[W: #624] Roe v Wade was a good decision until anti-abortion extremists overturned it , thanks to Trump

[weaver2]

It should be codified. Laws are made to make sure the bad guys behave. It’s not a problem right now but a law minimizes the chance that it could become one.

Well, Roe esentially was a national codifcation of abortion law. Now with each state free to decide ....... whatever..........there is no national control over abortion. One of the reasons Roe was needed back in 1973 was because the US was in a state of chaos concerning abortion. Also organized crime was in the process of taking control of abortion. It was the logical next step for a "business" that controlled prostitution. Exactly what will keep the US from heading into the same chaos?

 

[weaver2]

It's been 40+ yrs since RvW and still...the number of healthy women having abortions of healthy, viable fetuses cant be seen without an electron microscope. Guttmacher found about 3 in 28 yrs of their research...and they didn't know they were pregnant until late and then couldn't get appts/save the $$ for the more expensive later abortions. And one of them was a homeless woman living in her car.

So...women are not seeking to abort healthy, viable fetuses...if they aren't happening, why do we need laws that would only allow the law to intrude on grieving women/couples facing terrible news?

That's why I'm for no restrictions on abortion in the 3rd trimester. All they do is complicate emergency situations for families that don't need anymore ridiculous punishing rules aimed at supposedly irresponsible women who callously abort a viable fetus in the last stages of pregnancy.

Can you imagine dealing as many Texas women have had to do, with laws that equivocate about who can get an abortion, under what conditions, approved by whom and what agency, performed by whom, using what procedures while you are convulsing with of out of sight high blood pressure?

 

[Ethel2]

It's been 40+ yrs since RvW and still...the number of healthy women having abortions of healthy, viable fetuses cant be seen without an electron microscope. Guttmacher found about 3 in 28 yrs of their research...and they didnt know they were pregnant until late and then couldnt get appts/save the $$ for the more expensive later abortions. And one of them was a homeless woman living in her car.

So...women are not seeking to abort healthy, viable fetuses...if they arent happening, why do we need laws that would only allow the law to intrude on grieving women/couples facing terrible news?

Like I wrote: it’s not currently a problem
Let’s keep it that way

 

[Lursa]

Like I wrote: it’s not currently a problem
Let’s keep it that way

Like I wrote...it hasnt been a problem for almost 50 yrs. Didnt take a law to 'keep it that way.'

 

[Ethel2]

Like I wrote...it hasnt been a problem for almost 50 yrs. Didnt take a law to 'keep it that way.'

Then you should have no objection to codifying it

 

[Lursa]

Then you should have no objection to codifying it

Weaver and I both gave good reasons for not codifying it.

And in principle, I dont believe in useless, feel-good legislation.

 

[Ethel2]

Weaver and I both gave good reasons for not codifying it.

And in principle, I dont believe in useless, feel-good legislation.

And I gave you a good reason to making it the law. You should have no objection to a law that simply makes sure people continue to behave.

 

[Lursa]

And I gave you a good reason to making it the law.

No, you gave me something without reason.

You should have no objection to a law that simply makes sure people continue to behave.

In the absence of that law in all those states (and Canada)...such abortions werent happening...so there were no laws to make anyone "behave." This isn't complex. OTOH, such laws can (and currently do in some states) cause harm. As Weaver and I pointed out.

 

[Ethel2]

No, you gave me something without reason.



In the absence of that law in all those states (and Canada)...such abortions werent happening...so there were no laws to make anyone "behave." This isn't complex. OTOH, such laws can (and currently do in some states) cause harm. As Weaver and I pointed out.

How many late term abortions would you be comfortable accepting?

 

[Lursa]

How many late term abortions would you be comfortable accepting?

How many grieving women/couples would you be comfortable with torturing further, unnecessarily?

 

[Ethel2]

How many grieving women/couples would you be comfortable with torturing further, unnecessarily?

Since you couldn’t answer I’ll answer for you.
Zero
I will stipulate for you that zero medically unnecessary (ie elective) late term abortions are acceptable.

Next question: has an elective late term abortion ever been conducted in this country? I’ll give you ten minutes to answer this question then I’ll answer it for you and move on to the next question.
Your time starts now….

 

[Lursa]

Since you couldn’t answer I’ll answer for you.
Zero
I will stipulate for you that zero medically unnecessary (ie elective) late term abortions are acceptable.

Next question: has an elective late term abortion ever been conducted in this country? I’ll give you ten minutes to answer this question then I’ll answer it for you and move on to the next question.
Your time starts now….

You dont speak for me and you couldnt answer my question. Why not? You can keep debating yourself...have at it. I'm sure you'll agree with yourself.

But let us know when you can debate other people

 

[Ethel2]

You dont speak for me and you couldnt answer my question. Why not? You can keep debating yourself...have at it. I'm sure you'll agree with yourself.

But let us know when you can debate other people

Since you couldn’t answer this question either I’ll stipulate for you that the number of elective late term abortions is not zero.
Let’s move on to the next question: are laws a deterrent to criminal behavior? This is a yes or no question.
I’ll give you ten minutes to answer the then I’ll answer for you.
Your time starts now.

 

[Ethel2]

You dont speak for me and you couldnt answer my question. Why not? You can keep debating yourself...have at it. I'm sure you'll agree with yourself.

But let us know when you can debate other people

Times up
I’ll stipulate that you agree that laws are a deterrent to criminal behavior. Now that we agreed on that I will state for you that you agree that just perhaps a law criminalizing late term abortions might have prevented some of them. I’m glad we agree.
Now that that’s settled I’ll say this: the problem with the rabid pro life people is that there is no room for compromise. It’s the same problem the anti abortion people have: there’s no room for a middle ground at all. And so we remain at each other’s throats forever because we can’t find a middle ground. That is the major reason I am in favor of allowing legal abortions up until the gestational age of viability, around 23 weeks. Would you be ok with that?
Glad we agree.

 

[Lursa]

Since you couldn’t answer this question either I’ll stipulate for you that the number of elective late term abortions is not zero.
Let’s move on to the next question: are laws a deterrent to criminal behavior? This is a yes or no question.
I’ll give you ten minutes to answer the then I’ll answer for you.
Your time starts now.

You dont speak for me and you couldnt answer my question. Why not? You can keep debating yourself...have at it. I'm sure you'll agree with yourself.

But let us know when you can debate other people

 

[Lursa]

Times up
I’ll stipulate that you agree that laws are a deterrent to criminal behavior. Now that we agreed on that I will state for you that you agree that just perhaps a law criminalizing late term abortions might have prevented some of them. I’m glad we agree.
Now that that’s settled I’ll say this: the problem with the rabid pro life people is that there is no room for compromise. It’s the same problem the anti abortion people have: there’s no room for a middle ground at all. And so we remain at each other’s throats forever because we can’t find a middle ground. That is the major reason I am in favor of allowing legal abortions up until the gestational age of viability, around 23 weeks. Would you be ok with that?
Glad we agree.

You dont speak for me and you couldnt answer my question. Why not? You can keep debating yourself...have at it. I'm sure you'll agree with yourself.

But let us know when you can debate other people

 

[weaver2]

And I gave you a good reason to making it the law. You should have no objection to a law that simply makes sure people continue to behave.

Look, you had a perfectly workable codification in Roe. But you wanted abortion returned to the states. You got it. Each state now makes its own rules. It likes it own rules. Its not going to submit to codify your rules. Give it up.

 

[Ethel2]

Look, you had a perfectly workable codification in Roe. But you wanted abortion returned to the states. You got it. Each state now makes its own rules. It likes it own rules. Its not going to submit to codify your rules. Give it up.

Who is “you”?
I was fine with R v W.
It’s gone now and each state is going to codify something.
And those laws should include a prohibition against late term abortions. There’s no cogent argument against it.

 

[Hello My Son]

The question of why was yours, not his, correct? In any case regarding rights which you addressed in your response to him. The Const does not recognize any rights for the unborn and even the fetal homicide laws do not...each explicitly exempts abortion and allows the woman to kill them. So...no right to life. States are trying to recognize rights for the unborn but that does not supersede the federal status.

As for internationally here's a widespread example,

Universal Declaration of Human Rights - UN​

Article 1​

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.​

So again I wonder what you believe the legal status of person means beyond a label? There are philosophical ways to address it but it seems the focus was on the legal.

I dont mean to be contentious, I've just cut and pasted this stuff so many times I start making my responses shorter and shorter.

I understand the legal argument about constitutional rights or lack thereof....but I was simply asking him to explain what principles or logic was behind his own opinion and certain discrepancies that appeared in his positions. I never said anything about the Constitution or legal status at all--that was brought up as a sidebar and was completely irrelevant to what I was asking.

 

[Gordy327]

And those laws should include a prohibition against late term abortions. There’s no cogent argument against it.

Sure there is. Why should laws prohibit late term abortions? Provide a rational and legal argument!

 

[Hello My Son]

Because...... by the time of viability the pregnances that still exist are much wanted. The abortions that happen in the 3 rd trimester are 99.3% wanted and happily anticipated. Only one one hundreth of one percent of the 9,000,000 yearly abortions are post viability in the 3rd trimester and all of those are emergency medical abortions. Read up on some statistics of abortion.

Take your own advice and "read up" on the damn thread before commenting in it, especially if you're going to lecture me about reading up on facts I've literally already cited on my own.

Here's what I wrote in post #94:

Yes, exactly. That's why I specifically cited only "elective" abortions after viability.

The way I see it is this--a lot could be accomplished by simply acknowledging (and banning) the extremely tiny percentage of elective abortions that occur after viability. The most extreme pro-choice people even acknowledge that they're a tiny percentage of abortions. For most reasonable people, viability is the point at which elective abortions should be disallowed because A) There's been more than enough time to have decided whether or not to abort by that point, and B) Past viability, extra steps need to be taken to end the fetal life, which presents an obvious acknowledgement of bodily autonomy as well as a new element of ethical/moral problems with ending the life.

However, the most extreme pro-choice people won't give an inch on the topic, which is silly and dumb given that hardly no abortions are performed in this way. If they were intelligent, they'd call a spade a spade, make that small percentage of abortions illegal, and focus on what 80%+ of the country agrees on regarding pre-viability pro-choice rights. Instead, they'd rather do what that guy I responded to is doing--refusing to acknowledge the most logical solutions to the issue.

That being said, the question I posed was specifically related to Ethel's opinion/comments on the topic, hence why I quoted him and not you. I was asking him to explain his personal position so I could better understand what point he was trying to make.

 

[MamboDervish]

And those laws should include a prohibition against late term abortions.

Why?

 

[Hello My Son]

There is a difference between rights and laws. A right is something a person is entitled to. Fetuses have no rights, constitutional or otherwise. A law is a rule enforced by the government. There are laws that have been made that protect the fetus. That was my point though perhaps I didn’t express it clearly enough.

I understand and agree that fetuses are not granted constitutional rights, but are granted some legal protections, and the difference between the two.

For me, I think we align on almost everything. I just happen to know that personhood is biologically-established with viability, and I firmly believe that science should supersede the establishment of that construct instead of a bunch of old white guys from the 1700s who had absolutely no idea about such concepts.

Otherwise, I think all abortions should be legal and accessible. Just not that tiny percentage of late-term elective abortions.

 

[Hello My Son]

Yes, there are indeed some EXTREMISTS who would okay elective abortion well into viability, but you are focusing way too much on them and granting them way too much power. The fact is that the very great overwhelming majority of pro-choice types do not agree with that.

Now compare that to the ONE HUNDRED PERCENT extremism on the part of the anti-abortionists who insist that ZERO abortions can be done and have made the restrictions so stringent that doctors in some red states are hesitant to do so even at risk of death of the mother. If you really and truly want to focus on extremists, then take a deeper look at the entire anti-abortion group.

I focus on both plenty, but in this particular discussion with Ethel, it was about one element of the topic. I reject the other extremists just as strongly, and neither extremist group deserves to be the focus of discussion....What's really stupid is that the 80% or so of the country that agrees on this is allowing the extremists to dominate the debate instead of taking over the messaging and pushing for bipartisan compromise to resolve it once and for all.

But no, we can't have that....that would require people to not be complete cultists...

 

[Ethel2]

I understand and agree that fetuses are not granted constitutional rights, but are granted some legal protections, and the difference between the two.

For me, I think we align on almost everything. I just happen to know that personhood is biologically-established with viability, and I firmly believe that science should supersede the establishment of that construct instead of a bunch of old white guys from the 1700s who had absolutely no idea about such concepts.

Otherwise, I think all abortions should be legal and accessible. Just not that tiny percentage of late-term elective abortions.

On what basis do you believe that personhood is established with viability? Certainly not on any legal basis.