restrictions on abortion. You don't see me complain about those. What we're seeing here is something that effectively negates a fundamental right. You're talking about yelling fire in the proverbial theater and I'm talking about banning all political speech unless you utter it while running backwards down the wrong way of the 405.

No, not necessarily; Washington DC banned ALL handguns guns, of any kind, for a period of - if memory serves - about thirty years.    Couple that with the assault rifle ban, and you have a pretty narrow window for gun ownership.  With many of the localized bans on what we euphemistically call "hate speech" (but which in practice usually most often applied to speech that isn't universally hateful, but rather individually bothersome or an expression of an unpalatable idea) and you're effectively banning any idea that doesn't comport with the majority opinion.  It might be percentage-wise less restrictive, but in the sense of the liberties of the country and the crucible of ideas in a supposedly "free" society, in my view, that's an even MORE restrictive act. 

Quote
We lambaste Trump for his deceitfulness and his idiocy, not for his shorthand. I guess I don't get your problem with this. Is she being exact? No. Is that exactness necessary when summing up a point in thirty words or less for 300 million people with a superficial understanding of what she's on about? I don't think so. When she's enacting law I hope she's precise. When she's tweeting out her opinion I think shorthand works alright.

I mean this as literally as almost anything I've said so far:  when we're talking about the restriction (or not) of fundamental rights as granted by the Constitution under a government that is of the people, by the people and for the people, then yeah, that exactness is necessary.  And I don't mean this to you, personally, but as a general comment, if "exactness" isn't necessary here, then I don't want to hear another fucking word about how Trump is a "fascist" for saying "lock her up!" about Hillary or how "I could do what I want. Grab 'em by the pussy!" is a taped confession of sexual assault against an unnamed victim.   If we can't take these people - who KNOW better - at their word, then what's the point?   Drumming up support for her bill by being purposefully vague and hyperbolic is wrong, no matter what the bill or it's import.   We keep hearing how Trump is evil because of the "dog whistle" to the white nationalists/racists/bigots, and that's bad, but this isn't?   How is it any different?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 23, 2019, 01:51:41 PM

Well, you're certainly extrapolating to the extreme, but you do make a valid point. What I will point out is that "health" is defined by the medical practitioner. Is that unreasonable or extreme? Is a woman's health better determined by politicians? And is it something that should be ignored, as it appears to have been up until the RHA? From my perspective I see this as an act that could lead to extreme scenarios. I see some of the Southern heartbeat bills as intrinsically extreme by design.

I don't think I'm extrapolating any more than anyone else.  But anytime you allow for the extreme to happen, then theoretically it can lead to extreme scenarios.  I don't argue with you that the "heartbeat bills" are more intrinsic.   I think, though, they are in part a reaction to the other bills that don't really seek to compromise - intrinsic or not - but seek to appeal to the base.
I would suggest that the NY bill is a reasonable law, that like many others could be pushed into the extreme in certain scenarios. The Missouri bill is designed to be extreme. Its very essence is a de facto prohibition of abortions, and that's exactly what it was intended to be. And I honestly don't see the "reaction to bills that don't seek to compromise." These bills have one simple purpose, and it's the promotion of the pro-life platform to the furthest point. It's a reaction to Roe, not any of the latter bills.

Quote
Quote
So your suggestion if they scrap Roe is to wait until new justices arrive and bring it back? Also, I asked this of someone else but it might have been dismissed as rhetorical. I'm asking you an honest question, if a state can restrict abortion to the point of it being a practical impossibility, is there anything to stop the US congress from doing the same? Do we now go to situation where its legality is in a constant state of flux? Changing with the various justices and congressmen both state and local, and some women will always be SOL?

Well, that is one possible outcome, but it's not my "suggestion" in terms of a preferred solution.   I don't have a suitable analogy here, but the law is at it's heart a fluid thing in most cases.  Laws get passed.  Laws get passed and refined.  Laws get passed and repealed.  Laws get repealed and replaced.   Cases get decided and serve to "sharpen the pencil" in terms of precedential law for others to use as a roadmap.   Cases get decided, and legislatures - at the state and Federal level - pass laws to answer or modify those case holdings.   It happens thousands of times a session, in courts all over the country, but in this age of "Twitter" and "Right fucking now", it's all of a sudden an issue to wring hands over and lament the demise of democracy and the uprising of fascism.   I'm being hyperbolic to be funny, not antagonistic, but the point is valid.
The law is fluid, but isn't the Constitution, and by extension the SCOTUS a dam of sorts, or perhaps a floor? I believe justices have described their role as such. I have no idea how I'd ever find it, but in one of their decisions Scalia said something to the effect of "we set the point where you can go no lower. Everything above that point we leave matters to the states." Yes, laws can change and evolve, but only up to a certain point and as a rule that point doesn't move once it's set. Once you lower that floor to allow prohibitions to effectively ban a right you're very unlikely to move it back. As we're seeing now, raising that floor takes, essentially, an act of jury nullification at the highest level.

Quote
As for your question:   Is it possible? Yes.  What's to prevent it?  The check and balance of the court, the veto power of the President, the power of the ballot box, the strength of the relationships between the heads of the House and the Senate and their minority leadership (trashed in the wake of the ACA, but most people don't register that fact). 
Well, as I've been saying the check and balance of the court is absent at the point we're discussing. Beyond that we are creating the situation I describe, where a right exists in two year increments.


Quote
Quote
These are examples where we apply strict scrutiny in a steadfast deference to liberty. We do infringe upon speech and gun ownership and I understand that, just as I understand reasonable restrictions on abortion. You don't see me complain about those. What we're seeing here is something that effectively negates a fundamental right. You're talking about yelling fire in the proverbial theater and I'm talking about banning all political speech unless you utter it while running backwards down the wrong way of the 405.

No, not necessarily; Washington DC banned ALL handguns guns, of any kind, for a period of - if memory serves - about thirty years.    Couple that with the assault rifle ban, and you have a pretty narrow window for gun ownership.  With many of the localized bans on what we euphemistically call "hate speech" (but which in practice usually most often applied to speech that isn't universally hateful, but rather individually bothersome or an expression of an unpalatable idea) and you're effectively banning any idea that doesn't comport with the majority opinion.  It might be percentage-wise less restrictive, but in the sense of the liberties of the country and the crucible of ideas in a supposedly "free" society, in my view, that's an even MORE restrictive act. 

Interesting that you cite the DC handgun ban, because Heller was the relief you suggest for the heartbeat bills. If the court upholds a ban on most abortions, as we're discussing, in contrast to Heller which said a state can't ban most instances of gun ownership, then where is there to go? And since we're on Heller, the plaintiffs still had numerous opportunities for home defense and gun ownership. As a gun guy I'd have expected Scalia to know that the most popular gun for home defense, by a large margin, is the venerable 12 gauge pump. Another very popular choice is the AR15 platform, which was still readily available in less scary looking forms. In fact, it sure seems to me that a law that prohibits certain guns of a size small enough to be easily concealed is pert near a slam dunk under strict scrutiny, especially when compared to what we're discussing. This is why I made the comparison two weeks ago about a state trying to pull what the Southern states are up to with regards to the 2A.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Jaffa on May 23, 2019, 10:51:48 PM
And I don't mean this to you, personally, but as a general comment, if "exactness" isn't necessary here, then I don't want to hear another fucking word about how Trump is a "fascist" for saying "lock her up!" about Hillary or how "I could do what I want. Grab 'em by the pussy!" is a taped confession of sexual assault against an unnamed victim.   

I feel like I'm missing something here. 

I haven't been following the issue as closely as you and Barto have, but as far as I can tell from the course of your discussion, it seems that when you refer to this lack of 'exactness', you're talking about Gillebrand citing Roe when she should instead be citing Casey.  Is that accurate, or is there more to it?

Because I have to say, it seems to me that there's a pretty big, gaping, terrifying chasm of difference between that and getting a crowd of angry people excited about the idea of imprisoning someone in order to fire them up and channel their anger against your political opponents.  To be clear, that is my objection with his 'lock her up' stuff.  It's not that I think he's not being precise enough in his language, it's that I think he is willfully inciting hatred as a distraction tactic, and as a probably intentional side effect, he's poisoning his crowd against basic ideas like due process.  I really can't see how citing Roe when you mean Casey is remotely comparable. 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 24, 2019, 08:50:27 AM

Well, you're certainly extrapolating to the extreme, but you do make a valid point. What I will point out is that "health" is defined by the medical practitioner. Is that unreasonable or extreme? Is a woman's health better determined by politicians? And is it something that should be ignored, as it appears to have been up until the RHA? From my perspective I see this as an act that could lead to extreme scenarios. I see some of the Southern heartbeat bills as intrinsically extreme by design.

I don't think I'm extrapolating any more than anyone else.  But anytime you allow for the extreme to happen, then theoretically it can lead to extreme scenarios.  I don't argue with you that the "heartbeat bills" are more intrinsic.   I think, though, they are in part a reaction to the other bills that don't really seek to compromise - intrinsic or not - but seek to appeal to the base.
I would suggest that the NY bill is a reasonable law, that like many others could be pushed into the extreme in certain scenarios. The Missouri bill is designed to be extreme. Its very essence is a de facto prohibition of abortions, and that's exactly what it was intended to be. And I honestly don't see the "reaction to bills that don't seek to compromise." These bills have one simple purpose, and it's the promotion of the pro-life platform to the furthest point. It's a reaction to Roe, not any of the latter bills.

Well, given that "reasonable" is in the eyes of the beholder - I don't think Missouri is as bad as foes say (the majority of abortions that currently take place would still be able to happen), and outside of this discussion, I'm not in love with New York, but if that was the law, I wouldn't be outraged - I don't really disagree with you.  Alabama is as you described, but it's also the one getting the press (another thread) because that's how we do; Republicans are god-crazed lunatics looking for any opportunity to fuck over anyone who is not white, not male and not under the age of 35.  I don't see a lot of difference in terms of "absolute value" (who said there'd be maths!) between that and New York. 

Quote
Quote
Well, that is one possible outcome, but it's not my "suggestion" in terms of a preferred solution.   I don't have a suitable analogy here, but the law is at it's heart a fluid thing in most cases.  Laws get passed.  Laws get passed and refined.  Laws get passed and repealed.  Laws get repealed and replaced.   Cases get decided and serve to "sharpen the pencil" in terms of precedential law for others to use as a roadmap.   Cases get decided, and legislatures - at the state and Federal level - pass laws to answer or modify those case holdings.   It happens thousands of times a session, in courts all over the country, but in this age of "Twitter" and "Right fucking now", it's all of a sudden an issue to wring hands over and lament the demise of democracy and the uprising of fascism.   I'm being hyperbolic to be funny, not antagonistic, but the point is valid.
The law is fluid, but isn't the Constitution, and by extension the SCOTUS a dam of sorts, or perhaps a floor? I believe justices have described their role as such. I have no idea how I'd ever find it, but in one of their decisions Scalia said something to the effect of "we set the point where you can go no lower. Everything above that point we leave matters to the states." Yes, laws can change and evolve, but only up to a certain point and as a rule that point doesn't move once it's set. Once you lower that floor to allow prohibitions to effectively ban a right you're very unlikely to move it back. As we're seeing now, raising that floor takes, essentially, an act of jury nullification at the highest level.

I absolutely agree with Scalia, 100%, and have argued that here vis-a-vis morals.   Laws don't legislate morals, they provide the bare minimum that we can DEMAND of everyone around us.  You, collective, are, of course, able to elevate your own bar as you see fit, however, you cannot DEMAND that of your neighbors (this is why identity politics infuriates me, because it's very premise runs afoul of this and tries to legislate opinion and morals).  And that's also why Alabama isn't - in a Roberts court - going to stand.   

Quote
Quote
As for your question:   Is it possible? Yes.  What's to prevent it?  The check and balance of the court, the veto power of the President, the power of the ballot box, the strength of the relationships between the heads of the House and the Senate and their minority leadership (trashed in the wake of the ACA, but most people don't register that fact). 
Well, as I've been saying the check and balance of the court is absent at the point we're discussing. Beyond that we are creating the situation I describe, where a right exists in two year increments.

I don't disagree with that, but it's a problem that has to be addressed independent of abortion, and we shouldn't compromise the right thing here, Constitutionally, because something else is broken.   It's like a car in that regard; if something breaks, fix it, because before too long, something else is going to go and be a bigger problem.  We're already there.  This opinion-driven politics, the short-sightedness of people like Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, is fucking our country far, FAR more than Hillary Clinton or Don Trump ever could.   And I put the inexactness - for personal gain - of people like Gillebrand, Booker, Ocasio-Cortez, etc. (I'm sure there are Republicans, I just didn't name them) in this bucket.

Quote
Quote
No, not necessarily; Washington DC banned ALL handguns guns, of any kind, for a period of - if memory serves - about thirty years.    Couple that with the assault rifle ban, and you have a pretty narrow window for gun ownership.  With many of the localized bans on what we euphemistically call "hate speech" (but which in practice usually most often applied to speech that isn't universally hateful, but rather individually bothersome or an expression of an unpalatable idea) and you're effectively banning any idea that doesn't comport with the majority opinion.  It might be percentage-wise less restrictive, but in the sense of the liberties of the country and the crucible of ideas in a supposedly "free" society, in my view, that's an even MORE restrictive act. 

Interesting that you cite the DC handgun ban, because Heller was the relief you suggest for the heartbeat bills. If the court upholds a ban on most abortions, as we're discussing, in contrast to Heller which said a state can't ban most instances of gun ownership, then where is there to go? And since we're on Heller, the plaintiffs still had numerous opportunities for home defense and gun ownership. As a gun guy I'd have expected Scalia to know that the most popular gun for home defense, by a large margin, is the venerable 12 gauge pump. Another very popular choice is the AR15 platform, which was still readily available in less scary looking forms. In fact, it sure seems to me that a law that prohibits certain guns of a size small enough to be easily concealed is pert near a slam dunk under strict scrutiny, especially when compared to what we're discussing. This is why I made the comparison two weeks ago about a state trying to pull what the Southern states are up to with regards to the 2A.

Well, if if if.  Heller could have turned out another way.   I guess I'm trying to say too many things with too few words.  I have very little - I won't say "zero", but very little - doubt that there will be an "abortion Heller".   I don't even think Kavanaugh would let the Alabama law stand.   

As for the specific case, Heller, it only met one of the prongs of strict scrutiny:  compelling state interest.  It missed the boat on the other two.   The anti-gun crowd keeps missing the ball on the fact that you don't drain the ocean because one beach is contaminated.  You don't kill the entire animal because it has a thorn in the pad of its' paw.   You don't sell your car because you got a flat tire.    You don't ban all guns because a distinct and clear minority abuse them.   
[/quote]
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 24, 2019, 09:09:46 AM
And I don't mean this to you, personally, but as a general comment, if "exactness" isn't necessary here, then I don't want to hear another fucking word about how Trump is a "fascist" for saying "lock her up!" about Hillary or how "I could do what I want. Grab 'em by the pussy!" is a taped confession of sexual assault against an unnamed victim.   

I feel like I'm missing something here. 

I haven't been following the issue as closely as you and Barto have, but as far as I can tell from the course of your discussion, it seems that when you refer to this lack of 'exactness', you're talking about Gillebrand citing Roe when she should instead be citing Casey.  Is that accurate, or is there more to it?

Because I have to say, it seems to me that there's a pretty big, gaping, terrifying chasm of difference between that and getting a crowd of angry people excited about the idea of imprisoning someone in order to fire them up and channel their anger against your political opponents.  To be clear, that is my objection with his 'lock her up' stuff.  It's not that I think he's not being precise enough in his language, it's that I think he is willfully inciting hatred as a distraction tactic, and as a probably intentional side effect, he's poisoning his crowd against basic ideas like due process.  I really can't see how citing Roe when you mean Casey is remotely comparable.

There's a LOT more to it. 

No, you can't - respectfully - boil one down one issue and expand the other before you compare them.    If I'm using your terms, they are both doing exactly the same thing, it's just pointed in the other direction.   Make no mistake, I absolutely believe that bullying people morally is inciting hate in the same way as using the euphemism that every one of us (even the lawyers here) have used 100 times to mean "bring her up on charges, try her in a court of law, then, upon the inevitable guilty plea, assign a sentence, likely jail, and have her serve that sentence."   

Trump's critics used that as evidence of his fascism, accusing him of wanting to supplant the legal system and jail his political opponents.   

Gillebrand isn't JUST "citing Roe when she means Casey".   She's doing much more, and just as dangerous.   She's skipping over the process (that El Barto and I - and others - have spelled out now about four times) in every bit the same way as Trump did, and doing it to garner favor, just as Trump did, and labeling those that disagree with names and moral castigation, just as, in your view, Trump did.  I'm allowed to have cogent, non-religious, non-"stupid", non-women-hating views on abortion that aren't in agreement with Kirsten Gillebrand, without having her hector me about how I'm advocating for "killing women". 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 24, 2019, 09:24:29 AM

Well, you're certainly extrapolating to the extreme, but you do make a valid point. What I will point out is that "health" is defined by the medical practitioner. Is that unreasonable or extreme? Is a woman's health better determined by politicians? And is it something that should be ignored, as it appears to have been up until the RHA? From my perspective I see this as an act that could lead to extreme scenarios. I see some of the Southern heartbeat bills as intrinsically extreme by design.

I don't think I'm extrapolating any more than anyone else.  But anytime you allow for the extreme to happen, then theoretically it can lead to extreme scenarios.  I don't argue with you that the "heartbeat bills" are more intrinsic.   I think, though, they are in part a reaction to the other bills that don't really seek to compromise - intrinsic or not - but seek to appeal to the base.
I would suggest that the NY bill is a reasonable law, that like many others could be pushed into the extreme in certain scenarios. The Missouri bill is designed to be extreme. Its very essence is a de facto prohibition of abortions, and that's exactly what it was intended to be. And I honestly don't see the "reaction to bills that don't seek to compromise." These bills have one simple purpose, and it's the promotion of the pro-life platform to the furthest point. It's a reaction to Roe, not any of the latter bills.

Well, given that "reasonable" is in the eyes of the beholder - I don't think Missouri is as bad as foes say (the majority of abortions that currently take place would still be able to happen), and outside of this discussion, I'm not in love with New York, but if that was the law, I wouldn't be outraged - I don't really disagree with you.  Alabama is as you described, but it's also the one getting the press (another thread) because that's how we do; Republicans are god-crazed lunatics looking for any opportunity to fuck over anyone who is not white, not male and not under the age of 35.  I don't see a lot of difference in terms of "absolute value" (who said there'd be maths!) between that and New York. 
Bama is an outlier. The law's not going to stand, and aside from the existence of an entire state full of backwards inbred hicks I'm not too bothered by it.

I definitely disagree with you about the Missouri law for reasons I've already laid out. It will prohibit most abortions. But, for the sake of this discussion, and outside of the legal aspect, let's pretend that you're right. Women will be allowed access to abortion, though during a highly compressed window of opportunity. Is that really what we should want? Isn't it in everybody's best interest that a woman should have more than 3 days to decide what she wants to do? Conservative states keep passing waiting period laws for that reason. It sure seems to me that "You now have 77 hours to determine whether or not you wish to continue this pregnancy starting. . . NOW!" is counterproductive to the ostensible goal of this law.

1This is hypothetical as Missouri probably has very strict rules about what your OBGYN is allowed to talk to you about.
2Ostensible because the goal isn't to lower the number of abortions but to prohibit them.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 24, 2019, 10:07:51 AM
Quote
Quote
Well, that is one possible outcome, but it's not my "suggestion" in terms of a preferred solution.   I don't have a suitable analogy here, but the law is at it's heart a fluid thing in most cases.  Laws get passed.  Laws get passed and refined.  Laws get passed and repealed.  Laws get repealed and replaced.   Cases get decided and serve to "sharpen the pencil" in terms of precedential law for others to use as a roadmap.   Cases get decided, and legislatures - at the state and Federal level - pass laws to answer or modify those case holdings.   It happens thousands of times a session, in courts all over the country, but in this age of "Twitter" and "Right fucking now", it's all of a sudden an issue to wring hands over and lament the demise of democracy and the uprising of fascism.   I'm being hyperbolic to be funny, not antagonistic, but the point is valid.
The law is fluid, but isn't the Constitution, and by extension the SCOTUS a dam of sorts, or perhaps a floor? I believe justices have described their role as such. I have no idea how I'd ever find it, but in one of their decisions Scalia said something to the effect of "we set the point where you can go no lower. Everything above that point we leave matters to the states." Yes, laws can change and evolve, but only up to a certain point and as a rule that point doesn't move once it's set. Once you lower that floor to allow prohibitions to effectively ban a right you're very unlikely to move it back. As we're seeing now, raising that floor takes, essentially, an act of jury nullification at the highest level.

I absolutely agree with Scalia, 100%, and have argued that here vis-a-vis morals.   Laws don't legislate morals, they provide the bare minimum that we can DEMAND of everyone around us.  You, collective, are, of course, able to elevate your own bar as you see fit, however, you cannot DEMAND that of your neighbors (this is why identity politics infuriates me, because it's very premise runs afoul of this and tries to legislate opinion and morals).  And that's also why Alabama isn't - in a Roberts court - going to stand. 
But that's my point. Once the Court determines that baseline the room for movement ceases. Or I should say becomes unidirectional. You suggest that there will always be room for movement in this case, and I'm saying that the movement stops at that baseline. Remember, we're discussing relief here, after all. If the court determines that you can enact restrictions that prohibit the vast majority of abortions (Missouri, and I'm not backing down from my assessment) that's going to be permanent. The only maneuvering room will be with regards to even greater restrictions.

Quote
Quote
Quote
As for your question:   Is it possible? Yes.  What's to prevent it?  The check and balance of the court, the veto power of the President, the power of the ballot box, the strength of the relationships between the heads of the House and the Senate and their minority leadership (trashed in the wake of the ACA, but most people don't register that fact). 
Well, as I've been saying the check and balance of the court is absent at the point we're discussing. Beyond that we are creating the situation I describe, where a right exists in two year increments.

I don't disagree with that, but it's a problem that has to be addressed independent of abortion, and we shouldn't compromise the right thing here, Constitutionally, because something else is broken.   It's like a car in that regard; if something breaks, fix it, because before too long, something else is going to go and be a bigger problem.  We're already there.  This opinion-driven politics, the short-sightedness of people like Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, is fucking our country far, FAR more than Hillary Clinton or Don Trump ever could.   And I put the inexactness - for personal gain - of people like Gillebrand, Booker, Ocasio-Cortez, etc. (I'm sure there are Republicans, I just didn't name them) in this bucket.
I agree, but who's compromising what? I'm suggesting that there's no room for relief once the court says you can prohibit most abortions. Fixing the problem with our sham democracy won't change that, and I'm not sure what we're discussing that would further compound it. I'm merely saying that once the court establishes a threshold in this case the game is over. We're stuck with it.


Quote
Well, if if if.  Heller could have turned out another way.   I guess I'm trying to say too many things with too few words.  I have very little - I won't say "zero", but very little - doubt that there will be an "abortion Heller".   I don't even think Kavanaugh would let the Alabama law stand.   
Nor do I, though I think it might actually be granted cert, which is bullshit in and of itself. But it's not Bama that I'm worried about. I see the Missouri law as far more restrictive and dangerous, and I think that probably survives. And I would suggest that that would be an abortion anti-Heller. A ruling that flies in the face of Heller allowing exactly what Heller prohibited.


Quote
As for the specific case, Heller, it only met one of the prongs of strict scrutiny:  compelling state interest.  It missed the boat on the other two.   The anti-gun crowd keeps missing the ball on the fact that you don't drain the ocean because one beach is contaminated.  You don't kill the entire animal because it has a thorn in the pad of its' paw.   You don't sell your car because you got a flat tire.    You don't ban all guns because a distinct and clear minority abuse them.
I think you're misstating what the law actually did. It prohibited a class of guns, not guns. They were still allowed long guns both rifle and shotgun. Weapons that can't easily be taken into the Cum and Go tucked into your wasteland. The result would have been gun manufacturers pushing that limit to make handguns large enough to skirt around the restrictions. And we prohibit things based on what a select few might do with them all the time. I can't own a machine gun because I might use it for nefarious purposes. Same thing with silencers, which actually serve a very useful purpose. Assault rifle bans have been deemed constitutional and they serve no real purpose whatsoever. What's the difference between prohibiting a weapon because it can fire 600 rounds a second and because it's so tiny it can be smuggled almost everywhere?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 24, 2019, 10:16:32 AM
Bama is an outlier. The law's not going to stand, and aside from the existence of an entire state full of backwards inbred hicks I'm not too bothered by it.

The interesting thing for me is HOW it won't stand; there's a real chance that Missouri - and New York - may be impacted by that decision.  I await that decision MORE than I awaited the decision on the ACA (which I still maintain will be studied 100 years from now in law schools, for it's brilliance).

Quote
I definitely disagree with you about the Missouri law for reasons I've already laid out. It will prohibit most abortions. But, for the sake of this discussion, and outside of the legal aspect, let's pretend that you're right. Women will be allowed access to abortion, though during a highly compressed window of opportunity. Is that really what we should want? Isn't it in everybody's best interest that a woman should have more than 3 days to decide what she wants to do? Conservative states keep passing waiting period laws for that reason. It sure seems to me that "You now have 77 hours to determine whether or not you wish to continue this pregnancy starting. . . NOW!" is counterproductive to the ostensible goal of this law.

1This is hypothetical as Missouri probably has very strict rules about what your OBGYN is allowed to talk to you about.
2Ostensible because the goal isn't to lower the number of abortions but to prohibit them.

Honest question:  if the law allows for up to eight weeks, and 65% of all abortions happen in that eight week window anyway (and it can fairly be assumed that some percentage of the 35% can be pulled in without too much hardship) what's your basis for saying that it "will prohibit most abortions"?

And I don't know where the 72 hours is coming from; does the Missouri law have a three-day waiting period?   I'm not sure the "rushing" aspect is real here; there is inherently a "rush" aspect, since even under Casey, there is a finite period for making these decisions.    Under Casey, your scenario doesn't pass muster.  It just doesn't (moving from 23 weeks to three days is pretty clearly an "undue burden on the mother", especially if, in that three-day period, the mother doesn't even know she's pregnant).  I don't disagree with you; a woman should have more than three days to make these potentially life-changing decisions.  Not nine months, though.   
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 24, 2019, 10:37:44 AM
Bama is an outlier. The law's not going to stand, and aside from the existence of an entire state full of backwards inbred hicks I'm not too bothered by it.

The interesting thing for me is HOW it won't stand; there's a real chance that Missouri - and New York - may be impacted by that decision.  I await that decision MORE than I awaited the decision on the ACA (which I still maintain will be studied 100 years from now in law schools, for it's brilliance).
What are you thinking here? Seems to me the only real question is if Roberts or Kavanaugh join the other 3 to grant cert. Roberts won't uphold the law. I doubt Kavanaugh will, but I'm not where near as certain. There is a third possibility that hasn't come into play yet, which is that RBG croaks and Trump appoints his gardener to the court, thus getting a solid majority. "Pedro is a Great Man. Truly Great. He'll make a Wonderful Justice. And I promise you he'll vote to do What's Right! Unlike Dumb As A Rock John Roberts."


Quote
Honest question:  if the law allows for up to eight weeks, and 65% of all abortions happen in that eight week window anyway (and it can fairly be assumed that some percentage of the 35% can be pulled in without too much hardship) what's your basis for saying that it "will prohibit most abortions"?

And I don't know where the 72 hours is coming from; does the Missouri law have a three-day waiting period?   I'm not sure the "rushing" aspect is real here; there is inherently a "rush" aspect, since even under Casey, there is a finite period for making these decisions.    Under Casey, your scenario doesn't pass muster.  It just doesn't (moving from 23 weeks to three days is pretty clearly an "undue burden on the mother", especially if, in that three-day period, the mother doesn't even know she's pregnant).  I don't disagree with you; a woman should have more than three days to make these potentially life-changing decisions.  Not nine months, though.
It's not up to 8 weeks. It's down to 5 weeks, typically 6. Given the significance of those two weeks, that's a monumental distinction.   

And I pulled the 3 days number out of my ass, but given the cutoff point of typically 6 weeks (fetal heartbeat) and the typical point of pregnancy awareness, 6 weeks, it seemed a reasonable number. But really, best case scenario is 2 weeks, and worst case is minus 2 weeks. And then there's that whole waiting period nonsense which aren't included in the +/- 2 week period.


Edit: I just discovered that the Missouri bill does specify 8 weeks, as well as a fetal heartbeat. I'm honestly not sure how that reconciles. Are the two components inclusive or exclusive? In any case, I was referring to fetal heartbeat bills, so moving forward I'll simply swap Missouri to Georgia where there is no number of weeks, only a heartbeat.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 24, 2019, 11:21:50 AM
I absolutely agree with Scalia, 100%, and have argued that here vis-a-vis morals.   Laws don't legislate morals, they provide the bare minimum that we can DEMAND of everyone around us.  You, collective, are, of course, able to elevate your own bar as you see fit, however, you cannot DEMAND that of your neighbors (this is why identity politics infuriates me, because it's very premise runs afoul of this and tries to legislate opinion and morals).  And that's also why Alabama isn't - in a Roberts court - going to stand. 
But that's my point. Once the Court determines that baseline the room for movement ceases. Or I should say becomes unidirectional. You suggest that there will always be room for movement in this case, and I'm saying that the movement stops at that baseline. Remember, we're discussing relief here, after all. If the court determines that you can enact restrictions that prohibit the vast majority of abortions (Missouri, and I'm not backing down from my assessment) that's going to be permanent. The only maneuvering room will be with regards to even greater restrictions.

In a sense, didn't Casey do both?  Under Roe, it was sort of black and white; I'm simplifying but basically, the government couldn't restrict within the first trimester, but had unlimited authority after that.   With Casey, "viability" (about 23, 24 weeks) became the dividing line, thus giving more time to the mother, but giving more room for the government to regulate, provided there wasn't undue burden on the mom (outright banning would clearly be "undue burden").   

Quote
I agree, but who's compromising what? I'm suggesting that there's no room for relief once the court says you can prohibit most abortions. Fixing the problem with our sham democracy won't change that, and I'm not sure what we're discussing that would further compound it. I'm merely saying that once the court establishes a threshold in this case the game is over. We're stuck with it.

Then wouldn't that apply to Roe and Casey?  Why isn't there any "no going back" there.  Let's assume the Court overturns the Roe/Casey line of cases, and decides, in "KevShmev v. Banks/Collins/Rutherford, et al" that the abortion window shall be that 24 hour period following the 15th calendar day from the date of ejaculation of the offending sperm (this has the effect of additionally sticking it to the lesbians and religious heathens that do that sperm freezing bullshit, f***** with God's will and all).   Then KevShmev gets attacked like Casey.   California, or Washington, or Oregon passes a law that allows abortion up to the point of crowning, and we fight it out in court.  This is different than the "two year window" thing that applies to legislatures, because the Court has clearly NOT engaged in that kind of jurisprudence.   Scalia and Rehnquist dissented in Casey, explicitly stating that Roe was wrongly decided (though I believe only Scalia stated that the fundamental right was, well, wrong).   Thomas and... I think it was White concurred with the dissent, but that can't be taken as gospel in any future cases.   

Quote
Quote
Well, if if if.  Heller could have turned out another way.   I guess I'm trying to say too many things with too few words.  I have very little - I won't say "zero", but very little - doubt that there will be an "abortion Heller".   I don't even think Kavanaugh would let the Alabama law stand.   
Nor do I, though I think it might actually be granted cert, which is bullshit in and of itself. But it's not Bama that I'm worried about. I see the Missouri law as far more restrictive and dangerous, and I think that probably survives. And I would suggest that that would be an abortion anti-Heller. A ruling that flies in the face of Heller allowing exactly what Heller prohibited.

Whoa, wait a second; am I misunderstanding?  We WANT the Court to grant cert, IF the lower courts uphold the law.  I don't think anything should be read into the granting of certiori unless and until we can ascertain what the compelling issue is. 

Quote
Quote
As for the specific case, Heller, it only met one of the prongs of strict scrutiny:  compelling state interest.  It missed the boat on the other two.   The anti-gun crowd keeps missing the ball on the fact that you don't drain the ocean because one beach is contaminated.  You don't kill the entire animal because it has a thorn in the pad of its' paw.   You don't sell your car because you got a flat tire.    You don't ban all guns because a distinct and clear minority abuse them.
I think you're misstating what the law actually did. It prohibited a class of guns, not guns. They were still allowed long guns both rifle and shotgun. Weapons that can't easily be taken into the Cum and Go tucked into your wasteland. The result would have been gun manufacturers pushing that limit to make handguns large enough to skirt around the restrictions. And we prohibit things based on what a select few might do with them all the time. I can't own a machine gun because I might use it for nefarious purposes. Same thing with silencers, which actually serve a very useful purpose. Assault rifle bans have been deemed constitutional and they serve no real purpose whatsoever. What's the difference between prohibiting a weapon because it can fire 600 rounds a second and because it's so tiny it can be smuggled almost everywhere?

No, I'm clear with the law; I tried to cover that before by saying that the ban "along with the assault rifle ban" blah blah blah.  I think you're asking the right questions, but I don't think it's a given that they are apples and apples.  How expensive are machine guns? How many are there?  How easy are they to fire?   How effective are they in "normal" situations of self-defense...  I think there was an element to the ban of handguns that wasn't limited to the "ease of concealment", just as I feel there was an element to the assault weapon ban that wasn't limited to just "use for nefarious purposes".   I'm not belittling your points, I just think that - like with free speech and abortion - there's a subjectivity to this stuff.  I err on the side of "limits are bad".   I think there are other ways of reaching the intended result.   My way, though, is not very conducive to the environment we're in, and I recognize that.   I'm also more reluctant than you to go to pragmatic solutions to the systemic ills.  I mean no disrespect, but I view that as using band-aids to fix broken bones.   
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 24, 2019, 11:34:59 AM
Bama is an outlier. The law's not going to stand, and aside from the existence of an entire state full of backwards inbred hicks I'm not too bothered by it.

The interesting thing for me is HOW it won't stand; there's a real chance that Missouri - and New York - may be impacted by that decision.  I await that decision MORE than I awaited the decision on the ACA (which I still maintain will be studied 100 years from now in law schools, for it's brilliance).
What are you thinking here? Seems to me the only real question is if Roberts or Kavanaugh join the other 3 to grant cert. Roberts won't uphold the law. I doubt Kavanaugh will, but I'm not where near as certain. There is a third possibility that hasn't come into play yet, which is that RBG croaks and Trump appoints his gardener to the court, thus getting a solid majority. "Pedro is a Great Man. Truly Great. He'll make a Wonderful Justice. And I promise you he'll vote to do What's Right! Unlike Dumb As A Rock John Roberts."

I'm less convinced of the politicizing of the Court as many are.  I think there's a reasonable chance that Roberts can convince a Kavanaugh that even if he wants to overturn Roe/Casey, that this isn't the time or place to do it.   I don't mean it that literally, of course, but in a gross oversimplification.  Of course RBG is a player here, and she has a tremendous presence on the Court. 

What I meant was, does the Court focus on the limitations of a fundamental right and assess them on their own, or do they dig deeper and revisit the fundamental right aspect itself.  Casey reaffirmed the base holding of the right to privacy creating a fundamental right to abortion and spoke more to (and changed) some of the terms of limiting that right, and what the standard might be (or should be). 


Quote
Edit: I just discovered that the Missouri bill does specify 8 weeks, as well as a fetal heartbeat. I'm honestly not sure how that reconciles. Are the two components inclusive or exclusive? In any case, I was referring to fetal heartbeat bills, so moving forward I'll simply swap Missouri to Georgia where there is no number of weeks, only a heartbeat.

And that's fine; I wasn't trying to catch you or trip you up, but it's relevant, because I think Missouri has a better chance of surviving than either Alabama or Georgia, and for substantive reasons.  If you're a pro-choice advocate, for ideological grounds, Missouri should scare you, because it kind of cuts right to the line between being overly restrictive, but without being a practical ban as we've talked about. I still think Missouri goes, but it's not at all the same argument as Alabama and Georgia. 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 24, 2019, 11:47:37 AM
Quote
Edit: I just discovered that the Missouri bill does specify 8 weeks, as well as a fetal heartbeat. I'm honestly not sure how that reconciles. Are the two components inclusive or exclusive? In any case, I was referring to fetal heartbeat bills, so moving forward I'll simply swap Missouri to Georgia where there is no number of weeks, only a heartbeat.

And that's fine; I wasn't trying to catch you or trip you up, but it's relevant, because I think Missouri has a better chance of surviving than either Alabama or Georgia, and for substantive reasons.  If you're a pro-choice advocate, for ideological grounds, Missouri should scare you, because it kind of cuts right to the line between being overly restrictive, but without being a practical ban as we've talked about. I still think Missouri goes, but it's not at all the same argument as Alabama and Georgia.
From a logical aspect the Missouri thing might be more flawed. If it's 8 weeks or a fetal heartbeat my math is correct and it prohibits most abortions. If it's 8 weeks period, then the fetal heartbeat aspect is no longer relevant. It'll already be there. Now you're simply banning abortions after 8 weeks, an arbitrary number that will create a window that many women will still be unable to accommodate due to lack of knowledge and other state mandated delays.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Harmony on May 24, 2019, 03:31:21 PM
I'm probably going to regret posting on this thread again.  But I just have to ask.  At what point does my bodily autonomy enter into this discussion?

I have a health condition that caused me to have very irregular periods.  Some years I'd have 4, some years I'd have 14.  Tell me how a woman with irregular menses can - without fail - detect a pregnancy by 6 weeks, 8 weeks, 10 weeks?  I was trying to conceive and my first symptom of pregnancy occurred at 8 weeks with sore breasts - not a missed period.  And for the record, not every woman has sore breasts in early pregnancy so that is not a reliable indicator.  In order to conceive, I had to work with a doctor, a specialist - someone who is well versed in the area of OB/gyn care.  Someone who has a vast amount of knowledge about my reproductive system.  Infinitely more than any congressman, more than my own spouse, hell even more than me. 

In that vein, does anyone here understand the difference between these medical terms? - no fair using Google BTW

--spontaneous abortion
--missed abortion
--inevitable abortion
--threatened abortion
--incomplete abortion
--septic abortion
--therapeutic abortion

Does anyone here understand the fact that an embryo inside a fallopian tube cannot be transplanted into a womb and carried to term?  Because some numb nuts congressman in Ohio seems to believe this is a viable way to treat ectopic pregnancies - which by the way can literally kill a woman.   ::)  And for the record, it isn't a viable way to treat an ectopic pregnancy.  If you don't believe it, ask yourself where the embryo gets its oxygen and nutrition from a fallopian tube?  Is there just a tiny placenta in those tubes just in case?

Speaking of placentas...is the placenta my body makes to nourish an embryo and fetus part of my body or part of the fetuses body?  Because if my uterus is going to be regulated, we should set some ground rules.  How about my amniotic fluid?  Is that mine?  Mucous plug?  The gallstones I developed as a result of being pregnant?

So another interesting tidbit for consideration.  As some of you know my parents both died at the end of 2018.  My mom was an organ donor but my dad was not.  About 4 hours after my mom died, I got a call from the organ donation people.  Time was of the essence, and they needed me to answer a lot of questions about my 75 year old mom in order for them to harvest her skin and eyes.  The entire phone call took 45 minutes.  And they asked me questions about every aspect of her health and her lifestyle including when was the last time she had sex?  And did she ever have sexual intercourse with a gay man?  Questions about every surgery, every diagnosis, every medication, every dietary need, even when she had her last loose stool.  Believe me - aside from actually being there when she passed away, this 45 minutes was the absolute WORST part of my day.  But she was a donor and I felt the need to honor her wishes even though I did not want to answer ANY questions let alone all of those types of questions.  I found myself often answering, "You'll need to check with her doctor about that."  So if I don't have the answers to my own mother's health care needs, does some congressperson in Alabama have them?  Even over her own physician?

Now on to my dad who was not a donor.  Could I have - as his medical power of attorney - given his organs away after he died without his permission?  Nope.  Because his dead corpse had bodily autonomy.

If you have a rare blood type and the local blood bank is low, can you be forced to donate life-saving blood?  Nope - cause you have bodily autonomy.

If my kid needs a kidney and your kidney is the only viable match and she'll die without it can I compel you to donate it to her?  Nope - cause you have bodily autonomy.

It seems like some people don't care about bodily autonomy when it comes to women.  It also seems like a whole helluva lot of people who don't know the first thing about how pregnancy or even basic human functioning works are just a-ok with government stepping in between a woman and her doctor when it comes to her medical care.

This is not right.  And my healthcare is nobody else's damn business.  Full stop.  I as a fully functioning adult woman should have at least as much bodily autonomy as a corpse....or a living man.

Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: XeRocks81 on May 24, 2019, 04:03:02 PM
thank you for that Harmony. 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Jaffa on May 24, 2019, 07:55:41 PM
And I don't mean this to you, personally, but as a general comment, if "exactness" isn't necessary here, then I don't want to hear another fucking word about how Trump is a "fascist" for saying "lock her up!" about Hillary or how "I could do what I want. Grab 'em by the pussy!" is a taped confession of sexual assault against an unnamed victim.   

I feel like I'm missing something here. 

I haven't been following the issue as closely as you and Barto have, but as far as I can tell from the course of your discussion, it seems that when you refer to this lack of 'exactness', you're talking about Gillebrand citing Roe when she should instead be citing Casey.  Is that accurate, or is there more to it?

Because I have to say, it seems to me that there's a pretty big, gaping, terrifying chasm of difference between that and getting a crowd of angry people excited about the idea of imprisoning someone in order to fire them up and channel their anger against your political opponents.  To be clear, that is my objection with his 'lock her up' stuff.  It's not that I think he's not being precise enough in his language, it's that I think he is willfully inciting hatred as a distraction tactic, and as a probably intentional side effect, he's poisoning his crowd against basic ideas like due process.  I really can't see how citing Roe when you mean Casey is remotely comparable.

There's a LOT more to it. 

No, you can't - respectfully - boil one down one issue and expand the other before you compare them.    If I'm using your terms, they are both doing exactly the same thing, it's just pointed in the other direction.   Make no mistake, I absolutely believe that bullying people morally is inciting hate in the same way as using the euphemism that every one of us (even the lawyers here) have used 100 times to mean "bring her up on charges, try her in a court of law, then, upon the inevitable guilty plea, assign a sentence, likely jail, and have her serve that sentence."   

Trump's critics used that as evidence of his fascism, accusing him of wanting to supplant the legal system and jail his political opponents.   

Gillebrand isn't JUST "citing Roe when she means Casey".   She's doing much more, and just as dangerous.   She's skipping over the process (that El Barto and I - and others - have spelled out now about four times) in every bit the same way as Trump did, and doing it to garner favor, just as Trump did, and labeling those that disagree with names and moral castigation, just as, in your view, Trump did.  I'm allowed to have cogent, non-religious, non-"stupid", non-women-hating views on abortion that aren't in agreement with Kirsten Gillebrand, without having her hector me about how I'm advocating for "killing women".

Fair enough.  For whatever it's worth, while I'm afraid my tone got away from me on that one, I really was honestly asking what I was missing.  As I said, I haven't been following this as closely as you obviously have, and I didn't have context for what exactly Gillebrand said.  If there was more to it, and especially if that includes accusing pro-lifers of wanting to kill women, then fair enough, and I actually largely agree with you.

I'm probably going to regret posting on this thread again.  But I just have to ask.  At what point does my bodily autonomy enter into this discussion?

*snip*

Speaking of placentas...is the placenta my body makes to nourish an embryo and fetus part of my body or part of the fetuses body?  Because if my uterus is going to be regulated, we should set some ground rules.  How about my amniotic fluid?  Is that mine?  Mucous plug?  The gallstones I developed as a result of being pregnant?

*snip*

It seems like some people don't care about bodily autonomy when it comes to women.  It also seems like a whole helluva lot of people who don't know the first thing about how pregnancy or even basic human functioning works are just a-ok with government stepping in between a woman and her doctor when it comes to her medical care.

This is not right.  And my healthcare is nobody else's damn business.  Full stop.  I as a fully functioning adult woman should have at least as much bodily autonomy as a corpse....or a living man.

Forgive me for snipping your excellent post.  It was a little long to quote, so I wanted to cut it down, but I left in the pieces I am most interested in responding to.

First, let me say that I agree with you, for the most part.  My personal view is not going to be reflected in most of this response.  I am playing a little bit of devil's advocate just to offer another perspective.

You ask an interesting question: during a pregnancy, which pieces are 'your body' and which pieces are 'the fetus's body'?  I feel like this question is kind of central to the abortion debate.  I'd like to rephrase it, taking into account something from later in your post.  You say 'my healthcare is nobody else's damn business'.  Here's the key question, in my mind: when does 'my healthcare' become 'our healthcare'?  Because in this hypothetical scenario, you are growing a person, or something that will eventually become a person, inside of you.  Does it need its own healthcare?  It eventually will, if the process continues.  If it gets born, it will obviously need its own healthcare very much separate from your healthcare. 

So is birth the line?  Up until birth, everything that happens to the baby is your healthcare, but immediately after it is born, it gets its own healthcare?  Or is there some earlier stage in the pregnancy where we start to consider the fetus to be its own person with its own healthcare needs?

To me, it seems like that line is the center of the debate. 

As for me, if anyone wants my own personal gut opinion, I tend to draw the line at viability.  If a fetus is developed enough that it has a chance to be born and survive with intensive medical care, I consider that it is its own person, and it requires its own medical care.  At that point, I would consider a woman choosing to terminate her pregnancy to be, at best, morally questionable.  But that is after viability.  Before viability, my view is that fetuses are essentially pieces of a woman's body, which she should have every right to manage as she sees fit. 

That's where I draw the line.  But other people have different ideas of when an embryo becomes a person.  And if someone happens to believe that a fetus is a person, then to them, it's not just your bodily autonomy at stake, it's another person's life.  A person holding this belief might also belief that that little person's right to life outweighs your right to bodily autonomy. 

It's also worth noting that your organ donor example isn't a perfect fit.  In the organ donor case, we're talking about compelling someone to take an action to save a life.  In the abortion debate, pro-lifers talking about preventing someone from taking action to end a life. 

For the record, I feel a little dirty making these points, because my personal opinion is that abortion bans are bad for women, men, and children

But I do think it's still worth noting that some pro-lifers are more interested in advocating for fetuses than in advocating against women's bodily autonomy. 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 25, 2019, 01:26:18 PM
I'm probably going to regret posting on this thread again.  But I just have to ask.  At what point does my bodily autonomy enter into this discussion?

I have a health condition that caused me to have very irregular periods.  Some years I'd have 4, some years I'd have 14.  Tell me how a woman with irregular menses can - without fail - detect a pregnancy by 6 weeks, 8 weeks, 10 weeks?  I was trying to conceive and my first symptom of pregnancy occurred at 8 weeks with sore breasts - not a missed period.  And for the record, not every woman has sore breasts in early pregnancy so that is not a reliable indicator.  In order to conceive, I had to work with a doctor, a specialist - someone who is well versed in the area of OB/gyn care.  Someone who has a vast amount of knowledge about my reproductive system.  Infinitely more than any congressman, more than my own spouse, hell even more than me. 

In that vein, does anyone here understand the difference between these medical terms? - no fair using Google BTW

--spontaneous abortion
--missed abortion
--inevitable abortion
--threatened abortion
--incomplete abortion
--septic abortion
--therapeutic abortion

Does anyone here understand the fact that an embryo inside a fallopian tube cannot be transplanted into a womb and carried to term?  Because some numb nuts congressman in Ohio seems to believe this is a viable way to treat ectopic pregnancies - which by the way can literally kill a woman.   ::)  And for the record, it isn't a viable way to treat an ectopic pregnancy.  If you don't believe it, ask yourself where the embryo gets its oxygen and nutrition from a fallopian tube?  Is there just a tiny placenta in those tubes just in case?

Speaking of placentas...is the placenta my body makes to nourish an embryo and fetus part of my body or part of the fetuses body?  Because if my uterus is going to be regulated, we should set some ground rules.  How about my amniotic fluid?  Is that mine?  Mucous plug?  The gallstones I developed as a result of being pregnant?

So another interesting tidbit for consideration.  As some of you know my parents both died at the end of 2018.  My mom was an organ donor but my dad was not.  About 4 hours after my mom died, I got a call from the organ donation people.  Time was of the essence, and they needed me to answer a lot of questions about my 75 year old mom in order for them to harvest her skin and eyes.  The entire phone call took 45 minutes.  And they asked me questions about every aspect of her health and her lifestyle including when was the last time she had sex?  And did she ever have sexual intercourse with a gay man?  Questions about every surgery, every diagnosis, every medication, every dietary need, even when she had her last loose stool.  Believe me - aside from actually being there when she passed away, this 45 minutes was the absolute WORST part of my day.  But she was a donor and I felt the need to honor her wishes even though I did not want to answer ANY questions let alone all of those types of questions.  I found myself often answering, "You'll need to check with her doctor about that."  So if I don't have the answers to my own mother's health care needs, does some congressperson in Alabama have them?  Even over her own physician?

Now on to my dad who was not a donor.  Could I have - as his medical power of attorney - given his organs away after he died without his permission?  Nope.  Because his dead corpse had bodily autonomy.

If you have a rare blood type and the local blood bank is low, can you be forced to donate life-saving blood?  Nope - cause you have bodily autonomy.

If my kid needs a kidney and your kidney is the only viable match and she'll die without it can I compel you to donate it to her?  Nope - cause you have bodily autonomy.

It seems like some people don't care about bodily autonomy when it comes to women.  It also seems like a whole helluva lot of people who don't know the first thing about how pregnancy or even basic human functioning works are just a-ok with government stepping in between a woman and her doctor when it comes to her medical care.

This is not right.  And my healthcare is nobody else's damn business.  Full stop.  I as a fully functioning adult woman should have at least as much bodily autonomy as a corpse....or a living man.

If it was ONLY that, you'd be right as rain, with zero exception (and for the record, I still think you're right as rain, for the most part), but for some - not just old white men, though that's the narrative - it's not that simple.)

There are those that believe that the fetus, unlike your blood cell or your late father's organs (may he rest in peace and I mean that sincerely), ALSO has "bodily autonomy".   So we're not in a binary state where this is simply YOUR FREE WILL or NOT YOUR FREE WILL.

As with the ACA, as with equal rights laws, as with certain protections for the mentally incapacitated among us, there's a section of people that believe that government's job is to protect those that can't protect themselves.  Even more basic criminal law (I'm thinking rape and sexual assault) serves to do that. 

So we're not talking about the theft of YOUR bodily autonomy, we're talking about the bodily autonomy of another, separate living being.  And there's precedent for the government taking a role in that.  If you don't feed your children, the government can step in.  If you don't maintain a standard of care for your children, the government can step in.  If you poison your body with heroin, cocaine, or alcohol while pregnant, in some cases the government can step in.   

I'm not arguing that this is right, or that you are wrong.  Quite the contrary; but while your post is cogent, logical, certainly emotionally charged (in the best possible way), it purports to be the only reasonable way of looking at things ("full stop") and it's just, unfortunately, not.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 25, 2019, 01:39:55 PM

Fair enough.  For whatever it's worth, while I'm afraid my tone got away from me on that one, I really was honestly asking what I was missing.  As I said, I haven't been following this as closely as you obviously have, and I didn't have context for what exactly Gillebrand said.  If there was more to it, and especially if that includes accusing pro-lifers of wanting to kill women, then fair enough, and I actually largely agree with you.

I saw no problem with your tone at all.  I took your question at face value and tried to answer it the same way.

Quote
To me, it seems like that line is the center of the debate. 

It IS the central line of the debate.   This is not in any way a response to Harmony, but as a general proposition, I find this line of argument about a "war on women" to be hyperbolic, akin to Sarah Palin's "death pools".   As I've noted elsewhere, there IS a reasonable, non-religious, non-hateful, non arbitrary argument against abortion (or at least for regulated abortion). 

Quote
As for me, if anyone wants my own personal gut opinion, I tend to draw the line at viability.  If a fetus is developed enough that it has a chance to be born and survive with intensive medical care, I consider that it is its own person, and it requires its own medical care.  At that point, I would consider a woman choosing to terminate her pregnancy to be, at best, morally questionable.  But that is after viability.  Before viability, my view is that fetuses are essentially pieces of a woman's body, which she should have every right to manage as she sees fit. 

That's where I draw the line.  But other people have different ideas of when an embryo becomes a person.  And if someone happens to believe that a fetus is a person, then to them, it's not just your bodily autonomy at stake, it's another person's life.  A person holding this belief might also belief that that little person's right to life outweighs your right to bodily autonomy. 

I happen to agree with you as far as the law goes.  I am very, very aware that as a male, I will never under normal conditions ever make this decision and I acknowledge that.   FOR ME, I would find that decision at any stage to be a morally trying one (and for the record, I have been in that situation of facing that decision, though as I said I made it clear that I would weigh in if requested but it wasn't my call). 

Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Lethean on May 27, 2019, 01:44:53 PM
I don't want to make a big long post, but I just want to say that I agree with Harmony.  This is a decision that should be between a woman and her doctor.  While I get that the state can and does step in when children are being neglected or abused, I don't think it's the same issue.  A child is a separate and distinct entity from its mother (and father).  A fetus is not.  It is reliant upon being attached to and inside of the mother's body, and she should be the one to decide if she wants to carry it.  If she comes into the doctor's office during the 35th week and says she wants an abortion without there being a health concern, the doctor is probably not going to perform it.  I've heard and read interviews with abortion providers who all say that women seeking so called late term abortions do so for health reasons - their own or that of the fetus - and it's a heart breaking decision that doesn't need to be made worse by all of the nonsense going on now.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Jaffa on May 27, 2019, 03:47:24 PM
A child is a separate and distinct entity from its mother (and father).  A fetus is not.

This is probably going to be another overlong post.  If you want to skim, you can probably get away with just reading the first paragraph, as it summarizes the gist of my response to your post.  The rest is a little bit of a tangent.  Sorry about that!  Here's the bold TLDR version:

The problem that a lot of people disagree with this assessment.  In fact, this central disagreement is basically the entire abortion debate.  It's very easy for you to plainly state one side of this debate, and it's very easy for me to agree with you, which I do.  But I don't think we can reasonably expect to resolve the disagreement by simply stating one side of that disagreement.  To make any progress on this disagreement (or really any disagreement at all), we're eventually going to have to acknowledge that opposing viewpoints exist.

One side says a fetus is not a distinct entity because it is reliant upon being attached to and inside of the mother's body.  The other side side says a fetus is a distinct entity because it has its own heartbeat and all of the basic building blocks that make up human beings.  As long as both of these sides keep focusing on their own logic, we will be butting heads on this issue indefinitely.

And to Stadler's point, it doesn't help that everyone involved is intent on moralizing their own perspective and demonizing the opposing perspective.  Rather than just talking about the central disagreement - namely, whether or not a fetus constitutes a complete individual person - we attack each other.  To the pro-lifer, the pro-life stance is about defending the sanctity of life, and the pro-choice stance is about murdering children.  To the pro-choicer, the pro-choice stance is about protecting women's rights, and the pro-life stance is about oppression.  In general, we expect our own viewpoint to treated with respect and understanding, while we expect opposing viewpoints to be treated as insignificant and unworthy. 

I can use myself as a relatively innocuous example.  A few posts ago, Stadler called me out for taking a comparison between Gillebrand and Trump and skewing it in my favor.  I did this by expanding the Trump side to point out every negative detail while compressing the Gillebrand side to the neatest package possible.  I did not do this consciously, but I did do it.  Almost everybody does it, especially when it comes to these emotionally charged issues.  We make our point sound simple and/or good, and we make the opposing point sound convoluted and/or evil. 

I do think it would be ideal if we could all get a little better about avoiding that. 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 29, 2019, 08:59:17 AM
I don't want to make a big long post, but I just want to say that I agree with Harmony.  This is a decision that should be between a woman and her doctor.  While I get that the state can and does step in when children are being neglected or abused, I don't think it's the same issue.  A child is a separate and distinct entity from its mother (and father).  A fetus is not.  It is reliant upon being attached to and inside of the mother's body, and she should be the one to decide if she wants to carry it.  If she comes into the doctor's office during the 35th week and says she wants an abortion without there being a health concern, the doctor is probably not going to perform it.  I've heard and read interviews with abortion providers who all say that women seeking so called late term abortions do so for health reasons - their own or that of the fetus - and it's a heart breaking decision that doesn't need to be made worse by all of the nonsense going on now.

But - and honest question here - do you at least understand that someone COULD think differently about this?  That's the whole point.   Whether the decision is "heart-breaking" or not is really immaterial.   It doesn't matter - in the context of the law - whether the decision is made with weeks of agonizing and years of regret, or by the flip of the coin.  That's just baggage intended to give gravitas to the issue.   

The bottom line is that there IS a material debate as to whether that fetus demands constitutional protection or not, and that is the real essence of abortion law.   

EDIT:  Ninja'd by Jaffa, who made the same point and far more eloquently than I did.   
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: KevShmev on May 29, 2019, 09:11:30 AM
Yep, the last two posts were well-said.  I am in favor of legalized abortion, but this idea that pro-life people are waging a war against women is asinine, just like it is also asinine to suggest that pro-choice people have no regard for human life.  That kind of rhetoric does nothing but widen the gap between the two sides and only hurts the overall discussion.

The bottom line is, this is a very difficult subject with a lot of nuances, which is why I am very opposed to any laws that are too rigid either way (like the ones just passed in Alabama and in my home state of Missouri).
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 29, 2019, 10:16:52 AM
Yep, the last two posts were well-said.  I am in favor of legalized abortion, but this idea that pro-life people are waging a war against women is asinine, just like it is also asinine to suggest that pro-choice people have no regard for human life.  That kind of rhetoric does nothing but widen the gap between the two sides and only hurts the overall discussion.
I wouldn't call it asinine simply because from one perspective it absolutely looks like a war on women. I'm with you guys that there are strong beliefs held by both sides that tend to color their interpretation of the other. Yet if you're standing in the street looking at a 4 ton garbage truck barreling straight at you, you'd be a fool to not start from the point of view that he's fixing to run your ass down. The reality is that it's almost certainly something far less sinister, though. As Stadler said, it's more about the pro-life side seeing things from a different perspective, and when you dig down into it that's probably what you should come to understand. Yet seeing the outward signs and starting from "war on women" isn't stupid. It's just shallow at the onset.

And I see that your home state is fixing to close the last Planned Parenthood in Missouri. Friday, I believe. At that point there will be no places left in Missouri where an abortion can be obtained. If you can't help but notice that family planning services are disappearing at the same time as abortion services does that make you asinine for seeing an anti-woman connection?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: axeman90210 on May 29, 2019, 10:21:26 AM
I think things like a lawmaker in one of the states that just put a new law in place (Alabama maybe?) saying that they carved out an exception for unused IVF embryos because "it's not in a woman" doesn't help either.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Lethean on May 29, 2019, 01:55:02 PM
Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time to really get into some of these arguments (and I'm not sure I want to the way I did on mp.com - it was rewarding but also very frustrating).  I primarily wanted to add support for Harmony's post, since she was unsure of whether she should participate or not.

But to respond in general to both Jaffa and Stadler - I do of course realize that not everyone agrees with my position.  I also agree that it's not necessarily helpful to resort to name calling or demonizing when it comes to this issue.  It doesn't help matters and it certainly doesn't change any minds.

I will add that I agree with some of what El Barto has posted as well - when it comes to the philosophical question at hand, it isn't something that can necessarily be answered either way definitively.  Thus, in the meantime I think we should err on the side of "mind your own business."  Religious leaders disagree on this issue (not that religion should play a role here, but even so, they disagree).  Scientists disagree, philosophers disagree, etc.  We don't have the answer, so leave it to each individual to decide how they want to handle it, and each individual physician to decide whether it's a procedure they wish to perform.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: cramx3 on May 29, 2019, 02:35:26 PM
I will add that I agree with some of what El Barto has posted as well - when it comes to the philosophical question at hand, it isn't something that can necessarily be answered either way definitively.  Thus, in the meantime I think we should err on the side of "mind your own business." 

I like this train of thought
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 29, 2019, 03:02:27 PM
As much as I like the beauty of that line of reasoning, should we "mind our own business" when it comes to other cases where we don't give the victim the choice of fighting back (either because they can't or they won't)?   How about "pedaeophelia"?  Or statutory rape?

Our laws are predicated on being of sound mind and capacity, and when we believe, as a society, that the potential victim cannot or does not show "capacity", we step in.   My two year old grandson cannot opt out of vaccines on his own.  He cannot sign a contract. He cannot consent to sex.   

I don't think I'm contradicting myself here, after already having declared "what the problem is", but we've set "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as opposites of a polarity, and that's a fallacy.   It's apples and oranges, because in the "pro-life" equation, there is an additional variable, that being the "person" of the fetus.   

Put it another way, you can believe 100% in the autonomy of the body of a woman (as Harmony eloquently put it) AND still be pro-life.  In fact, if you believe 100% in the autonomy of the body of a woman, there's at least one argument that you should ALSO be pro-life, i.e. believe 100% in the autonomy of the body of the fetus.   

I'm not suggesting that every lawmaker in Alabama has thought this through and believes this - I have zero faith that our politicians have thought through anything beyond the next election - but in terms of the tools of argument and the way that the sides have framed up the other side, this is an important point.

I am adamantly in Harmony's corner vis-a-vis the autonomy of the body.   I take that as a cornerstone of my, let's call it "political faith".   But it's that very belief that makes me even question my position on abortion at this time.  I very much worry about where that line really is.   Conception? Viability?  Birth?  I don't know.   I've opted for the middle ground, that we let each person decide, but I'm not at all comfortable with that, and so for me, FOR ME*, abortion isn't an option except in the most egregious of cases.

* with all the caveats and protests, that I am not a woman, I can't be pregnant, and I will therefore likely never be in that position to make a final decision (and I would never EVER "force" or "pressure" a woman to make a decision she wasn't comfortable with)
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: cramx3 on May 29, 2019, 03:07:36 PM
I'm not so sure what is controversial about pedophilia or rape to make the comparison to abortion and the idea of minding your own business, but sure that line of reasoning has it's own faults too if we take it to other avenues.  And it's not perfect even for abortion, but I like the idea of if we don't have a solid truth to something (is a fetus a human) then leaving it up to the individual to decide seems like good practice to me. 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 29, 2019, 03:20:31 PM
As much as I like the beauty of that line of reasoning, should we "mind our own business" when it comes to other cases where we don't give the victim the choice of fighting back (either because they can't or they won't)?   How about "pedaeophelia"?  Or statutory rape?

Our laws are predicated on being of sound mind and capacity, and when we believe, as a society, that the potential victim cannot or does not show "capacity", we step in.   My two year old grandson cannot opt out of vaccines on his own.  He cannot sign a contract. He cannot consent to sex.   

I don't think I'm contradicting myself here, after already having declared "what the problem is", but we've set "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as opposites of a polarity, and that's a fallacy.   It's apples and oranges, because in the "pro-life" equation, there is an additional variable, that being the "person" of the fetus.   

Put it another way, you can believe 100% in the autonomy of the body of a woman (as Harmony eloquently put it) AND still be pro-life.  In fact, if you believe 100% in the autonomy of the body of a woman, there's at least one argument that you should ALSO be pro-life, i.e. believe 100% in the autonomy of the body of the fetus.   

I'm not suggesting that every lawmaker in Alabama has thought this through and believes this - I have zero faith that our politicians have thought through anything beyond the next election - but in terms of the tools of argument and the way that the sides have framed up the other side, this is an important point.

I am adamantly in Harmony's corner vis-a-vis the autonomy of the body.   I take that as a cornerstone of my, let's call it "political faith".   But it's that very belief that makes me even question my position on abortion at this time.  I very much worry about where that line really is.   Conception? Viability?  Birth?  I don't know.   I've opted for the middle ground, that we let each person decide, but I'm not at all comfortable with that, and so for me, FOR ME*, abortion isn't an option except in the most egregious of cases.

* with all the caveats and protests, that I am not a woman, I can't be pregnant, and I will therefore likely never be in that position to make a final decision (and I would never EVER "force" or "pressure" a woman to make a decision she wasn't comfortable with)
This is the point I raised a couple of weeks ago. You recognize that you don't know where the dividing line is, so you leave it up to the woman (and I would include the doctor who has his own ethics to worry about). Yet you're not comfortable with that so now we let a bunch of politicians decide? Or 9 political appointees in black robes? This is a distinctly unknowable thing, and precisely what we generally leave to the purview of the individual.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 29, 2019, 03:22:44 PM
I'm not so sure what is controversial about pedophilia or rape to make the comparison to abortion and the idea of minding your own business, but sure that line of reasoning has it's own faults too if we take it to other avenues.  And it's not perfect even for abortion, but I like the idea of if we don't have a solid truth to something (is a fetus a human) then leaving it up to the individual to decide seems like good practice to me.

My point is, we regularly champion laws that don't impact us directly but that support classes of humans that can't make capable decisions on their own, or otherwise can't protect themselves.   So if you believe that a fetus is a "person" under the constitution, then banning abortion isn't about a "war on women" any more than a law against pedophilia is a "war on adults".  It IS however, a law in FAVOR of a human that doesn't have the means to make the case for themselves (children can't file lawsuits, as a general matter; there are exceptions in family court). 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 29, 2019, 03:29:39 PM
As much as I like the beauty of that line of reasoning, should we "mind our own business" when it comes to other cases where we don't give the victim the choice of fighting back (either because they can't or they won't)?   How about "pedaeophelia"?  Or statutory rape?

Our laws are predicated on being of sound mind and capacity, and when we believe, as a society, that the potential victim cannot or does not show "capacity", we step in.   My two year old grandson cannot opt out of vaccines on his own.  He cannot sign a contract. He cannot consent to sex.   

I don't think I'm contradicting myself here, after already having declared "what the problem is", but we've set "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as opposites of a polarity, and that's a fallacy.   It's apples and oranges, because in the "pro-life" equation, there is an additional variable, that being the "person" of the fetus.   

Put it another way, you can believe 100% in the autonomy of the body of a woman (as Harmony eloquently put it) AND still be pro-life.  In fact, if you believe 100% in the autonomy of the body of a woman, there's at least one argument that you should ALSO be pro-life, i.e. believe 100% in the autonomy of the body of the fetus.   

I'm not suggesting that every lawmaker in Alabama has thought this through and believes this - I have zero faith that our politicians have thought through anything beyond the next election - but in terms of the tools of argument and the way that the sides have framed up the other side, this is an important point.

I am adamantly in Harmony's corner vis-a-vis the autonomy of the body.   I take that as a cornerstone of my, let's call it "political faith".   But it's that very belief that makes me even question my position on abortion at this time.  I very much worry about where that line really is.   Conception? Viability?  Birth?  I don't know.   I've opted for the middle ground, that we let each person decide, but I'm not at all comfortable with that, and so for me, FOR ME*, abortion isn't an option except in the most egregious of cases.

* with all the caveats and protests, that I am not a woman, I can't be pregnant, and I will therefore likely never be in that position to make a final decision (and I would never EVER "force" or "pressure" a woman to make a decision she wasn't comfortable with)
This is the point I raised a couple of weeks ago. You recognize that you don't know where the dividing line is, so you leave it up to the woman (and I would include the doctor who has his own ethics to worry about). Yet you're not comfortable with that so now we let a bunch of politicians decide? Or 9 political appointees in black robes? This is a distinctly unknowable thing, and precisely what we generally leave to the purview of the individual.

No, no, I'm with you.   I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that.  I'm not arguing whether there should be "abortion laws" or not, I'm talking more about the nature of the arguments (on both sides).    Though, for the record, I don't at all consider "a bunch of politicians" to be at the same level as "9 political appointees in black robes".   I do put stock in the latter, since that's their inherent job, to help us parse through that which is unknowable.

I'm more talking about the nature and the framing of the arguments.  I'm talking about how the political position, the moral position, and the legal position are potentially different, even in the same individual.  I'm talking about how it's very dangerous to assume motives about people based on where they fall in this issue.  I'm with you on individual choice; but I say that with the caveat that it's not because I "know I'm right", or "I'm on the right side of history", or "I'm morally obligated to", or "I'm not in a war against women", or any of the other (I believe) extraneous arguments put forth.  I've arrived at individual choice as a flawed and possibly temporary (maybe someday we WILL know) compromise between the moral, the political and the legal.   

(And for those that care, this should cast some light on why I'm so hard on the Democrats for adopting "moralizing" as a platform.)
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: cramx3 on May 29, 2019, 03:31:07 PM
I'm not so sure what is controversial about pedophilia or rape to make the comparison to abortion and the idea of minding your own business, but sure that line of reasoning has it's own faults too if we take it to other avenues.  And it's not perfect even for abortion, but I like the idea of if we don't have a solid truth to something (is a fetus a human) then leaving it up to the individual to decide seems like good practice to me.

My point is, we regularly champion laws that don't impact us directly but that support classes of humans that can't make capable decisions on their own, or otherwise can't protect themselves.   So if you believe that a fetus is a "person" under the constitution, then banning abortion isn't about a "war on women" any more than a law against pedophilia is a "war on adults".  It IS however, a law in FAVOR of a human that doesn't have the means to make the case for themselves (children can't file lawsuits, as a general matter; there are exceptions in family court).

But what if you don't believe that?  Isn't that the crux of this? So we just go back to the idea of let the individual decide.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 29, 2019, 03:51:00 PM
I'm not so sure what is controversial about pedophilia or rape to make the comparison to abortion and the idea of minding your own business, but sure that line of reasoning has it's own faults too if we take it to other avenues.  And it's not perfect even for abortion, but I like the idea of if we don't have a solid truth to something (is a fetus a human) then leaving it up to the individual to decide seems like good practice to me.

My point is, we regularly champion laws that don't impact us directly but that support classes of humans that can't make capable decisions on their own, or otherwise can't protect themselves.   So if you believe that a fetus is a "person" under the constitution, then banning abortion isn't about a "war on women" any more than a law against pedophilia is a "war on adults".  It IS however, a law in FAVOR of a human that doesn't have the means to make the case for themselves (children can't file lawsuits, as a general matter; there are exceptions in family court).

But what if you don't believe that?  Isn't that the crux of this? So we just go back to the idea of let the individual decide.

Well, you and I are in full agreement, since that's what I did (see my reply to El Barto).  I'm not weighing in on where you should be in the abortion debate, I'm weighing in on the veracity of the arguments.   There is no silver bullet argument here.  What I'm saying is, you and El Barto and I all seem to have arrived at the same point, but I think it may possibly be for different reasons, and I wouldn't ever presume to think I'm "right" for being here, and everyone who doesn't agree with me is "wrong" or "immoral", or "waging war on women".   

Maybe this is a better example:  do you believe suicide should be legal?   If I'm in a disaster of a marriage, and divorce isn't a realistic option (say, kids, or money), and I opt to kill myself, it's my choice, right? But why shouldn't I be able to kill my wife? Shouldn't that be up to the individual?  And - this is the important part - if it isn't, why not?     Why ISN'T it an option?   

And that is one way of framing the abortion debate, and why, though I've politically accepted that until we know more, the best we can do is let people decide for themselves, morally, I'm not at all definitive with that, and can basically be said to be putting my head in the sand to at least some degree.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Harmony on May 29, 2019, 06:09:38 PM
I'm not so sure what is controversial about pedophilia or rape to make the comparison to abortion and the idea of minding your own business, but sure that line of reasoning has it's own faults too if we take it to other avenues.  And it's not perfect even for abortion, but I like the idea of if we don't have a solid truth to something (is a fetus a human) then leaving it up to the individual to decide seems like good practice to me.

My point is, we regularly champion laws that don't impact us directly but that support classes of humans that can't make capable decisions on their own, or otherwise can't protect themselves.   So if you believe that a fetus is a "person" under the constitution, then banning abortion isn't about a "war on women" any more than a law against pedophilia is a "war on adults".  It IS however, a law in FAVOR of a human that doesn't have the means to make the case for themselves (children can't file lawsuits, as a general matter; there are exceptions in family court).

But what if you don't believe that?  Isn't that the crux of this? So we just go back to the idea of let the individual decide.

'The sanctity of life' argument which is founded in religious doctrine.  And yes, not all who are religious are pro-life and not all who are atheist are pro-choice.  You make a good point here, cram. 

I'd also add that 'the sanctity of life' argument is a fallacy.  We have never had this and never will.  Some life is seen a sacrosanct.  Others quite easily expendable.  If anyone needs a list, I'm happy to oblige. 

Random thoughts:

I understand there are around 400,000 children currently languishing in the US foster care system.  Those kids may not be adorable newborns but do they not need homes and love and protection?  Imagine if every person who ever picketed Planned Parenthood or every politician who calls themselves 'pro-life' would foster or adopt them.  Imagine if the need for foster kids was zero because people truly believed in the 'sanctity of life' and then put their money where their mouths are in a real, concrete way.  As someone I admire said, "Donít talk about protecting the unborn unless youíre doing all you can to protect the born."

Axeman mentioned fertility clinics.  Are people who are in the 'life begins at conception' camp aware that thousands of blastocysts are routinely destroyed and discarded at fertility clinics nation wide annually?  I have a relative who conceived via IVF.  Her fertility physician made over a dozen blastocysts and then chose the 2-3 that showed greater likelihood of surviving implantation.  She had the option to put the remaining blastocysts on ice but after spending around 25K on one round of IVF, she simply could not afford the monthly charges to keep them on ice.  This is very commonplace.  Yet where is the outcry?  Where are the picketers at the local fertility clinic screaming about the 'sanctity of life'?

The other day one of my kids was in his room with the window open.  Much to his chagrin, our neighbor's teenager was having a loud sex session with her boyfriend with their window open just a few feet away.  I sure hope they used protection.  But being teenagers there is a good chance that they didn't.  Because as most people know - mostly based on their own behavior as a teenager - teenagers don't always have good sense and very often take chances because their brains have not yet finished maturing.  Especially the part of the brain that understands cause and effect and predicts the consequences of their choices.  So let's say - worst case scenario - the girl gets pregnant and she doesn't want to be.  Should her punishment be - and for sure she'll be the one who is punished the most - for her so-called 'irresponsible choice' to have sex for pleasure (heaven forbid!) to saddle her with an unwanted child to raise?  Because what could possibly go wrong?  ::)

And before someone 'helpfully' brings up adoption, please look up the US Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Rates and compare that with other developed nations and tell me just how safe it is for a woman - especially a teenager - to be pregnant, in labor, or postpartum in this country.

When people (not here) say abortion is only okay in cases of rape, they're telling women they only get bodily autonomy if they've already been punished sufficiently.  And that's absolutely disgusting to me.

If a fetus is deserving of bodily autonomy, why did my MD not have a separate chart for each of my fetuses when I was receiving antepartum care?  Shouldn't they be assigned a neutral party to decide what choices I make during my pregnancy?  What if I want to have a cup of coffee or a coke?  What if I live alone and need to change my cat's litterbox?  What if I want to decline fetal monitoring while in labor?  If the fetus gets a say, how can the pregnant woman alone make any choices that might impact the fetal health and well being?  And then why aren't fetuses in the US given a social security number?  Food stamps? Child support?  Why must women wait until the fetus is born to obtain these things?  I mean, if the fetus has autonomy wouldn't they want to speak up in favor of those things?  Oh, you mean a fetus has no concept of life outside of the womb and does not have a fully functioning neurological system that would allow it to make decisions?  Huh...

Making safe abortion a criminal act will not stop abortion.  It will NOT.  See Gerri Santoro's crime scene photo.  I'd post the photo here, but I'd probably be banned outright for it.  But that photo is exactly what is going to happen when safe medical abortion is driven underground.  Time and time again we will see it.

Lastly, tldr:

(https://i.imgur.com/noj3T4c.jpg)

 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Dave_Manchester on May 29, 2019, 07:28:09 PM
I'd also add that 'the sanctity of life' argument is a fallacy.  We have never had this and never will.  Some life is seen a sacrosanct.  Others quite easily expendable. 

It's probably a famous passage by now but for those who haven't read it, this Methodist pastor had an eloquent way about him that I like. I'm biased, because like me he sees everything through a purely political lens, but I don't think he is wrong:


ďThe unbornĒ are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they donít resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they donít ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they donít need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they donít bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. Itís almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.


I've been staying out of this thread because this is only a political question to me. The American President screamed at me via twitter 2 weeks ago (re: immigration) that America is "FULL" and "CAN'T TAKE ANYONE ELSE" (incestuous Alabama rapebabies exempted). There is a sticked thread at the top of this subforum (DTF Political Roll Call) in which some of the most vehement anti-abortionists ("only God can decide who lives and dies!") salivate over the death penalty. The first page of this thread effectively has the declaration that women here who have had abortions are murderers. Now it's edging into the question of what a human is. Meh. This stuff is covered in introductory philosophy courses, and it's a tedious question by now. It's all just political to me. Like the pastor up there, I see absolutely nothing noble in advocating for the 'unborn' when those same people who advocate for them tend to be such nasty, pedantic, judgmental hypocrites towards the born. As he says, the unborn are "the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe". 'Caring' about those who aren't alive is the safest and most effortless stance to take. I've seen comments in this thread that abortion is wrong. I havent seen an argument to convince me why. That's not to say one doesn't exist. It's a request to provide one.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Jaffa on May 29, 2019, 08:06:44 PM
Yet if you're standing in the street looking at a 4 ton garbage truck barreling straight at you, you'd be a fool to not start from the point of view that he's fixing to run your ass down.

Sure, but I'm not sure that's a fair comparison.  A truck suddenly barrelling toward you is an emergent phenomenon.  You've had no time to prepare for it or think it through, so your reaction is going to be based on nothing but the most basic instincts tied to surviving and recognizing threats.  On the other hand, Alabama's law is not an emergent phenomenon.  It didn't come out of a clear blue sky.  Abortion is an issue that has been debated ad nauseum for decades, and the Alabama law is a representation of something that one side of the debate has been clamoring for all along. 

More to the point, even in the truck example, wouldn't your instinct be to get out of the way and try to deescalate the conflict?  I get that in the heat of the moment, you might think that the driver was trying to kill you.  But would you go into full combat mode in that heat of the moment?  Maybe pull out a pistol and shoot out his tires to see if you can get him to die in a crash?

In other words, it's one thing to think 'this seems like a war on women' as a passing thought, but it's another thing entirely to start drawing battle lines and demonizing your enemies. 

I understand there are around 400,000 children currently languishing in the US foster care system.  Those kids may not be adorable newborns but do they not need homes and love and protection?  Imagine if every person who ever picketed Planned Parenthood or every politician who calls themselves 'pro-life' would foster or adopt them.  Imagine if the need for foster kids was zero because people truly believed in the 'sanctity of life' and then put their money where their mouths are in a real, concrete way.  As someone I admire said, "Donít talk about protecting the unborn unless youíre doing all you can to protect the born."

On this point, I very thoroughly agree with you.  I actually wrote an essay on the subject which I posted on one or two social media sites - it's about two pages long, so I won't post it here, but I'll nutshell it. 

One of my biggest frustrations with the abortion conversation in the United States is that it is treated as a standalone black or white issue, a single binary choice between legality and criminality.  Instead, it should be treated as one piece of a much larger conversation about child welfare.  It makes sense to me that a morally based pro-life person might want to protect and support the lives of unborn children, but it seems to me that this morally based pro-life person should then reasonably have every interest in extending that protection and support beyond the point of birth. 

If a fetus is deserving of bodily autonomy, why did my MD not have a separate chart for each of my fetuses when I was receiving antepartum care?  Shouldn't they be assigned a neutral party to decide what choices I make during my pregnancy?  What if I want to have a cup of coffee or a coke?  What if I live alone and need to change my cat's litterbox?  What if I want to decline fetal monitoring while in labor?  If the fetus gets a say, how can the pregnant woman alone make any choices that might impact the fetal health and well being?  And then why aren't fetuses in the US given a social security number?  Food stamps? Child support?  Why must women wait until the fetus is born to obtain these things?  I mean, if the fetus has autonomy wouldn't they want to speak up in favor of those things? 

This is an excellent and fascinating point. 

I will note that I don't think anyone is advocating for fetuses to get a say in the matter.  Instead, people are advocating that we need to make decisions to protect fetuses because they are incapable of protecting themselves. 

That being said, your general point is one I find quite compelling. 

I've seen comments in this thread that abortion is wrong.  I havent seen an argument to convince me why. That's not to say one doesn't exist. It's a request to provide one.

I don't know if I have an argument for you, but I do have a thought experiment that may offer perspective. 

Let's take abortion out of the question for a moment.  Instead, I want to talk about miscarriage.  Let's imagine a woman who is pregnant and eager to be a mother, but through no fault of her own, she loses the baby at 32 weeks.  Do you consider this to be the death of a fetus?  If so, would you agree that abortion also constitutes the death of a fetus? 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 29, 2019, 09:00:23 PM
This conversation is starting to move back into areas of vitriol that I want no part of - the idea that we can't even DISCUSS problem "A" until we completely solve problem "B" and wrap it up in a nice bow is not presented when "dialogue" and "compromise" are the intended results - but there are a couple of more general points to be made.

One of my biggest frustrations with the abortion conversation in the United States is that it is treated as a standalone black or white issue, a single binary choice between legality and criminality.  Instead, it should be treated as one piece of a much larger conversation about child welfare.  It makes sense to me that a morally based pro-life person might want to protect and support the lives of unborn children, but it seems to me that this morally based pro-life person should then reasonably have every interest in extending that protection and support beyond the point of birth.

This is all of American politics though.  Just like school "shootings" aren't just about guns, and pornography isn't just about free speech, so here.   We have this problem domestically and internationally.  My main beef with the ACA is rooted in this very issue. 

Quote
If a fetus is deserving of bodily autonomy, why did my MD not have a separate chart for each of my fetuses when I was receiving antepartum care?  Shouldn't they be assigned a neutral party to decide what choices I make during my pregnancy?  What if I want to have a cup of coffee or a coke?  What if I live alone and need to change my cat's litterbox?  What if I want to decline fetal monitoring while in labor?  If the fetus gets a say, how can the pregnant woman alone make any choices that might impact the fetal health and well being?  And then why aren't fetuses in the US given a social security number?  Food stamps? Child support?  Why must women wait until the fetus is born to obtain these things?  I mean, if the fetus has autonomy wouldn't they want to speak up in favor of those things? 

This is an excellent and fascinating point. 

I will note that I don't think anyone is advocating for fetuses to get a say in the matter.  Instead, people are advocating that we need to make decisions to protect fetuses because they are incapable of protecting themselves. 

That being said, your general point is one I find quite compelling. 

It's compelling, but somewhat disingenuous.   Guardians ad litem HAVE been established for fetuses in the past.   In fact, I believe the Alabama law has a provision for that.  We (society) step in over parents in the best interests of the child all the time.   My wife, who works in family law/probate deals with guardians ad litem on a regular basis. There are numerous proposals to take "vaccinations" decisions out of the hands of parents.   Put it this way:  if my kid went in to his therapist (yes, my autistic step son has a therapist) and says "my step daddy wants to kill me" I can guarantee you he isn't going home with me following the session.   

Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Jaffa on May 29, 2019, 09:30:20 PM
This conversation is starting to move back into areas of vitriol that I want no part of - the idea that we can't even DISCUSS problem "A" until we completely solve problem "B" and wrap it up in a nice bow is not presented when "dialogue" and "compromise" are the intended results

I'm sorry to say that I'm genuinely not sure what you're reacting to here.  But if I have contributed to any atmosphere of vitriol, I sincerely apologize.  Please trust that it was not my intention. 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 29, 2019, 09:37:23 PM
I've seen comments in this thread that abortion is wrong. I havent seen an argument to convince me why. That's not to say one doesn't exist. It's a request to provide one.

"Wrong" in what sense?  I think it's the wrong thing to do, simply because it's the death of a life, plain and simple.  I have serious issues with death.   If that makes me nasty, pedantic, judgmental, or hypocritical, so be it.  But I'm not in favor of the death penalty, either, and it takes some serious philosophical gymnastics to bring "war" into the discussion in any meaningful way.  Suicide - either by one's own hand or physician-assisted - is a matter of consent, so I have no ground there. 

But let's not set up the straw man.   That I believe life has sanctity, doesn't mean that I'm all in for whatever social welfare program is on offer.   I think some of this goes to what Jaffa was getting at earlier, about "black and white".   To work in black and white is easier.   "Grey" requires compromise, it requires nuance, and it requires debate.   In more human terms, it requires understanding, empathy and respect (if not for the person, then the idea).  When you can demonize someone's IDEA by demonizing them, you're three quarters of the way to winning the battle (even if it's the battle in your own head).

I happen to agree with you - albeit for different reasons - that this is mainly a political issue.   Not because of "Philosophy 101" (you're far more knowledgeable on that than I am), but because I firmly and unequivocally believe that my morals are, like that pie chart, "no one's damn business", and therefore, I can't impose my morals on any one else.  But this is what I mean about the conversation veering.  This is getting less interesting to me, because I'm not interested in battling judgments or battling hypocrises.   For every preacher that speaks of the evil of the homasectuals and then gets caught in a park with a 19-year old boy, there's an actor or rock star lecturing us about global warming while jetting to Cannes in his G5.  Can't talk about abortion till we help the kids that are here?  Okay then, let's close the borders and stop immigrants from coming in until we help all the kids that are here.  We can do this all day long and well into the evening, and get absolutely NOWHERE. 

I don't suppose I've given you anything you haven't thought of before re: abortion, but I do think that it's important to be able to have the discussion, and there are too many people on this topic that are not interested in even ACKNOWLEDGING that there is another side, let alone discussing it.  When you have a pie chart that adds up to 100% "none of your business" that's not an invite to discuss details.     
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: XeRocks81 on May 29, 2019, 10:53:10 PM
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/louisiana-abortion-ban-sent-to-governors-desk

I have a bad feeling about this

Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: XJDenton on May 30, 2019, 05:04:03 AM
"Wrong" in what sense?  I think it's the wrong thing to do, simply because it's the death of a life, plain and simple.

Honest question Stadler: would you be against removing life support from somebody who is clinically brain-dead, with no chance of recovery? I ask because I come from the direction of not valuing human life, per say, but human personhood. To me, the body is just the vessel that contains the thing that is actually valued and worthy of protection, as the individual is made of their thoughts, their memories and such. I'm just interested to know where you come from.

Quote
I don't suppose I've given you anything you haven't thought of before re: abortion, but I do think that it's important to be able to have the discussion, and there are too many people on this topic that are not interested in even ACKNOWLEDGING that there is another side, let alone discussing it.  When you have a pie chart that adds up to 100% "none of your business" that's not an invite to discuss details.     

Sure, but both you, I, El Barto, Bosk1 etc come from the position of privilege of not having the rights that we hold dependent on the outcome of that debate. The abortion laws will not, under any circumstances, lead to a scenario where I or you would be forced to undergo a huge physiological change and medical stress for 9 months before being legally committed to look after a baby for the next 18 years in the absence of scenarios such as adoption.

I don't think its unreasonable for people to be unyielding when it comes to rights pertaining to bodily autonomy, nor to be resistant to the idea of policies governing those rights being decided by people who have very diminished stakes compared to the people being legislated against. Black civil rights movement was also unyielding in their demands, rather than allowing the discussion of exactly the form of the rights that the African American population should be granted, and that was ultimately what won them those rights. "We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Dave_Manchester on May 30, 2019, 06:25:10 AM
I've seen comments in this thread that abortion is wrong. I havent seen an argument to convince me why. That's not to say one doesn't exist. It's a request to provide one.

"Wrong" in what sense?  I think it's the wrong thing to do, simply because it's the death of a life, plain and simple.  I have serious issues with death.   If that makes me nasty, pedantic, judgmental, or hypocritical, so be it.  But I'm not in favor of the death penalty, either, and it takes some serious philosophical gymnastics to bring "war" into the discussion in any meaningful way.   

When those who invoke 'God' to justify their anti-abortion stance are the same ones who claim divine guidance when signing off on wars whose only purpose is personal profit, it's barely a walk along the balance beam. My comment about hypocrisy was absolutely not directed at you (as I'm presuming you know), I was referring to the likes of Mike Pence and Will Ainsworth (Alabama's Lieutenant Govenor and all-round gem of a human).   

Your lengthy comments about the 'nuance of debate' ("when you can demonize someone's IDEA by demonizing them, you're three quarters of the way to winning the battle...when you have a pie chart that adds up to 100% "none of your business" that's not an invite to discuss details") I agree with 100%, and my only question to you on that theme is why you didn't feel moved to write it on the first page of this thread when someone flatly suggested this was a thread about murder. Given the implication of that claim (that women who have had abortions are murderers), it seems to me that women (a group I think are far more qualified to speak about the practicalities of this theme than we are) would be less keen to share their thoughts and experiences in this thread. It's not, to use your good phrase, an "invite to discuss details". I mention that only because I know you don't like it when people suggest you only call out a "lack of nuance" when it's the left who do it, and I'm wondering (genuinely) if you think there might be any truth in the 'accusation'. You say you're starting to lose interest in this discussion because you think "moralising" and "judgementalism" are starting to creep into it, but it seems to me that the only genuinely inappropriate comment (for discussion purposes I mean) in this thread is the one you don't seem to have had any problem with.

To your actual position on abortion, there's really not much I can say in reply to it. You used the important word: sanctity. Against this, I can't argue. If a person truly feels life to be holy then I think it's a good enough reason to be against abortion. I don't agree with it, but I can't fault it as a consistent position, and all I'd do is ask a person to make sure their other ideas cohere with one another (you know that for me the worst 'sin' in this world is hypocrisy). "Necessary evil" is a term I'm uncomfortable hearing from those who claim to be Christians, yet it tends to be the one used when referring to some of the other life-or-death ethical 'dilemmas' like war and the death penalty.

I was too flippant when I described the philosophical aspect of this as basic. It of course isn't, it's a very complex issue. To be honest I think it's the one question about which I left university with no clear opinion. Having no religious beliefs to shape my thoughts, no appropriate level of understanding of the biology of the issue, no direct experience of the situation, no appropriate (for the theme) definition of what a 'human' is, no clear idea of the value of a 'human', and having grown up in an era and culture (Thatcher's Britain) which shamed and silenced women who found themselves in this situation, I've tended to think it's not a question for me (but I recognise it's an important one that needs thinking about from medical and legal standpoints). I far prefer reading opinions on this question than writing one, which is why I'm grateful to Harmony for sharing her experience and thoughts, I recognise she probably felt she was walking into a hostile environment, and I wish other women would feel comfortable doing what she did. I don't know about anyone else here but I have learnt more from Harmony's few posts than in every other post here combined, and it would have been a shame if she'd decided not to write them because she was told at the door that this was a thread about "murder".
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: KevShmev on May 30, 2019, 07:01:50 AM
Yep, the last two posts were well-said.  I am in favor of legalized abortion, but this idea that pro-life people are waging a war against women is asinine, just like it is also asinine to suggest that pro-choice people have no regard for human life.  That kind of rhetoric does nothing but widen the gap between the two sides and only hurts the overall discussion.
I wouldn't call it asinine simply because from one perspective it absolutely looks like a war on women.

Okay, but one could also say, "from one perspective, it actually looks like some have no regard for human life."  I do not agree with either perspective, and giving too much credence to either sweeping, extremely over the top statement does not help the conversation, as I said before.


And I see that your home state is fixing to close the last Planned Parenthood in Missouri. Friday, I believe. At that point there will be no places left in Missouri where an abortion can be obtained. If you can't help but notice that family planning services are disappearing at the same time as abortion services does that make you asinine for seeing an anti-woman connection?

Not necessarily, but it's not one with which I agree. While there are certainly some misogynistic creepbags who want to hate on women, there are in the very small minority.  I don't think attributing the worst people on the far right, or far left for that matter, helps.  It's like when the right complains about those on the extreme left who think third trimester abortions should be legal no matter the reason; those people do not represent the largely-held beliefs of the pro-choice movement.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 30, 2019, 08:10:13 AM
"Wrong" in what sense?  I think it's the wrong thing to do, simply because it's the death of a life, plain and simple.

Honest question Stadler: would you be against removing life support from somebody who is clinically brain-dead, with no chance of recovery? I ask because I come from the direction of not valuing human life, per say, but human personhood. To me, the body is just the vessel that contains the thing that is actually valued and worthy of protection, as the individual is made of their thoughts, their memories and such. I'm just interested to know where you come from.

With the caveat that this has hit close to home twice in my life - once with an uncle that was simply ravaged by cancer and in what my non-medical brain can only call a "morphine induced nothingness", and once with the younger brother of one of my closest friends, roommates and college/law school colleague who was brain dead following a drunk-driving accident in which he was a passenger in the car - and so I'm not going to pretend that I'm a completely rational actor here completely free of hypocrisy, I would be against it if it was "Oh, well, I knew so-and-so, and this is what they would have wanted".    If they have a living will - which I have, my wife has, my parents have, my parents-in-law have, my oldest step-son has (by fiat of the U.S. Army), my brother has (by fiat of his employer; he's a cop) and which only my two daughters and youngest step-son don't have as of yet - then I follow the living will.  It's not my call to override that because of my feelings.   Terry Schiavo; both parties claimed to know "what she would have wanted".  As the two outcomes were mutually exclusive, one was CLEARLY delusional (and I mean that in the literal sense, not the colloquial sense). 

Quote
Sure, but both you, I, El Barto, Bosk1 etc come from the position of privilege of not having the rights that we hold dependent on the outcome of that debate. The abortion laws will not, under any circumstances, lead to a scenario where I or you would be forced to undergo a huge physiological change and medical stress for 9 months before being legally committed to look after a baby for the next 18 years in the absence of scenarios such as adoption.

Well, I've addressed that already, but I will log the usual objection to the use of "privilege" in this instance.  I've told the story before - I believe El Barto knows it, and David, my Manc friend, as well.   I've already mentioned, earlier in this thread, why this is not a question of privilege.  Sit in that chair.  Look in your wife's desperate, pleading eyes, and say "Sorry, babe, I'm a privileged white straight male; can't help you, hon!"   


Let me be clear, though, that there is no bias here, no judgement.  If a woman in the same seat, with the same conflict, made a different decision, my "feelings" on the matter are 100%, completely irrelevant, as are yours, Bart's, Dave's, Jaffa's, Harmony's, etc. etc.   

Quote
I don't think its unreasonable for people to be unyielding when it comes to rights pertaining to bodily autonomy, nor to be resistant to the idea of policies governing those rights being decided by people who have very diminished stakes compared to the people being legislated against. Black civil rights movement was also unyielding in their demands, rather than allowing the discussion of exactly the form of the rights that the African American population should be granted, and that was ultimately what won them those rights. "We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."

I don't - generally - believe in "unyielding" in the context of democracy.  Who gets to decide what are "unyielding" subjects?   You're not swaying me, you're actually giving me fuel for the fire; that you beleive this is context for an "unyielding" position is exactly my point; this isn't about opression, this isn't the "oppressor denying freedom".  There IS a legitimate, valid, logically sound opposition opinion that has absolutely ZERO to do with the identity politics "power balance" idea.    Not every topic, not every issue necessarily involves a "victim".
 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 30, 2019, 08:17:55 AM
Yet if you're standing in the street looking at a 4 ton garbage truck barreling straight at you, you'd be a fool to not start from the point of view that he's fixing to run your ass down.

Sure, but I'm not sure that's a fair comparison.  A truck suddenly barrelling toward you is an emergent phenomenon.  You've had no time to prepare for it or think it through, so your reaction is going to be based on nothing but the most basic instincts tied to surviving and recognizing threats.  On the other hand, Alabama's law is not an emergent phenomenon.  It didn't come out of a clear blue sky.  Abortion is an issue that has been debated ad nauseum for decades, and the Alabama law is a representation of something that one side of the debate has been clamoring for all along. 

More to the point, even in the truck example, wouldn't your instinct be to get out of the way and try to deescalate the conflict?  I get that in the heat of the moment, you might think that the driver was trying to kill you.  But would you go into full combat mode in that heat of the moment?  Maybe pull out a pistol and shoot out his tires to see if you can get him to die in a crash?

No, I was looking at the garbage truck reaction as a well thought out and deliberate reaction. But if you'd prefer a slower moving object we can substitute in an near Earth, Earth-killing asteroid and whether or not to begin from the standpoint that it's going to kill us or write the whole thing off as fake science.

Quote
In other words, it's one thing to think 'this seems like a war on women' as a passing thought, but it's another thing entirely to start drawing battle lines and demonizing your enemies.
From their perspective it's not a passing thought. It's seeing years of evidence to support their conclusion. When you look at the totality of what's happening it's kind of an obvious thing to assume. A 12 year old girl gets knocked up by cousin Jethro and the same people who will call it a gift from God and force her to carry it to term will be the first ones to leave her high and dry 9 months later.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 30, 2019, 08:21:43 AM
Yep, the last two posts were well-said.  I am in favor of legalized abortion, but this idea that pro-life people are waging a war against women is asinine, just like it is also asinine to suggest that pro-choice people have no regard for human life.  That kind of rhetoric does nothing but widen the gap between the two sides and only hurts the overall discussion.
I wouldn't call it asinine simply because from one perspective it absolutely looks like a war on women.

Okay, but one could also say, "from one perspective, it actually looks like some have no regard for human life."  I do not agree with either perspective, and giving too much credence to either sweeping, extremely over the top statement does not help the conversation, as I said before.
I'm not sure how you could look at the pro-choice side and not see it as a preference for one life over another, rather than a disregard for life in general. From their side their are two lives at play, assuming they actually do care about the "host body" to begin with.

Quote
Not necessarily, but it's not one with which I agree. While there are certainly some misogynistic creepbags who want to hate on women, there are in the very small minority.  I don't think attributing the worst people on the far right, or far left for that matter, helps.  It's like when the right complains about those on the extreme left who think third trimester abortions should be legal no matter the reason; those people do not represent the largely-held beliefs of the pro-choice movement.
I'd certainly agree with that. I'd also put the politicians voting for these in the "creepbag" category, and they're the ones that matter.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 30, 2019, 08:27:19 AM
No, no, I'm with you.   I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that.  I'm not arguing whether there should be "abortion laws" or not, I'm talking more about the nature of the arguments (on both sides).    Though, for the record, I don't at all consider "a bunch of politicians" to be at the same level as "9 political appointees in black robes".   I do put stock in the latter, since that's their inherent job, to help us parse through that which is unknowable.
Well, now that remains to be seen, doesn't it?   ;)

Also, I'd say an equally, if not more important inherent job is for them to recognize when something is unknowable and leave it up to the individual. Isn't that pretty much the gist of why we have no government endorsement of religion? Pronouncing the unknowable to be the purview of elected officials runs contrary to the basic tenets of this country, I should say.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: KevShmev on May 30, 2019, 08:29:27 AM
Yep, the last two posts were well-said.  I am in favor of legalized abortion, but this idea that pro-life people are waging a war against women is asinine, just like it is also asinine to suggest that pro-choice people have no regard for human life.  That kind of rhetoric does nothing but widen the gap between the two sides and only hurts the overall discussion.
I wouldn't call it asinine simply because from one perspective it absolutely looks like a war on women.

Okay, but one could also say, "from one perspective, it actually looks like some have no regard for human life."  I do not agree with either perspective, and giving too much credence to either sweeping, extremely over the top statement does not help the conversation, as I said before.
I'm not sure how you could look at the pro-choice side and not see it as a preference for one life over another, rather than a disregard for life in general. From their side their are two lives at play, assuming they actually do care about the "host body" to begin with.

I am assuming you mean the general "you" since I said above that I do not agree with that perspective, but merely offering the opposite extreme example of the one you gave earlier.

  I'd also put the politicians voting for these in the "creepbag" category, and they're the ones that matter.

Okay, but that is assuming that every politician who voted in favor of these new laws is a misogynistic creepbag, and I am not sure it is fair to assume that about each and every one of them.  Do I disagree with them on this matter?  Absolutely, but I am not about to call them all "women haters" because of it.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 30, 2019, 08:33:28 AM
Definitely general "you." Sorry, I meant to specify.

And I wouldn't call them woman haters, either. I'm simply justifying the belief by some that they're fighting a war against women. A pacifist might vote to bomb some country of brown people for reasons unrelated to hatred of those people. I'd still call him a warmonger, though.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: KevShmev on May 30, 2019, 08:54:24 AM
Definitely general "you." Sorry, I meant to specify.


All good. :tup :tup

And I wouldn't call them woman haters, either. I'm simply justifying the belief by some that they're fighting a war against women. A pacifist might vote to bomb some country of brown people for reasons unrelated to hatred of those people. I'd still call him a warmonger, though.

Understand, but some always assume the worst motives possible regardless; that doesn't make their belief correct. 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 30, 2019, 10:30:45 AM
I've seen comments in this thread that abortion is wrong. I havent seen an argument to convince me why. That's not to say one doesn't exist. It's a request to provide one.

"Wrong" in what sense?  I think it's the wrong thing to do, simply because it's the death of a life, plain and simple.  I have serious issues with death.   If that makes me nasty, pedantic, judgmental, or hypocritical, so be it.  But I'm not in favor of the death penalty, either, and it takes some serious philosophical gymnastics to bring "war" into the discussion in any meaningful way.   

When those who invoke 'God' to justify their anti-abortion stance are the same ones who claim divine guidance when signing off on wars whose only purpose is personal profit, it's barely a walk along the balance beam. My comment about hypocrisy was absolutely not directed at you (as I'm presuming you know), I was referring to the likes of Mike Pence and Will Ainsworth (Alabama's Lieutenant Govenor and all-round gem of a human).   

Your lengthy comments about the 'nuance of debate' ("when you can demonize someone's IDEA by demonizing them, you're three quarters of the way to winning the battle...when you have a pie chart that adds up to 100% "none of your business" that's not an invite to discuss details") I agree with 100%, and my only question to you on that theme is why you didn't feel moved to write it on the first page of this thread when someone flatly suggested this was a thread about murder. Given the implication of that claim (that women who have had abortions are murderers), it seems to me that women (a group I think are far more qualified to speak about the practicalities of this theme than we are) would be less keen to share their thoughts and experiences in this thread. It's not, to use your good phrase, an "invite to discuss details". I mention that only because I know you don't like it when people suggest you only call out a "lack of nuance" when it's the left who do it, and I'm wondering (genuinely) if you think there might be any truth in the 'accusation'. You say you're starting to lose interest in this discussion because you think "moralising" and "judgementalism" are starting to creep into it, but it seems to me that the only genuinely inappropriate comment (for discussion purposes I mean) in this thread is the one you don't seem to have had any problem with.

Honestly, as honest as I can be, I frankly missed it.  I went back to refresh on the early days of the thread, and I lost the forest for the trees.  Not sure it matters what the tree was, but the conversation shifted rather quickly and it overwhelmed where my head was at.   But - again, in the interest of honesty - some of it may have been because I'm a lawyer.   If it's the comment I think you mean, the word in question has a very specific - sometimes case-by-case (meaning state-by-state) meaning, as well as a more colloquial, ominous meaning.    Certainly the colloquial meaning does nothing to further this discussion or debate, that's without argument.   But in some cases, that word directly applies, in the most egregious of circumstances, depending on where your line is.  I can't change that, even if it clouds the bigger, more relevant discussion. 

I think that's the best I can do on that subject.   

Quote
To your actual position on abortion, there's really not much I can say in reply to it. You used the important word: sanctity. Against this, I can't argue. If a person truly feels life to be holy then I think it's a good enough reason to be against abortion. I don't agree with it, but I can't fault it as a consistent position, and all I'd do is ask a person to make sure their other ideas cohere with one another (you know that for me the worst 'sin' in this world is hypocrisy). "Necessary evil" is a term I'm uncomfortable hearing from those who claim to be Christians, yet it tends to be the one used when referring to some of the other life-or-death ethical 'dilemmas' like war and the death penalty.

I was too flippant when I described the philosophical aspect of this as basic. It of course isn't, it's a very complex issue. To be honest I think it's the one question about which I left university with no clear opinion. Having no religious beliefs to shape my thoughts, no appropriate level of understanding of the biology of the issue, no direct experience of the situation, no appropriate (for the theme) definition of what a 'human' is, no clear idea of the value of a 'human', and having grown up in an era and culture (Thatcher's Britain) which shamed and silenced women who found themselves in this situation, I've tended to think it's not a question for me (but I recognise it's an important one that needs thinking about from medical and legal standpoints). I far prefer reading opinions on this question than writing one, which is why I'm grateful to Harmony for sharing her experience and thoughts, I recognise she probably felt she was walking into a hostile environment, and I wish other women would feel comfortable doing what she did. I don't know about anyone else here but I have learnt more from Harmony's few posts than in every other post here combined, and it would have been a shame if she'd decided not to write them because she was told at the door that this was a thread about "murder".

And this is part of the above; the conversation went in that direction, and I too am sensitive to that as well.  Might not seem it, but I am.  I've had abortion touch my life; I know it's gravity, and it's impacts (if not addressed appropriately).  The notion of "abortion as birth control" is as trite as any of the other bumper-sticker slogans around this subject.  Yeah, technically speaking that might be what it is, but it's not a fair synopsis.

I walk this balance a lot, Dave, and if we ever share beers, I can almost promise you I would love to have this conversation with you as to how you do it/handle it.   I don't know what the right answer is.   We can't continue to just push unpleasant subjects under the rug.  I'm deeply sorry (and not a little embarrassed, the way you're embarrassed when Trump doesn't know Nepal is a country, or Jake Tapper doesn't realize that being in Alaska doesn't mean you're "out of the country") that someone might feel this is a hostile environment.  But I shouldn't - NO ONE should - have to "agree" with someone in order to make it a safe place, and the person feeling victimized should understand that as well as anyone, even if it might be a struggle to incorporate that into the "day-to-day".  And my end of the bargain is that I have an obligation to be empathetic or considerate.  These are simply lines that we should be walking, ,as humans, every day, but seem to be lost in the Twitterati, where everything is snark, and we're not out to "communicate", we're out to "destroy" or "pwn!" or whatever it is. 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 30, 2019, 11:10:03 AM
Definitely general "you." Sorry, I meant to specify.


All good. :tup :tup

And I wouldn't call them woman haters, either. I'm simply justifying the belief by some that they're fighting a war against women. A pacifist might vote to bomb some country of brown people for reasons unrelated to hatred of those people. I'd still call him a warmonger, though.

Understand, but some always assume the worst motives possible regardless; that doesn't make their belief correct.

Certainly not. But it doesn't make them asinine, either. Isn't this where we came in? The Trump administration might have had a particularly good reason for wanting to obscure McCain's name on his own ship the other day. Is it unreasonable to begin from the POV that he's a self-absorbed child? Is it asinine to do so?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: KevShmev on May 30, 2019, 02:09:14 PM
Certainly not. But it doesn't make them asinine, either. Isn't this where we came in? The Trump administration might have had a particularly good reason for wanting to obscure McCain's name on his own ship the other day. Is it unreasonable to begin from the POV that he's a self-absorbed child? Is it asinine to do so?

Trump claims he had nothing to do with that.

 :lol :lol :lol :lol

All who believe that say "I."

*crickets*
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 30, 2019, 02:36:08 PM
Definitely general "you." Sorry, I meant to specify.


All good. :tup :tup

And I wouldn't call them woman haters, either. I'm simply justifying the belief by some that they're fighting a war against women. A pacifist might vote to bomb some country of brown people for reasons unrelated to hatred of those people. I'd still call him a warmonger, though.

Understand, but some always assume the worst motives possible regardless; that doesn't make their belief correct.

Certainly not. But it doesn't make them asinine, either. Isn't this where we came in? The Trump administration might have had a particularly good reason for wanting to obscure McCain's name on his own ship the other day. Is it unreasonable to begin from the POV that he's a self-absorbed child? Is it asinine to do so?

No, but one needs to be able to move off that assumption when either the facts at hand don't fully support it, or the discussions require more facility.   Trump is a bad example because he's as predictable as an AC/DC record; here, I think there's little evidence of any "war on women", or equally malicious intent regarding the debate positions.  We're clearly talking about abortion rights in a context that is about the actual idea of abortion and not some broader concept of gender. 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 30, 2019, 02:37:22 PM
Certainly not. But it doesn't make them asinine, either. Isn't this where we came in? The Trump administration might have had a particularly good reason for wanting to obscure McCain's name on his own ship the other day. Is it unreasonable to begin from the POV that he's a self-absorbed child? Is it asinine to do so?

Trump claims he had nothing to do with that.

 :lol :lol :lol :lol

All who believe that say "I."

*crickets*

To his... credit?, he did admit to not liking the guy.    Give him a minor, lower-case, underhanded prop for not playing the game.   
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 30, 2019, 03:06:41 PM
Definitely general "you." Sorry, I meant to specify.


All good. :tup :tup

And I wouldn't call them woman haters, either. I'm simply justifying the belief by some that they're fighting a war against women. A pacifist might vote to bomb some country of brown people for reasons unrelated to hatred of those people. I'd still call him a warmonger, though.

Understand, but some always assume the worst motives possible regardless; that doesn't make their belief correct.

Certainly not. But it doesn't make them asinine, either. Isn't this where we came in? The Trump administration might have had a particularly good reason for wanting to obscure McCain's name on his own ship the other day. Is it unreasonable to begin from the POV that he's a self-absorbed child? Is it asinine to do so?

No, but one needs to be able to move off that assumption when either the facts at hand don't fully support it, or the discussions require more facility.   
Agreed. What I've learned from my stepbrother the commie and ex-girlfriend the nationalist is that once you dig into that rabbit hole everything you see only supports your preconceptions. It's a stunting of one's willingness to learn and evolve. When you decide that a bunch of old white guys in Alabama have it in for you everything they do is seen through that light, and are generally seen as working further towards that end. They're actually a lot like conspiracy theorists.

Now, having said that, when you see the tanks rolling across the desert it makes little difference if they're in town to kill you or just to steel your oil. War is war and you don't spend your time second guessing your enemy's motivations. In the case of what we're seeing now we have states passing laws to insure that every woman who gets knocked up carrier her "child" to term, despite the fact that these same states notoriously won't give a shit about about her and hers once the head crowns. These are places where education, healthcare, and social services are absolutely bottom of the barrel, and the remedy to all that life throws at you is prayer, hard work, and character. We can quibble over whether or not this constitutes a war, but in a woman's final analysis the states of Alabama and Tennessee are only looking to perpetuate her burden, and she certainly seems to be onto something as I see it. As the saying goes, it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Adami on May 30, 2019, 03:09:52 PM
I usually avoid abortion discussions because I can see both sides perspectives and can't really back up my own to a convincing degree.

That said, I realized that one philosophical (sorry Stadler) and moral (REALLY sorry Stadler) assumption being made by pro-lifers is that any life is preferred to no life. I do not see why that is true.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 30, 2019, 03:17:35 PM
I usually avoid abortion discussions because I can see both sides perspectives and can't really back up my own to a convincing degree.

That said, I realized that one philosophical (sorry Stadler) and moral (REALLY sorry Stadler) assumption being made by pro-lifers is that any life is preferred to no life. I do not see why that is true.
Yep. I made this point a few months ago. There's an assumption that everybody wants to be born that I think is faulty.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Cool Chris on May 30, 2019, 03:20:24 PM
I have generally liked to consider myself around the middle of the political spectrum, slightly right on some issues slightly left on others. The more I read/follow the news/political pundits, the more I find myself leaning more and more to the right. Part of that is due to counterbalancing the far left leaning nature of the area I live. But whenever I read/listen to the "conservative" columnists and editorials on the abortion issue, the more I find myself at complete odds with them. It seems like the only major issue where I am vehemently opposed to their arguments, and the only one where I am solidly on the side of the left.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Adami on May 30, 2019, 03:22:35 PM
I usually avoid abortion discussions because I can see both sides perspectives and can't really back up my own to a convincing degree.

That said, I realized that one philosophical (sorry Stadler) and moral (REALLY sorry Stadler) assumption being made by pro-lifers is that any life is preferred to no life. I do not see why that is true.
Yep. I made this point a few months ago. There's an assumption that everybody wants to be born that I think is faulty.

Well not just the idea of WANTING to be alive. That's its own fallacy. I mean the idea that any life is better than no life. Just that, I believe, is not necessarily true but is at the crux of the pro-life argument. Everyone deserves to be born. What happens after isn't important in the slightest.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Harmony on May 30, 2019, 04:03:51 PM
The word 'war' is loaded these days.  Is it really a 'war' on Christmas when someone says Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas?  Of course not.

That said, there is most definitely a concerted movement in this country to strip its women of their bodily autonomy and to instead insert a government just small enough to fit easily inside of my uterus.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Jaffa on May 30, 2019, 07:51:57 PM
That said, there is most definitely a concerted movement in this country to strip its women of their bodily autonomy

Just to be clear, how literally do you mean this?  Is it your position that everyone who supports abortion bans does so specifically because their explicit conscious goal is to strip women of their bodily autonomy? 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: XeRocks81 on May 30, 2019, 07:56:19 PM
That said, there is most definitely a concerted movement in this country to strip its women of their bodily autonomy

Just to be clear, how literally do you mean this?  Is it your position that everyone who supports abortion bans does so specifically because their explicit conscious goal is to strip women of their bodily autonomy?

Iím not certain how much the intentions of each individual matters. The end result is the same.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Harmony on May 30, 2019, 08:06:53 PM
That said, there is most definitely a concerted movement in this country to strip its women of their bodily autonomy

Just to be clear, how literally do you mean this?  Is it your position that everyone who supports abortion bans does so specifically because their explicit conscious goal is to strip women of their bodily autonomy?

As I said there is a concerted movement in this country with the explicit goal to make safe abortion procedures 100% illegal for women and the medical providers who serve them.  This movement is not interested compromise.  They want all abortion illegal.  Including for rape and incest victims - see Alabama.  They make no secret of this goal.  They hope to overturn Roe v. Wade and are in the process of moving through the court system toward SCOTUS.  And of course, should their oft stated goals come to pass, it will obviously lead to a loss of bodily autonomy for those women who seek abortions.

And it will NOT eliminate abortion at all.  It will send abortion underground.  And desperate women will die just like Gerri Santoro did.


And XeRocks81 said it first and more succinctly.



Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: KevShmev on May 30, 2019, 08:36:50 PM
Certainly not. But it doesn't make them asinine, either. Isn't this where we came in? The Trump administration might have had a particularly good reason for wanting to obscure McCain's name on his own ship the other day. Is it unreasonable to begin from the POV that he's a self-absorbed child? Is it asinine to do so?

Trump claims he had nothing to do with that.

 :lol :lol :lol :lol

All who believe that say "I."

*crickets*

To his... credit?, he did admit to not liking the guy.    Give him a minor, lower-case, underhanded prop for not playing the game.

Er. no.  If he didn't like McCain, and it was clear he didn't, then keep your mouth shut about him.  To continue trying to demean him after he is dead just shows what a classless piece of you-know-what Trump is.  He gets no props for any of this nonsense.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 31, 2019, 08:47:25 AM
I usually avoid abortion discussions because I can see both sides perspectives and can't really back up my own to a convincing degree.

That said, I realized that one philosophical (sorry Stadler) and moral (REALLY sorry Stadler) assumption being made by pro-lifers is that any life is preferred to no life. I do not see why that is true.

I don't say this to argue with you, but to help you flesh this out a little:   That's a core element of my PERSONAL (not political, not legal) view on abortion, though I caveat that with the proviso of "to a third party".  I am the only one to decide that my life is not worth living, either because of my pain, my limited mobility, the lack of that special girl, whatever.   
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Adami on May 31, 2019, 08:53:34 AM
I usually avoid abortion discussions because I can see both sides perspectives and can't really back up my own to a convincing degree.

That said, I realized that one philosophical (sorry Stadler) and moral (REALLY sorry Stadler) assumption being made by pro-lifers is that any life is preferred to no life. I do not see why that is true.

I don't say this to argue with you, but to help you flesh this out a little:   That's a core element of my PERSONAL (not political, not legal) view on abortion, though I caveat that with the proviso of "to a third party".  I am the only one to decide that my life is not worth living, either because of my pain, my limited mobility, the lack of that special girl, whatever.

I agree with the last half of that. Which is why I don't think suicide should be illegal (what an odd thing to make illegal anyway). But in general, with anti-abortion laws, or anti-suicide laws etc., there's the belief that any quality of life is superior to no life. I don't see that being necessarily true. And I think that basic assumption needs to be questioned or at least discussed before much more can be done. If life, of unknown quality, is NOT necessarily superior to a lack of life....well...it definitely opens a lot of other horrible doors, but it changes the argument a lot.

Regards to the whole "I'm the only one who can make that decision" I agree in cases where that person CAN make that decision. In cases where they can't, however, the fallback position is that any life is better than no life.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 31, 2019, 08:58:30 AM
I usually avoid abortion discussions because I can see both sides perspectives and can't really back up my own to a convincing degree.

That said, I realized that one philosophical (sorry Stadler) and moral (REALLY sorry Stadler) assumption being made by pro-lifers is that any life is preferred to no life. I do not see why that is true.
Yep. I made this point a few months ago. There's an assumption that everybody wants to be born that I think is faulty.

But that's up to YOU to decide, not someone else for you.   

Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 31, 2019, 09:07:41 AM
I usually avoid abortion discussions because I can see both sides perspectives and can't really back up my own to a convincing degree.

That said, I realized that one philosophical (sorry Stadler) and moral (REALLY sorry Stadler) assumption being made by pro-lifers is that any life is preferred to no life. I do not see why that is true.

I don't say this to argue with you, but to help you flesh this out a little:   That's a core element of my PERSONAL (not political, not legal) view on abortion, though I caveat that with the proviso of "to a third party".  I am the only one to decide that my life is not worth living, either because of my pain, my limited mobility, the lack of that special girl, whatever.

I agree with the last half of that. Which is why I don't think suicide should be illegal (what an odd thing to make illegal anyway). But in general, with anti-abortion laws, or anti-suicide laws etc., there's the belief that any quality of life is superior to no life. I don't see that being necessarily true. And I think that basic assumption needs to be questioned or at least discussed before much more can be done. If life, of unknown quality, is NOT necessarily superior to a lack of life....well...it definitely opens a lot of other horrible doors, but it changes the argument a lot.

Regards to the whole "I'm the only one who can make that decision" I agree in cases where that person CAN make that decision. In cases where they can't, however, the fallback position is that any life is better than no life.

Well, again for clarity, the legal system isn't the moral law of the land.  It's the bar that sets the limit of the bare minimum.

This is a critical point that I would venture 95% of Americans never realize: the law is chock full of "default settings" that aren't intended to be the standard by which we all live, but rather the standard below which we should never fall.  It's not and never was intended to be the goal.  The intent is that we as individuals exert our free will and move our OWN bar to the level we want.   Probate has laws, but each person is encouraged to create their own will to allocate their estate how they see fit.   I will get pushback, but that was the lens that I always viewed the ACA.  NOT the gold standard for the world, but the bare minimum, that we should strive to improve on if we wanted more.    I deal with this LITERALLY every day, with the Uniform Commercial Code, the law of the land for contracts.   I have had a fruitful career as an attorney negotiating contracts, because in the almost 25 years I have been an attorney I have literally never once not ever signed a contract that used the "Uniform Commercial Code" as the basis for the agreement.  Becuase we - me and my contracting partner - ALWAYS understood we could do better for ourselves.  BUT, in the strange chance that the contract terms were voided, the UCC would provide the default.

The same here.   What's the alternative?  The default be "death"?   "Eh, we're not sure if he's better alive or dead; fuckin' whack him"?   

And lest I get the "PRIVILEGE" rejection again, I believe that at the age of consent in your state, you get three things in the mail:   an application for a drivers license, an application to vote, and a living will document to be completed and returned.  You don't return it, you accept the default consequences, legally and morally.   
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Adami on May 31, 2019, 09:10:22 AM
I'm not saying I have an answer to that philosophical question, just that right now it has an assumed answer. And you, more than most, should appreciate the idea of having the conversation and not rejecting it based on assumed answers.

Right now the assumed answer (for many) simply shuts down the convo. I'd assume (see what I did there?) that you would be against such a thing.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 31, 2019, 09:14:42 AM
I usually avoid abortion discussions because I can see both sides perspectives and can't really back up my own to a convincing degree.

That said, I realized that one philosophical (sorry Stadler) and moral (REALLY sorry Stadler) assumption being made by pro-lifers is that any life is preferred to no life. I do not see why that is true.
Yep. I made this point a few months ago. There's an assumption that everybody wants to be born that I think is faulty.

But that's up to YOU to decide, not someone else for you.   
So you're defending the people who would make that decision for me?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 31, 2019, 09:20:12 AM
I usually avoid abortion discussions because I can see both sides perspectives and can't really back up my own to a convincing degree.

That said, I realized that one philosophical (sorry Stadler) and moral (REALLY sorry Stadler) assumption being made by pro-lifers is that any life is preferred to no life. I do not see why that is true.
Yep. I made this point a few months ago. There's an assumption that everybody wants to be born that I think is faulty.

But that's up to YOU to decide, not someone else for you.   
So you're defending the people who would make that decision for me?

I'm not sure what you're asking.   I'm saying that the assumption only holds - as a sort of default, a fail-safe, if you will - when we don't know what the owner of that life things.

Again, I'm not sure what you're asking, but I don't think I'm defending the people who would make that decision for you, because I don't think anyone CAN make that decision for you.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 31, 2019, 09:21:23 AM
I'm not saying I have an answer to that philosophical question, just that right now it has an assumed answer. And you, more than most, should appreciate the idea of having the conversation and not rejecting it based on assumed answers.

Right now the assumed answer (for many) simply shuts down the convo. I'd assume (see what I did there?) that you would be against such a thing.

I am.  I am against anything that shuts down the conversation.  But the answer isn't to remove the assumption, but to better understand what the assumption is or is intended to be. 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Adami on May 31, 2019, 09:26:10 AM
I think what Barto's getting at, which is also part of my point, is that the people (in government banning abortions to this extent) ARE making the decision to keep you (the fetus) alive. That's as much a decision as deciding to terminate the pregnancy. It also is seen as the safe decision because, again, life is assumed to be preferable to no life.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 31, 2019, 09:29:46 AM
I usually avoid abortion discussions because I can see both sides perspectives and can't really back up my own to a convincing degree.

That said, I realized that one philosophical (sorry Stadler) and moral (REALLY sorry Stadler) assumption being made by pro-lifers is that any life is preferred to no life. I do not see why that is true.
Yep. I made this point a few months ago. There's an assumption that everybody wants to be born that I think is faulty.

But that's up to YOU to decide, not someone else for you.   
So you're defending the people who would make that decision for me?

I'm not sure what you're asking.   I'm saying that the assumption only holds - as a sort of default, a fail-safe, if you will - when we don't know what the owner of that life things.

Again, I'm not sure what you're asking, but I don't think I'm defending the people who would make that decision for you, because I don't think anyone CAN make that decision for you.
My point has been that the discussion has to go both ways. Is it any more reasonable to assume that a person's life is worth living than it is to assume that it's not? That's essentially what we're doing. We force existence upon the unborn because we assume that's what they want.

Moreover, in the case of the "person" that cannot make that determination on their own, we allow the responsible guardian to make that call. If a child has terminal cancer the decision making about how best to proceed is left to the parent/s. Yet the same people who would suggest that a foetus is a child deny its parents the right to determine what's best for it, in this case existence vs non-existence, which is not the same as death.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 31, 2019, 10:02:46 AM
I think what Barto's getting at, which is also part of my point, is that the people (in government banning abortions to this extent) ARE making the decision to keep you (the fetus) alive. That's as much a decision as deciding to terminate the pregnancy. It also is seen as the safe decision because, again, life is assumed to be preferable to no life.
AND
I usually avoid abortion discussions because I can see both sides perspectives and can't really back up my own to a convincing degree.

That said, I realized that one philosophical (sorry Stadler) and moral (REALLY sorry Stadler) assumption being made by pro-lifers is that any life is preferred to no life. I do not see why that is true.
Yep. I made this point a few months ago. There's an assumption that everybody wants to be born that I think is faulty.

But that's up to YOU to decide, not someone else for you.   
So you're defending the people who would make that decision for me?

I'm not sure what you're asking.   I'm saying that the assumption only holds - as a sort of default, a fail-safe, if you will - when we don't know what the owner of that life things.

Again, I'm not sure what you're asking, but I don't think I'm defending the people who would make that decision for you, because I don't think anyone CAN make that decision for you.
My point has been that the discussion has to go both ways. Is it any more reasonable to assume that a person's life is worth living than it is to assume that it's not? That's essentially what we're doing. We force existence upon the unborn because we assume that's what they want.

Moreover, in the case of the "person" that cannot make that determination on their own, we allow the responsible guardian to make that call. If a child has terminal cancer the decision making about how best to proceed is left to the parent/s. Yet the same people who would suggest that a foetus is a child deny its parents the right to determine what's best for it, in this case existence vs non-existence, which is not the same as death.

Couple things here.  We have to be careful in our language.  "BANNING ABORTION" is not the same thing as the "assumption that life is better than no life".   They are related, like "ejaculation" and "orgasm" are related, but they are not, in fact, the same thing.   Banning abortion is PREDICATED, for some (not all) on that assumption, but that assumption doesn't mean that abortion is automatically banned.   

What I was talking about was that difference.   The assumption plays when we have no more information to go on.  If we haev information - whether it's a living will, or a determination from a guardian (or mother) we act on it. 

Also, I wrote a post that I didn't actually post because I feared it was inflammatory (and that was not at all my intent) but the concept of the post is important here:  we cannot compare a terminal cancer patient, or perhaps Terry Schiavo, with abortion, necessarily, because abortion laws - especially those that are opposed on the blanket position of "bodily autonomy" - don't make these distinctions.   Move away from the extremes and see how quickly the argument dissipates.    Even some hard core pro-lifers can see the wisdom in allowing abortion when neither the mother or the fetus will survive the pregnancy.   But what about the quality of life argument when that 18-year-old has to foresake that Ivy League school, the marriage to the prestigious upper class family scion (not the Dad) and the hit to the family business from the resulting scandal?  Is that "life worth living"?     And lest we resort to "bodily autonomy" as the argument, what about me?   I have an ex-wife that I now have to deal with for the rest of my life; I am severely (financially) disadvantaged by her presence, and my decision-making ability has been compromised as well.   Do I get to kill her?   What about my autonomy? 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 31, 2019, 10:24:41 AM
I think what Barto's getting at, which is also part of my point, is that the people (in government banning abortions to this extent) ARE making the decision to keep you (the fetus) alive. That's as much a decision as deciding to terminate the pregnancy. It also is seen as the safe decision because, again, life is assumed to be preferable to no life.
AND
I usually avoid abortion discussions because I can see both sides perspectives and can't really back up my own to a convincing degree.

That said, I realized that one philosophical (sorry Stadler) and moral (REALLY sorry Stadler) assumption being made by pro-lifers is that any life is preferred to no life. I do not see why that is true.
Yep. I made this point a few months ago. There's an assumption that everybody wants to be born that I think is faulty.

But that's up to YOU to decide, not someone else for you.   
So you're defending the people who would make that decision for me?

I'm not sure what you're asking.   I'm saying that the assumption only holds - as a sort of default, a fail-safe, if you will - when we don't know what the owner of that life things.

Again, I'm not sure what you're asking, but I don't think I'm defending the people who would make that decision for you, because I don't think anyone CAN make that decision for you.
My point has been that the discussion has to go both ways. Is it any more reasonable to assume that a person's life is worth living than it is to assume that it's not? That's essentially what we're doing. We force existence upon the unborn because we assume that's what they want.

Moreover, in the case of the "person" that cannot make that determination on their own, we allow the responsible guardian to make that call. If a child has terminal cancer the decision making about how best to proceed is left to the parent/s. Yet the same people who would suggest that a foetus is a child deny its parents the right to determine what's best for it, in this case existence vs non-existence, which is not the same as death.

Couple things here.  We have to be careful in our language.  "BANNING ABORTION" is not the same thing as the "assumption that life is better than no life".   They are related, like "ejaculation" and "orgasm" are related, but they are not, in fact, the same thing.   Banning abortion is PREDICATED, for some (not all) on that assumption, but that assumption doesn't mean that abortion is automatically banned.   
I don't think either of us were making that comparison. [I presume] We are calling into question that predicate assumption, which I think is a necessary component of the pro-life argument.
Quote
What I was talking about was that difference.   The assumption plays when we have no more information to go on.  If we haev information - whether it's a living will, or a determination from a guardian (or mother) we act on it. 
Except when we forbid it, as in the case of the expectant mother. We deem her incapable of executing that determination because she might choose something that flies in the face of that predicate assumption.


Quote
Also, I wrote a post that I didn't actually post because I feared it was inflammatory (and that was not at all my intent) but the concept of the post is important here:  we cannot compare a terminal cancer patient, or perhaps Terry Schiavo, with abortion, necessarily, because abortion laws - especially those that are opposed on the blanket position of "bodily autonomy" - don't make these distinctions.   Move away from the extremes and see how quickly the argument dissipates.    Even some hard core pro-lifers can see the wisdom in allowing abortion when neither the mother or the fetus will survive the pregnancy.   But what about the quality of life argument when that 18-year-old has to foresake that Ivy League school, the marriage to the prestigious upper class family scion (not the Dad) and the hit to the family business from the resulting scandal?  Is that "life worth living"?     And lest we resort to "bodily autonomy" as the argument, what about me?   I have an ex-wife that I now have to deal with for the rest of my life; I am severely (financially) disadvantaged by her presence, and my decision-making ability has been compromised as well.   Do I get to kill her?   What about my autonomy?
I can't say that I fully understand your point here, but it seems to me that 18 year old has its own bodily autonomy. As did you when you chose to marry your ex-wife.

More importantly, though, we're not talking about your or the mother's quality of life. We're talking about the future child's. If you know that kid is going to have a shitty life because you don't want it, can't afford it, and will almost certainly resent it, you should have the option of deciding its best interests. Interests which might not jibe with spending 18 years in the Texas foster care system, getting buggered by guards and most likely graduating to the Texas penal system. (Yeah, we've had some scandals down here).
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 31, 2019, 10:29:11 AM
I included El Barto's post in the last reply, but didn't really address it.  Bart, we're saying the same thing.  I agree, any discussion has to cover both arguments, but increasingly - and with blanket statements like "the sanctity of life" and "bodily autonomy" - arguments aren't being properly addressed.   There's a adage "good cases make bad law", and while it's trite, there is truth there.

In many cases, we're not interested in the extremes or the niche cases, we just want to prevent broader behaviors, and we'll deal with the specifics as they arise.    We can't really do that with abortion laws because there is an incredibly (exceedingly, in the timeline of the courts) small window with which to act.   Divorce cases can last as long as two years, or more.  Other than this one lady on Dr. Phil - who I think he determined had eaten lead paint chips and was in need of counseling and medical atttention - there haven't been any pregnancies that have lasted that long.   

I don't that I would - "could" is the better word - make that distinction that "existence" (or not) is not the same as "death".   If you believe that the fetus is a life, they are concurrent, aren't they?   I'm all for splitting hairs if it let's us deal with the maximum number of people in the best possible way, but I think that's a splitting of hairs that creates a problem not solves it.   

I allude to it above, but we also haven't addressed the problem of conflict of interest; what when the "best interests of the child" are at odds with "the best interests of the mother"?  I can tell you that guardianship only goes so far in that regard.  I know for a fact that in CT if a parent acts too frequently and too egregiously in favor of his/her interests over the child's, a guardian ad litem will be installed, and we're not even talking about "life/death" issues, but just financial (I know a case where a kid was... hurt, I think severely bitten by a dog or something like that, and received a multi-million dollar settlement.   The court allowed the purchase of a new car, TOLERATED the purchase of a new house, but drew the line on a vacation "for the well-being of the family" and installed a guardian ad litem to, among other things, govern the use of settlement monies.   I would venture that it won't be long before we start seeing these kinds of moves with regards to vaccinations.   I'm not far out in left field to say that if a GAL is necessary to spend funds, or administer vaccines, it's not a stretch to say it might be necessary to govern fundamental existence. 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 31, 2019, 10:43:53 AM
I don't know if your last post was in response to my most recent or not, so I'll just hit on this for now.

I don't that I would - "could" is the better word - make that distinction that "existence" (or not) is not the same as "death".   If you believe that the fetus is a life, they are concurrent, aren't they?   I'm all for splitting hairs if it let's us deal with the maximum number of people in the best possible way, but I think that's a splitting of hairs that creates a problem not solves it.   
Death occurs after the accumulation of life. For the most part the living want to live. The non-existent don't give a shit. We generally want to live because we've been alive. Myself, I have an inherent interest in what is to come. While I don't fear death I don't want to die for that reason (along with the pain it would cause loved ones). Had I never been born in the first place none of this would apply. Maybe you (general) want to live for the sake of your children. See above. You're not born, they're not born. Whatever keeps you from wanting to go out the window is only present because you existed in the first place. All of these things that instill a will to survive only happen because you were born and survived the first few years. If you never existed then what difference does it make?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 31, 2019, 10:48:35 AM
I don't think either of us were making that comparison. [I presume] We are calling into question that predicate assumption, which I think is a necessary component of the pro-life argument.
AND
Quote
Except when we forbid it, as in the case of the expectant mother. We deem her incapable of executing that determination because she might choose something that flies in the face of that predicate assumption.

Again, we're sort of talking around things.   It CAN be a necessary component but it need not be, and that's what I'm saying.  You can't assume that.  If we as a society say that, as a default, "life" is better than "no life", we can always make exceptions.   I'm sure there is someone in the United States that won't, but many will.  About 75% of Americans support doctor-supported euthenasia.   That doesn't suggest that most people agree that "any life is better than no life".   Contrast to the fact that even on it's best day, abortion (legal in most or all cases) only sees about 55% acceptance across the board.   

I think the predicate question for the pro-lifer isn't at the point of "any life better than no life" but rather "the fetus IS a life to begin with", as opposed to a complicated tumor that can be removed at the host's discretion, up until the tumor is naturally excreted".   

Quote
I can't say that I fully understand your point here, but it seems to me that 18 year old has its own bodily autonomy. As did you when you chose to marry your ex-wife.

More importantly, though, we're not talking about your or the mother's quality of life. We're talking about the future child's. If you know that kid is going to have a shitty life because you don't want it, can't afford it, and will almost certainly resent it, you should have the option of deciding its best interests. Interests which might not jibe with spending 18 years in the Texas foster care system, getting buggered by guards and most likely graduating to the Texas penal system. (Yeah, we've had some scandals down here).

Again, this goes back to the REAL (as I see it) predicate question: is the fetus a life or not.

If it is, then there is no fundamental legal or moral difference between a 26 week fetus, and a 26-month old baby.  They are, legally, the same.  So if mom can decide that the prospects aren't good for a 26 week fetus, then there is no reason at all that a mother of a 26-month old baby can't decide the same thing. 

For any of this to work we HAVE to agree on the point at which "life" begins.   It's the very center of the universe for all of this.  And the unescapable truth is, there are people in this world that legitimately and reasonably believe that life begins at conception.  You (or I, for that matter) don't have to agree with that, but we DO have to accept that not everyone agrees with us.   As I noted several pages ago, I'm willing, for myself, to concede that every woman should be able to make that decision for themselves VIS-A-VIS THE GOVERNMENT, but that doesn't mean at all that I agree with their determination of when life begins.   And also unfortunately, we have people - on both sides of the aisle, and in all aspects of intent - who feel that they have obligation to defend positions that they don't personally hold.    The very success of every civil rights movement is predicated on this theory.   If you're a white and defended a black issue or if you're straight and ever defended a gay position, you know this.   The "pro-life" position, when you strip away the extraneous crazy that grabs the spotlight, is merely those of the age of consent defending a position for those that aren't (yet).   
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 31, 2019, 10:55:07 AM
I don't know if your last post was in response to my most recent or not, so I'll just hit on this for now.

I don't that I would - "could" is the better word - make that distinction that "existence" (or not) is not the same as "death".   If you believe that the fetus is a life, they are concurrent, aren't they?   I'm all for splitting hairs if it let's us deal with the maximum number of people in the best possible way, but I think that's a splitting of hairs that creates a problem not solves it.   
Death occurs after the accumulation of life. For the most part the living want to live. The non-existent don't give a shit. We generally want to live because we've been alive. Myself, I have an inherent interest in what is to come. While I don't fear death I don't want to die for that reason (along with the pain it would cause loved ones). Had I never been born in the first place none of this would apply. Maybe you (general) want to live for the sake of your children. See above. You're not born, they're not born. Whatever keeps you from wanting to go out the window is only present because you existed in the first place. All of these things that instill a will to survive only happen because you were born and survived the first few years. If you never existed then what difference does it make?

Had you not been born or conceived?   

I don't disagree with your post at all, except for the definition of "exist".    You mention the "pain it would cause loved ones", and that "had you not been born in the first place, none of this would apply".   I don't want to say too much more because I don't want to sandbag you, or play an unnecessarily chilling emotional card, but suffice to say, there are plenty of people in this world that have gone into the OB-GYN office to check on the fetus, and the doctor has not been able to find a heartbeat anymore, and those people's world's collapsed.  I know people who have a folder, and in that folder is an ultrasound of their deceased "child".  Some even had names.    Did they not exist?   Who gets to say? 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Cool Chris on May 31, 2019, 11:51:13 AM
A co-worker and friend of Mrs. Cool Chris recently had a miscarriage around 20 weeks, and posted a picture of her holding the body on Facebook, complete with the name they planned to give him. That child definitely existed for that lady, even if it didn't exist outside the womb. Just an anecdote, not trying to persuade or contribute anything further.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Adami on May 31, 2019, 12:00:24 PM
A co-worker and friend of Mrs. Cool Chris recently had a miscarriage around 20 weeks, and posted a picture of her holding the body on Facebook, complete with the name they planned to give him. That child definitely existed for that lady, even if it didn't exist outside the womb. Just an anecdote, not trying to persuade or contribute anything further.

And that's a lovely story about how we each experience these kinds of things differently. I would never want to live in a society where your wifes friend wasn't allowed to express that or do what she feels is necessary for that.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Cool Chris on May 31, 2019, 12:06:23 PM
We talked about it quite a bit. We had a miscarriage a few years back, though at a much earlier stage (10 or so weeks, didn't have a name picked out, didn't know gender). She referred to it as "the baby we lost" and I referred to it as "the miscarriage." We viewed it differently and felt about it differently.

I am also not a social media guy and don't have a FB account, and  It would never occur to me to post something like her friend did, let alone share it with anyone outside my very close circle, but have no real issue with someone else doing it.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 31, 2019, 12:27:25 PM
For the record, my ex-wife and I experienced that as well.  We were somewhere in between.  If I remember right it was about 12 weeks, "Daniel" was in line if it was a boy, no name decided if it was a girl.   We were so happy, and when the doctor did the ultrasound, the emotions were high.   He repeated it, with a "hang on, this isn't always a science", it was fine, but when he repeated it again, and with much less gusto, then looked at my wife and said "I'm so sorry", it was like being punched in the face.    No social media then, so no pictures (we wouldn't have anyway), and there certainly wasn't any other ceremony or anything like that, but it's clearly an emotional experience that impacts you.   I'm more of a "look forward, celebrate the living" kind of person, so for me it's more of an experience than a loss, but I can understand how it might be looked at differently by others.

The interesting thing?  We had made the rookie mistake of telling people early that we were expecting, and when we had to share the disheartening news, we were stunned how many women pulled us (or just my wife) aside and said "I've been there too."  Even if there was no formal ceremony, I've been to funerals that weren't as... heavy. 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: eric42434224 on May 31, 2019, 12:49:25 PM
I have 2 daughters and would give my life for them in a nanosecond.  Before them we had a miscarriage early in the pregnancy.  My wife took it hard but I did not.  I had no real connection to it other that in my imagination. 

Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: XJDenton on May 31, 2019, 12:54:25 PM
Estimates of miscarriage rates are around 30-50% of all pregnancies and 10-20% of known pregnancies, so it's not too unusual that a reasonable number of women in your social circle might have gone through it. It's certainly way more common than I would have assumed.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Cool Chris on May 31, 2019, 01:02:49 PM
Very true. It's like some exclusive club, where only once you have one do others discuss with you that they had one too, as Stadler outlined in his story.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 31, 2019, 01:42:15 PM
I don't know if your last post was in response to my most recent or not, so I'll just hit on this for now.

I don't that I would - "could" is the better word - make that distinction that "existence" (or not) is not the same as "death".   If you believe that the fetus is a life, they are concurrent, aren't they?   I'm all for splitting hairs if it let's us deal with the maximum number of people in the best possible way, but I think that's a splitting of hairs that creates a problem not solves it.   
Death occurs after the accumulation of life. For the most part the living want to live. The non-existent don't give a shit. We generally want to live because we've been alive. Myself, I have an inherent interest in what is to come. While I don't fear death I don't want to die for that reason (along with the pain it would cause loved ones). Had I never been born in the first place none of this would apply. Maybe you (general) want to live for the sake of your children. See above. You're not born, they're not born. Whatever keeps you from wanting to go out the window is only present because you existed in the first place. All of these things that instill a will to survive only happen because you were born and survived the first few years. If you never existed then what difference does it make?

Had you not been born or conceived?   

I don't disagree with your post at all, except for the definition of "exist".    You mention the "pain it would cause loved ones", and that "had you not been born in the first place, none of this would apply".   I don't want to say too much more because I don't want to sandbag you, or play an unnecessarily chilling emotional card, but suffice to say, there are plenty of people in this world that have gone into the OB-GYN office to check on the fetus, and the doctor has not been able to find a heartbeat anymore, and those people's world's collapsed.  I know people who have a folder, and in that folder is an ultrasound of their deceased "child".  Some even had names.    Did they not exist?   Who gets to say?
I'm most assuredly sympathetic to you and the various others for the pain that they've felt. Pain is real whether it's relatable or not. This isn't really about what I've been trying to say, though. You ask "Did they not exist?   Who gets to say?" and I would say that for the sake of my argument, that it's unfair to force existence upon somebody, the non-existee gets to say. I'm defining existence in this case as being a personal perspective. A foetus does exist to others, but I maintain that it doesn't exist from its own point of view. I exist. Before 1973 or so? Nope, not so much. Nada. To others I did, but the person I am today did not. At that point I had no vested interest in the outcome. Had I died from SIDS or something I'm certain I wouldn't be troubled about it today.

And while my folks would certainly have been bothered by it, that's not really the point either. I brought up the pain of others as my reason for not wanting to die. The woman having to make that decision on behalf of the unborn may or may not feel pain about it. She may or may not feel pain should the unfortunate occur. She will almost certainly feel pain should she be forced into a situation she's ill-equipped to cope with and unable to escape for the rest of her life.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on May 31, 2019, 02:21:01 PM
So you're actually talking AFTER birth, though.   It's not as if you pop out and "Whamo! I exist!"

I understand your point - and admire the intellectual heft of the concept - but is it any more or less a definitive line than what we have?  Isn't the point still that there are varying degrees of buy in to this?  And more importantly, no clear overlap between this standard and what society might accept independent of the abortion question.   

All of this (as for me, anyway) is really still talking back to that point of each side having a position that is not just mutually exclusive of the other, but ideologically if not philosophically exclusive of the other.   I've been clear as to where my line is, I'm just trying to get to the point where we can all sort of understand that in general, the lines are not bright, and they aren't lines that people readily move or adjust. 

I'm only hammering the "a fetus is a life, entitled to protections under the Unites States Constitution as well as fundamental human rights, as of the point of conception" position, because there are some adamant proponents of the opposite take - a woman has full autonomy over her body and the cells connected to it until birth - and they don't need me piling on.   But something has to give, here, and I maintain that as long as we have "life=conception, non-negotiable" and "bodily autonomy, non-negotiable", we have a null set of potential solutions.   
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 31, 2019, 03:37:04 PM
So you're actually talking AFTER birth, though.   It's not as if you pop out and "Whamo! I exist!"
I was born in 1970, so I gave myself 3 years to figure it out.  :lol

And yes I am talking about after birth, but only as an illustrative point to a very specific part of this discussion. Otherwise were we to continue down this path I'd be advocating for a parent's right to commit infanticide on the basis of "eh, the kid's not worth a fuck anyway." Obviously I am not. What I am attempting to do is illustrate the difference between death and non-existence. I would suggest to you that at no point between conception and the age of reason does a foetus or person give a fuck about their existence.

You still believe in some tenets of the Catholic/Christian belief. Think about it this way. From your Catholic perspective is there a difference between you dying now and you never having existed in the first place? One would presumably have you in either the attic, the ground floor, or the basement of the afterlife. The other has nobody anywhere. One involved a person attempting to control that outcome. The other involved nobody at all. One represents the loss of a great many things. The other was no loss at all, as we don't lament the things we don't know about.

With all of that in mind, I maintain that there's a fundamental problem with forcing existence upon every potential life.

Quote
I understand your point - and admire the intellectual heft of the concept - but is it any more or less a definitive line than what we have?  Isn't the point still that there are varying degrees of buy in to this?  And more importantly, no clear overlap between this standard and what society might accept independent of the abortion question.   

All of this (as for me, anyway) is really still talking back to that point of each side having a position that is not just mutually exclusive of the other, but ideologically if not philosophically exclusive of the other.   I've been clear as to where my line is, I'm just trying to get to the point where we can all sort of understand that in general, the lines are not bright, and they aren't lines that people readily move or adjust. 

I'm only hammering the "a fetus is a life, entitled to protections under the Unites States Constitution as well as fundamental human rights, as of the point of conception" position, because there are some adamant proponents of the opposite take - a woman has full autonomy over her body and the cells connected to it until birth - and they don't need me piling on.   But something has to give, here, and I maintain that as long as we have "life=conception, non-negotiable" and "bodily autonomy, non-negotiable", we have a null set of potential solutions.

Where that magical line comes into play is a different point altogether, and its importance to me is very different than to you. What's important to me is the recognition that none of us are capable of knowing or understanding where that line might be. It's a matter that we must each decide for ourselves. It can not be left up to the government. It's a spiritual belief, no different than the existence of God or Gods, and must remain the purview of each individual person to determine.

And while I understand your greater point, that there's more to this discussion than the extremities it normally gets boiled down to, it seems to me to be the pro-life crowd that has a problem there. You have Harmony advocating for her right to make that determination based on her own convictions and morality, and you have the other side that wishes to make that determination for everybody. Like it or not, Harmony has standing in this matter. She's arguing for her right to make that determination. The pro-life set is arguing on the basis that she's wrong.



edit: and on a related note, I was watching Homer's Enemy last night (Simpsons s12e23) and reverend Lovejoy says something at Grimey's funeral that beautifully illustrates my point here, and I keep laughing about today posting in this thread. "And even though Frank's agonizing journey through life was tragically cut short. . ." That really nails it for me.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Harmony on May 31, 2019, 04:03:52 PM

Where that magical line comes into play is a different point altogether, and its importance to me is very different than to you. What's important to me is the recognition that none of us are capable of knowing or understanding where that line might be. It's a matter that we must each decide for ourselves. It can not be left up to the government. It's a spiritual belief, no different than the existence of God or Gods, and must remain the purview of each individual person to determine.

And while I understand your greater point, that there's more to this discussion than the extremities it normally gets boiled down to, it seems to me to be the pro-life crowd that has a problem there. You have Harmony advocating for her right to make that determination based on her own convictions and morality, and you have the other side that wishes to make that determination for everybody. Like it or not, Harmony has standing in this matter. She's arguing for her right to make that determination. The pro-life set is arguing on the basis that she's wrong.

THANK YOU

You hit the ball out of the friggin' park, EB.   :tup

And FTR, I am arguing in first person for a reason.  For should another woman want to pull out all the stops for her 23 week fetus with encephalocele who undoubtedly die within hours or days after birth then I'm on HER SIDE TOO.  I am in no place to make any sort of reproductive health care decision for any adult, male or female.  That is best left to the patient and their doctor.  Not some politician, not some church, not some PAC, not you, and certainly not me. 

Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: bosk1 on May 31, 2019, 04:37:11 PM
Lots of excellent points.  I've been reading, but mostly staying out of the fray.  But one thing I'll add:
Like it or not, Harmony has standing in this matter. She's arguing for her right to make that determination. The pro-life set is arguing on the basis that she's wrong.

Not exactly.  Or, at least, not for me.  I'm not arguing that the pro-choice (taking Harmony individually out of it) argument is "wrong."  I think there is an important nuance that is missed, which is:  The woman's right to bodily autonomy IS sacrosanct.  But it isn't the ONLY sacrosanct interest at stake.  There are two.  The other is the life of the child.  And unless we are dealing with those rare occurrences where the life of the woman is at risk, we are dealing with one scenario where one life dies and one scenario where neither does. 

Do you see the difference between that and what you said?

And note that I'm not asking whether you agree with it?  I fully realize that, as you have said thoroughly, you do not agree that the fetus is a life (or, at least, not a sentient life at the same level as 1973-Barto).  I'm not trying to persuade you.  I'm just attempting to get you (and others) to see what the other side is actually arguing.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on May 31, 2019, 05:39:14 PM
Lots of excellent points.  I've been reading, but mostly staying out of the fray.  But one thing I'll add:
Like it or not, Harmony has standing in this matter. She's arguing for her right to make that determination. The pro-life set is arguing on the basis that she's wrong.

Not exactly.  Or, at least, not for me.  I'm not arguing that the pro-choice (taking Harmony individually out of it) argument is "wrong."  I think there is an important nuance that is missed, which is:  The woman's right to bodily autonomy IS sacrosanct.  But it isn't the ONLY sacrosanct interest at stake.  There are two.  The other is the life of the child.  And unless we are dealing with those rare occurrences where the life of the woman is at risk, we are dealing with one scenario where one life dies and one scenario where neither does. 

Do you see the difference between that and what you said?

And note that I'm not asking whether you agree with it?  I fully realize that, as you have said thoroughly, you do not agree that the fetus is a life (or, at least, not a sentient life at the same level as 1973-Barto).  I'm not trying to persuade you.  I'm just attempting to get you (and others) to see what the other side is actually arguing.
Oh, I certainly understand the difference, and I understand the argument that you and Stadler are making. In fact, the reason I didn't reply to Harmony's initial post here was because I knew that Stadler would express it better than I, and even though I don't much like it, it was the proper reply to her post regarding the bodily autonomy argument. While I disagree with them I don't object to them believing that life begins at conception. The point that I've been making, and though I suspect you already get it I'll restate, is that when that sentience begins is a spiritual matter and something that has to be decided personally. I don't know about you, but I think Harmony has the right to sort that out according to her own morality. As do you, I, and a few billion other folk. Now, note that I said that they're arguing on the basis that she's wrong. I think that is necessarily true. While they're arguing on the behalf of the unborn, or so they think, they feel compelled to do so because they think Harmony's personal assessment is wrong. I see it as an affliction of moral values. So I think I have a pretty good grasp of their argument. I simply object to their claiming of a universal moral certainty.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on June 03, 2019, 10:56:26 AM
So you're actually talking AFTER birth, though.   It's not as if you pop out and "Whamo! I exist!"
I was born in 1970, so I gave myself 3 years to figure it out.  :lol

How kind of you.  :) 

Quote
And yes I am talking about after birth, but only as an illustrative point to a very specific part of this discussion. Otherwise were we to continue down this path I'd be advocating for a parent's right to commit infanticide on the basis of "eh, the kid's not worth a fuck anyway." Obviously I am not. What I am attempting to do is illustrate the difference between death and non-existence. I would suggest to you that at no point between conception and the age of reason does a foetus or person give a fuck about their existence.

I wouldn't disagree with that in any way.  No argument.  I struggle - as I'm sure you might too - with how that information can and might be used by various people at various points on the abortion continuum. 

Quote
You still believe in some tenets of the Catholic/Christian belief. Think about it this way. From your Catholic perspective is there a difference between you dying now and you never having existed in the first place? One would presumably have you in either the attic, the ground floor, or the basement of the afterlife. The other has nobody anywhere. One involved a person attempting to control that outcome. The other involved nobody at all. One represents the loss of a great many things. The other was no loss at all, as we don't lament the things we don't know about.

PURELY Catholic, and with the (I'm sorry, I think necessary) caveat that my Catholicism has little influence on my day-to-day rationalizations, there is a difference.   The difference being a soul.   

Quote
With all of that in mind, I maintain that there's a fundamental problem with forcing existence upon every potential life.

I can be convinced of that, because on it's face I have no quibble, but it's the same problem; who gets to decide and what's the default (that's more important here than some of us are letting on); it's not always enough to "let the woman decide", because we still need a fallback when the woman hasn't decided for one reason or another, or can't.   I would think that all of us, but certainly, a woman who values her autonomy most of all, would balk at "but this is what she would have wanted".   

Quote

Where that magical line comes into play is a different point altogether, and its importance to me is very different than to you. What's important to me is the recognition that none of us are capable of knowing or understanding where that line might be. It's a matter that we must each decide for ourselves. It can not be left up to the government. It's a spiritual belief, no different than the existence of God or Gods, and must remain the purview of each individual person to determine.

But please understand my take on this:  I agree that we can't know (at least not at present) where this line is.  And please understand that I PERSONALLY default to "let's each make that determination for ourselves".  We're simpatico here.  But there is a group that DOESN'T adhere to that default, and we have to - yes, I believe we HAVE to - acknowledge that.  I also agree that it can't be left to the government, but understand why it is being left to the government:  this is the cosmic version of "you two in the backseat ought to work it out, because if your mother and I have to stop this car, NO ONE IS GOING TO LIKE THE RESULT!!"     

I've been saying this for years now, and I know you get it, but not sure that everyone else does:  government SHOULDN'T be in the business of living our lives for us, they shouldn't be in the business of guaranteeing outcomes, but they are, irreparably, in the business of acting as arbiter of conflicts of rights.  There is not one example of a case of fundamental rights clashing - my free speech versus your right to pursue happiness; my right to liberty and your right to privacy; my right to bear arms and your right to life - that isn't in the purview of the government. That's what this is.   If NO ONE (or everyone) agree on the beginning point of life - conception, viability, something else - then we could reasonably say that government ought to back the fuck up.    But just like the LGBT movement used the courts to further their rights (which again, was a conflict between rights) and minorities used the courts to further their rights, so here.   

We can paint the narrative about a bunch of religious whack jobs and he-man women haters all day long, but NONE of that would have ANY traction in government if there wasn't a fundamental conflict of rights as well. 

Quote
 
And while I understand your greater point, that there's more to this discussion than the extremities it normally gets boiled down to, it seems to me to be the pro-life crowd that has a problem there. You have Harmony advocating for her right to make that determination based on her own convictions and morality, and you have the other side that wishes to make that determination for everybody. Like it or not, Harmony has standing in this matter. She's arguing for her right to make that determination. The pro-life set is arguing on the basis that she's wrong.

I swear to you, I did not read this last paragraph before I responded above (that's how I do) and you just proved my point.  There might be people that believe that, but that's NOT why it's been a legal and philosophical conundrum since 1973 (and well before).  This is NOT, legally, between people that want autonomy and people that want to play god.  That's what it LOOKS like, and that's great for the victim narrative, but it's not what sustains court cases.  The LEGAL basis for the discussion is not that "some man with a cross thinks Harmony is wrong", it's that there is a credible argument - that the "autonomy" people haven't fully refuted - that it's only their call up to a point.  It's why I introduced the other examples where parents have control over another individual - a child - to a point.    The entrenched "I have AUTONOMY!" group doesn't seem to want to concede that - like all of us, men, women, etc. - ALL fundamental rights are up for reasonable and compelling limitation.  There is NO right - not life, not liberty, not pursuit of happiness, or any of the rights that flow therefrom - that is not limited in SOME way by the state.

So too, autonomy of body.  I can be compelled to produce DNA evidence at times.  I can be compelled to receive medical treatment at times.   And it's not a great, Bob Beamon leap to say that if I'm a woman "I can be compelled to limit my bodily autonomy at times", that time being when a separate, individual, with rights under the Constitution, would lose their fundamental right to life in doing so.   

Quote
edit: and on a related note, I was watching Homer's Enemy last night (Simpsons s12e23) and reverend Lovejoy says something at Grimey's funeral that beautifully illustrates my point here, and I keep laughing about today posting in this thread. "And even though Frank's agonizing journey through life was tragically cut short. . ." That really nails it for me.

Haha.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: El Barto on June 03, 2019, 11:27:50 AM
Quote
With all of that in mind, I maintain that there's a fundamental problem with forcing existence upon every potential life.
I can be convinced of that, because on it's face I have no quibble, but it's the same problem; who gets to decide and what's the default (that's more important here than some of us are letting on); it's not always enough to "let the woman decide", because we still need a fallback when the woman hasn't decided for one reason or another, or can't.   I would think that all of us, but certainly, a woman who values her autonomy most of all, would balk at "but this is what she would have wanted".
That's a very narrow exception that could be sorted out in the courts without restricting all women's rights. Again, Southern states aren't looking to resolve the oddball problem that occurs in law. They're looking to restrict the rights of everybody based on their own spiritual beliefs.

Quote
We can paint the narrative about a bunch of religious whack jobs and he-man women haters all day long, but NONE of that would have ANY traction in government if there wasn't a fundamental conflict of rights as well.
So let the foeti sue. They'd have standing. Otherwise you're moving forward with a lawsuit on behalf of something that might or might not actually exist. An existence that can only be realized through a spiritual assessment.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Stadler on June 03, 2019, 12:08:40 PM
So let the foeti sue. They'd have standing. Otherwise you're moving forward with a lawsuit on behalf of something that might or might not actually exist. An existence that can only be realized through a spiritual assessment.

Legally, I have no problem with that.  It's due process, and how do you argue with that?   Each and every time there is an abortion to be performed we would have to notify the state to give them the opportunity to contest the abortion at a hearing.  Morally, philosophically, not so much.   

But ultimately the outcome is the same. In those states that seem to be sympathetic to abortion, the cases would be decided as such, and in states where it is not so much the case, it is likely that the hearings would fall on the side of the fetus and their right to live, such that that life may be. 

But then there's the PR shit show.  Not that this should control how things go, but over/under on how many of these do you think before a Gloria Allred takes the "war on women argument", packages it with a "cruel and inhuman punishment" argument and makes it a, literally, Federal case?    My number is zero. 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: vtgrad on June 03, 2019, 01:33:36 PM
Lots of excellent points.  I've been reading, but mostly staying out of the fray.  But one thing I'll add:
Like it or not, Harmony has standing in this matter. She's arguing for her right to make that determination. The pro-life set is arguing on the basis that she's wrong.

Not exactly.  Or, at least, not for me.  I'm not arguing that the pro-choice (taking Harmony individually out of it) argument is "wrong."  I think there is an important nuance that is missed, which is:  The woman's right to bodily autonomy IS sacrosanct.  But it isn't the ONLY sacrosanct interest at stake.  There are two.  The other is the life of the child.  And unless we are dealing with those rare occurrences where the life of the woman is at risk, we are dealing with one scenario where one life dies and one scenario where neither does. 

Do you see the difference between that and what you said?

And note that I'm not asking whether you agree with it?  I fully realize that, as you have said thoroughly, you do not agree that the fetus is a life (or, at least, not a sentient life at the same level as 1973-Barto).  I'm not trying to persuade you.  I'm just attempting to get you (and others) to see what the other side is actually arguing.
Oh, I certainly understand the difference, and I understand the argument that you and Stadler are making. In fact, the reason I didn't reply to Harmony's initial post here was because I knew that Stadler would express it better than I, and even though I don't much like it, it was the proper reply to her post regarding the bodily autonomy argument. While I disagree with them I don't object to them believing that life begins at conception. The point that I've been making, and though I suspect you already get it I'll restate, is that when that sentience begins is a spiritual matter and something that has to be decided personally. I don't know about you, but I think Harmony has the right to sort that out according to her own morality. As do you, I, and a few billion other folk. Now, note that I said that they're arguing on the basis that she's wrong. I think that is necessarily true. While they're arguing on the behalf of the unborn, or so they think, they feel compelled to do so because they think Harmony's personal assessment is wrong. I see it as an affliction of moral values. So I think I have a pretty good grasp of their argument. I simply object to their claiming of a universal moral certainty.

This exchange (as well as Harmony's previous words) reflects the nuance that... forgive me for this... most people ordinarily miss.  I think I've written this many, many times before in many different posts here... only God can change a person (their heart, their thoughts, their actions, etc).  While I personally do not agree with abortion because of my own convictions, that doesn't mean that I hate the person that does agree with it.  We answer for ourselves (in the broader Spiritual sense)... I don't answer for you, and you don't answer for me, and that's as it should be I think.   

When did our society shift to the requirement of hating someone that you disagree with?  Why can we (broader society) not disagree with each other without broad hate for a sub-section or group of people or actual personal hatred?  This is something I've never understood... at least for as long as I've actually thought about it.  I feel that I could sit with someone that I disagree with and have a discussion, even a heated discussion, about a topic like abortion and come away without hating them or spewing personal insults... I've just never understood why we cannot disagree over the handling of the issues of life and not hate one another.  Perhaps I'm a cock-eyed optimist (Seinfeld reference), but I tend to believe that discussion is how we truly think... someone states an opinion, someone else states an opposing opinion, and both people let those opposing views battle in their minds based on their own convictions; again, I'm an optimist.

That's not to say that I think that we should all set our own moral convictions as use for society in general in the broadest sense (something Nietzsche postulated when he stated that God was dead), for if there are no absolutes at all, then what reins is anarchy... and that's not good either.  There are so many levels to each argument and so many subtle nuances to each situation that I would view it as impossible to craft laws that reflect each and every instance, but our society has to have a base-line from which to draw in order to begin to make decisions.  The hinges that open and close on that baseline and the decisions that follow those hinges should perhaps lay with the individual.  How do we lay that baseline?  Each person again will have their own convictions and ideas based on those convictions.  We can all have convictions/ideas that disagree and still not hate each other...

Of course you guys know that I'm talking about hate in society and identity politics as a whole... not in this forum.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."