Can we compromise on abortion?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I fear that those rates will go up in areas where abortion is banned, because medical students in residency get can't get certified as OB/GYN without abortion care training, which will eventually mean fewer OB/GYNs in those areas. I've even heard of people looking to start families are moving out of those areas due to lack of available maternity care.

Not only that, but anti-choice jurisdictions tend to have other misogynistic - and generally misanthropic - policies as well that make things worse for pregnant people and new parents, among others.

The state rankings for maternal mortality look a lot like the state rankings for other indicators for health care and population wellness.

 

[fantome profane]

There is a spectrum from (strongly) recommended to (strongly) objected when it comes to medical procedures, and only those abortions with at least a "recommended" are medically justified.

But obviously medical recommendations should come from medical experts. You don't need politicians to legislate medical decisions. You don't need doctors being put in jail because a politician doesn't agree with or doesn't understand their medical recommendation.

 

[Heyo]

But obviously medical recommendations should come from medical experts.

Obviously.

You don't need politicians to legislate medical decisions. You don't need doctors being put in jail because a politician doesn't agree with or doesn't understand their medical recommendation.

Go back and find the quote where I argued for doctors being put in jail for a diagnosis or recommendation.

And while you are hunting for things only existing in your imagination, try to find a citation (by medical professionals) that calls pregnancy an illness.

 

[fantome profane]

Go back and find the quote where I argued for doctors being put in jail for a diagnosis or recommendation.

I was just making a point. An important point that I thought needed to be said.

It was not a personal attack on you.

If we agree, great.

 

[Heyo]

If we agree, great.

We do, about most things relating to abortion - and with @9-10ths_Penguin I disagree mostly about a tangent, namely the status of a pregnancy.
I had already left this thread after @ADigitalArtist said she's not up for compromising (and others, including you, didn't react to my proposal and argument for a compromise).

 

[fantome profane]

(and others, including you, didn't react to my proposal and argument for a compromise).

I do not believe in compromising on other peoples personal rights. And I am not going to apologize for that. I am "not up for compromising" either.

 

[crossfire]

We do, about most things relating to abortion - and with @9-10ths_Penguin I disagree mostly about a tangent, namely the status of a pregnancy.
I had already left this thread after @ADigitalArtist said she's not up for compromising (and others, including you, didn't react to my proposal and argument for a compromise).

Pregnancy is a diagnosable medical condition that affects most systems of the body and exhibits multiple symptoms. Pregnancy counts as a preexisting condition if you are pregnant when you get healthcare insurance. This medical condition can be treated via abortion or it can be managed via maternal healthcare.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I'm not sure how this lines up with official policy, but I know someone who was told that if she voted for Hilary she would go to hell. This was from lay person who was quoting what the Priest said from the pulpit. If that's true, it's not much of a choice you are offered.

These scare tactics are unconscionable.

 

[crossfire]

We do, about most things relating to abortion - and with @9-10ths_Penguin I disagree mostly about a tangent, namely the status of a pregnancy.
I had already left this thread after @ADigitalArtist said she's not up for compromising (and others, including you, didn't react to my proposal and argument for a compromise).

I would be willing to consider a compromise on a law against elective post-viability abortions if the data showed there was a significant demand for it. I just don't see any demand for it, so no law is currently needed imo.

 

[Ponder This]

No, you have to be serious. The reason that they have never been a problem is that woman at that point almost always want to have a baby. Why is that so hard for the antiabortionists to understand? It has almost nothing to do with the legality of abortions

It might be true that most woman in late-term pregnancy want to have the baby, but by your own argument the reason is because women get an abortion before it is illegal to get one.

I am not so sure what you mean here.

An example of an exception to a ban on abortion would be danger to the mother.

I know, I am just looking for some common ground. The "prolife" people lose when it comes to their inconsistent views on bodily autonomy.

Hmm, it looked like you were trying to argue for no abortion ban whatsoever in the third trimester by saying it was acceptable for a few healthy mothers to abort their healthy babies to save a few more mothers in unhealthy circumstances. Prolife people wouldn't be inconsistent in rejecting your argument.

You still do not seem to understand that post viability abortions were never a real problem. That is what has not changed.

If you agree with me the situation for post viability abortions isn't a problem and has not changed significantly, then why don't you agree that post viability abortion law doesn't need to change much.

When it comes to those Supreme Court decisions you should be asking yourself who broke their word first. It was not the leakers. That argument works against you too. And you still do not understand why late term abortion laws were rather pointless. The odds are good that you never will.

Do we know who broke their word first? Was it the leakers of the Dobbs decision? Was it the Supreme Court Justices of the current court? Was it the leakers of the Roe vs Wade decision? Was it the Supreme Court Justices at the time of Roe vs Wade? Was it someone else in the supposed chain of liars? Why should I try to track down the first liar? Seems like a waste of time and energy. Did you understand my rebuttals to your late term abortion arguments?

If you are not willing to look at the data, then we can't really have a discussion about it, no?

I've been talking about it. You're welcome to chime in with data to look at or commentary of your own.

One would think that in areas where it is illegal, there would be more impetus (fear of the law) to lie about the stats?

Perhaps... but that would mean what? That in places where abortion is illegal, people will be more likely to say that they don't want to abort healthy children in healthy mothers when they really do?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It seems to me that some people want to talk a lot about 1% of abortions that occur in a phase of pregnancy that was not significantly affected by the Dobbs decision... instead of talking about the phases of pregnancy when most abortions actually occur, that is not so settled in law after the Dobbs decision, and about which most new state laws are concerned. What about abortions in the first 22 weeks of pregnancy? I predict that when the debates settle, there will be a window in early pregnancy say first trimester... sometime when women may choose to abort, if they want. Exceptions? How big of a window do you think there will be? 12 weeks? How will they decide at what point to outlaw abortion in the general case? Nine out of 10 abortions done before 12 weeks in many high-income countries. The U.S. has been lagging behind the rest of the world in terms of abortion law. And miscarriages usually occur between 6 and 8 weeks. There's definitely a natural window here and I think that regardless of what prolife people want, they are going to have to allow a window of choice. I think that prolife versus prochoice is a false dichotomy and that polarization will get shoved hard to the way-side.

 

[crossfire]

Perhaps... but that would mean what? That in places where abortion is illegal, people will be more likely to say that they don't want to abort healthy children in healthy mothers when they really do?

The data I was referring to was the number of abortions that were done sorted by state and gestational age.
[/QUOTE]

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It seems to me that some people want to talk a lot about 1% of abortions that occur in a phase of pregnancy that was not significantly affected by the Dobbs decision... instead of talking about the phases of pregnancy when most abortions actually occur, that is not so settled in law after the Dobbs decision, and about which most new state laws are concerned.

[/QUOTE]
Some states now have no gestational limits on abortions since the overturn of Roe v Wade. This must be distressing to those who worked so hard to overturn Roe V Wade.

What about abortions in the first 22 weeks of pregnancy? I predict that when the debates settle, there will be a window in early pregnancy say first trimester... sometime when women may choose to abort, if they want. Exceptions? How big of a window do you think there will be? 12 weeks? How will they decide at what point to outlaw abortion in the general case? Nine out of 10 abortions done before 12 weeks in many high-income countries. The U.S. has been lagging behind the rest of the world in terms of abortion law. And miscarriages usually occur between 6 and 8 weeks. There's definitely a natural window here and I think that regardless of what prolife people want, they are going to have to allow a window of choice. I think that prolife versus prochoice is a false dichotomy and that polarization will get shoved hard to the way-side.

Oh, you mean for those who want to nationalize abortion legislation again like Roe v Wade, but with new, tougher limits than what was under Roe V Wade? Perhaps with language that transfers power from the right of a woman to have an abortion to the right of the States to make tougher bans than the national legislation?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It might be true that most woman in late-term pregnancy want to have the baby, but by your own argument the reason is because women get an abortion before it is illegal to get one.

You are not making any sense here. Yes, women that don't want to have a baby tend to have those abortions very early. The longer that one waits the more damage that the fetus does to the mother.

An example of an exception to a ban on abortion would be danger to the mother.

Okay, that is an exception for you. But why should abortion be illegal in the first place? No one can properly and consistently support that stance.

Hmm, it looked like you were trying to argue for no abortion ban whatsoever in the third trimester by saying it was acceptable for a few healthy mothers to abort their healthy babies to save a few more mothers in unhealthy circumstances. Prolife people wouldn't be inconsistent in rejecting your argument.

Effectively that is the ideal. I am willing to make a rule that would affect almost no one. Tell me what rights of yours should we be able to violate at will?

If you agree with me the situation for post viability abortions isn't a problem and has not changed significantly, then why don't you agree that post viability abortion law doesn't need to change much.

They really do not. They were not a problem for me before. Once again, women that wanted an abortion will tend to do them early when they are very safe and very inexpensive. Over half of all abortions are chemical. There is no need for surgery. Surgery complicates everything. And one of the reasons that the antiabortionists tried to ban the abortion drugs is so that they could continue in the false narratives that they use in their arguments.

Do we know who broke their word first? Was it the leakers of the Dobbs decision? Was it the Supreme Court Justices of the current court? Was it the leakers of the Roe vs Wade decision? Was it the Supreme Court Justices at the time of Roe vs Wade? Was it someone else in the supposed chain of liars? Why should I try to track down the first liar? Seems like a waste of time and energy. Did you understand my rebuttals to your late term abortion arguments?

The Supreme Court judges did. They would not even have considered the cases since they were according to them under testimony settled law. What makes you think that this was a concern of the judges that were chosen that formed Roe v Wade? Please, you are grasping at straws now. Try to be serious.

It seems to me that some people want to talk a lot about 1% of abortions that occur in a phase of pregnancy that was not significantly affected by the Dobbs decision... instead of talking about the phases of pregnancy when most abortions actually occur, that is not so settled in law after the Dobbs decision, and about which most new state laws are concerned. What about abortions in the first 22 weeks of pregnancy? I predict that when the debates settle, there will be a window in early pregnancy say first trimester... sometime when women may choose to abort, if they want. Exceptions? How big of a window do you think there will be? 12 weeks? How will they decide at what point to outlaw abortion in the general case? Nine out of 10 abortions done before 12 weeks in many high-income countries. The U.S. has been lagging behind the rest of the world in terms of abortion law. And miscarriages usually occur between 6 and 8 weeks. There's definitely a natural window here and I think that regardless of what prolife people want, they are going to have to allow a window of choice. I think that prolife versus prochoice is a false dichotomy and that polarization will get shoved hard to the way-side.

What is your reasoning behind your date? It might work, but right now I do not see the Republicans bending at all which of course results in equal behavior by the Democrats. I think that it is more likely that we will go back to the way that it was or even less control on abortions. Remember the lesson of very red Kansas.

 

[crossfire]

Would you prefer going back to the old fashioned way of the spouse beating the woman until she has a miscarriage? I'm afraid that's going to become "popular" again.

I guess it isn't as old-fashioned as I thought.
From the US Dept of Health and Human Services/National Institutes of Health

Science Update: Pregnancy-associated homicides on the rise in the United States, suggests NICHD-funded study

U.S. rates of pregnancy-associated homicide—deaths that occur among women who are pregnant or had been pregnant within one year—rose in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a recent NICHD-funded study.

www.nichd.nih.gov

U.S. rates of pregnancy-associated homicide—deaths that occur among women who are pregnant or had been pregnant within one year—rose in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a recent NICHD-funded study. In 2020, the risk of homicide was 35% higher for pregnant or postpartum women, compared to women of reproductive age who were not pregnant or postpartum. Homicide rates were highest among adolescents and Black women, with most incidents involving firearms. The findings suggest that violence prevention programs and policies in the United States should address these risks in pregnancy and after birth.​

 

[Ponder This]

You are not making any sense here. Yes, women that don't want to have a baby tend to have those abortions very early. The longer that one waits the more damage that the fetus does to the mother.

That's your argument. I wouldn't say it makes no sense, merely that it isn't a very good argument.

Okay, that is an exception for you. But why should abortion be illegal in the first place? No one can properly and consistently support that stance.

I think it is an exception for many people besides myself. Generally speaking, killing requires a justification; it is an action of serious consequence for us.

Effectively that is the ideal. I am willing to make a rule that would affect almost no one. Tell me what rights of yours should we be able to violate at will?

It sounds like you would also support an exception for the life of the mother. It seems to me more and more likely that this is how things will go in the general case.

They really do not. They were not a problem for me before. Once again, women that wanted an abortion will tend to do them early when they are very safe and very inexpensive. Over half of all abortions are chemical. There is no need for surgery. Surgery complicates everything. And one of the reasons that the antiabortionists tried to ban the abortion drugs is so that they could continue in the false narratives that they use in their arguments.

You indicate: abortion drug bans -> false narratives -> antiabortionist arguments...
Can you give me more information about the connections you are making?

The Supreme Court judges did. They would not even have considered the cases since they were according to them under testimony settled law. What makes you think that this was a concern of the judges that were chosen that formed Roe v Wade? Please, you are grasping at straws now. Try to be serious.

Roe vs Wade was very politically contentious. You say Supreme Court Justices lied. I think it is more likely that career politician AOC lied. You do you, but don't expect me to accept these accusations so easily. Be serious.

What is your reasoning behind your date? It might work, but right now I do not see the Republicans bending at all which of course results in equal behavior by the Democrats. I think that it is more likely that we will go back to the way that it was or even less control on abortions. Remember the lesson of very red Kansas.

Which date? I'm just throwing out some basic information about pregnancy and speculating about what that will mean, in the end, for abortion arguments.

 

[Sand Dancer]

It is an indication that the baby has life.

I wonder how many anti-abortion folks use the Bible life criteria, which is breath, not heartbeat.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's your argument. I wouldn't say it makes no sense, merely that it isn't a very good argument.

Just because you don't understand it does not mean that it isn't a very good argument.

You need to explain why.

I think it is an exception for many people besides myself. Generally speaking, killing requires a justification; it is an action of serious consequence for us.

Except it isn't "killing" in the same sense. Think of it as more of an eviction. If you are going to call it killing then you kill anyone that you refuse to share your kidneys with. The only possible killing would be very late abortions, and you refuse to understand why they are not a significant problem.

It sounds like you would also support an exception for the life of the mother. It seems to me more and more likely that this is how things will go in the general case.

Even the Supreme Court knows that. And they are exceptional immoral. Why did you dodge the question? What rights of yours are you ready to give up due to the religious beliefs of others?

You indicate: abortion drug bans -> false narratives -> antiabortionist arguments...
Can you give me more information about the connections you are making?

There are some questions that tell others that one is not debating honestly. Are you totally ignorant of how the antiabortion fanatics portray abortion?

Roe vs Wade was very politically contentious. You say Supreme Court Justices lied. I think it is more likely that career politician AOC lied. You do you, but don't expect me to accept these accusations so easily. Be serious.

Oh my. You keep disqualifying yourself. Can you be serious?

Which date? I'm just throwing out some basic information about pregnancy and speculating about what that will mean, in the end, for abortion arguments.

The cut off date that you would like to implement.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wonder how many anti-abortion folks use the Bible life criteria, which is breath, not heartbeat.

That's one indication. As I pointed out to @Kenny earlier, another would be that when God commanded the census of the tribes of Israel, he told the Israelites not to count any babies that were less than a month old.

He never really gave an explanation for how he reconciles his anti-choice views with God not counting a child as a person until well after birth.

So much for Divine Command Theory, eh?

 

[Sand Dancer]

That's one indication. As I pointed out to @Kenny earlier, another would be that when God commanded the census of the tribes of Israel, he told the Israelites not to count any babies that were less than a month old.

He never really gave an explanation for how he reconciles his anti-choice views with God not counting a child as a person until well after birth.

So much for Divine Command Theory, eh?

Very true. Children were not viable until 30 days after...birth! It's so obviously not a religion thing with them.

 

[Ponder This]

Just because you don't understand it does not mean that it isn't a very good argument.

You need to explain why.

You argue that women in late term want to have their babies because the mothers that wanted to kill their babies have already done so earlier in their pregnancy (before it was illegal to do so). Explain the misunderstanding.

Except it isn't "killing" in the same sense. Think of it as more of an eviction. If you are going to call it killing then you kill anyone that you refuse to share your kidneys with. The only possible killing would be very late abortions, and you refuse to understand why they are not a significant problem.

That would be a radical position: that killing is not killing. And extreme that: even if it were killing, it's not a problem we need to consider.
I think that sort of position is too radical and extreme to last and I agree to disagree with you. I don't see a way to argue with the irrational position that killing is not killing. Sorry.

Even the Supreme Court knows that. And they are exceptional immoral. Why did you dodge the question? What rights of yours are you ready to give up due to the religious beliefs of others?

I'll take the agreement where I can find it! We agree that it is likely that there will be an exception for danger to the mother. I'll skip on the whatabouttheSupremeCourtism. As for dodging the question of rights. I thought it was a rhetorical question. What rights would someone want to others to "violate at will"? None. You made no actual argument with that rhetorical question.

There are some questions that tell others that one is not debating honestly. Are you totally ignorant of how the antiabortion fanatics portray abortion?

I would not mind being made more aware of their arguments. You presented a new argument and it sounded interesting... I would like to understand it, so I asked for more information. But if you are just making it up, then I guess there's no point in you explaining it. It's just nonsense.

Oh my. You keep disqualifying yourself. Can you be serious?

What did you disagree with, specifically?

The cut off date that you would like to implement.

I think you misunderstood. There isn't a cut-off date that I would like to implement. Rather, I predict that there will be a period of time in the first trimester when women will be able to abort their children and laws will be largely unable to do much about it. I predict that that window will include the period of time when most miscarriages naturally occur.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You argue that women in late term want to have their babies because the mothers that wanted to kill their babies have already done so earlier in their pregnancy (before it was illegal to do so). Explain the misunderstanding.

No, I didn't. No one said anything about killing babies.

That would be a radical position: that killing is not killing. And extreme that: even if it were killing, it's not a problem we need to consider.
I think that sort of position is too radical and extreme to last and I agree to disagree with you. I don't see a way to argue with the irrational position that killing is not killing. Sorry.

The Bible agrees that it is not killing. Though it appears antiabortionists did change the interpretation of one key verse some time after Roe v Wade. Science appears to agree, at least when it comes to mental capability. A blastosphere, embryo, or fetus is only a possibility. It is not a life.

I'll take the agreement where I can find it! We agree that it is likely that there will be an exception for danger to the mother. I'll skip on the whatabouttheSupremeCourtism. As for dodging the question of rights. I thought it was a rhetorical question. What rights would someone want to others to "violate at will"? None. You made no actual argument with that rhetorical question.

No, it was a serious question. You appear to want to violate the right to bodily autonomy. But you would not allow the same to happen to you.

I would not mind being made more aware of their arguments. You presented a new argument and it sounded interesting... I would like to understand it, so I asked for more information. But if you are just making it up, then I guess there's no point in you explaining it. It's just nonsense.

No, you do not get to claim that. Especially if the fault is your own. Did you see how poorly you opened your post? That indicates that you may not want to understand, which would mean that the fault was yours not mine.

What did you disagree with, specifically?

You have to know by now Supreme Court justices lied in their interviews about Roe v Wade. Three of then clearly lied and the other three were dishonestly vague:

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096108319/roe-v-wade-alito-conservative-justices-confirmation-hearings

I think you misunderstood. There isn't a cut-off date that I would like to implement. Rather, I predict that there will be a period of time in the first trimester when women will be able to abort their children and laws will be largely unable to do much about it. I predict that that window will include the period of time when most miscarriages naturally occur.

Why so early? It appears that you do not want to try to justify the unjustifiable.