SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[tehdang]

Which I find annoying in my interactions with @tehdang. I understand this is a sensitive topic that human beings will likely never find common ground on, so I address tehdang's position to him with a label he prefers. Pro-life.

I'm replying to more than one poster, and you tagged me because of a reply to a different poster ... one who calls it "pro-birther." Now, I understand you have an oblique criticism of the way other posters, and not you, choose to use terms. Good on you for doing it, and maybe it'll catch on! But for a public thread with a thread-average-approach consisting of choosing the terms the poster likes, and not the side they're addressing likes, I'm going to stick with the average. You might remember all the forced birth and anti-pro-life taxonomy discussions in recent memory, and the pro-rape perspective extremely recently.

If this were just a Private Message conversation and not all these replies-to-replies back-and-forth, I would default to using pro-choice or other terms you wish.

There you go again. This isn't performative for me, tehdang.

It's not specifically directed at you. This is a public forum, and I explained my use in the discussion surrounding the Atlantic article. Now, if you have any comment on the third person in that room, which kind of gets missed with the "pro-it's-my-business" attempt. A distinct human being dies in an abortion, and pro-life people are allowed to speak up for those that are marginalized in that process. Specifically, and from my point of view, when an early delivery of a post-viable baby would magically bestow this separate human being with a full coterie of rights. When you affect to believe it's a pro-choice argument, and pro-it's-not-my-business, and pro-let...., you're intentionally excluding a patient's rights that isn't the mother.

On other issues, the left likes to speak up for the voiceless, and powerless, and the marginalized.

Performative. Someone made a snide comment about pitchforks. Direct your performance at them, not me.

I have yet to see an emotional plea FOR an abortion that does not take mitigating circumstances into account. I have yet to see a pro-life assertion that doesn't involve an emotional plea regarding the woman getting the abortion.

Remember who you're quoting when you go off on performative tangents please.

It's a public forum. You've refused to write three sentences on my post to the thread, namely the article quoting doctors discussing the ethics of advising legislators, so please address the main topic before going off on side topics, and trying to regulate which side topics you want to and don't want to discuss.

You asserted that "one is based on emotion" and "the other is based on science." Unless you're trying to specifically exclude other people arguing on this side, I'm going to quote the emotional pleas and include them in the "pro-choice" side. If you want to restrain yourself from making generalizations (we're also pro-potential of life, despite neglecting the viable baby in doctor-mother-only rhetoric, we're science you're emotions), then you won't have to ever hear me bring evidence to the contrary.

Talk to those people directly, tehdang. I've never called you a fascist, nazi, transphobe bigot, groomer communist, or anti-religious zealout. So don't quote me and bring that up.


I don't. Mostly because of conversations like these. There are things you bring up that I agree with, and then others I don't. The problem is that you don't care what I agree with you about, you care what I don't agree with you about.

I was agreeing with you that the rhetoric was heightened, while adding that I think it's now part of the modern zeitgeist.

Can you provide a scientific rebuttal and not an opinion piece from a political activist?

The citations in the article and opinion on it are valuable to read and come straight from the biggest pro-abort outfits you can name. Can you refrain from mischaracterizing a discussion on what's happening now (which may be reported by numerous outlets and be surrounded by commentary) as purely a scientific disagreement? We aren't debating whether 21 weeks or 22 weeks should be included in viability, or at which week an embryo becomes a fetus, which are purely scientific questions lending themselves to scientific discussion.

To the bolded, is he wrong?

Also, see my referenced study above.

I'd certainly say that perspective lends itself to many other doctors performing late term abortions on healthy mother and baby. I think as an answer to "Would you abort a woman's baby with no health issues at 30 weeks," it's definitely wrong. If it's an answer apart from justifying the induced death of a baby, he's right. But you're intentionally or unintentionally dodging the real question, which is, "Do you really think he's the only doctor that feels this way in justifying abortions of a health baby and mom?" If you'd rather not answer, and just persist in asserting that he's super eccentric, then I'll reach some conclusions from it.

So do I.

This is a good point of agreement.

I'm starting to think you're not interested in discussion, just using this topic to bludgeon the party you oppose.

You aren't curious at all why it's a collection of blue states not releasing the data, and democrats on capitol hill have opposed bills on national collection of this information? You really don't have to bust out the accusations of disingenuous arguing on this one.

Why are you referencing studies that we can't read? You've given me nothing to go on but your opinion on these "studies".

EDIT - I googled "Jones Kooistra 2011", and got this. Nothing about abortions being unrelated to life of mother/baby:
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-05109-007

(just in case you didn't notice, the "need to enact and enforce laws" is meant to prohibit the violence towards abortion clinics you're decrying that one poster on this forum made)


Next EDIT - I googled "Foster DG et al 2012", and got this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5803812/
Weird, you're saying women are being denied abortions that they received? Am I looking at the right study?

It's almost like you're agreeing with me. That can't be right.

"Abortion Incidence and Access to Services In the United States, 2008" appearing in Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health by Jones & Kooistra (2011) "Attitudes and decision making among women seeking abortions at one U.S. clinic" (2012) in the same peer-reviewed journal. Both have been cited and linked to in the very articles you tell me you do not wish to read. 20-28 weeks, bridging late second-trimester/post-viability and early third trimester aren't the slam dunk for health reasons you wish to believe. You can also read linked articles and who they cite to argue for more information. Again, these are surveys and data collection is very spotty.

Hold up now.

YOU made him a national exception.

You wanted him to be an exception. I originally wanted to present people that said, "This doesn't happen," with the clearest example of "Not only does this not happen, but here's a guy that shows no moral compunction about it."

I showed a counterexample, YOU wanted to make him unique among all doctors in the US. Despite ten or fifteen thousand late-term abortions performed annually in the United States. Hern only performs late-term abortions, and he estimates at least half, and sometimes more do not have devastating medical diagnoses. So, if I'm going to take a page out of your book, I think you have a non-scientific and frankly hard-to-explain rationale for dismissing what an abortionist says he does.

Also, when I presented how Hern justified his late-term abortions, you asked "Is it true?" You can't really have it both ways; is he so out-of-the-mainstream that no other doctor also performs late-term post-viability abortions on healthy women and babies (possibly in trying relationship, financial, housing circumstances), or do you find his justifications personally persuasive on abortions, and naturally there exist other doctors that believe the same? Remember that *every* pregnancy being a health issue is a justification for *every* abortion being permissible as falling under a health issue.

Find me some more of these doctors. Then we can determine whether I'm making an exception, or you are. I'm confident that I can count the number of morally bankrupt abortion doctors on one of my hands.

https://www.thehairpin.com/2013/09/interview-with-dr/

Another doctor drawing her own experiential ad-hoc lines in the case of a healthy fetus. No presence of a "No" answer, just admitting "It's hard." She can really only point to two lines: the very young (11 as an example) and the extremely along (35 weeks which might be 38 weeks with uncertainty). She's got no firm rule against late-term abortions of healthy fetus/healthy mother in e.g. 29 and 32 weeks. In her view, "Is there a meaningful ethical difference?"

Like I said, I'm in favor of drawing some helpful lines for Dr Robinson, like don't perform abortions in the 20/24 Week+ range unless the life of the mother is threatened by a condition, or the baby has a severe fetal anomaly. The second patient, the baby, deserves to be adopted out or put in the care of grandparents and the like, if non-health-related life circumstances are trying.

If you're gonna degenerate this conversation into "I found a shitty doctor!" I'm gonna bow out.

I'm expecting some version of, "Ok, sure people who said this never happens were displeased with the first counter-example. Alright, maybe instead of 1 person I want to call unique, it's at least two doctors on the record. But I'm darn sure the few doctors going public with their stances have no cohort that is unwilling to be interviewed on the issue and exist in an unreported statistically-empty black hole!"

I mean, believe what you're going to believe. But maybe be a little less sure that each new example on the record are the only people in the country that perform these abortions and are willing to keep doing it. I'm trying to remember if this even matters to your own perspective, since if the only people that matter are the Doctor and Mother, then you don't really care if the baby is healthy and the mother is healthy, you're just going to say it's fine to abort anyways. Any reason given is sufficient.

@tehdang I did read the article, thanks. It seems like you didn't...? I may have misspoke about one thing, though. The doctor wasn't sued, no, she was reprimanded and fined. Same fucking thing, my dude.

You said the doctor was "sued for doing so" ... for "having[ing] this entirely necessary procedure carried out." She was sued for violating HIPAA violations after the whole episode. These aren't the same thing and pretending they're the same thing and potentially justifying a pitchforks-torches-and-shotguns (your words) mob is misinformation.

EDIT: Oh, I wasn't able to mention it before, but I suppose I'll address the "pregnancy crisis centers". Charities, much like churches offering soup kitchens out the back for the homeless, are not and never will be enough, as they do not have the backing of government and REAL funding and power. Might there be some deluded people who wind up helping a few mothers and babies because of them? Sure, I won't deny that. But they aren't a SYSTEM in place to help ALL mothers and children forced into such awful circumstances. They are not good enough, and never will be until things like that are actually written into law... but good luck with that, since they also tend to push pro-birth instead of simply being a resource available to help expecting mothers... like Planned Parenthood, the thing righties everywhere froth at the mouth about.

Let me be clear in this case. You and I agree that the pro-life side funds charities that explicitly exist to help mothers who choose to not abort their babies, but you simultaneously claim "they ['pro-birthers'] will turn around and do nothing to help the family and child afterwards". Now what's a person supposed to think that this $1 billion dollar annual outlay specifically towards helping parents with a difficult pregnancy/taking care of a newborn is "do nothing to help the family and child afterwards?" You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. You absolutely know the pro-life side funds this effort, but because you want it done through government, you pretend it doesn't exist and aren't willing to retract your former statements that pro-lifers do nothing. This is thoroughly disingenuous.

[Edge-]

Let me be clear in this case. You and I agree that the pro-life side funds charities that explicitly exist to help mothers who choose to not abort their babies, but you simultaneously claim "they ['pro-birthers'] will turn around and do nothing to help the family and child afterwards".

Worth noting that the criticism is less towards "charity" and more towards "policy", as this is ultimately a policy discussion.

"Let charities solve it." has never, and will never be an actual policy position.

[The Stormbringer]

Let me be clear in this case. You and I agree that the pro-life side funds charities that explicitly exist to help mothers who choose to not abort their babies, but you simultaneously claim "they ['pro-birthers'] will turn around and do nothing to help the family and child afterwards". Now what's a person supposed to think that this $1 billion dollar annual outlay specifically towards helping parents with a difficult pregnancy/taking care of a newborn is "do nothing to help the family and child afterwards?" You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. You absolutely know the pro-life side funds this effort, but because you want it done through government, you pretend it doesn't exist and aren't willing to retract your former statements that pro-lifers do nothing. This is thoroughly disingenuous.

What do you think I mean when I say "they won't do anything"? Are you taking me literally? Because if you are, then clearly I should have elaborated. Thankfully, we have Edge- here...

Worth noting that the criticism is less towards "charity" and more towards "policy", as this is ultimately a policy discussion.

"Let charities solve it." has never, and will never be an actual policy position.

Charity is not the solution. It has never been and never will be. It can't be, it's just not built for it. Which is why policy has to be created to solve the issue. The fact of the matter is that every single politician (and most voters) pushing for abolishing abortion will not do the things necessary to solve the problems they are creating: reducing poverty and homelessness, providing free healthcare, decriminalizing harmless drugs, removing discriminatory policies, increasing regulation, pushing for more thorough Sex Education, funding Planned Parenthood and free birth control/condoms, taxing the wealthy to fund all this, and so on and so on.

Primarily because those things, those solutions, cost money. It's much easier to say "charity will solve it" and let the few people who are actually willing to fork over their money to help act as a band-aid for a gaping wound.

This is why I say these people are "doing nothing", because the actual pushers behind abolishing abortion are not offering up their own money and livelihood to help women and children in need, they are just shrugging their shoulders and offering thoughts and prayers. And in the few instances they are putting their money where their mouth is, they're still VOTING AGAINST the things that would actually make the situation better for everyone. Nothing of substance. Yes, feel free to quote me saying "they wouldn't spend a single penny" and call me a hypocrite or moving goal posts or whatever here.

EDIT: As to this...

You said the doctor was "sued for doing so" ... for "having[ing] this entirely necessary procedure carried out." She was sued for violating HIPAA violations after the whole episode. These aren't the same thing and pretending they're the same thing and potentially justifying a pitchforks-torches-and-shotguns (your words) mob is misinformation.

I don't believe it was misinformation, more a misunderstanding. The exact circumstances I originally said were indeed incorrect, I will admit to misunderstanding there, likely caused by reading too fast, however the situation remains remarkably similar if not exactly the same: a woman is being punished for helping this girl, and potentially countless other girls and women, by exposing what has happened. If you cannot see why trying to suffocate and censor these events is really fucking evil, despite the HIPAA laws being used as a shield, then I don't know what to say. We disagree.

[s_bushido]

"Let charities solve it." has never, and will never be an actual policy position.

I mean...it is when your policy position is "we're not going to do shit about this thing we pretend to care deeply about." It's right up there with the Thoughts and Prayers™ policy we've adopted as a nation to the slaughter of children by gunmen in schools.

[Endus]

Now, if you have any comment on the third person in that room, which kind of gets missed with the "pro-it's-my-business" attempt. A distinct human being dies in an abortion, and pro-life people are allowed to speak up for those that are marginalized in that process.

This is an objectively false claim. It's a bit of religious dogma that you're demanding everyone else treat as if it were a true fact.

You're allowed to express your religious views, where we take issue is your attempts to define the law for everyone according to your religious views. When you make up a fantasy about things, everyone else else is entitled to say "we don't believe that/you", and that's where your rights ethically end. At that point, you get to shut up and leave other people alone, or the rest of us get to point out the violent, regressive religious extremism you're pushing onto all of us, and the harms it causes.

Your religion isn't ours. Stop bringing it up as if it's a universal objective truth.

[tehdang]

What do you think I mean when I say "they won't do anything"?

Yes, I'm taking you literally. This is a fraught topic; I have to take you at your word. But now, your focus is that you meant that pro-lifers should do things differently, and use government revenue for it, instead of actually believing that they "do nothing to help the family and child afterwards."

I don't believe it was misinformation, more a misunderstanding. The exact circumstances I originally said were indeed incorrect, I will admit to misunderstanding there

Thank you for the correction. I feel like if you're questioning the time for mob action, it should be for something more than HIPAA.

Ok, read it. Responses below, but I'll condense it because not much left to say between us.

Agreed.

I can't go with you on the journey to recognizing that the fetus/baby/whatever name is a 3rd person in the room.

Why? Because I disagree that women are aborting viable babies and doctors are just doing it. This is an emotional argument by you, because I don't know why you think it's worth considering the 3rd person in the room and assume you're speaking for it.

Until we have some kind of technology that can ask this rhetorical 3rd person what they want, why should we create barriers preventing the mother from alleviating their issues? Until then, both pro-life and pro-choice are championing different people(pro-choice generally sides with the mother/doctor, pro-life tends to side with baby/fetus).

I disagree that pro-choice is the "left" position and pro-life the "right" position. It's not political. Yes there are trends, but I don't care for that in terms of discussing abortion. It's not a hill I wanna die on though, just wanted to point it out. Example - my mom is a conservative GOP voter, but thinks abortion should be legal. Anecdotal, but hopefully you're catching my drift.

I don't believe the birth canal is a magical person-and-rights granter, such that 24 weeks in the womb is permissible to kill, and a preemie birth at the same time makes such an act illegal. Life ending after abortion is about as scientific fact as it gets, and I'm not asking you to emotionally connect with the implications. If it had been some other process, where two people decide the fate of a third when that third is quite able to live out life and be delivered, I don't think you'd have to dig deep into your emotions to understand there's some neglect going on.

The pithy version is that somebody's choice is being made for them, and the fact that it's being made for them is great reason to ensure that the law protects them from every possible reason below life of the mother and severe fetal anomaly. You disagree that it's happening, without evidence I might add, but somehow the strength of your evidence-free assertion needs to dominate. I brought to the table what I had, a couple 20-28 studies suggesting a majority are for non-health reasons, but the strength of your belief gave them short shrift. Oh well.

I didn't address your article because I had nothing to add. My re-entry into our discussion was based on a side topic, if you remember. I jumped back into the conversation when you tagged me in a reply.

WTF are you on about? You are very strange. I literally posted an article with commentary and quotes from a journal, tagging no-one. I responded to somebody that quote-replied. Then you tagged me out of the blue without saying one word about what I had posted.

You told me we should listen to the 3rd person in the room in an abortion, and that's not an emotional argument?

But again, we won't agree on this, because we apparently can't agree on what's emotion and what's fact. In the above example, it's not a fact there's a third person in the room(fetus/baby). It's an emotional plea that they are.

By pro-choice being based on science, I mean that pro-choice tends to side with what the experts say. Pro-life can, but often doesn't. It's not directed solely at you, but when a rabid pro-life person tells a woman that got an abortion that she's a murderer, you kinda have to admit you got some crazies over there. And more often than not, those crazies are pushing the pro-life message.

We should legally protect their lives from unreasonable requests to end them, certainly. Why are you so hung-up on emotionality? Is opposing the mistreatment of young children outside the womb automatically an emotional argument, since you might personally feel an emotional tug during the discussion? Well, here we have nobody in the room legally obligated to only consider health reasons, and evidence from at least two doctors that they end lives based on other considerations. I'll say two doctors coming out in public is enough reason to 1) doubt that it never happens apart from those two and 2) believe that they represent dozens of others that would never speak up for the same due to potential public backlash.

But I've noticed you're putting a lot into your base assertions that it doesn't happen enough for you to consider it, and since you've been honest at basing it there, I'll end it.

We were debating reasons women might get a 3rd trimester abortion. You opened with the national review article without much data mining. Granted our discussions can get long, so maybe you intended for me to read it and then check the footnotes for the studies.

I still don't see how these studies back up your prior assertion.

Check it out if you get the time. I sincerely provided them, because I think it's a good goal to read more about the subject and skim through commentary to discover what facts they're basing their opinion on. From the limited evidence of surveys, and from the viability line to early third trimester, the evidence is behind a majority being for non-health reasons.

I take his response as being annoyed that for the past 50 years, people are asking him why people get abortions. There are plenty of those reasons, and you're ok with most of them. You draw the line at healthy past X weeks. You don't seem to account for my resources stating that barriers to getting a timely abortion being a real big problem these days.

With all due respect, people have to ask him why because the data isn't provided freely, and with all due respect, people get too used to asserting what must be true without asking the people performing late-term abortions what actually is true. If clinics in every state collected the reasons, less doctors would need to be asked.

I do think he's on a very short list of doctors that will just perform abortions just because the patient wants. Let me phrase it this way, how many doctors do you think would put their entire lives on the line when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus because the mother says "I don't want it"? These are professional doctors, remember. That went through 10+ years of education to get that title.

Again though, I don't really have any indication from the Atlantic article that this doctor performed an abortion on a healthy, viable fetus after 30 weeks. All I have is "Every pregnancy is a health issue". It absolutely is true, whether it ends in miscarriage, abortion, or childbirth. I have this eccentric doctor that says some pretty non-professional shit, but no hard facts on "yes, I'll abort your baby just because you asked me!".

You're being awfully cagey and unreasonable here. If a Doctor is pointedly questioned on a healthy mother/baby, and what he would do, the response "Every pregnancy is a health issue" plainly means that he does not consider the circumstances in the question to be the overriding concern for him.

Also, what are you on about "put their entire lives on the line." He's speaking in the context of Colorado, which didn't have gestational limits. He suffers nothing for performing late-term abortions according to criteria that he sets and don't hinge on health. Please logically consider what doctor-and-mother conversations mean in the law. It can't matter, because nobody else gets a say, and reasons never have to be reported. Since it's legal and there are no professional or public consequences, I expect a significant minority of doctors that perform late-term abortions would act on life circumstances apart from health. Again, no data, and I can only speculate.

I reject the premise. I don't know why states aren't collecting more data, and I have a hard time making the leap you have that it's blue states that are intentionally hiding nefarious acts.

Maybe give me a more reasonable assertion to why states aren't collecting the data? Because it's not funded? There's not enough oversight/regulation?

This is observational only. The states that consistently decline to report are all blue states. The party that defeated the last bill to encourage data reporting from states was the Democratic party.

I'm not gonna read a National Review opinion piece by a political activist that opposes abortion. It would be better to just provide me the studies he's referencing. I didn't ask his opinion, I asked yours.

I've got to end it here. Everybody that reports on abortions and perspectives that may influence policy comes with a bias. Yours and mine are known. This simply shows too much of a lack of curiosity and exposure to contrary opinions at even a skim-level.

I interpret this as a bright-line boundary for you, and react to it in that way.

The methods of removing the bumper-sticker drivel from mainstream outlets of all biases are necessary to get at linked studies and logical argument. The studies I found, and were posted to the Guttmacher Institute (pro-abortion), were found by following pro-life articles and pro-choice articles as a reaction to comments from politicians and mainstream talk shows. I summarized the results, and named the titles and authors. That's the public discourse, and sifting through the snark is base-level engagement with the public conversation. As you said early, there's not much left to say between us, so you can have the last word on the rest.

[Endus]

We should legally protect their lives from unreasonable requests to end them, certainly. Why are you so hung-up on emotionality? Is opposing the mistreatment of young children outside the womb automatically an emotional argument, since you might personally feel an emotional tug during the discussion?

The only basis you have for declaring a fetus to be a person is emotional. You're not rationalizing yourself into that position. It's pro-life as a movement whose entire basis is predicated on emotional reasoning and a rejection of science and medical knowledge.

You're bringing a faith-based argument into the discussion and trying to force everyone else to abide by your particular religious views. And we're refusing. That's the simple truth.

It's particularly vapid as an argument against abortion rights because the personhood of the fetus is ultimately not relevant in any way whatsoever. Even if we were to grant that it's a person from conception, that still provides no argument whatsoever to oppose open access to abortion. This is where your emotions come into play, again, rather than reason. There isn't a single other instance where one person's right to life is deemed to overrule another person's right to their self-ownership or bodily autonomy (not concerned with the particular phrasing). If we allow right to life to be the supreme right when these two come into conflict, then what you're saying is we should forcibly harvest people's tissue and organs against their will, to save the lives of others who need them. That's the same argument. Nobody supports that, actually. Except this one instance, when it comes to abortion. Because the pro-life position is not based on any level of concern for the fetus' hypothetical right to life. If it were, we'd be having that discussion about forced donations. We aren't, because nobody actually believes right to life trumps self-ownership.

They just feel pregnant women shouldn't be allowed this right. That they are, in at least some sense, breeding stock and don't have full human rights.

That's why we reject the position wholesale. You speak of the fetus and its "rights", but you consistently demonstrate that you do not respect the pregnant person's rights in this.

[unfilteredJW]

That's why we reject the position wholesale. You speak of the fetus and its "rights", but you consistently demonstrate that you do not respect the pregnant person's rights in this.

Or the child once it's born, just to hammer it home a bit.

[RampageBW1]

Or the child once it's born, just to hammer it home a bit.

A great man once said, "They'll do anything for the unborn, but once you're born, you're on your own."

[Adamas102]

They're being performed above 10,000. You've read the doctor that stated, plainly, in response to what about "a pregnant woman with no health issues comes to the clinic, say, at 30 weeks, what would you do?" was irked and said "Every pregnancy is a health issue."

That you still can't wrap your head around this fact is why your opinion will never hold water, AND why you seem to think that doctors are just being difficult when they refuse to contribute to legislation that is only made to appear reasonable via various exceptions. There are NO medically or ethically significant exceptions that need to be codified to prevent a healthcare provider from providing this service to their patients. As the doctor in the article that you grossly misunderstood noted, the only thing to consider is whether it is safer for the patient to abort or to bring to term. That's it. As most reasonable doctors would agree, the health of the patient comes first, and no piece of legislation should hamper their ability to provide safe, medically effective care.

That's why you shouldn't expect doctors to sit down with legislators in order to craft laws that aren't based on science and are antithetical to providing medical care to people in need of it.

[Zython]

I don't believe the birth canal is a magical person-and-rights granter, such that 24 weeks in the womb is permissible to kill, and a preemie birth at the same time makes such an act illegal. Life ending after abortion is about as scientific fact as it gets, and I'm not asking you to emotionally connect with the implications. If it had been some other process, where two people decide the fate of a third when that third is quite able to live out life and be delivered, I don't think you'd have to dig deep into your emotions to understand there's some neglect going on.

What evidence do you have that you actually believe this?

The pithy version is that somebody's choice is being made for them, and the fact that it's being made for them is great reason to ensure that the law protects them from every possible reason below life of the mother and severe fetal anomaly. You disagree that it's happening, without evidence I might add, but somehow the strength of your evidence-free assertion needs to dominate. I brought to the table what I had, a couple 20-28 studies suggesting a majority are for non-health reasons, but the strength of your belief gave them short shrift. Oh well.

You didn't link shit. We used to cut the tongues out of people for lying. Just be thankful we don't do that anymore (yet).

We should legally protect their lives from unreasonable requests to end them, certainly.

What would you consider a "reasonable" request? Being LGBT? Being Jewish?

Why are you so hung-up on emotionality? Is opposing the mistreatment of young children outside the womb automatically an emotional argument, since you might personally feel an emotional tug during the discussion?

That would require you to actually have emotions.

Well, here we have nobody in the room legally obligated to only consider health reasons, and evidence from at least two doctors that they end lives based on other considerations. I'll say two doctors coming out in public is enough reason to 1) doubt that it never happens apart from those two and 2) believe that they represent dozens of others that would never speak up for the same due to potential public backlash.

Were their names Albert and Einstein?

Again, no data, and I can only lie.

FTFY

I've got to end it here.

You should end more than that.

- - - Updated - - -

Nice talking with you, tehdang. Unfortunately, I've come to the conclusion that the lengthy discussions we've had on this topic are not conducive to the kind of understanding between each other I had hoped would come. It's noone's fault, just the medium we're using. I would prefer shorter conversations focusing on specific issues, but I'm sure you're just as busy with real life as I am, and it's just not practical.

Best of luck.

There's no understanding to be had. Conservatives are just fundamentally evil. Everything they say is just a smokescreen to maximize harm to as many people as possible. Hell, these people are pushing for omnicide via climate castatrophe.



Infracted.

[Adamas102]

What evidence do you have that you actually believe this?

The fact that he thinks the effects of pregnancy are apparently completely isolated to the birth canal should tell you all you need to know about how ignorant and lacking of evidence his position is.

[Rasulis]

The Supreme Court want the states to decide. We'll have several ballot measures this November and next year elections that will do exactly that. We'll just have to see how the people feel about the right to abortion. I have a feeling the so-called anti-choice faction won't like the outcomes of those elections.

[Jastall]

The Supreme Court want the states to decide. We'll have several ballot measures this November and next year elections that will do exactly that. We'll just have to see how the people feel about the right to abortion. I have a feeling the so-called anti-choice faction won't like the outcomes of those elections.

Not to worry, they have a long history of respecting the outcome of elections after all.






/s.

[DarkTZeratul]

The Supreme Court want the states to decide. We'll have several ballot measures this November and next year elections that will do exactly that. We'll just have to see how the people feel about the right to abortion. I have a feeling the so-called anti-choice faction won't like the outcomes of those elections.

Considering that they've been doing everything they can to ratfuck those elections (most recently in Ohio), I think they know exactly what the outcomes are likely to be.

[Rasulis]

Considering that they've been doing everything they can to ratfuck those elections (most recently in Ohio), I think they know exactly what the outcomes are likely to be.

They changed "fetus" to "unborn child" in the referendum, and “citizens of the state” to "State of Ohio" in the summary. Would those changes make a difference? Personally, I don't think it will. In the first place, how many people actually read the whole referendum cover to cover? I think that, after Issue 1, the votes for and against the reproductive rights referendum in Ohio are already pretty much set in stone. It is too late to change people's minds now.

[DarkTZeratul]

They changed "fetus" to "unborn child" in the referendum, and “citizens of the state” to "State of Ohio" in the summary. Would those changes make a difference? Personally, I don't think it will. In the first place, how many people actually read the whole referendum cover to cover? I think that, after Issue 1, the votes for and against the reproductive rights referendum in Ohio are already pretty much set in stone. It is too late to change people's minds now.

I meant more that they snuck in a bill earlier in the year, under questionable circumstances, to make it harder to pass amendments specifically to stop this bill. It failed pretty decisively, but that could have made a big difference if they'd succeeded, and demonstrates that they're pretty certain the abortion amendment will pass.

[Rasulis]

I meant more that they snuck in a bill earlier in the year, under questionable circumstances, to make it harder to pass amendments specifically to stop this bill. It failed pretty decisively, but that could have made a big difference if they'd succeeded, and demonstrates that they're pretty certain the abortion amendment will pass.

True.

The one interesting thing about the abortion issue, based on the numerous polls that have been conducted, is that everybody has an opinion. The number of undecideds is unusually low. In the last Gallup poll, it was 3%. Which leads me to believe that US voters have pretty much made up their mind. At this point, it is all about the turnout.

[Jastall]

True.

The one interesting thing about the abortion issue, based on the numerous polls that have been conducted, is that everybody has an opinion. The number of undecideds is unusually low. In the last Gallup poll, it was 3%. Which leads me to believe that US voters have pretty much made up their mind. At this point, it is all about the turnout.

It's always all about the turnout TBH. Democrat policies are consistently more popular than Republican's. The question is always if the former can get enough people to vote, especially in the right places because there's actually less than 10 States that matter in any given election.

[Xyonai]

It's always all about the turnout TBH. Democrat policies are consistently more popular than Republican's. The question is always if the former can get enough people to vote, especially in the right places because there's actually less than 10 States that matter in any given election.

yeah but moving the the popular vote would mean that only ten *other* states would matter in any given election or whatever.