On abortion

[Applejack]

Great column from Douthat. The leak could have come from anybody. Everyone had a political motive.

But what's clear is that the mystique is gone. Alito, Kagan, are just McConnell and Feinstein in black robes. There's no illusion any longer that the court is not just politics. But quasi-dictatorial because they're appointed for life.

And ironically this descent may have started with Roe.

What Was the Strategy Behind the Supreme Court Leak?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/04/o...e=articleShare

I disagree here. Not with the idea that the Supreme Court, is and always has been, a political institution; of course it is. But it is a different kind of politics. Unlike Congressman who are driven to get social media recognition for good or ill, supreme court justices don't have to get reelected. In this sense, the court is, and always has been, undemocratic. But that may be a feature of a functioning democracy, not a bug. If the third branch of government (and the least powerful, far and away) is not responsive to voters (or at least, less so), courts can provide a check against "the tyranny of the majority." Now, we can argue all day about when and to what degree they should employ this check, but I would argue that having someone in government that is thinking beyond 2-year, 4-year, or 6-year windows is a good thing.

And all of these proposals to "reform" the Supreme Court that our posters from the PNW love, would destroy the court as a moderating influence over winner takes all elections. For evidence of job-for-life being a good thing, look no further than the district courts in Texas that are doing the damnedest to attract huge amounts of patent cases and then (lo and behold) the judges retire and take cushy of counsel positions in patent firms. Judges that have to consider how their opinions and decisions will affect their employability after the court tend to not make the greatest decisions.

[SeattleUte]

One of the most frustrating parts of the abortion debate is how rare it is for someone to honestly acknowledge that this is a case of competing rights.

Uh, obviously Roe's fans don't regard first trimester fetuses, and some second trimester ones, people in the same way the mother is. Roe is nothing if not a balancing of competing rights.

[Bo Diddley]

imo, this is an issue that only women should argue over. i'm not about to tell a woman what she should do if she's preggo, hence i'm pro-choice. pro-dowhateveryouwantjustdonthurtme

in all serious though, it's easy for me as a dude, who will never have a baby inside me, to tell women they can't terminate the life of a fetus that is inside them. kinda makes me want to stay out of it all together.

I actually like this approach. Men certainly have an interest if they are the father of the unborn. They also have as much an interest as women with regards to the rights of all unborn in general. But women are really fundamentally much more invested in this. Let them hash it out.

[SeattleUte]

One of the most frustrating parts of the abortion debate is how rare it is for someone to honestly acknowledge that this is a case of competing rights.

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.

[smokymountainrain]

I actually like this approach. Men certainly have an interest if they are the father of the unborn. They also have as much an interest as women with regards to the rights of all unborn in general. But women are really fundamentally much more invested in this. Let them hash it out.

agree 100%. i'm certainly not saying men shouldn't have any say (despite the "only women" wording in the facetious part of my post) - rather i'm speaking for myself.

[Jeff Lebowski]

imo, this is an issue that only women should argue over. i'm not about to tell a woman what she should do if she's preggo, hence i'm pro-choice. pro-dowhateveryouwantjustdonthurtme

in all serious though, it's easy for me as a dude, who will never have a baby inside me, to tell women they can't terminate the life of a fetus that is inside them. kinda makes me want to stay out of it all together.

This is an argument you make when you ignore the competing rights issue.

[smokymountainrain]

This is an argument you make when you ignore the competing rights issue.

i'm not really making an argument as much as i am sharing how i feel personally about the issue. i realize i could have chosen my words better in the first paragraph there, but at the time, i wasn't planning making a serious post. to be clear i have no problem in general with men having a say in the issue.

[Bo Diddley]

This is an argument you make when you ignore the competing rights issue.

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.

[SeattleUte]

This is an argument you make when you ignore the competing rights issue.

Only you thing that issue is being ignored.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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 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.