The Roe Countdown

[ponderingturtle]

We'll put you into the "I don't understand the question" category.

No rejecting the question is not the same thing as not understanding it.

 

[theprestige]

What are you talking about? That would be a description of a first-trimester abortion, as the vast majority are under current laws. There's nothing far-fetched about it. In fact, it would be early in the first term. The word "abortion" is sufficient. No qualifier need be applied.

The preceding discussion was about third-trimester abortions. What point are you trying to make?

Haha oh wow. I honestly was not expecting such a clear and prompt vindication!

I I say that abortions of necessity (such as all legal abortions in the third trimester right now) are a red herring, to avoid discussing abortions of convenience which is the real issue.

Meadmaker acknowledges this, and shifts back to first trimester scenarios of convenience.

And immediately there is mad dash to try to force the discussion away from that topic, back to the other thing.

The abortion debate would be very different, if it were actually about the health of the mother. Or if it were actually about two or three very specific and very difficult moral or ethical dilemmas.

But it's not. It's about legalizing abortions of convenience.

 

[Suddenly]

What kind of a ****** up person can think there is any such thing as a convenient third term abortion?

It also is an interesting view of medical ethics that there are doctors out there that will perform such a late term abortion for no good reason.

I mean, I might want a doctor to amputate both of my legs just to win a weight loss bet, but any doctor that is enough of a maniac to do it is going to have some serious problems professionally and probably legally because that's a pretty big flag I'm not in my right mind.

I've long been against any restriction on this medical procedure, and a big part of that is that I trust the medical profession to act ethically within their field of expertise.

 

[Meadmaker]

No rejecting the question is not the same thing as not understanding it.

In this case, those two things really are the same thing.

If you disagree, I'll put you in the "I don't understand the question" category.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Haha oh wow. I honestly was not expecting such a clear and prompt vindication!

I I say that abortions of necessity (such as all legal abortions in the third trimester right now) are a red herring, to avoid discussing abortions of convenience which is the real issue.

Meadmaker acknowledges this, and shifts back to first trimester scenarios of convenience.

And immediately there is mad dash to try to force the discussion away from that topic, back to the other thing.

The abortion debate would be very different, if it were actually about the health of the mother. Or if it were actually about two or three very specific and very difficult moral or ethical dilemmas.

But it's not. It's about legalizing abortions of convenience.

Arguably having an abortion is the less medically impactful option compared to carrying to term and giving birth, which is quite the extreme and often permanently altering medical event. An abortion, especially early term abortion, is the least medically risky response to pregnancy.

That said, I see no reason why "not wanting to be a parent right now" isn't a good enough reason on its own to justify having an abortion. Libs should stop being so squeamish about this and embrace that abortion, as a last means effort to allow people to control their reproductive health, is good.

 

[Bob001]

.....
But it's not. It's about legalizing abortions of convenience.

Abortions "of convenience" during the first and (mostly) second trimesters are legal, and have been for almost 50 years. That's what "choice" means. On what basis do you think the government should be empowered to force any woman to bear a child against her will?

 

[Ziggurat]

It also is an interesting view of medical ethics that there are doctors out there that will perform such a late term abortion for no good reason.

I wonder why people might think that.

I mean, I might want a doctor to amputate both of my legs just to win a weight loss bet, but any doctor that is enough of a maniac to do it is going to have some serious problems professionally and probably legally because that's a pretty big flag I'm not in my right mind.

And yet, it happened for many years.

We would be naive to think that Gosnell was the only one.

I've long been against any restriction on this medical procedure, and a big part of that is that I trust the medical profession to act ethically within their field of expertise.

Why on earth would you? There's nothing about medicine which makes doctors intrinsically ethical people. History has shown otherwise.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's blatantly absurd. Maybe that is your honest answer (because you want to tell others what to do); but the whole point of the pro-choice position is that if it's not your body, if you are not the one potentially gestating, you don't get to make the choice.

Yeah, you didn't understand the question, at all. And you are still confusing process with results.

 

[Meadmaker]

That said, I see no reason why "not wanting to be a parent right now" isn't a good enough reason on its own to justify having an abortion. Libs should stop being so squeamish about this and embrace that abortion, as a last means effort to allow people to control their reproductive health, is good.

^^^
This.


I've been prattling on about theory of government, but after you get past all that, I think government should back out and allow abortion. (Insert blah, blah, blah stuff about "trimesters") I still care about that theory of government stuff, but that doesn't mean I'm opposed to abortion, and I think SuburbanTurkey's advice is good.

In fact, I think he watered it down a little bit too much. I think he should take out "as a last means effort". It doesn't add anything worthwhile, and just confuses the issue. The bottom line is I don't think there's anything immoral about early term abortions, and I think they should be legal.

ETA: But, yes, I think it matters how they get to be legal.

 

[TomB]

I expected someone to do that. You're right of course. Those two lives are intertwined and sometimes you have to choose one.


When legislation is written, it sometimes goes on for pages because they have to cover all the edge cases. In a discussion, though, you have to simplify things to the point that regular speech is possible.

Of course, that assumes people want regular speech. When dealing with a hot button issue like abortion, in an unrestricted public discussion, it's a pretty safe bet that there will be enough people involved that it will devolve into nonsense no matter what happens.

In this case what I'm trying to do is find some sort of statement about human life that we could agree is true. At what point is it ok to kill that organism just because you don't want to deal with it? I would hope that we could all agree that once it's outside the mom, you can't kill it. I would hope, in fact, that if it's healthy, and mom's healthy, and it's on the way out (i.e. mom is in labor) you can't kill it just because you don't want to deal with it.

Now, starting from that point, work your way backwards. At what point do you say that it is, in fact, ok to kill it just because you don't want it to turn into a living breathing baby?

For my purposes here, the answer doesn't even matter. Whether you say 24 weeks of pregnancy, or implantation, or even fertilization, it doesn't really matter for the question I'm getting at. The point is that you have to ask the question. From a legal standpoint, someone has to provide an answer, so that a person can know whether they are breaking the law. Who should that be? Should that be a judge, or a legislator?




But....that's not something a lot of people find interesting, and, what's more, they're suspicious of anyone who would even worry about such details. So, it devolves into name calling, slogans, and maybe an occasional molotov cocktail.

I understand what you are talking about. I also understand that that attempting to have a discussion under that framework for whatever reason muddies the water as to what your position is regarding the main issue.

Or to summarize:

You are not trying to express or support a position on abortion.
You are trying to express or discuss an opinion regarding what branch of government or what process should be used to encode whatever position society decides upon.

You prefer the legislature. I'm assuming that is partly because it is more directly responsive to public sentiment and also because the judicial path puts a lot of power in a few people.

I'm not sure if you expressed it, but I can also see a point in that opening the door on "interpretation" too wide gives the judicial branch free reign to create law without restriction because no other branch has veto power over any of their rulings. (Impeachment is arguably supposed to do that, but we seem to shy away from that like it's a third rail.)

I have concerns in the opposite direction.

Legislation is never settled law. It's as easy to repeal a law as it is to make it. If something is encoded in law the issue will never be settled and the battle continues. And yes, the battle continues even after a judicial decision. But the arena is different.

We have to choose one of two parties in this country when we vote. Well, effectively, anyway. A voter has to find the best compromise on every issue in play that they care about. If I want small government...well, I guess I'd have to move somewhere else...but let's pretend. If I want small government I'd have to vote for the party that gives lip service to it. If I want to hold the police accountable I have to vote for the other party. There is no relevant party where I can vote for both positions.

So if a person wants abortion rights to be legal, I also have to vote for the affordable care act, student loan forgiveness, the democratic flavor of criminal justice reform, the democratic flavor of foreign policy, etc. (I'm not saying any of those are good or bad, just illustrating that it's a package deal.)

Abortion is a big hot topic item. Important and hot enough that many people's votes will be determined by that issue alone. But the rest of the party's package gets carried along in the mandate.

Removing a big hot button issue allows for just a little more granularity in voting. Not much, admittedly, but some. For fifty years, a pro-choice conservative or a pro-life liberal (catholics?) could cast their vote without worrying about the abortion issue. Because it was a battle being fought in a different arena.

Now, why do I think the abortion issue is different than other issues? Mostly because I think it addresses a "rights" issue, and I think it's appropriate for the judiciary to make judgments as to what rights exist and by what authority they can be regulated under the ninth amendment.

The ninth amendment, as I understand it, came in response to concerns about having a Bill of Rights. The concern being that it transformed the Constitution from a document granting the government limited powers to one where, instead, the limitations were defined. And I think that's valid. It seems that there is more traction that a law violates a defined right than for the idea that something exceeds the powers the government was granted.

The problem, of course, is that the Constitution does little to limit what the states can do. In fact, early rulings were that the state governments were not subject to the limitations of the Bill of Rights. (Making gun control by the states perfectly within the constitution.) So it gets fuzzy. It says the people retain rights not listed, which implies that they are protected. But the tenth gives broad leeway to the states.

That seems like a judicial issue to decide. What rights are protected by the ninth that the states are proscribed from violating under the tenth?

Most of the problems with the Constitution is that it has a bit of a split personality. It can't decide if we are a nation of people or a nation of states and tries to compromise.

House? People.
Senate? States.
Electoral College? Frankenstein.

Rights belong to people, but power belongs to the states. The judiciary seems like a logical place to arbitrate the contradictions to me.

 

[TomB]

That said, I see no reason why "not wanting to be a parent right now" isn't a good enough reason on its own to justify having an abortion. Libs should stop being so squeamish about this and embrace that abortion, as a last means effort to allow people to control their reproductive health, is good.

Agreed.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Arguably having an abortion is the less medically impactful option compared to carrying to term and giving birth, which is quite the extreme and often permanently altering medical event. An abortion, especially early term abortion, is the least medically risky response to pregnancy.

That said, I see no reason why "not wanting to be a parent right now" isn't a good enough reason on its own to justify having an abortion. Libs should stop being so squeamish about this and embrace that abortion, as a last means effort to allow people to control their reproductive health, is good.

I agree. The "convenience" argument is just another attack on choice.

 

[The Atheist]

What kind of a ****** up person can think there is any such thing as a convenient third term abortion?

People who like to use slippery slope fallacies to support idiotic legislation that enables them to dictate what women may and may not do.

_____________________


Did someone mention Griswold?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republicans-supreme-court-contraception_n_627ab11fe4b046ad0d829a0a

 

[Suddenly]

I agree. The "convenience" argument is just another attack on choice.

Also using the word "convenience" is a bit thick.


If the universe were just every person who uses the word "convenience" in an argument against abortion would wake up ten weeks pregnant.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm not sure if you expressed it, but I can also see a point in that opening the door on "interpretation" too wide gives the judicial branch free reign to create law without restriction because no other branch has veto power over any of their rulings. (Impeachment is arguably supposed to do that, but we seem to shy away from that like it's a third rail.)

Thanks for the reply.

The section quoted above is my main concern.

As I've expressed it in the past, a court that can decide to grant a right that is not in the constitution can decide to take away one that is.

Your analysis of the role of the two party system, especially as it exists in this point of time, was also spot on. There are way too many party line votes these days. There are a lot more than in my youth.

Voter referenda can do something to address the issue. What I expect to happen in Michigan is that after Roe is overturned, there will be a ballot issue, and then it will be in the state constitution, and then I can go back to voting Republican if I think that they have the best approach to issues of importance in my state.

On the other hand, voter referenda have their own set of well known issues, so nothing is perfect.


However, what I definitely do not want is a judiciary that does not feel bound by the law or Constitution. I think it's a recipe for disaster.

As an aside, I don't think the problem is solely Democrats and/or liberals. There have been things supported by conservative Supreme Court justices that I cringe about. There's plenty of judicial activism to go around. However, discussing those examples would be too much of a thread derail, so I won't go into it.

 

[cosmicaug]

If the universe were just every person who uses the word "convenience" in an argument against abortion would wake up ten weeks pregnant.

It's being used here because it dishonestly shifts the argument. Whether he calls it convenience or not is irrelevant. It does not make it something that someone other than the person who might end up gestating or their doctor should be involved with either way.

I did find his whole approach curious, if a bit disingenuous, in that it is an inversion of the usual pro-forced birth arguing tactics. Usually they start with later term & then come down. He's starting with conception (where the health of the mother is likely to be much less relevant) and ignoring later term for the moment (as being a period more likely to be involving issues with health of the fetus or mother).

 

[Bob001]

Thanks for the reply.

The section quoted above is my main concern.

As I've expressed it in the past, a court that can decide to grant a right that is not in the constitution can decide to take away one that is.
......

The premise of Roe v. Wade is that the Constitution does in fact protect a right to privacy that covers medical decisions, and the Alito draft would negate that right. The SC has issued numerous decisions about matters not explicitly named in the Constitution. The word "corporation," for example, does not appear in the Constitution. But they have rights.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You know what I love here? I use something as an illustration. Let's take something obvious. No one would allow killing a baby about to be delivered, right? Everyone agrees, right?


See what I'm doing there? I'm finding the thing we can all agree on. Let's start from a position that everyone can go for common ground. We all agree that no one could possibly support that position, can't we?


And somehow that turns into "You're lying"


Better than that, it turns into "You're lying because no one would ever do that."


Oh, well. It's what I get for trying to argue fine points of law on a hot button issue.



Vote.

You can call it an illustration. I call it amplifying the lie.

I'm not calling you a liar. I'm pointing out that the more we repeat falsehoods, the more they are cemented in peoples' heads. For example why did you use that illustration instead of something like saying a healthy baby near term? Anything would be better other than repeating the propaganda message that has become fact for some people.

 

[Paul2]

The point is that third term abortions in extremis are a red herring. Invoked to avoid discussing the real controversy: abortions of convenience.

You just demonstrated the point in practice. Forget about the third trimester for a moment. Should Meadmaker's scenario be legal?

The problem is that "convenience" is a loaded term, implying that the decision was arbitrary, or made in an off-hand manner or made casually, etc.; that is, merely for the convenience of the mother, when decisions to abort taken only under those implications are vanishingly rare, if not completely non-existent.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You can call it an illustration. I call it amplifying the lie.

I'm not calling you a liar. I'm pointing out that the more we repeat falsehoods, the more they are cemented in peoples' heads. For example why did you use that illustration instead of something like saying a healthy baby near term? Anything would be better other than repeating the propaganda message that has become fact for some people.

It is how modern jews get babies to eat, Q was clear on this.