On abortion

[All-American]

because drawing a line would be arbitrary we can't draw a line? Isn't that what most every law does?

Very true. Line-drawing is an important part of the process of creating laws-- or, in other words, legislation. Which is what the legislature does.

What made Roe a historically terrible opinion is not the inherent badness of the law the Court created-- I'll set that point aside for debate elsewhere. The problem is that the Court created the law.

[Moliere]

A thousand times this. I don't know when I will be able to get back on Twitter.

When next week's new issue because the topic du jour.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The 'leave Roe v. Wade alone' contingent seems like a majority opinion. Are they fired up enough to vote in 60 pro-choice senators? Probably not. I mean they should, but it just seems like voter apathy has gotten worse.

That is overly simplistic. The majority of american voters believe there should be limits on abortion. Thirty-nine of the 42 European countries that allow abortion limit it to the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.

All these states that have passed laws restricting abortion - they have done so via legislators enacting the will of the people.

[Northwestcoug]

That is overly simplistic. The majority of american voters believe there should be limits on abortion. Thirty-nine of the 42 European countries that allow abortion limit it to the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.

All these states that have passed laws restricting abortion - they have done so via legislators enacting the will of the people.

The majority of those states' laws enacted have bullshit limits, most of them not grounded in any science or within reason given the current realities of health care availability. Witness the proposed Missouri law that criminalizes an abortion for even an ectopic pregnancy. They are overly restrictive, most likely because they could play to their base while Roe v. Wade is/was still in place.

I'm not arguing against the will of the people per se. But if you want a European-level of restriction on abortion, you need a European level of a social net.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The majority of those states' laws enacted have bullshit limits, most of them not grounded in any science or within reason given the current realities of health care availability. Witness the proposed Missouri law that criminalizes an abortion for even an ectopic pregnancy. They are overly restrictive, most likely because they could play to their base while Roe v. Wade is/was still in place.

I'm not arguing against the will of the people per se. But if you want a European-level of restriction on abortion, you need a European level of a social net.

Whether you think the laws are stupid or not is irrelevant. We are talking about the will of the people.

[Northwestcoug]

Whether you think the laws are stupid or not is irrelevant. We are talking about the will of the people.

Ok I’ll say it then. If the will of the people is acurately represented by these terrible laws, then the will of the people is morally wrong.

[Bo Diddley]

Ok I’ll say it then. If the will of the people is acurately represented by these terrible laws, then the will of the people is morally wrong.

Are you quoting the BoM?

[Northwestcoug]

Are you quoting the BoM?

Bro, the BOM runs so deep in my veins that even when I’m not intentionally referring to it it still comes out!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Ok I’ll say it then. If the will of the people is acurately represented by these terrible laws, then the will of the people is morally wrong.

Are the European laws morally wrong?

[Northwestcoug]

Are the European laws morally wrong?

Well as someone who supports most unfettered access to abortion, and if those European laws are restricted to 12 weeks as you say, then yeah I kind of think they are. But no matter what, they are less morally reprehensible than 6 week/heartbeat/no provision for rape or health of mother laws that are currently enacted here.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Well as someone who supports most unfettered access to abortion, and if those European laws are restricted to 12 weeks as you say, then yeah I kind of think they are. But no matter what, they are less morally reprehensible than 6 week/heartbeat/no provision for rape or health of mother laws that are currently enacted here.

Is it morally reprehensible to abort a viable fetus because it is inconvenient?

[SeattleUte]

Considering who may not get abortions if Roe is overturned, it seem incongruous that conservative Republicans want that. This is about more than or other than saving babies.

[Northwestcoug]

Is it morally reprehensible to abort a viable fetus because it is inconvenient?

Ha nice try. Angry Imam tried to similarly deflect my argument a few pages back. But I’ll play along. Yeah that instance is a moral wrong. But a much worse thing is to restrict the vast majority of needful abortions based on an overzealous desire to stop the very rare callous instance that you describe.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Ha nice try. Angry Imam tried to similarly deflect my argument a few pages back. But I’ll play along. Yeah that instance is a moral wrong. But a much worse thing is to restrict the vast majority of needful abortions based on an overzealous desire to stop the very rare callous instance that you describe.

Whoa. Wait a minute. Are you seriously under the impression that abortions for convenience are "very rare"?

[Moliere]

Considering who may not get abortions if Roe is overturned, it seem incongruous that conservative Republicans want that. This is about more than or other than saving babies.

I don’t understand this comment. Care to make your point less vague?