SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Rasulis]

It definitely kneecaps the two arguments I've seen most often in favor of bans, those being state's rights and late-term abortions. Trying to ban a pill that is intended to provide an abortion within the first 10-12 weeks nationwide certainly cannot be reconciled with those ideas.

Yep. Despite all the assurances, we can clearly see where the core GOP base is heading - national abortion at conception ban, criminalization of abortion, IUD and Plan B ban.

[Jastall]

Yep. Despite all the assurances, we can clearly see where the core GOP base is heading - national abortion at conception ban, criminalization of abortion, IUD and Plan B ban.

It was always like that if you ask me. That cause is very dear to the Republican base, especially the religious side of it, and these didn't keep fighting this fight for 50+ years and spent tons of time and resources setting up Dobbs only to then go "but now we must be reasonable and seek a consensus such as a 15 weeks ban" or something. For many that are anti-abortion, it is murder and must be eradicated, save maybe with the feel-good rape exceptions that will still have legal roadblocks as if being raped and getting your accusation taken seriously, let alone getting your aggressor convicted, isn't already an uphill struggle as it is.

Politically it means the party is just as much at an impasse as in regards to Trump. The base will not accept many concessions RE abortion, even if the Republican brass knows fully well going hard on it is electoral suicide.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Ultimately when you point out to many conservatives just how unpopular total abortion bans are, and that no population of a single state has majority supported it, they fall back on "Well we're a Republic, not a democracy". From the party that likes to argue about tyranny of the minority.

[Rasulis]

It was always like that if you ask me. That cause is very dear to the Republican base, especially the religious side of it, and these didn't keep fighting this fight for 50+ years and spent tons of time and resources setting up Dobbs only to then go "but now we must be reasonable and seek a consensus such as a 15 weeks ban" or something. For many that are anti-abortion, it is murder and must be eradicated, save maybe with the feel-good rape exceptions that will still have legal roadblocks as if being raped and getting your accusation taken seriously, let alone getting your aggressor convicted, isn't already an uphill struggle as it is.

Politically it means the party is just as much at an impasse as in regards to Trump. The base will not accept many concessions RE abortion, even if the Republican brass knows fully well going hard on it is electoral suicide.

Although difficult to obtain, at least Rape and incest exceptions used to be standard. Now, Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas have bans without exceptions for rape and incest.

All the talks about reasonable compromise are basically BS.

I'll just throw this little factoid here - 147 out of 254 Texas counties do not have a single OB/Gyn. The state that truly cares about the fate of its women.

[s_bushido]

I'll just throw this little factoid here - 147 out of 254 Texas counties do not have a single OB/Gyn. The state that truly cares about the fate of its women.

Correction: They try to frame their anti-abortion stance as caring about the fate of children. Women have never been a consideration for them, beyond their role as breeders.

But since they've never actually cared about the well-being of children either, creating an environment that's hostile to people who specialize in that field of medicine is just icing on the misanthropic cake.

[Jastall]

Although difficult to obtain, at least Rape and incest exceptions used to be standard. Now, Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas have bans without exceptions for rape and incest.

All the talks about reasonable compromise are basically BS.

I'll just throw this little factoid here - 147 out of 254 Texas counties do not have a single OB/Gyn. The state that truly cares about the fate of its women.

To be absolutely fair, not every red or purple state went through with the extremist measures. I thought it would actually be worse TBH. But then again in some places they damn well tried but the electorate told them to fuck right off. That combined with the 2022 legislative failure clearly indicates the issue is just not a winning one.

[Nymrohd]

Correction: They try to frame their anti-abortion stance as caring about the fate of children. Women have never been a consideration for them, beyond their role as breeders.

See, the rape exception that is so often touted makes it clear that it is NOT about children. If they believe in fetal personhood, murdering the blameless fetus for the deeds of its father is detestable. No, rape (and what THEY consider rape, so not any rape in which their crowd would go "she deserved it cause she is a slut") is an exception because this is about controlling female sexuality. It is about punishing women for having sex. Is the incest exception about children's health? No because if it was then fetal impairment would get the same consideration; if anything possible fetal impairment due to incest is not as definite as impairment we have actual tested the fetus for. The incest exception is there because it has religious justification.

- - - Updated - - -

To be absolutely fair, not every red or purple state went through with the extremist measures. I thought it would actually be worse TBH. But then again in some places they damn well tried but the electorate told them to fuck right off. That combined with the 2022 legislative failure clearly indicates the issue is just not a winning one.

I think in plenty of states there is not even a majority among the GOP politicians, let alone their electorate.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Correction: They try to frame their anti-abortion stance as caring about the fate of children. Women have never been a consideration for them, beyond their role as breeders.

To further this point: A lot of the time when a conservative is confronted to define what a woman is in the trans debate, they very often say that the definition of a woman is someone who can conceive and carry a baby. Considering this is the common denominator among both the trans and abortion argument, they really do only see women as breeders.

[tehdang]

This is just an appeal to emotion. Do you think an 8th week misscariage is the womans body killing a child? This is an important question here. It isn't semantic, as your argument hangs on murder etc.
Thus appeal to emotion.

Do some people consider abortion murder? Yes. That's their problem. It shouldn't affect others.

Miscarriage and abortion is close in kind to dying from a sudden sickness and dying from an intentional act of murder. For some circumstances on post-viability dilemmas, the question becomes, "We must deliver the baby now, but why would you also demand to first kill it?" Let me reiterate so you can't miss it, the moral argument between death from intentional act and death from sudden sickness isn't so easily discarded.

I've seen enough emotional arguments that implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, rely upon how unfair it is to burden women, how miserable it must be to deliver a baby they don't want, the emotional suffering of bearing a child that's the product of rape. They are so often brought up as to make casual dismissals of emotional arguments to cut both ways.

Your paragraph doesn't really respond to what you actually quoted, because you haven't actually defended "If someone feels abortion is immoral they can choose to not practice it" when it comes against "We do this all the time with other alleged crimes, and discard weak arguments in favor of committing them." Do you really want to say if you think spousal abuse is immoral, then just choose not to practice it? Does this argument depend on never finding someone that justifies the act based on special circumstances or broad circumstances?

You seriously need to look at how fucking dangerous Child Bearing is for women. Just look at how common post-partum depression fucking is. Or how hormones go out of wack for a woman carrying a child.

That's an unwanted burden to someone who doesn't want a child. So it's more humane to abort. Especially with how adoption and fostercare systems often look and function.
It's more humane for both woman and potential child.

I could see it if anti-choice legislators and supporters came at the debate from the other way. "Elective Abortion Restrictions, all medical abortions greenlit". But no, every freaking time they set a week, and past that NOPE!

This discussion from the pro-choice side is always about the quality of life for all involved, including potential children. From the anti-choice side it's about supposed murder.

As much as hormones and post-partum depression can be considered to be harm done to the women, I think the ultimate survival rate and ability to recover is much higher for the mother carrying to term than the baby subjected to abortion. This is absolutely important when the baby is past viability.

I cannot accept criticism of adoption and foster care as reasons to discard the baby in questions on allowing it life or not. That's only a sufficient reason to focus more attention and reform in those areas. Particularly if the people that call themselves pro-choice actually support the decision to carry to term and give up for adoption. They have skin in the game as well, and generally should be partners if I presume good faith on their part.

But just looking at the system as it stands now: Would you really put it to adopted children in a questionnaire upon attaining 18, asking if they wish they had never been born? Would you put it to foster care children? I'm much more confident than you that the current struggles stand quite a degree below rational suicide.

And really, what other part of society would you advocate something very brutal and final like abortion, until the other choices are sufficiently advanced to your standards? On topic, special needs health care? (You're better off aborting Down's syndrome babies, because the care and outcomes from that condition are so bad!!) The economy? (You're better off living life dependent on the state, employment is just too brutal). And on.

Final point. I'm really struggling to see a clear division reconciling you bringing up how "post-partum depression fucking is" and "how adoption and fostercare systems often look and function" with your opposition to appeals of emotion. The emotional response is pretty blatant when you ask the reader to consider miserable depression or the worst foster care homes. Just something for you to consider if you think balancing the "rights" or "consideration" afforded to an unborn child, particularly post-viability unborn child, is a de-facto emotional argument. Whether it is worth balancing against a woman seeking to abort the child in ways that don't always come out 100% mother's choice. I'm sure you can connect it to an emotional pull and also discover the non-emotional aspects. And weighing quality of life vs the denial of existence is a very tough matter. I'd really have to give extra weight to the "survivors" of foster care and infant adoption and carefully ask whether their existence was worth whatever troubles they experienced. Can you really say with confidence that existence is so miserable for adopted or foster care kids that they will majority not be worth the burdens of labor and delivery for the mother? I know something of the troubles, but what you're asking to put alongside it (post-partum depression, hormones) looks to be well below.

The very first graph of the Gallup poll that you did not link (how convenient), actually shows 85% favor as being legal under certain circumstances. Did you know that most OS have a built-in calculator? You can use it next time to figure out that 35%+50%=85%. The second graph is where I assume you received your numbers and almost appears to line up with what you said, until you remember the first graph. The second graph shows 4 categories, but the last two categories match each other exactly. Here are the actual questions asked:

Americans' Views on Legality of Abortion, 2022
Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances or illegal in all circumstances?

Americans' Views on Legality of Abortion With Middle Position Specified, 2022
Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?
(If say "legal only under certain circumstances Do you think abortion should be legal in most circumstances or only in a few circumstances?

At no point do they specify anything regarding trimesters, nor do they explain the difference between legal in most and legal in only a few. The percentage of people stated that abortion should be legal in all or most cases and the percentage of people who stated abortion should be available in all, most, or certain cases are also exactly the same, so unless you know exactly what that person considers "a few circumstances", that makes the data unreliable. Maybe a few circumstances are the exceptions for rape, incest or if the birth would be a danger to the mother or child. Maybe they mean only during the first or second trimester. It's not nearly as cut and dry as you try to make it seem. In addition, the sample size is only 1,007. There are 260+ million adults in the US. The poll makes no distinction regarding voting eligibility, but there were more than 150 million voters in 2020, so it's still far from an accurate sample size. Any poll taken on MMO Champion would have the same limitations, btw. Those are just to show the views of the forum, not the country or world at large.

Of course, as has been pointed out to you before, even if the anti-abortion sentiment was at 100%, it still wouldn't be the right choice as it undermines the bodily autonomy of women for something that is not a public health risk.

Here are some links for the Gallup poll:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/...-abortion.aspx
https://news.gallup.com/poll/244097/...ic-tables.aspx

Poll results I cite: 0 words expended.
Other, similar poll results: 3 small paragraphs from you.

If you possess no curiosity on what "legal only under certain circumstances" means to the people asking, then you are justified in not examining a lick of the results of any other questions asked in the polls. You've just cited a general "certain circumstances," mused a little on math, and shut the book and thrown it under the bed. Show a little willingness to grapple with polling results you're rather not look into. Remember, good polls don't just ask two or three general questions and present them as all a person would ever want to know.

I'm a little bemused at the shade you're throwing at a n=1007 nationally representative polls of adults, really multiple polls taken over time that show the trends and stability. Pollsters are pretty experienced in using polls of that size to draw broadly accurate results about the social attitudes of the US adult population (and registered voters where applicable). I'd direct you to some primers like
How Can the Opinions of 1,000 People Possibly Represent the Entire Country?
"If you don't believe in random sampling, the next time you have a blood test, tell the doctor to take it all."

The poll also suggests that as your education level rises, your support for anti-abortion policies decreases. Again, irrelevant since the sample size is so small, but amusing since it means that part of your defense is predicated upon the fact that a large number of the participants might not even actually understand the impact of the policies being discussed or are basing their decisions from misinformation.

I'm really going to have to ask you to rethink a poll on the order or ~1,000 being "so small" according to the science surrounding polling. Experts argue against even doubling the sample size at that point, since the increase doesn't really increase accuracy very much at all, and particularly so with regard to cost.

In addition to the above, that poll was taken prior to the Roe v. Wade ruling and the subsequent policy changes enacted by Republicans. Support for pro-choice policies have been rising over the decades and there is no evidence to support the idea that the Roe v. Wade decision would reverse that trend. Given that Kansas voted against their anti-abortion law last voting cycle and that Republicans are on record as acknowledging that if they give their own voters a choice, they will continue to vote against anti-abortion policies, it is more likely that support for pro-choice policies rises at an increased rate. Especially when more Republicans understand just how much that can impact their lives when they can no longer access abortion. See the recent State Supreme Court special election in Wisconsin for further proof.

You puzzle me yet another time. You both call attention to the lack of polling happening after Dobbs (it happened less than a year ago, no surprise there) but then switch to a small trend/lack of a trend happening over decades. Which will you have?

I'll bite on the decades. In every single poll conducted over the last roughly 3 decades, a majority of Americans want abortion to be generally illegal after the first trimester, and a vast majority want abortion to be generally illegal after the second trimester. Yes, I'm pointing out some uncomfortable detail to the "certain circumstances" abortion question. This trend has been very stable over the decades. It is only when looking at 2022 vs 2018 that you see a drop. Not a multi-decade-trend, a last-five-years trend. Now I look at that evidence, and conclude two things. Firstly, it looks like Americans have generally been permissive to first trimester abortion for some time now, and to an even greater degree intolerant of third trimester abortions. This partially informs where I think Republicans will head when the post-Dobbs legislative chaos settles down. Secondly, it looks extreme to oppose any restrictions in the third trimester, and it's a split issue with favor given to restrictions in the second trimester. Remember, I'm speaking about opinions on gestational age restrictions backed by polling. I'd be a lot more willing to look at other polling data and what it could pertain to if you can assimilate the polling on this particular area.

To conclude and address others in the thread regarding population opinions, nobody should walk in saying it's obvious to the average person that this ought to be mother-and-doctor voluntary decision throughout the pregnancy. It isn't obvious to the population. If such an opinion is misogyny or psychopathy, then you better be the kind of person to plainly declare all your fellow citizens the worst of brutes and despicable peoples. I might become a little more dismissive of arguments made to the population or made to common sense if it coexists with such a view.

It's not an opinion that you're ignorant if "abortion up to the moment of birth" is actually part of your argument.

I'm examining what it really means to declare that it should only be between the woman and her doctor. If you don't hold this view, then ignore the parts of my post where I discuss it.

No, it's a fact you're ignorant. Framing it like this tells us quite clearly that you don't really understand anything about this topic. There is no such thing as "abortion at the moment of birth" unless that baby is going to die at that moment anyway AND take the mother with it. Your stance is based purely on crazy fantasies that you've concocted for yourself to argue against, not any sort of reasonable or well thought out position.

If you think the decision should be solely between a mother and a doctor, really the mother making an informed decision, then it is up to you to inform me the circumstances where that changes. I'm not going to put words in your mouth to say you really meant up to 39 weeks, or up to 35 weeks. If you think the unborn baby deserves no legal protections at any stage of the pregnancy, then that's a pretty extensive time period. If you think it will never happen after a certain gestational age except for something life-threatening, then you really have no argument for making it illegal except for life-threatening situations. I'm trying not to put words in your mouth, so let me know if you wish to prohibit any kinds of elective abortions after viability, or at any point late in the pregnancy.

I spent quite a bit of time in my last posts regarding how we discuss the issue regarding "How rare is too rare to talk about" and "Elective abortions never happen and it's too much work to outlaw them after certain points" ("The life of the unborn baby is never a consideration when talking about the burdens of pregnancy"). My responses to others on the topic sum up my views on the rest of your post. Feel free to quote and respond to the arguments in them if you have some particular disagreement. I don't think reposting them really serves a use.

"Tricking and manipulating people is part of their first amendment right." OK buddy.

If you can't really come into court showing evidence and arguing that crisis pregnancy centers deserve singling out because they're manipulating to subvert legitimate state interests, then I guess California's lawyers were particularly uninformed and should hire some less ignorant ones next time around. I'm citing the last time someone asked a state to "Prove it!" If you don't have anything really convincing to show the judge, then you might as well claim the state is trying to manipulate pregnant mothers to serve their particular views decision-making.

The hilariously dishonest right wing argument that paints abortion as people wanting to abort in the third trimester or right before birth, something that never happens unless it's deemed fatally necessary. Third trimester abortions even when RvW was in effect were exceedingly rare, and once again, only for medical reasons. All states, including ultra blue states, only had allowances for voluntary abortions up to 16 weeks at the latest.

First up, did you really mean to type that ultra blue states only had allowances for voluntary abortions up to 16 weeks at the latest? This has to be a typo. But moving on.

I'd like to find a few nationally-recognizable Democratic politicians or people in this forum that will actually defend the laws prohibiting elective abortions after places like 16 weeks.

Point me to the pro-choice person in this forum speaking a defense of any status quo abortion law regarding 1) elective abortions 2) performed after a certain gestational age. It would be a welcome discovery for me. No joke, I'd appreciate learning it. I would be quite happy to hear a pro-choice person say "[INSERT BLUE STATE HERE] makes abortion generally legal up until [16 weeks/18 weeks/"viability"/20 weeks/24 weeks] and I support such a restriction on abortion.

Not really sure why I engage with your dishonest drivveling tripe. But it's on par for you to use some kind of lie to make your opposition look like the unreasonable one when it's not the reality. I guess you learned that from how your politicians debate. When you can't in good faith argue against 16 week abortions

I got a good laugh at hearing that no "ultra blue state" had allowances for voluntary abortions beyond 16 weeks. Please tell me this is a typo, because I've gotten so used to hearing you assert absolutely contrafactual statements in replies to me, but have never observed you retract one to date. I really thought you couldn't top asserting that crisis pregnancy centers don't provide anything to mothers that already want to keep the pregnancy, but you repeated this one twice, so I have to assume you're being serious.

[Forogil]

On the subject of Republicans are in trouble in upcoming elections:

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/healt...-why-rcna50883

"Covid death rates are higher among Republicans than Democrats, mounting evidence shows"

Unvaccinated people are dying at much higher rates than vaccinated people, who'da thunk? Natural selection works in politics too I guess. Anti-vaxx rhetoric will likely be one of the better things to happen to the Democrat party. I don't revel in death though, but I do smirk at the self-inflicted wound that the GQP has made upon itself.

However, a difference of 4 per 100,000 and week is just 0.2% per year and the it seems weird to just look at April to July last year when we have more data (up to January this year).

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/u...ntry=~All+ages

[Muzjhath]

Miscarriage and abortion is close in kind to dying from a sudden sickness and dying from an intentional act of murder. For some circumstances on post-viability dilemmas, the question becomes, "We must deliver the baby now, but why would you also demand to first kill it?" Let me reiterate so you can't miss it, the moral argument between death from intentional act and death from sudden sickness isn't so easily discarded.

I've seen enough emotional arguments that implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, rely upon how unfair it is to burden women, how miserable it must be to deliver a baby they don't want, the emotional suffering of bearing a child that's the product of rape. They are so often brought up as to make casual dismissals of emotional arguments to cut both ways.

Your paragraph doesn't really respond to what you actually quoted, because you haven't actually defended "If someone feels abortion is immoral they can choose to not practice it" when it comes against "We do this all the time with other alleged crimes, and discard weak arguments in favor of committing them." Do you really want to say if you think spousal abuse is immoral, then just choose not to practice it? Does this argument depend on never finding someone that justifies the act based on special circumstances or broad circumstances?

As much as hormones and post-partum depression can be considered to be harm done to the women, I think the ultimate survival rate and ability to recover is much higher for the mother carrying to term than the baby subjected to abortion. This is absolutely important when the baby is past viability.

I cannot accept criticism of adoption and foster care as reasons to discard the baby in questions on allowing it life or not. That's only a sufficient reason to focus more attention and reform in those areas. Particularly if the people that call themselves pro-choice actually support the decision to carry to term and give up for adoption. They have skin in the game as well, and generally should be partners if I presume good faith on their part.

But just looking at the system as it stands now: Would you really put it to adopted children in a questionnaire upon attaining 18, asking if they wish they had never been born? Would you put it to foster care children? I'm much more confident than you that the current struggles stand quite a degree below rational suicide.

And really, what other part of society would you advocate something very brutal and final like abortion, until the other choices are sufficiently advanced to your standards? On topic, special needs health care? (You're better off aborting Down's syndrome babies, because the care and outcomes from that condition are so bad!!) The economy? (You're better off living life dependent on the state, employment is just too brutal). And on.

Final point. I'm really struggling to see a clear division reconciling you bringing up how "post-partum depression fucking is" and "how adoption and fostercare systems often look and function" with your opposition to appeals of emotion. The emotional response is pretty blatant when you ask the reader to consider miserable depression or the worst foster care homes. Just something for you to consider if you think balancing the "rights" or "consideration" afforded to an unborn child, particularly post-viability unborn child, is a de-facto emotional argument. Whether it is worth balancing against a woman seeking to abort the child in ways that don't always come out 100% mother's choice. I'm sure you can connect it to an emotional pull and also discover the non-emotional aspects. And weighing quality of life vs the denial of existence is a very tough matter. I'd really have to give extra weight to the "survivors" of foster care and infant adoption and carefully ask whether their existence was worth whatever troubles they experienced. Can you really say with confidence that existence is so miserable for adopted or foster care kids that they will majority not be worth the burdens of labor and delivery for the mother? I know something of the troubles, but what you're asking to put alongside it (post-partum depression, hormones) looks to be well below.

To the first part. I'm 100% for medically assisted suicide. So to me if someone wants to voluntarily end their life, that isn't a big gotcha, and is more what I'd compare it to.
Again, I do not see it as murder when it's elective. Late abortions are practically never elective. A thing you keep disregarding.

And as for "Where I would do something as brutal etc as abortion?" I'm borderline forced medical donations of organs. Or rather. I think Sweden should have an "Opt-Out" system and not the current "Opt-In". Someone who died in a car crash but has kidneys one can recover has no freaking need of them.

Am I brutal enough for you? I see the above as the humane action. (All of my organs are up for donation, and my family knows that I want to donate my body to science/medical students after I die).

As for claiming me stating all the shit a body goes through is appeals to emotion? I entirely disagree. The fact that pretty much every organ under the ribcage is squished during pregnancy tells me enough. For me to become "forbid the ending of the potential life of pregnancy" would need artificial wombs where transplating was safe and easy.
Again, it's not about the potential child in cases of elective abortion. It's about the person carrying that child. Same as that's why any laws should be made so that getting abortions in case of medical necessity is easy.
Is it hard for a parent to abort in the 4th month? It's devastating! I've got some relatives who did it. However it was far better for them than to carry a non-viable fetus that'd get sepsis. Or for them to give birth to a fetus without a head.

Your stance is that they should. Because that's what the laws your party are making are doing. Laws you seem to either have no issue with, or celebrate.

[Taifuu]

Poll results I cite: 0 words expended.
Other, similar poll results: 3 small paragraphs from you.

If you possess no curiosity on what "legal only under certain circumstances" means to the people asking, then you are justified in not examining a lick of the results of any other questions asked in the polls. You've just cited a general "certain circumstances," mused a little on math, and shut the book and thrown it under the bed. Show a little willingness to grapple with polling results you're rather not look into. Remember, good polls don't just ask two or three general questions and present them as all a person would ever want to know.

Let me start by responding to the number of paragraphs you have an issue with. I don't get paid by the number of words I copy and paste like you, so my responses will only contain what I feel necessary. I don't need to add superfluous sentences just to pad a paycheck. Your post only mentioned one poll, the Gallup poll. I linked the actual poll results FROM GALLUP, meaning I was in, fact responding to your poll results. The GALLUP POLL (not some other random poll you've decided to reference without citing) does not provide a definition for that term. Any definition of what that term is referencing is meaningless as you cannot say what it meant to the people taking the Gallup poll. That is why they are supposed to be specific in their questioning and not ask open-ended questions. If you wanted to discuss other polls, you should have mentioned those and post links to back up your assertions. You still haven't though.

That "little math" is roughly 20% of your original number. That's not just a slight variable by any measure. That's an objective lie. You're lying about how high the support for Abortion in general is to try to justify your own shitty values.

I'm a little bemused at the shade you're throwing at a n=1007 nationally representative polls of adults, really multiple polls taken over time that show the trends and stability. Pollsters are pretty experienced in using polls of that size to draw broadly accurate results about the social attitudes of the US adult population (and registered voters where applicable). I'd direct you to some primers like
How Can the Opinions of 1,000 People Possibly Represent the Entire Country?
"If you don't believe in random sampling, the next time you have a blood test, tell the doctor to take it all."

I will admit that I was incorrect regarding the sample size. The article I initially read stated that 1000 is the bare minimum, but you want 10% of the total for a good result. For population polls, it caps out 1000 as you stated. With that being acknowledged, here are the all times pollsters have been wrong:

https://aim.org/2022/11/07/media-pol...-math-problem/

The polling industry has been in turmoil since the 2016 Donald Trump upset of Hillary Clinton in the presidential race.

While certainly, 2016 wasn’t the first time that polling was wrong– see Bush-Gore 2000, Truman-Dewey 1948 — it also wasn’t the last time and even wasn’t the worst time pollsters were wrong.

I'm really going to have to ask you to rethink a poll on the order or ~1,000 being "so small" according to the science surrounding polling. Experts argue against even doubling the sample size at that point, since the increase doesn't really increase accuracy very much at all, and particularly so with regard to cost.

You know this actually supports my argument, right? The poll sample size being correct would mean, in your own terms, that the discussion of abortion policy comes down to a matter of education, i.e, ignorance.

You puzzle me yet another time. You both call attention to the lack of polling happening after Dobbs (it happened less than a year ago, no surprise there) but then switch to a small trend/lack of a trend happening over decades. Which will you have?

Yeah, it's like the original Roe v. Wade decision was made decades ago and was just recently overturned. Crazy!

I'll bite on the decades. In every single poll conducted over the last roughly 3 decades, a majority of Americans want abortion to be generally illegal after the first trimester, and a vast majority want abortion to be generally illegal after the second trimester. Yes, I'm pointing out some uncomfortable detail to the "certain circumstances" abortion question. This trend has been very stable over the decades. It is only when looking at 2022 vs 2018 that you see a drop. Not a multi-decade-trend, a last-five-years trend.

And here's the part that you conveniently didn't quote from my post:

Of course, as has been pointed out to you before, even if the anti-abortion sentiment was at 100%, it still wouldn't be the right choice as it undermines the bodily autonomy of women for something that is not a public health risk.

To conclude and address others in the thread regarding population opinions, nobody should walk in saying it's obvious to the average person that this ought to be mother-and-doctor voluntary decision throughout the pregnancy. It isn't obvious to the population. If such an opinion is misogyny or psychopathy, then you better be the kind of person to plainly declare all your fellow citizens the worst of brutes and despicable peoples. I might become a little more dismissive of arguments made to the population or made to common sense if it coexists with such a view.

This is actually what we have been saying; that even if a majority of people think that abortion should be illegal that would be still be the wrong law to enact. Slavery was specifically brought as a similar example, since, you know, at one point THE POPULAR OPINION WAS PRETTY ONBOARD WITH THAT.

I will also 100% state that most people are terrible. Do you think the state of our world is this way because of some law of physics? Our reality sucks because we AS A PEOPLE have allowed it to be this way. I fully believe that the average person is not at all great. In this case, though, since your OWN POLL states that 85% of the population support abortion in some way, I can give my fellow citizens a pass on this particular issue.

If you think the decision should be solely between a mother and a doctor, really the mother making an informed decision, then it is up to you to inform me the circumstances where that changes. I'm not going to put words in your mouth to say you really meant up to 39 weeks, or up to 35 weeks. If you think the unborn baby deserves no legal protections at any stage of the pregnancy, then that's a pretty extensive time period. If you think it will never happen after a certain gestational age except for something life-threatening, then you really have no argument for making it illegal except for life-threatening situations. I'm trying not to put words in your mouth, so let me know if you wish to prohibit any kinds of elective abortions after viability, or at any point late in the pregnancy.

Nothing about a scenario where the decision is made between the mother and doctor would strip them of legal protections, unless there was a law specifically designed to do so.

I spent quite a bit of time in my last posts regarding how we discuss the issue regarding "How rare is too rare to talk about" and "Elective abortions never happen and it's too much work to outlaw them after certain points" ("The life of the unborn baby is never a consideration when talking about the burdens of pregnancy"). My responses to others on the topic sum up my views on the rest of your post. Feel free to quote and respond to the arguments in them if you have some particular disagreement. I don't think reposting them really serves a use.

You spent a lot of time padding your posting word count, that's about it. Very little evidence you have provided backs up anything you have said, let alone the entire premise.

If you can't really come into court showing evidence and arguing that crisis pregnancy centers deserve singling out because they're manipulating to subvert legitimate state interests, then I guess California's lawyers were particularly uninformed and should hire some less ignorant ones next time around. I'm citing the last time someone asked a state to "Prove it!" If you don't have anything really convincing to show the judge, then you might as well claim the state is trying to manipulate pregnant mothers to serve their particular views decision-making.

The California case against anti-abortion clinics was very narrowly decided on a 5-4 decision with a heavily conservative court on the basis that the law violated the anti-abortion clinics First Amendment rights. That is because it is actually legal to lie or mislead in most cases. This is not at all the defense of their actions that your software thinks it is.

Point me to the pro-choice person in this forum speaking a defense of any status quo abortion law regarding 1) elective abortions 2) performed after a certain gestational age. It would be a welcome discovery for me. No joke, I'd appreciate learning it. I would be quite happy to hear a pro-choice person say "[INSERT BLUE STATE HERE] makes abortion generally legal up until [16 weeks/18 weeks/"viability"/20 weeks/24 weeks] and I support such a restriction on abortion.

I think that abortion should be legal at any point. Pretty easy. As other posters have REPEATEDLY pointed out to you; this is not something that women are going around doing for funsies. These are serious events that are already extremely traumatic for the mother involved regardless of whether or not an abortion is performed.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Point me to the pro-choice person in this forum speaking a defense of any status quo abortion law regarding 1) elective abortions 2) performed after a certain gestational age. It would be a welcome discovery for me. No joke, I'd appreciate learning it. I would be quite happy to hear a pro-choice person say "[INSERT BLUE STATE HERE] makes abortion generally legal up until [16 weeks/18 weeks/"viability"/20 weeks/24 weeks] and I support such a restriction on abortion.

People as a whole do not support unconditional access to abortion, and if you believe they do you've poorly misinformed yourself, likely because the only sources you ever believe is the alt right pipeline. If you think everyone in here has been arguing for unconditional access to abortion at any point during term, then you've not been paying attention to the thread in general. Not much of a surprise considering you hopped into the discussion only recently. But really, the only thing this thread has been discussing recently is about the abortion bans. Because that's what conservatives have been doing.

But again, you're a dishonest poster, posting dishonest things, making utterly dishonest takes about others. "WAH WAHHHHHHH people want to have abortions right before pregnancy!" "Bruh nobody wants that" "BUT EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD HAS BEEN ARGUING FOR THAT!"

Do you know why nobody has been discussing their limitations on when abortion is okay in here? Because conservatives have been outright banning abortion, and it's hurting women. It's causing women to die both due to pregnancy complications that doctors will not treat due to legal ramifications, as well as women getting into severe medical issues because they can't get proper reproductive care since conservatives have utterly gutted reproductive health care. Pregnancy crisis centers don't offer shit. Diapers, bottles, and ultrasounds? Fuck off, that doesn't do shit.

Limitations on abortions are generally arbitrary. There's generally very little restriction on first trimester, with a good number of restrictions on second trimester depending on state, and all states more or less had outright bans on third trimester abortions save for grave medical emergencies for either the mother or child. Your moral panic about third trimester abortion is PATHETIC and MEANINGLESS in this discussion, and serves zero purpose other than to demonstrate how you have zero argument yourself. If the only thing you're bringing to the table is to cry about third trimester abortions, I'm happy to tell you that those don't happen save in extreme cases. Less than 1% of all abortions happen past 21 weeks, and again, only happen because of severe medical issue.

It feels so excedingly idiotic that every time the abortion debate is had with a conservative, they always cry about aborting babies before birth or in the third trimester "for funsies" because it makes them feel like their side is more reasonable and makes the pro-choice side look crazy. But that's all conservatives have. Lies and dishonest moral panics about things that don't happen.

[PosPosPos]

-word salad snip-

You didn't have to write up walls and walls of text telling us and faux-justifying over and over how you have utter contempt for not just medical and scientific consensus, but also for democracy.

But you did so anyway, because you are just engaging in bad faith invitations to debate.

so what should we expect?

Other than the usual sealions and gish-gallops?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Other than the usual sealions and gish-gallops?

It's just so easy to rebuke their sad attempts at arguments, because they're all the same. For as much as they claim the other side is NPCs who will believe anything they're told, the conservative side uses a lot of the same exact lines and thus make it super easy to counter. The whole panic about women getting abortions in the third trimester for funsies is a popular one among Republicans. But just like every other moral panic that conservatives engage in, it's not something that happens in reality. The third trimester abortions are less than 1% of overall abortions, and are always limited to things such as medical emergency.

So we have a poster who's been arguing in favor of outright abortion bans, but when it's been demonstrated to him time and again how destructive outright bans are, and how conservatives can't claim to be pro-life because pregnancy related deaths are now UP in areas where abortion is illegal, he falls back onto "WELL YOU GUYS JUST WANT TO ABORT BABIES RIGHT BEFORE THEY'RE BORN HUH!" as if we haven't heard that lame ass goalpost shift 5000 times already.

But you're right, it's naught more than sealioning. He constantly cries about sources, while never providing any himself, and when the evidence is overwhelmingly against him he disappears from a debate only to pop up elsewhere and once again begin demanding others be the ones to provide evidence. It's transparently dishonest.

[Endus]

Miscarriage and abortion is close in kind to dying from a sudden sickness and dying from an intentional act of murder. For some circumstances on post-viability dilemmas, the question becomes, "We must deliver the baby now, but why would you also demand to first kill it?" Let me reiterate so you can't miss it, the moral argument between death from intentional act and death from sudden sickness isn't so easily discarded.

Liar.

"Abortion" refers to the ending of a pregnancy; that is what is "aborted".

If a fetus is advanced enough to be viable, the abortion procedure that would be used would be inducing birth. There would be no medical reason whatsoever to kill the fetus first. You're lying about what abortion even is to fearmonger about stupid made-up delusional fantasies.

As for your "moral argument about death from intentional act"; killing in self defense is an "intentional act". A police officer shooting an active threat is an "intentional act". Etc. Intentional killing is not automatically a moral wrong. Worse, we're talking about non-viable fetus in nearly every case, here, so presuming the moral standard is the same as killing an actual person is the real false equivalence being drawn here. Which you're again lying about, to our faces, because admitting the truth kills your entire argument dead.

- - - Updated - - -

People as a whole do not support unconditional access to abortion, and if you believe they do you've poorly misinformed yourself, likely because the only sources you ever believe is the alt right pipeline.

It's not like that's even a crazy concept. Canada's had no legal restrictions on abortion for 35 years now. It's just managed via medical ethics and standards of practice, like any other medical procedure. There have been essentially no issues as a result of that legal change.

Also, universal health care, and abortions are covered, so there isn't even a financial barrier of any kind.

[Rasulis]

Here is something that most people probably missed during the 2022 election cycle.

Alaska’s constitution privacy clause granted Alaskans the right to abortion without gestation limit. Republicans in Alaska have been wanting to change this for a long time. Their only option is to change the constitution.

The first avenue is by placing a ballot measures to be voted by Alaskans. Which would require two-third legislator votes. A non-starter.

The second is by holding a constitution convention which is voted once a decade. It came up in 2022, and the pro-convention supporters made it clear that changes to Alaska’s abortion right will be on the table if it passed.

In 2012 the “no” votes won by 2 to 1. Early polls indicated that, although still a long shot, the margin in 2022 might be closer. Instead the “no” votes won by 70.5% to 29.5%.

This shows that even in a R+14 state, majority voters do not want abortion restrictions.

[Edge-]

In 2012 the “no” votes won by 2 to 1. Early polls indicated that, although still a long shot, the margin in 2022 might be closer. Instead the “no” votes won by 70.5% to 29.5%.

This shows that even in a R+14 state, majority voters do not want abortion restrictions.

Weird how every time this actually goes to the voters in any capacity there's overwhelming support for bodily autonomy as a bipartisan issue. Even in fairly deep red states.

I mean it's not weird at all and people aren't remotely as extreme on the topic - as a whole - as Republican politicians would very much like you to believe. Shame their voters keep electing these bad politicians with extremist views on the topic.

[Fugus]

Weird how every time this actually goes to the voters in any capacity there's overwhelming support for bodily autonomy as a bipartisan issue. Even in fairly deep red states.

I mean it's not weird at all and people aren't remotely as extreme on the topic - as a whole - as Republican politicians would very much like you to believe. Shame their voters keep electing these bad politicians with extremist views on the topic.

Also goes to show how religiously those voters have shown up at the polls over the decades to get these zealots elected to begin with compared to how many only seem to show up when they realize they themselves are directly being attacked with their own rights.

Shows how many Americans just refuse to show up most times and how the GOP can strip them of every right, freedom and paycheck they want so long as they don't do it directly or overtly. The boiled frog in action.

[Rasulis]

We are watching a slow-moving trainwreck in terms of women's healthcare in the US. It is especially acute in states where abortion is banned.

Training Location Preferences of U.S. Medical School Graduates Post DOBBS V. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION Decision