To form a political center, should conservatives abandon their opposition to abortion?

[Oxnard]

The constitution and federal law applies equally everywhere. As such, there is no constitutional basis or rational legal reasoning why abortion should be restricted at all. The states have certainly never provided any.

The broad "pro-life" stance fuels radicalism among militant Christian nationalists with a Handmaid's Tale mindset (distinct from mainstream Christians). Their views are rooted in faith-based misogyny and Christian-driven beliefs in white male superiority and fear of female sexuality.

KathleenM1, dalykos.com, 2019 (paraphrased)

Keep 'uppity' women barefoot and pregnant!

 

[Lursa]

Most adults understand responsibility for the decision rests with the individual. IMHO (ten cent libertarian) perspective is that unless we're the doctor or patient, personal reproductive decisions are not our concern. No one has the right to dictate others choices about abortion, birth control, or sexual partners. The question of whether a woman is ready, willing, or able to become a mother is hers alone—not the church’s or the state’s.

Other people's choices and privacy are certainly not my concern.

For a lot of anti-abortion people, their "I'm protecting an innocent life" view gives them a feeling of superiority and it costs them nothing. They get to enjoy their self-righteous outrage and they pay none of the consequences that the woman and her family will.

(It actually does cost them $$$. I've posted that:

U.S. Taxpayers Save $7 For Every Dollar The Government Spends On Family Planning​

archive.thinkprogress.org​

​

Publicly Supported Family Planning Services in the United States​

www.guttmacher.org​

​

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/journals/MQ-Frost_1468-0009.12080.pdf​

But many of them want to cut or reduce that assistance as well This is why they're definitely not "pro-life.")

 

[bythoughts]

During gestation period the “unborn child” has a tail, webbed hands feet & gills. By no stretch of the imagination an “unborn child”.
At term, that small cluster has definitely grown into an unborn child. Somewhere on the continuum of fetal development it is reasonable to say it has become a person. That moment is difficult to define, but Roe at least made the effort.
Given the enormous consequences to the mother, it is important that we give her the right to choose her own well-being.

I think it is best to have a limit that falls during gestation - not at the beginning, not at the end. Roe might not be the right place. The continuum leaves us with some rather adorable second-trimester "balls of cells" that survived birth. (21 weeks) As a rule, "embryos" (first 8 weeks) look fishy, but after that they begin to appear more human. When they develop brain activity and start kicking, it's hard to think of them as not human. That's happening by 12 weeks or so. There are forerunner neurons and traces of EEG by 10 weeks as I recall.

If the consequences are 'enormous' to the mother, what are they to the baby?

 

[j brown's body]

The broad "pro-life" stance fuels radicalism among militant Christian nationalists with a Handmaid's Tale mindset (distinct from mainstream Christians). Their views are rooted in faith-based misogyny and Christian-driven beliefs in white male superiority and fear of female sexuality.

KathleenM1, dalykos.com, 2019 (paraphrased)

Keep 'uppity' women barefoot and pregnant!

They're well on their way to "fetal personhood."

 

[j brown's body]

I would suggest it, because their position is irrational, untenable, and not legally based.

It may be all of those things, but they should focus on policy that diminishes the demand for abortion because banning it isn't doing it.

 

[Gordy327]

It may be all of those things, but they should focus on policy that diminishes the demand for abortion because banning it isn't doing it.

The biggest factors influencing abortion on demand are probably one's financial resources, education, and career. If those things are secure, one is better able to care for a family and less likely to have an abortion.

 

[Lursa]

I think it is best to have a limit that falls during gestation - not at the beginning, not at the end. Roe might not be the right place. The continuum leaves us with some rather adorable second-trimester "balls of cells" that survived birth. (21 weeks) As a rule, "embryos" (first 8 weeks) look fishy, but after that they begin to appear more human. When they develop brain activity and start kicking, it's hard to think of them as not human. That's happening by 12 weeks or so. There are forerunner neurons and traces of EEG by 10 weeks as I recall.

If the consequences are 'enormous' to the mother, what are they to the baby?

So what criteria should they make that decision on timeframe based on? What status or milestones in the development of the unborn are significant that would make killing it acceptable/not?

The only answer ever I get (besides viability which we had in RvW) is "because it's a compromise." ??? In other words, it's something just to "shut everyone up so we dont have to hear about it anymore." It's an issue that many people consider murder or the violation of a woman's rights to life, consent to her own bodily autonomy, due process, etc...but we should decide by flipping a coin to shut people up?

 

[weaver2]

Most adults understand responsibility for the decision rests with the individual. IMHO (ten cent libertarian) perspective is that unless we're the doctor or patient, personal reproductive decisions are not our concern. No one has the right to dictate others choices about abortion, birth control, or sexual partners. The question of whether a woman is ready, willing, or able to become a mother is hers alone—not the church’s or the state’s.

Other people's choices and privacy are certainly not my concern.

On a off topic side note it's pretty funny that anti-abortion advocates so often use biblical quotes to denigrate as immoral those who support pro-choice when in fact the Bible has nothing to say about abortion and at least 100 verses about minding your own business.

 

[Lursa]

Oddly, they don't apply that same logic to passing gun laws that are completely incapable of saving any lives.

Not all liberals, not even close Havent you spent any time in our Gun sub-forum? Why do you have to hyperbolize and instead, show you dont have a strong base to argue the issue from?

So, can you articulate your claim against my post 190?

 

[bythoughts]

So what criteria should they make that decision on timeframe based on? What status or milestones in the development of the unborn are significant that would make killing it acceptable/not?

The only answer ever I get (besides viability which we had in RvW) is "because it's a compromise." ??? In other words, it's something just to "shut everyone up so we dont have to hear about it anymore." It's an issue that many people consider murder or the violation of a woman's rights to life, consent to her own bodily autonomy, due process, etc...but we should decide by flipping a coin to shut people up?

Cheer up. I have a different answer for you.

The answer I believe in starts with what I think most people believe. Brain death means the end of life. Most of us accept that if we're brain dead, people are going to let us die. Traditionally, people have even accepted being cut up for their organs after brain death, although we should have known that eventually greedy crooked organ harvesting companies would abandon that definition and start going after live people. But if it was all brain dead it would be OK.

So I say, logically, the same should apply at the beginning of life. No EEG should mean little risk of causing pain or suffering or expunging the earthly existence of a human soul already in progress.

There are some technical details about whether a population of 'forerunner neurons' should count or not, but basically, this definition leaves a safe harbor for the recommended period of drug-induced abortion. But by 10 or certainly 12 weeks there is neural activity. The baby kicks. It seems obvious at that point, even from ancient times, that the fetus has "quickened". This definition closely parallels the pre-infallible Catholic theology on the point, which suggested a fetus became conscious after 40 or 80 days, influenced by earlier Aristotelian thought if I recall correctly. Nothing new here except the EEG gizmo to do more accurate measurement. (I'm not saying doing an EEG before every abortion is necessarily practical, and that adds another level of blur, but these are small blurs compared to what we have now)

 

[j brown's body]

Cheer up. I have a different answer for you.

The answer I believe in starts with what I think most people believe. Brain death means the end of life. Most of us accept that if we're brain dead, people are going to let us die. Traditionally, people have even accepted being cut up for their organs after brain death, although we should have known that eventually greedy crooked organ harvesting companies would abandon that definition and start going after live people. But if it was all brain dead it would be OK.

So I say, logically, the same should apply at the beginning of life. No EEG should mean little risk of causing pain or suffering or expunging the earthly existence of a human soul already in progress.

There are some technical details about whether a population of 'forerunner neurons' should count or not, but basically, this definition leaves a safe harbor for the recommended period of drug-induced abortion. But by 10 or certainly 12 weeks there is neural activity. The baby kicks. It seems obvious at that point, even from ancient times, that the fetus has "quickened". This definition closely parallels the pre-infallible Catholic theology on the point, which suggested a fetus became conscious after 40 or 80 days, influenced by earlier Aristotelian thought if I recall correctly. Nothing new here except the EEG gizmo to do more accurate measurement. (I'm not saying doing an EEG before every abortion is necessarily practical, and that adds another level of blur, but these are small blurs compared to what we have now)

Thanks for the religion lesson. If your argument is that the law dictate this view, you're probably not the centrist I have in mind.

 

[Ouroboros]

It is not a false analysis.Roe was a compromise and most people approved of it and were against repealing it. Most disapproved of Dobbs largely because it was dishonest and distorted historical facts.
From :July 2022, Pew Research, one of the most accurate and respected research institutions in the US.
"Nearly six-in-ten adults (57%) disapprove of the court’s sweeping decision,(Dobbs decision in 2022) including 43% who strongly disapprove. About four-in-ten (41%) approve of the court’s decision (25% strongly approve).
Public support for legal abortion remains largely unchanged since before the decision, with 62% saying it should be legal in all or most cases."

Majority of Public Disapproves of Supreme Court’s Decision To Overturn Roe v. Wade

Opinion on the legality of abortion has changed little since before the court's decision, with 62% now saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

www.pewresearch.org

I don't know what you mean by "build a center" but most people supported Roe the first time and now.
"Two years after the court’s decision (in 1973), 54 percent of U.S. adults said they supported abortion under certain circumstances and another 21 percent said abortion always should be legal, according to Gallup polling from 1975, while 22 percent of Americans said it should be illegal."

How has public opinion about abortion changed since Roe v. Wade?

States are a critical battleground over abortion rights, and polling reveals where opinions stand at the state and national level.

www.pbs.org

JBB is right most people supported Roe right from the start in 1974 straight through to today and even those who didn't thought abortion should be legal. Those are facts about Roe. Are you objecting to the use of the word "most" or to the fact that I didn't cite those two facts as statements. The word most as an adjective is defined as:1: greatest in quantity, extent, or degree
the most ability and 2: the majority of most people https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/most Or are you objecting because I didn't call it a statement. My apologies if that is the case. I thought everybody knew some of the Roe statistics.

You have not only mischaracterized JBB's position but, now also mine. I have not taken a "stance". I have been trying to understand what your objection is to JBB's OP.

Yes, I was critiquing you in part for not labeling the facts JBB alleged to be true as a statement. The fact that you agree with JBB's allegation does not make the statement any less of a declarative statement.

Again, you deflect from the argument about "building a center" by acting as if it was my concept. JBB made the claim-- you may call a conjecture if you please, though it's a very leading question-- that returning to Roe could help "build a center." Why don't you ask him what he meant by it, and if you like his explanation, agree with it, or disagree as I have? If you don't take a direct stance, I'm justified in inferring yours from your lack of inquiry to JBB.

Your statistics do not prove anything about whether a political center could be built by going back to Roe. That's why I pointed out that the abortion argument is not nearly as important to current rhetoric as is racism.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm sorry for the confusion. I'm not suggesting that conservative centrists abandon their pro-life position, or even compromise it. I suggest they abandon the strategy of banning abortion because it is ineffective policy and to support positions, like increased access to a wide variety of contraceptives and comprehensive sex education, which are believed and perhaps even shown to be effective in diminishing abortions. .

So what would be the status of abortion? the pro-choice position of allowing them throughout the pregnancy? That's going too far the other way, so something like Roe would be a compromise, for both sides.

I would like to see those more centrist pro-lifers peeled away from "the life begins at conception" extremists and join pro-choice centrists who accept some abortion restrictions.

I think you underestimate the influence of the Extreme Left, who accept no restrictions on abortion. You may not agree with my greater thesis, that the Far Left drives the Democrat Party, but to me they are in control and the moderate pro-choicers have no power.

 

[weaver2]

It may be all of those things, but they should focus on policy that diminishes the demand for abortion because banning it isn't doing it.

You are right, banning has never reduced abortion and policy that reduces abortion appears to be a topic the Pro-Life advocates consistently avoid. Whenever the Colorado experiment or the current CO policy is discussed there is a deafening silence from the anti-abortion claque.

 

[weaver2]

I think you underestimate the influence of the Extreme Left, who accept no restrictions on abortion. You may not agree with my greater thesis, that the Far Left drives the Democrat Party, but to me they are in control and the moderate pro-choicers have no power.

Before Roe was overturned by Catholic conservatives on the SC, anti-abortion advocates in Missouri had essentially banned abortion by allowing only one abortion clinic for the whole state; Texas anti-abortion advocates had voted into law its rat-out-your-neighbor's-abortion-for-$10,000; religious conservatives in Colorado had voted down the free birth control policy that had cut teen abortion in half , reduced by 24% the abortions in the 20 to 30 age group, had increased the high school graduation rate and saved $Ms in state welfare costs and the SC had determined that businesses could have their religious morals outraged by abortion and deny women coverage for contraceptives they decided were abortifacients

................but you think the political power controlling abortion policy is driven by the far left?

 

[Lursa]

The answer I believe in starts with what I think most people believe. Brain death means the end of life. Most of us accept that if we're brain dead, people are going to let us die. Traditionally, people have even accepted being cut up for their organs after brain death, although we should have known that eventually greedy crooked organ harvesting companies would abandon that definition and start going after live people. But if it was all brain dead it would be OK.

So I say, logically, the same should apply at the beginning of life. No EEG should mean little risk of causing pain or suffering or expunging the earthly existence of a human soul already in progress.

Not sure where you're getting your info from on pain and suffering but re: EEGs, here:

AI​

"Fetal EEG activity can be detected as early as 24 weeks of gestation, although more reliable and comprehensive data is available from 27weeks and older. By 24 to 28 weeks, the brain shows discontinuous background activity with high-amplitude delta waves and theta bursts, which become more synchronized between the hemispheres by 28-29 weeks. This developmental progression of EEG patterns in utero is similar to that observed in premature newborns." link link link link​

That's ~viability and later. And that compromise was part of RvW.

What else do you have?

There are some technical details about whether a population of 'forerunner neurons' should count or not, but basically, this definition leaves a safe harbor for the recommended period of drug-induced abortion. But by 10 or certainly 12 weeks there is neural activity. The baby kicks. It seems obvious at that point, even from ancient times, that the fetus has "quickened". This definition closely parallels the pre-infallible Catholic theology on the point, which suggested a fetus became conscious after 40 or 80 days, influenced by earlier Aristotelian thought if I recall correctly. Nothing new here except the EEG gizmo to do more accurate measurement. (I'm not saying doing an EEG before every abortion is necessarily practical, and that adds another level of blur, but these are small blurs compared to what we have now)

Not interested in the religious stuff. And what makes "neural activity" a significant milestone in fetal development? Different from a heartbeat or lung development or consciousness? It's not EEG detectable that early either (see above). Jeez, worms have "neural activity." You are actually reinforcing my point.

Are you going to address this from my post? "It's an issue that many people consider murder or the violation of a woman's rights to life, consent to her own bodily autonomy, due process, etc...but we should decide by flipping a coin to shut people up?"​

Dont you think those things are more important than a 'convenient' but base criteria that even worms possess?

 

[Lursa]

Before Roe was overturned by Catholic conservatives on the SC, anti-abortion advocates in Missouri had essentially banned abortion by allowing only one abortion clinic for the whole state; Texas anti-abortion advocates had voted into law its rat-out-your-neighbor's-abortion-for-$10,000; religious conservatives in Colorado had voted down the free birth control policy that had cut teen abortion in half , reduced by 24% the abortions in the 20 to 30 age group, had increased the high school graduation rate and saved $Ms in state welfare costs and the SC had determined that businesses could have their religious morals outraged by abortion and deny women coverage for contraceptives they decided were abortifacients

................but you think the political power controlling abortion policy is driven by the far left?

There were a few (generally large) states, like SD and MS, that had only 1 clinic left and so women had been traveling to closer, out of state clinics before.

The real difference was...doctors in those states would not have faced criminal charges for providing abortions. And could treat pregnant women with reproductive emergencies without fear of legal action. (Fewer women were at risk of being denied care/timely care.)

 

[bythoughts]

Not interested in the religious stuff. And what makes "neural activity" a significant milestone in fetal development? Different from a heartbeat or lung development or consciousness? It's not EEG detectable that early either (see above). Jeez, worms have "neural activity." You are actually reinforcing my point.

Here's a paper that reviews experiments going back to 9 weeks development. I was a little iffy on that as I recall, because it was a direct electrical recording with an electrode, which might be akin to what is detectable in skin or other organs... it's been too long since I looked at this last. There is also an issue that the weeks in various sources can be 2 off from each other depending on whether they're dated by conception or missed period. I shouldn't have claimed week-by-week resolution without thoroughly re-researching. But I don't think I was off by a month.

Is disconnecting life support on a brain dead person in the hospital a religious decision?

Do you think valuing the life of a human child over that of a puppy is a religious decision?

Please note, I was not saying you should believe the pre-infallible Catholic position that ensoulment occurred at 40-80 days, but rather, recognizing that there is a long tradition of feeling the baby kick, that has been passed on from mother to daughter since time immemorial, which largely understood the issue at an instinctive and subjective level. We can only polish this with our studies (once we read them over).

 

[j brown's body]

You are right, banning has never reduced abortion and policy that reduces abortion appears to be a topic the Pro-Life advocates consistently avoid. Whenever the Colorado experiment or the current CO policy is discussed there is a deafening silence from the anti-abortion claque.

Yeah, they hate contraceptives and sex education as well. The extremists have the most power in the anti-choice movement. The strategy is to peel the pro-life centrists away from them.

 

[Lursa]

Here's a paper that reviews experiments going back to 9 weeks development. I was a little iffy on that as I recall, because it was a direct electrical recording with an electrode, which might be akin to what is detectable in skin or other organs... it's been too long since I looked at this last. There is also an issue that the weeks in various sources can be 2 off from each other depending on whether they're dated by conception or missed period. I shouldn't have claimed week-by-week resolution without thoroughly re-researching. But I don't think I was off by a month.

A nervous system isnt what you were claiming when you discussed EEG-detectable. Please pick a lane.

And again, worms have nervous systems. Neural activity. What is your point? That the bar for it being acceptable to kill the unborn should be the detection of the nervous system? Just say so. And then please answer the questions I asked.

Is disconnecting life support on a brain dead person in the hospital a religious decision?

Do you think valuing the life of a human child over that of a puppy is a religious decision?

Please dont respond to questions with questions. Please answer mine first.

Please note, I was not saying you should believe the pre-infallible Catholic position that ensoulment occurred at 40-80 days, but rather, recognizing that there is a long tradition of feeling the baby kick, that has been passed on from mother to daughter since time immemorial, which largely understood the issue at an instinctive and subjective level. We can only polish this with our studies (once we read them over).

Got it.

Now, are you going to address this from my post? "It's an issue that many people consider murder or the violation of a woman's rights to life, consent to her own bodily autonomy, due process, etc...but we should decide by flipping a coin to shut people up?" Or per your response...based on the detection of a nervous system, so 3 to 6 weeks.

 

[bythoughts]

And again, worms have nervous systems. Neural activity. What is your point? That the bar for it being acceptable to kill the unborn should be the detection of the nervous system? Just say so. And then please answer the questions I asked.

Detection of neural activity (action potentials) does not guarantee that the fetus is conscious, but it creates a strong possibility. I think there is a strong case that it is at least "reckless" to kill a "human" in this condition, i.e. "reckless homicide". I acknowledge that the details of the point can be argued further, but I think it is acceptable to abort an embryo early in pregnancy and unacceptable to abort a fetus late in pregnancy unless the alternative is to risk the life of both mother and child.

 

[Gordy327]

Detection of neural activity (action potentials) does not guarantee that the fetus is conscious, but it creates a strong possibility. I think there is a strong case that it is at least "reckless" to kill a "human" in this condition, i.e. "reckless homicide". I acknowledge that the details of the point can be argued further, but I think it is acceptable to abort an embryo early in pregnancy and unacceptable to abort a fetus late in pregnancy unless the alternative is to risk the life of both mother and child.

Consciousness requires a functional frontal lobe. While the brain develops throughout pregnancy, the connections required for such function of the frontal lobe does not occur until around 26-27 weeks gestation, and continues for the remainder of gestation. So no, a fetus, especially before viability, in not conscious. Neither is that a criteria to restrict abortion. Whether you think abortion is acceptable or not is just your own opinion. But you offer nothing rational or legal reason abortion should be restricted.

 

[bythoughts]

Consciousness requires a functional frontal lobe. While the brain develops throughout pregnancy, the connections required for such function of the frontal lobe does not occur until around 26-27 weeks gestation, and continues for the remainder of gestation. So no, a fetus, especially before viability, in not conscious. Neither is that a criteria to restrict abortion. Whether you think abortion is acceptable or not is just your own opinion. But you offer nothing rational or legal reason abortion should be restricted.

Why does consciousness require a fully functional frontal lobe? Yes, you have plans and ideas and mores and values in there. But the frontal lobe is more like a "watcher" that stops you from doing something crazy than the core of your consciousness. The cerebrum as a whole is more like an attic where you stash the details, a map room where you track all the sensations in detail. The thalamus plays a far more central role, receiving sense input from all parts of the body (before relaying them on to the cerebrum for detailed analysis) and choosing patterns of immediate action. The limbic system links cerebrum and thalamus and provides the emotions.

 

[Lursa]

Detection of neural activity (action potentials) does not guarantee that the fetus is conscious, but it creates a strong possibility. I think there is a strong case that it is at least "reckless" to kill a "human" in this condition, i.e. "reckless homicide". I acknowledge that the details of the point can be argued further, but I think it is acceptable to abort an embryo early in pregnancy and unacceptable to abort a fetus late in pregnancy unless the alternative is to risk the life of both mother and child.

So...it's definitely not conscious at 3-6 weeks. That's established medical science. As a matter of fact, while they know it's not that early, some doctors/biologists claim it's not even until after birth. So you are playing ridiculously fast and loose with "conscious." Conscious is a long way from "neural activity." Do worms have consciousness? (No). Please be better prepared and bring sources if you want to discuss that further.

Your opinions are:
--there's a strong case for consciousness at 3-6 weeks. No, there is not. Citations?
--It's "reckless." How so? Abortion is intentional.
--it's reckless homicide. Can you define that legal charge for me? Pretty sure it applies to persons if it exists.
--3-6 weeks is very early, not late. So now what?

Your opinions are spurious and inconsistent with fact.

Are you ever going to answer my questions "directly" or was that it? Your position is that the bar for it being acceptable to kill the unborn should be the detection of the nervous system at 3 to 6 weeks? Yes or no?

 

[Gordy327]

Why does consciousness require a fully functional frontal lobe?

Because that's how the brain works. Consousness is regulated by the frontal lobe, especially the prefrontal cortex. Basic neurology.