On abortion

[Jeff Lebowski]

That's usually how pregnant mothers describe it. "I have to eat healthy now for my fetus."

"When is your fetus due?"
"Have you announced the sex of your fetus yet?"
"What are you going to name your fetus?"

[falafel]

We can't have a productive conversation about abortion while one side insists that a fetus is the same thing as a child. Let's just call it a fetus. Not an unborn child nor an unrealized clump of cells.

That's usually how pregnant mothers describe it. "I have to eat healthy now for my fetus."

[Non Sequitur]

Your condescending (typical) and rambling reply here illustrates you missed a very simple point.

Rabid pro-life advocates focus exclusively on the rights and interest of the unborn child.
Rabid pro-choice advocates focus exclusively on the rights of the mother.

We can't begin to have a healthy and productive conversation about abortion in this country without both sides honestly addressing this tension.

We can't have a productive conversation about abortion while one side insists that a fetus is the same thing as a child. Let's just call it a fetus. Not an unborn child nor an unrealized clump of cells.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It isn’t really an answer to your point. But you did bring up the example of Europe as having more sensible abortion laws previously. I’m saying I don’t think using Europe as an example of what the US could have been had we legislated abortion laws is fair. I don’t think their unfettered access to abortion (albeit nominally restricted to the first trimester) would fly here.

I’m sure roe v wade has made the polarization worse. And if legal abortion had been legislated we may not have seen as much polarization as we do now. But I’m not sure I would agree with that eventual compromise. I think it should be more of a right than what I’m afraid many states allow.

It has been interesting to see who people describe the laws in Europe. The link you provided from the "Center for Reproductive Rights" has a clear bias. Here is one from the other side:

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...law-comparison

Abortion restrictions in Europe are greater than in the U.S. Only three of 42 European countries that permit elective abortion permit it past 15 weeks, the restriction proposed by the state of Mississippi going before the Supreme Court.

“No European nation allows elective abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, as is effectively permitted in several U.S. states, and America is one of only a small handful of nations, along with China and North Korea, to permit any sort of late-term elective abortion,” concluded the report’s author, Angelina B. Nguyen.

The closest analog to the U.S. law in Europe is arguably the Netherlands, a country of 17 million people known for pioneering controversial practices such as child euthanasia.

And here is a summary from the NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/22/u...oe-global.html

Seventy-six countries, home to four in 10 women, allow abortion for any reason for a certain number of weeks. The most common threshold is 12 weeks. A dozen or so countries besides the United States allow abortion without any restrictions or conditions after 15 weeks, the cutoff in question in the Mississippi case. They include North Korea, China, Iceland, New Zealand, Singapore, Canada and Vietnam.

We can argue about degree, but Roe v. Wade has made the US an outlier.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You've done nothing but stick up with the leaked opinion. So your claim that you're criticizing extremists on both sides doesn't hold water. Hard not to be condescending when you say nobody but you knows this is about balancing interests, given what Roe says and after all these years. My post is not "rambling" because it covers several topics. It is well-organized, tight, and well-executed.

Lol. What a weird response. I never claimed that I am the only one who knows about balancing interests. Really surprised that such a simple, self-evident observation would trigger you like that.

[Moliere]

I saw this thread today. Guess what phrase Alito used in his Obergefell dissent? ‘Deeply rooted in the nation’s history’.

Embedded Tweet

it’s not a stretch to say that gay marriage would not be a right today if that case was argued before this court.

How many times has gay marriage been challenged since Obergefell? There’s no appetite to overturn it. That cat is out of the bag and the vast majority support it.

Sure anything can happen with this new type of Trump conservative, but even the GOP has some high profile gay leaders.

If Obergefell gets overturned, I suspect 50 states would pass gay marriage laws. Yes, I suspect Utah would pass one as well.

[Northwestcoug]

I disagree to an extent as I think certain laws (Obergfell is a good example) won’t be overturned because they are (1) based on actual rights guaranteed to all people and (2) it has widespread public support. Gay marriage has over 70% support and that goes higher when you ask if gays should at least have the same rights as married people even if they are denied the term “married”. Access to birth control has over 90% support. Interracial marriage has over 95% support. These decisions aren’t being overturned and even if they are there are no states that would ban them (well, maybe Idaho).

Abortion (without limitations) does not share widespread support even after 50+ years. There’s a reason for that and it’s because there are competing moral issues on both sides that are not easily reconcilable. No matter how many times someone claims I just want to control a woman’s body, it’s not about that for me. It’s about the life of the fetus/unborn child.

I saw this thread today. Guess what phrase Alito used in his Obergefell dissent? ‘Deeply rooted in the nation’s history’.

Embedded Tweet

it’s not a stretch to say that gay marriage would not be a right today if that case was argued before this court.

[SeattleUte]

Your condescending (typical) and rambling reply here illustrates you missed a very simple point.

Rabid pro-life advocates focus exclusively on the rights and interest of the unborn child.
Rabid pro-choice advocates focus exclusively on the rights of the mother.

We can't begin to have a healthy and productive conversation about abortion in this country without both sides honestly addressing this tension.

You've done nothing but stick up with the leaked opinion. So your claim that you're criticizing extremists on both sides doesn't hold water. Hard not to be condescending when you say nobody but you knows this is about balancing interests, given what Roe says and after all these years. My post is not "rambling" because it covers several topics. It is well-organized, tight, and well-executed.

[Northwestcoug]

I’m really struggling to understand how this is an answer to the main point I was making. Help me out.

You are saying we couldn’t have gotten to that point (a legislative solution) because we are too polarized, and I was arguing that Roe is at least partly why we are so polarized. Whether we would have gotten to precisely the same set of laws as Europe is beside the point.

Read the George Will article. He makes a similar point.

It isn’t really an answer to your point. But you did bring up the example of Europe as having more sensible abortion laws previously. I’m saying I don’t think using Europe as an example of what the US could have been had we legislated abortion laws is fair. I don’t think their unfettered access to abortion (albeit nominally restricted to the first trimester) would fly here.

I’m sure roe v wade has made the polarization worse. And if legal abortion had been legislated we may not have seen as much polarization as we do now. But I’m not sure I would agree with that eventual compromise. I think it should be more of a right than what I’m afraid many states allow.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I haven't heard that argument. I suppose there is some truth to that, but I don't think we can extrapolate the US to Europe too much. There is just too much political control by the evangelical right. I'm not sure the ones who support the current insane laws would be willing to cede much in the abortion debate had it been legislated before SCOTUS ruled. But who knows.

This is a good resource:

https://reproductiverights.org/wp-co...ive-review.pdf

So this is the first time I'm studying this, and it is true that the most common time limit on abortion in most European countries is the first trimester. However (and this is a big however), The vast majority of countries allow it on broad social grounds, with it essentially being available on demand for whatever reason. There is no requirement for any documentation of reason for abortion in these countries. In addition:



I guess it's interesting to speculate how American opinion of abortion would be different had Roe v Wade never happened. But if we're using European countries as the standard of 'reasonable' abortion rights, I doubt the US's version would resemble that. I highly doubt the evangelical right would have significantly moved to an abortion on demand model, even if the law dropped a trimester.

I’m really struggling to understand how this is an answer to the main point I was making. Help me out.

You are saying we couldn’t have gotten to that point (a legislative solution) because we are too polarized, and I was arguing that Roe is at least partly why we are so polarized. Whether we would have gotten to precisely the same set of laws as Europe is beside the point.

Read the George Will article. He makes a similar point.

[Northwestcoug]

I have heard people argue that the reason we are so polarized is precisely because of Roe v. Wade. That ruling took us instantly to having one of the most permissive abortion laws in the world - a statement that is still true 50 years later. It was way out of line with the wishes of the American public. Without that ruling, we would have gradually settled in to a legislative solution over time, just like what has happened in Europe. But here we are.

I haven't heard that argument. I suppose there is some truth to that, but I don't think we can extrapolate the US to Europe too much. There is just too much political control by the evangelical right. I'm not sure the ones who support the current insane laws would be willing to cede much in the abortion debate had it been legislated before SCOTUS ruled. But who knows.

This is a good resource:

https://reproductiverights.org/wp-co...ive-review.pdf

So this is the first time I'm studying this, and it is true that the most common time limit on abortion in most European countries is the first trimester. However (and this is a big however), The vast majority of countries allow it on broad social grounds, with it essentially being available on demand for whatever reason. There is no requirement for any documentation of reason for abortion in these countries. In addition:

Some European countries’ lawsset the time limit for abortion on request or broad social grounds between 18-24 weeks of pregnancy, whereas many set the limit around the first trimester of pregnancy. However, all these countries’ laws also allow access later in pregnancy in specific circumstances, such as where a woman’s health or life is at risk. The standard practice across Europe is to not impose time limits on these grounds.

A number of European countries have enacted reforms to extend the time limits for access to abortion on request or broad social grounds.

I guess it's interesting to speculate how American opinion of abortion would be different had Roe v Wade never happened. But if we're using European countries as the standard of 'reasonable' abortion rights, I doubt the US's version would resemble that. I highly doubt the evangelical right would have significantly moved to an abortion on demand model, even if the law dropped a trimester.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't always agree with George Will, but I always enjoy his columns.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...law-to-states/

Intelligent people of goodwill disagree vehemently about the morality of abortion; defenders of Roe’s reasoning are, however, vanishingly rare. Constitutional reasoning was almost absent from Roe, which makes Alito’s draft opinion less a refutation of Roe than a starting over regarding the core question: What may the community properly do regarding protection of human life between conception and birth?

Soon, 7,383 state legislators might be relevant, perhaps uncomfortably so, to this great question that until 1973 was the business of state legislatures. Suppose the court says that Mississippi’s law is not unconstitutional because the court was mistaken in declaring a constitutional right to abortion. Then 50 state legislatures will reacquire the traditional right to set policy regarding the legal status of prenatal life.

If so, this culturally diverse country will produce various policies. And some “diversity” enthusiasts will suddenly be less so.

[Bo Diddley]

I am saying the idea that men should butt out entirely might make sense if you view this solely from the lens of the mother's rights. Otherwise, no.

Fair enough. And agreed.

[Jeff Lebowski]

So do you think keeping men in the debate serves to moderate where the draw the line between the competing interests? It stands to reason that men and women have a 50/50 stake in the interest of the unborn, and women have a much higher stake wrt to carrying a pregnancy to term in their body.

No, I don't think we could ever get there in practice. It's more an academic question.

I am saying the idea that men should butt out entirely might make sense if you view this solely from the lens of the mother's rights. Otherwise, no.

[Jeff Lebowski]

And you do realize, don't you, that the balancing of interests that Roe undertook is by faaaaaar the thing it's most criticized for. The argument is that this should have been left to legislatures.

Your accusation that pro-choicers don't consider this a balancing of interests bespeaks on your part zealotry, self-righteousness, and a failure to study the dispute or perhaps even to have read Roe and its progeny. Do you think they don't realize that there's a difference between birth control and abortion?

A couple of ironies. First, women are mostly pro-choice, and it's usually them who bear the brunt of child-rearing, even in progressive families. The problem here is not that women blindly only care about their own interests. Women as a gender have repeatedly shown that this is not their problem. Women raise the boys who men send off to war to be killed.

Second, I have seen "pro life's" lack of regard for the sanctity of life in so many other contexts--including indifference for the fates of unwanted children born into poverty and abuse--that it's clear that the "sanctity of life" mantra is just BS. This is just about religion and sexual morality. It's no accident that our Supreme Court is comprised of a much greater proportion of church-going Christians than any other branch of government or certainly the populace.

Your condescending (typical) and rambling reply here illustrates you missed a very simple point.

Rabid pro-life advocates focus exclusively on the rights and interest of the unborn child.
Rabid pro-choice advocates focus exclusively on the rights of the mother.

We can't begin to have a healthy and productive conversation about abortion in this country without both sides honestly addressing this tension.