Author Topic: Abortion  (Read 3900 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16562
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #175 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]

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16562
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #176 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". 

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22113
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Abortion
« Reply #177 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.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22113
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Abortion
« Reply #178 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?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16562
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #179 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.   

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22113
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Abortion
« Reply #180 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.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2019, 11:20:27 AM by El Barto »
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16562
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #181 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.   

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16562
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #182 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. 

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22113
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Abortion
« Reply #183 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.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 509
  • Gender: Female
Re: Abortion
« Reply #184 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.


Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 569
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion
« Reply #185 on: May 24, 2019, 04:03:02 PM »
thank you for that Harmony. 

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4640
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion
« Reply #186 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. 
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16562
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #187 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.

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16562
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #188 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). 


Online Lethean

  • Posts: 2243
Re: Abortion
« Reply #189 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.

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4640
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion
« Reply #190 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. 
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16562
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #191 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.   

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 30066
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion
« Reply #192 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).

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22113
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Abortion
« Reply #193 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?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline axeman90210

  • Official Minister of Awesome, and Veronica knows my name!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12025
  • Gender: Male
  • Never go full Nick
Re: Abortion
« Reply #194 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.
Photobucket sucks.

Online Lethean

  • Posts: 2243
Re: Abortion
« Reply #195 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.

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21561
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Abortion
« Reply #196 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

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16562
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #197 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)

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21561
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Abortion
« Reply #198 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. 

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22113
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Abortion
« Reply #199 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.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16562
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #200 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). 

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16562
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #201 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.)

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21561
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Abortion
« Reply #202 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.

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16562
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #203 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.

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 509
  • Gender: Female
Re: Abortion
« Reply #204 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:



 

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 1113
Re: Abortion
« Reply #205 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.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 08:10:32 PM by Dave_Manchester »
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" - H.L.Mencken, 26th July 1920.

"China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very very large brain" - American President Donald Trump, September 26th 2018.

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4640
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion
« Reply #206 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? 
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16562
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #207 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.   


Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4640
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion
« Reply #208 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. 
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16562
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #209 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.