A rational argument for no restrictions on abortion

[ALiberalModerate]

Since the Dobbs decision, some states gave set various and seemingly arbitrary restrictions on abortion, such as at 6, 15, and 20 weeks gestation. There seems to be no rational rhyme or reason for such restrictions. Many who do advocate for restrictions or prohibiting abortion seem to do so based on emotion or feelings. However, there is no rational or logical reason to restrict abortion at all. Briefly, here's why:

1. Women have bodily autonomy and can choose what they want to do with their bodies or in matters of health. This includes abortion.
2. A ZEF is not a legal person and therefore has no legal rights or protections. But a pregnant woman is a person with rights. Therefore, hers are paramount.
3. No one can be compelled to have their body used for the benefit of another without consent. This is established legal precedent.
4. Pregnancy & birth can have negative (but not limited to) physical effects. While most states have some kind of exceptions in place for abortion, this can also be a case of preventative medicine before issues arise.

The problem is that politically it is a stupid fight to pick.

There are several states where abortion services are unavailable and in some cases a woman can be several hundred miles from the nearest abortion services. Tens of millions of American women have no access to abortion and no hope of access to abortion in their state (or even in neighboring states). That is the status quo.

Around 97% of abortions occur in the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. Moreover, only 8% of Americans believe that third trimester abortions should be legal in all cases. At the same time, a solid majority of Americans are in favor of abortion rights up to 15 weeks. https://apnews.com/article/only-on-...igion-health-2c569aa7934233af8e00bef4520a8fa8

So, let's break this down:

1. Tens of millions of women currently live in states without any access to abortion care.

2. The vast, vast majority of abortions occur in the first 15 weeks of pregnancy.

3. A solid majority of Americans are in favor of legal abortion in the first 15 weeks of pregnancy.

4. A very low percentage of Americans are in favor of elective late term abortions.

5. Elective late term abortions are exceedingly rare.

In light of that, where do Republicans and their strategists want the national abortion debate to be? They want it to be about late term abortions, what they call "Partial Birth Abortions". When it's about late term abortions, they win because they have 92% of Americans on their side with that one. Where they don't want the abortion fight to be is with first trimester abortions, because they lose then. They have a solid majority of Americans against their position when it comes to first trimester abortion access. That is a huge loser issue for Republicans - and they know it.

The best thing Democrats could do for those tens of millions of American women without abortion access today, and the best thing they could do politically, would be to introduce bills at the federal level to protect abortion rights nationwide at the federal level for every woman up to 15 weeks of pregnancy and after that, just leave it to the individual states. Would it get through congress today? No, but it would be a huge campaign issue for them in 2024 and they would have a good shot of passing it after that. The result would be that women in states like Texas, Florida, Arkansas, Oklahoma and so on would have abortion access up to 15 weeks. States like California, Vermont and so on would protect abortion rights much later in pregnancy.

Is that the perfect? No, but it is a million times better than the situation today.

 

[Noodlegawd]

That seems to be the impression your laying out.

That might be the impression you would get if you entirely lacked the capability to comprehend what you read, or the integrity to bother actually reading it.

There are no reasons for the irrational banning going on in conservative States.

That's not the topic of the thread. The topic is "no restrictions on abortion." Full stop. A 15-week limitation (like you will find in practically every other civilized country in the world) is a far cry from what is going on in certain conservative states, and also a far cry from "no restriction on abortion."

 

[Noodlegawd]

A better argument would be the fact that an abortion is a medical issue, not a legal issue.

Using your ambiguous meaning of the word regulation. Can you name anything that is not regulated.

Can you name anything for which there are "no restrictions?"

 

[Noodlegawd]

The problem is that politically it is a stupid fight to pick.

There are several states where abortion services are unavailable and in some cases a woman can be several hundred miles from the nearest abortion services. Tens of millions of American women have no access to abortion and no hope of access to abortion in their state (or even in neighboring states). That is the status quo.

Around 97% of abortions occur in the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. Moreover, only 8% of Americans believe that third trimester abortions should be legal in all cases. At the same time, a solid majority of Americans are in favor of abortion rights up to 15 weeks. https://apnews.com/article/only-on-...igion-health-2c569aa7934233af8e00bef4520a8fa8

So, let's break this down:

1. Tens of millions of women currently live in states without any access to abortion care.

2. The vast, vast majority of abortions occur in the first 15 weeks of pregnancy.

3. A solid majority of Americans are in favor of legal abortion in the first 15 weeks of pregnancy.

4. A very low percentage of Americans are in favor of elective late term abortions.

5. Elective late term abortions are exceedingly rare.

In light of that, where do Republicans and their strategists want the national abortion debate to be? They want it to be about late term abortions, what they call "Partial Birth Abortions". When it's about late term abortions, they win because they have 92% of Americans on their side with that one. Where they don't want the abortion fight to be is with first trimester abortions, because they lose then. They have a solid majority of Americans against their position when it comes to first trimester abortion access. That is a huge loser issue for Republicans - and they know it.

The best thing Democrats could do for those tens of millions of American women without abortion access today, and the best thing they could do politically, would be to introduce bills at the federal level to protect abortion rights nationwide at the federal level for every woman up to 15 weeks of pregnancy and after that, just leave it to the individual states. Would it get through congress today? No, but it would be a huge campaign issue for them in 2024 and they would have a good shot of passing it after that. The result would be that women in states like Texas, Florida, Arkansas, Oklahoma and so on would have abortion access up to 15 weeks. States like California, Vermont and so on would protect abortion rights much later in pregnancy.

Is that the perfect? No, but it is a million times better than the situation today.

One must wonder if the hardcore pro-life movement would have nearly as much traction if it weren't for the contrary movement insisting that there be "no restrictions on abortion" whatsosever.

 

[Gordy327]

One must wonder if the hardcore pro-life movement would have nearly as much traction if it weren't for the contrary movement insisting that there be "no restrictions on abortion" whatsosever.

I think you have that backwards. I suspect most prochoicers were satisfied with the status quo being abortion restriction at and after viability. Few would push for no restrictions at all. It's the prolife crowd that always seemed dissatisfied and pushed for more and more restrictions.

 

[Noodlegawd]

I think you have that backwards. I suspect most prochoicers were satisfied with the status quo being abortion restriction at and after viability. Few would push for no restrictions at all. It's the prolife crowd that always seemed dissatisfied and pushed for more and more restrictions.

I'm not talking about "most prochoicers," I'm talking about their political representatives.

 

[weaver2]

I'm not talking about "most prochoicers," I'm talking about their political representatives.

examples? links? sources?

 

[Gordy327]

I'm not talking about "most prochoicers," I'm talking about their political representatives.

What political representatives, if any, are advocating or pushing for no restrictions on abortion? They should be, but that's besides the point.

 

[quip]

That might be the impression you would get if you entirely lacked the capability to comprehend what you read, or the integrity to bother actually reading it.

Have a nice day!

 

[soylentgreen]

Can you name anything for which there are "no restrictions?"

Specifically towards medical issues. Of course not. But I can name some things that the government leaves up to doctors to regulate such as abortion in countries like mine where abortion is considered nothing more than a medical issue.

As I said, your trick here is to use the word regulate in an ambiguous manner. But it is an obvious trick easily seen through.

 

[weaver2]

That's not the topic of the thread. The topic is "no restrictions on abortion." Full stop. A 15-week limitation (like you will find in practically every other civilized country in the world) is a far cry from what is going on in certain conservative states, and also a far cry from "no restriction on abortion."

There are 12 states that have banned all abortions with no exceptions for incest and rape. AL, AR, ID, KY, LA, MS, MO, ND, OK, TN, TX, WV. Wisconsin has a similar bill but it has been challenged and is in court. Georgia has a ban after 6 weeks
There are no states with unrestricted abortion laws except Oregon, which did 7,109 abortion in 2021; 695 for women from out of state. Although Oregon has no restrictions apparently late term abortions are not done in Oregon but referred to a clinic in Bellevue, ND.

Like most people that believe abortion is a medical matter between the woman and her abortion provider the objection to restrictions is based on the complications caused by the harassing laws and politicking from the anti-abortion movement particularly in abortions that deal with issues after viability of the fetus. We've already seen at least two deaths caused by delaying an emergency late term abortion because of uncertainty of the anti-abortion laws penalizing the providers.

A compromise is usually results in more sensible regulation than insisting on what the other side regards as extreme. But that goes both ways. If no restrictions is an unacceptable extreme then so is banning abortions during the 1st trimester. If non-prescription abortion pills mailed from outside the US is extreme then so are TRAP laws meant to reduce or eliminate clinics from the state. Compromise means both side have to put their extreme positions aside and negotiate honestly.

 

[Noodlegawd]

If no restrictions is an unacceptable extreme then so is banning abortions during the 1st trimester.

I agree, but I would bet that, if one side hadn't steadfastly insisted on "no restrictions" for all these years, we wouldn't be in a position where the desire for banning abortions in the 1st trimester was getting serious political traction.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Specifically towards medical issues. Of course not. But I can name some things that the government leaves up to doctors to regulate such as abortion in countries like mine where abortion is considered nothing more than a medical issue.

As I said, your trick here is to use the word regulate in an ambiguous manner. But it is an obvious trick easily seen through.

What trick? For this discussion, regulation and restriction are synonymous. What "regulation" is not a "restriction?"

 

[soylentgreen]

What trick? For this discussion, regulation and restriction are synonymous. What "regulation" is not a "restriction?"

If this discussion is about medical practice then the question is not what, but who. Who has the right to set regulations. Politicians because they make the laws or doctors because they have trained for many years in the profession of healing people.

 

[Noodlegawd]

If this discussion is about medical practice then the question is not what, but who. Who has the right to set regulations. Politicians because they make the laws or doctors because they have trained for many years in the profession of healing people.

The answer is politicians. All of our laws are made by politicians, or people who are appointed by them.

 

[soylentgreen]

The answer is politicians. All of our laws are made by politicians, or people who are appointed by them.

Amazing. Americans are a weird mob. Proudly boast how independent they are yet will turn to the government at the drop of a hat. Bit like a teenager demanding they are an adult but still want mum to cook dinner and wash their clothes.

Politicians are good at making laws. Doctors are good at knowing about medical stuff. They have a board of ethics that can decide what lengths a doctor can go to and it is backed by law.

You really do not need politicians to make these decisions.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Amazing. Americans are a weird mob. Proudly boast how independent they are yet will turn to the government at the drop of a hat. Bit like a teenager demanding they are an adult but still want mum to cook dinner and wash their clothes.

Politicians are good at making laws. Doctors are good at knowing about medical stuff. They have a board of ethics that can decide what lengths a doctor can go to and it is backed by law.

You really do not need politicians to make these decisions.

Really? How would these "lengths" be enforced, if they're not reflected in laws that are passed by politicians?

 

[weaver2]

Really? How would these "lengths" be enforced, if they're not reflected in laws that are passed by politicians?

There is such a thing a people who are ethical, like most doctors, and don't need a policeman around to make them act in the best interests of their patients.

 

[soylentgreen]

Really? How would these "lengths" be enforced, if they're not reflected in laws that are passed by politicians?

By two separate standards. The legal system if a doctor has broken a law. And by a conduct committee to asses if the standards of medical ethics has been breeched. Doctors and nurses are people who work at a higher standard of ethics than most.

 

[Noodlegawd]

By two separate standards. The legal system if a doctor has broken a law. And by a conduct committee to asses if the standards of medical ethics has been breeched. Doctors and nurses are people who work at a higher standard of ethics than most.

And if the committee determines he breached those standards, then what?

 

[Noodlegawd]

There is such a thing a people who are ethical, like most doctors, and don't need a policeman around to make them act in the best interests of their patients.

Wishful thinking. We don't need laws to protect us from "most people." We need laws to protect us from the worst 10%, and that includes doctors.

 

[Gordy327]

And if the committee determines he breached those standards, then what?

That depends on the severity and situation. It could range anywhere from formal reprimand to suspension to loss of medical licensure.

 

[Noodlegawd]

.... loss of medical licensure.

Wait, what? Who issues medical licenses?

 

[Gordy327]

Wait, what? Who issues medical licenses?

Are you being serious?

 

[Noodlegawd]

Are you being serious?

Are you?