SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Rasulis]

And that there's a whopping big difference between "not wanting to do that" and "realizing it's politically unfeasible until after you've taken full fascist control and wiped out your opposition, so we're putting it on the back burner till we're ready".

That last being all Haley really said.

Exactly. The problem is that an anti-choice President, even without those 60 votes, could still limit access to abortion through Executive Orders. The Comstock Act is still around also. That puritan era piece of legislation should have been repealed a long time ago.

[tehdang]

Federal six weeks abortion ban will be on the 2024 ballots in the sense that it will be on the mind of every pro-choice voter when they go to the ballots. Only the naivest individuals would believe that all the current GOP candidates, given the chance, will not push for Federal abortion ban. We have seen over and over again that we can't trust what comes out of their mouths when it comes to abortion. Haley included.

If only I had asked about the "mind of the voter," or the "bias against politicians that they will reverse their statements given the chance!" I was really just interested in what you said about a candidate, and why you would misrepresent it in the first place, and what you would do if challenged on that fact. Optics and perception have an adjoining rulebook.

I tip my cap to your accumulated baggage against individuals and movements. It isn't really a debatable topic; who will argue against your prejudice and anxiety that you feel were properly formed? Rasulis, I would describe your last posts as: "Yes, I lied about what the candidate said, but that shouldn't matter because she is a liar like me and so are the people that think like her."

I know pro-lifers that do the same thing, elevate their priors on the opponent's love of baby-murder or whatnot to level charges similar to yours. Of course, such and such pro-choice politician said that, but we know they've lied in the past and can't trust what comes out of their mouths [50 years of history follows]. And what's more, look at how they've misrepresented what pro-life politicians have said in the past, and doubled-down on it when caught. Stop being naive about the pro-choice movement, we know what they're about. Etc etc.

I'll put it one last way, based solely on the post I'm quoting. If you, Rasulis, said that third trimester abortions were on the ballot because of a Democratic politician that refused to support restrictions against it, would you be right in the sense that "it will be on the mind of [voters]" based on their statements?

[Endus]

I tip my cap to your accumulated baggage against individuals and movements. It isn't really a debatable topic; who will argue against your prejudice and anxiety that you feel were properly formed?

Assessing and analysing someone's past comments and policy action and drawing conclusions therefrom is the literal antithesis of "prejudice". It's just "judgement". There is no "pre-".

I know pro-lifers that do the same thing, elevate their priors on the opponent's love of baby-murder or whatnot to level charges similar to yours.

The difference, of course, is that assessing the pro-choice position as a "love of baby-murder" is an egregious and intentional lie used to mislead an audience. It is not a good-faith assessment, it's prejudicial slander and meant to be. Nobody actually believes it to be true, and if they did, they'd be suffering a delusional break from reality.

Rasulis is simply assessing Haley based on her prior statements and positions and policies she's supported and signed into law.

Of course, such and such pro-choice politician said that, but we know they've lied in the past and can't trust what comes out of their mouths [50 years of history follows]. And what's more, look at how they've misrepresented what pro-life politicians have said in the past, and doubled-down on it when caught. Stop being naive about the pro-choice movement, we know what they're about. Etc etc.

This is empty deflection, done against some vague and non-specific "other" because that way, you can't be asked to actually back up your claims with specifics.

That just means it's ignorable, empty blather.

I'll put it one last way, based solely on the post I'm quoting. If you, Rasulis, said that third trimester abortions were on the ballot because of a Democratic politician that refused to support restrictions against it, would you be right in the sense that "it will be on the mind of [voters]" based on their statements?

Of course he would be. Making a statement on the issue during the run-up to an election means it's "on the ballot". Even if your position is to refuse to engage with it; your position on the ballot is now non-engagement on that issue. Everything is "on the ballot" and candidates don't get to determine what voters assess them by.

[Rasulis]

Since Endus had already said everything that needed to be said, I'll jump to the next item of interest.

Virginia Democrats is planning to amend Virginia Constitution to protect abortion right.

That every individual has the fundamental right to reproductive freedom. This right to make and effectuate one's own decisions about all matters related to one's pregnancy shall not be denied, burdened, or infringed upon, unless justified by a compelling state interest and achieved by the least restrictive means that do not infringe an individual's autonomous decision-making. A state interest is compelling only when it is to ensure the protection of the health of an individual seeking care, consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine. The Commonwealth shall not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right.

That, except when justified by a compelling state interest, the Commonwealth shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an individual on the basis of an actual, potential, perceived, or alleged outcome of such individual's pregnancy, nor shall the Commonwealth penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an individual who aids or assists another individual, with such individual's voluntary consent, in the exercise of such individual's right to reproductive freedom.

That this section shall be self-executing and that if any provision of this section is held invalid, it shall be severable from the remaining portions of the section.

It will have to pass by majorities in both the current House of Delegates and state Senate; after the next House of Delegates elections occurs, both chambers need majorities to pass it again; then it is up to the voters. Assuming all go well, the soonest it will be on the ballot is 2026.

[Rasulis]

Heh! This is what some pro-life proponents consider to be reasonable policy.

Anti-abortion advocates ask SCOTUS to intervene in litigation over Idaho ER doctors

Anti-abortion advocates asked the Supreme Court to intervene in a federal case in Idaho regarding whether or not emergency room physicians should be shielded from prosecution under the state's total abortion ban.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian religious freedom legal organization, filed an emergency application for a stay while the law was being reviewed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The current law stipulates that emergency room doctors in Idaho who perform an abortion unless it qualifies under the life-saving exception, could be subject to criminal penalties and loss of medical licenses. The law was blocked shortly after it was enacted Aug. 2022, following the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
United States District Judge B. Lynn Winmill, a Bill Clinton appointee, affirmed the position of the Department of Justice that the law violates the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA.

EMTALA requires any medical system that accepts Medicare funding to provide stabilizing care to patients coming into emergency rooms regardless of their ability to pay, requiring physicians and staff to ensure a person's condition won't deteriorate significantly if transferred to a different facility. Federal attorneys argue that criminal charges against ER physicians violate EMTALA in ambiguous medical situations.

Due to a legal loophole, the criminal charges provision was allowed to go into effect for two weeks in Oct. 2022. During that time, one patient in Idaho had to be transferred to Salt Lake City, Utah, after her water broke at 20 weeks of pregnancy and she developed a uterine infection. Physicians in the facility saw an abortion as medically necessary in the moment.

At 20 weeks gestation, the heart and lung development of a fetus is very fragile, making viability outside of the womb extremely unlikely in the majority of cases. Sepsis, a blood infection that can develop very quickly in emergency situations, can cause organ failure within as little as 12 hours, killing one in four patients.

“Hospitals — especially emergency rooms — are centers for preserving life. The government has no business transforming them into abortion clinics,” said ADF Senior Counsel Erin Hawley in a press release, noting that physicians "can, and do" treat medical emergencies, such as ectopic pregnancies.

"But elective abortion is not life-saving care — it ends the life of the unborn child — and the government has no authority to override Idaho’s law barring these procedures," added Hawley.

ADF's appeal to the Supreme Court argues that EMTALA "does not dictate a federal standard of care or displace state medical standards," saying that the circuit court's ruling "effectively turns EMTALA's protection for the uninsured into a federal super statute on the issue of abortion."

“EMTALA is silent on abortion and actually requires stabilizing treatment for the unborn children of pregnant women," argues ADF.

The motion indicates that ADF attorneys would be able to argue the case as soon as April.

The loons want to tie the hands of ER doctors.

[Malkiah]

Heh! This is what some pro-life proponents consider to be reasonable policy.

The loons want to tie the hands of ER doctors.

"the people who see themselves as fighting to protect the life of innocents are doing what they think is fighting to protect the lives of innocents" is kind of a weird take, isn't it?

IMO culturally this sort of shit is the inevitable result of the fact that the... call it 'left' or 'pro-choice' or whatever, the people who are OK with abortions as a concept... compromised on the idea of when life begins as a valid point of contention, and that point having any bearing on the logistics of abortion.
the pro-choice crowd really dropped the ball hard on that front and it's going to be resonating bizarre legal consequences like this for probably decades.

[Surfd]

"the people who see themselves as fighting to protect the life of innocents are doing what they think is fighting to protect the lives of innocents" is kind of a weird take, isn't it?

Only if you actually believe that they are "fighting to protect the lives of innocents" rather than arguing in bad faith for something they don't actually believe in, which it is pretty demonstrably easy to prove is what they are doing, given their almost universal lack of any kind of concern about "protection" for those innocent lives beyond this one, very specific case.

[Endus]

"the people who see themselves as fighting to protect the life of innocents are doing what they think is fighting to protect the lives of innocents" is kind of a weird take, isn't it?

IMO culturally this sort of shit is the inevitable result of the fact that the... call it 'left' or 'pro-choice' or whatever, the people who are OK with abortions as a concept... compromised on the idea of when life begins as a valid point of contention, and that point having any bearing on the logistics of abortion.

It isn't a "compromise". Whether the fetus is a human person is 1000% irrelevant to the question of abortion rights.

In literally every single other possible instance of Person A's right to life coming up against Person B's bodily autonomy, we always argue that Person B's bodily autonomy wins out. This is why you can't be forced to donate tissue or organs, even if it would save someone's life. Nobody argues for mandatory organ harvesting to save lifes, and if bodily autonomy was the weaker right, we'd be ethically obligated to do so. But it's so wildly the other direction that we don't even let you harvest organs and tissue from dead people, without prior permission or their surviving family's permission. Someone could have an aneurysm in a hospital waiting room and immediately go on life support so their organs are all in perfect health, even if they're brain-dead, and unless that person or whoever holds their rights post-mortem permits it, you can't take anything, even if you could save a dozen separate lives by doing so. All those lives don't trump bodily autonomy; that's how strong that basic right is.

So even if the fetus is a person, the pregnant person's rights to control their body trump any consideration of the fetus' life. As it would in literally any other situation with literally any other arrangement.

It's an inherently nonsense argument that's only used by pro-lifers to appeal to emotions over logic and to distract from their actual motives and intent.

Refusing to engage with an inherently and blatantly dishonest strategy is not "compromise". They're being shitheads for bringing it up in the first place. Not a single person making the appeal to a fetus' life has a rational basis for their position. It's all bullshit aimed at tripping up pro-choice people by concealing what the issues actually are.

The ball the pro-choice crowd dropped is not being this acidic and condescending to any abusive troll pulling this bullshit argument out of their own butts and presenting it as if it's a legitimate consideration. Those people deserve nothing but being shamed back into hiding.

Not for being pro-life. For being lying assholes who seek to harm women's basic human rights. Maybe that's a Venn diagram that's nearly a single circle, but there's a vanishingly small chance for another legitimate argument. I've just literally never seen one presented, by anyone, under any circumstances, anywhere, or at any time in the past. Literally never. I'm open to being shown one, but if it's the same dishonest garbage as always I'm not gonna be kind about firing it off into the nearest dumpster fire where it belongs.

[Malkiah]

It isn't a "compromise". Whether the fetus is a human person is 1000% irrelevant to the question of abortion rights.

the pro-choice acceptance of the question of when it becomes "life" is the compromise i'm talking about - my position is that it's irrelevant and that arguing about it is a pointless distraction, and i am ceaselessly frustrated with the public discourse being filled with quibbles over it.
even with people strongly pro-choice, even on these forums in the past, i've seen conversations get bogged down in when it's a clump of cells vs. when it's a fetus vs. when it's a baby and at what point abortion is acceptable and at what point it's not, and i think the entire thing is ridiculous and also indicative of the way in which the pro-choice side ceded the narrative that exists in the zeitgeist decades ago.

"on demand, without apology or explanation" is the only morally correct view to have on abortion, full stop.

- - - Updated - - -

Only if you actually believe that they are "fighting to protect the lives of innocents" rather than arguing in bad faith for something they don't actually believe in, which it is pretty demonstrably easy to prove is what they are doing, given their almost universal lack of any kind of concern about "protection" for those innocent lives beyond this one, very specific case.

a fair point, and i don't want to tread too closely to forbidden topics here but fundamentally speaking when it comes to "beliefs" held due to certain... mmm... zealous upbringings shall we say, the dividing line between what is actually believed by these people and what is a naked smokescreen for their culturally fascist bullshit is always a razor thin one.

but, at that point you can flip the script and say "the people who see themselves as fighting to enforce their christofascist social rules on other people are doing what they think will enforce their christofascist social rules on other people" i think the principle still applies.

i only made the comment in the first place because it's become somewhat common (especially in the last few pages of this thread) for a certain strain of commentary coming from folks posting news articles about what insanity regressives are up to that day, which seems to have a theme of "omg can you believe they're doing this?? don't they know better?"
i find that mentality incredibly bizarre and counter-intuitive, given the nefarious nature of the people they're talking about.

[DarkTZeratul]

i only made the comment in the first place because it's become somewhat common (especially in the last few pages of this thread) for a certain strain of commentary coming from folks posting news articles about what insanity regressives are up to that day, which seems to have a theme of "omg can you believe they're doing this?? don't they know better?"

It's pointing out that for supposedly being motivated by causing less suffering, the end result is, objectively, more suffering. It's further arguments for why their position is untenable, because regardless of their beliefs they're actively causing harm, and often to people who profess to align with said beliefs in the first place! So many of these articles are about very much pro-life women, who get devastating news about their pregnancy, only to discover that they can't even terminate a pregnancy that will definitely not succeed, often at great personal risk to their own health, and end up being put through even more mental, physical, and financial hardship than if the doctors had been allowed to just do what they should have done in the first place.

You're insisting upon playing devil's advocate for some unfathomable reason, and defending it with, essentially, "that's what they believe so I see no reason to point out the problems caused when those beliefs are put into action."

[Endus]

the pro-choice acceptance of the question of when it becomes "life" is the compromise i'm talking about - my position is that it's irrelevant and that arguing about it is a pointless distraction, and i am ceaselessly frustrated with the public discourse being filled with quibbles over it.

It's an inherently dumb question, because it has such a goddamned objectively obvious answer.

Life began some few billion years ago. Every since, it's replicated itself, evolving over time. New life does not "begin", non-life does not "become" alive. Live human parents create live gametes which combined to form a live zygote which develops into a live fetus. There is no point in that cycle where anything is "not alive" and then "becomes alive". That's simple biology. People should've learned all that in junior high.

It was always "life". But so is a tumor. So is a nematode. That descriptor doesn't mean anything in this discussion. Bringing it up is intellectually insulting to everyone else in the debate.

What matters, at the secular level, is not "life", but "personhood". And that's also a stupidly obvious answer. Birth. If you're born alive, you're a person. Not before.

Anything between those two is going to involve pseudo-religious or overtly-religious dogma about "souls" and other magical nonsense that no one who does not share those beliefs has any reason to consider. And trying to shoehorn those into law is a direct attack on the religious freedoms of all those who don't share those views.

I'll note here I'm not attacking religious views. If your beliefs argue against abortion, that's fine. For you. Your religious views and preferences stop with you. They do not apply to anyone else, and trying to force that is religious fascism. That's where the line's crossed, and pro-life stances are exclusively about crossing that line in that way.

even with people strongly pro-choice, even on these forums in the past, i've seen conversations get bogged down in when it's a clump of cells vs. when it's a fetus vs. when it's a baby and at what point abortion is acceptable and at what point it's not, and i think the entire thing is ridiculous and also indicative of the way in which the pro-choice side ceded the narrative that exists in the zeitgeist decades ago.

The question was not "ceded". It was dismissed as intentionally, willfully stupid, and fundamentally irrelevant. It's like trying to claim that the rest of the world has ceded a point to Young-Earth Creationists when they say "okay, let's assume for a second that it's true. Now here's why it's such a goddamned fucking stupid idea that in no way supports the actual evidence we see, and is a literal physical and biological impossibility."

That's not "ceding" anything. Presuming a claim to be true as a hypothetical to demonstrate the claim is inherently idiotic is not "ceding".

[Malkiah]

It's pointing out that for supposedly being motivated by causing less suffering, the end result is, objectively, more suffering.

and either the suffering is the point, in which case it seems kind of gratuitous to bother mentioning it to other people who also agree that it's causing suffering (or to the people causing it for that matter), or else the suffering is irrelevant to the end-goal in which case mentioning it is just preaching to the choir, no?

It's further arguments for why their position is untenable, because regardless of their beliefs they're actively causing harm, and often to people who profess to align with said beliefs in the first place!

no i get that, it's just a kind of circle-jerking i find to be moderately self-fellating in a way i don't personally find very helpful to the discourse, but that's just me so it's all just an idle comment either way.

You're insisting upon playing devil's advocate for some unfathomable reason, and defending it with, essentially, "that's what they believe so I see no reason to point out the problems caused when those beliefs are put into action."

i'm absolutely not playing devil's advocate whatsoever, i'm just mentioning i think the nature of the response some people are posting strikes me as being less... let's say narratively rigorous than it could be.

by all accounts that's a purely masturbatory effort on my part, it's not like i'm going to shape the way people approach the topic, but it's an interesting quirk of the current nature of discussion to me.

- - - Updated - - -

It's an inherently dumb question, because it has such a goddamned objectively obvious answer.

Life began some few billion years ago. Every since, it's replicated itself, evolving over time. New life does not "begin", non-life does not "become" alive. Live human parents create live gametes which combined to form a live zygote which develops into a live fetus. There is no point in that cycle where anything is "not alive" and then "becomes alive". That's simple biology. People should've learned all that in junior high.

It was always "life". But so is a tumor. So is a nematode. That descriptor doesn't mean anything in this discussion. Bringing it up is intellectually insulting to everyone else in the debate.

What matters, at the secular level, is not "life", but "personhood". And that's also a stupidly obvious answer. Birth. If you're born alive, you're a person. Not before.

Anything between those two is going to involve pseudo-religious or overtly-religious dogma about "souls" and other magical nonsense that no one who does not share those beliefs has any reason to consider. And trying to shoehorn those into law is a direct attack on the religious freedoms of all those who don't share those views.

I'll note here I'm not attacking religious views. If your beliefs argue against abortion, that's fine. For you. Your religious views and preferences stop with you. They do not apply to anyone else, and trying to force that is religious fascism. That's where the line's crossed, and pro-life stances are exclusively about crossing that line in that way.



The question was not "ceded". It was dismissed as intentionally, willfully stupid, and fundamentally irrelevant. It's like trying to claim that the rest of the world has ceded a point to Young-Earth Creationists when they say "okay, let's assume for a second that it's true. Now here's why it's such a goddamned fucking stupid idea that in no way supports the actual evidence we see, and is a literal physical and biological impossibility."

That's not "ceding" anything. Presuming a claim to be true as a hypothetical to demonstrate the claim is inherently idiotic is not "ceding".

this is an impressive amount of bloviating immediately countered by the fact that even a cursory check over any discussion on this topic on these forums, even in this very thread, contains a plethora of pages being side-tracked by people arguing over at what stage in development gestating embyros attain legitimate 'personhood'.
hell in just the last couple of pages it's come up with people bogging down in argument with tehdang over late-term abortions. and specifically whether or not they happen.
if what you're saying was widely held, the argument wouldn't be about whether or not they happen, it would be that it's fine if/when they do.

for your sake i'm glad you think the question is resolved, but it absolutely is not to many people engaged in discussion on the topic.

[Endus]

for your sake i'm glad you think the question is resolved, but it absolutely is not to many people engaged in discussion on the topic.

The issue is ethically and scientifically resolved. I've pointed out these things for years to pro-life advocates and read plenty of arguments from the best and brightest on their side, and they all make the same basic errors in their reasoning.

But many people prefer religion to science, and don't behave ethically.

We know Earth is a roughly spherical object. Flat-Earthers still exist. That doesn't mean the question of the Earth's shape isn't resolved, it means some people aren't rational or reasonable.

[Malkiah]

The issue is ethically and scientifically resolved. I've pointed out these things for years to pro-life advocates and read plenty of arguments from the best and brightest on their side, and they all make the same basic errors in their reasoning.

But many people prefer religion to science, and don't behave ethically.

We know Earth is a roughly spherical object. Flat-Earthers still exist. That doesn't mean the question of the Earth's shape isn't resolved, it means some people aren't rational or reasonable.

and also 10 pages ago in #4 of your "big important points about abortion" you bothered to make rhetorical concessions for the sake of biological function, even if you were mostly doing so for the sake of argument.
it's built into the fabric of the abortion discussion, but honestly that's neither entirely here nor there, you like your soap boxing and i know that whatever i actually say is going in one eyeball and out the other with you so let's just land on that we agree on the issue of abortion and leave out whatever fine-tuned niggling might be possible.

[PosPosPos]

and also 10 pages ago in #4 of your "big important points about abortion" you bothered to make rhetorical concessions for the sake of biological function, even if you were mostly doing so for the sake of argument.
it's built into the fabric of the abortion discussion, but honestly that's neither entirely here nor there, you like your soap boxing and i know that whatever i actually say is going in one eyeball and out the other with you so let's just land on that we agree on the issue of abortion and leave out whatever fine-tuned niggling might be possible.

You realize you don't have to make long-winded walls of text just to say "no u", right? Because that's literally what all your word salad boils down to, "no u", you have literally no argument whatsoever, no salient point to make, except to be contrarian for the sake of it.

The only ones bloviating here are you and the other pro-deathers, because you all have run out of arguments a few decades ago but still want to cling to woo and pseudo-science to justify bad, harmful policies.

[Malkiah]

The only ones bloviating here are you and the other pro-deathers, because you all have run out of arguments a few decades ago but still want to cling to woo and pseudo-science to justify bad, harmful policies.

this has gone quite tragically off the rails, and it's my fault for posting an idle thought at 3am in between rounds of hearthstone and not writing out a thesis paper explaining the entirety of my point.

i am the most powerfully pro-abortion person on this forum, my only point was i find some people's rhetoric a bit oddly soft when it comes to the abortion debate.

[Endus]

and also 10 pages ago in #4 of your "big important points about abortion" you bothered to make rhetorical concessions for the sake of biological function, even if you were mostly doing so for the sake of argument.
it's built into the fabric of the abortion discussion, but honestly that's neither entirely here nor there, you like your soap boxing and i know that whatever i actually say is going in one eyeball and out the other with you so let's just land on that we agree on the issue of abortion and leave out whatever fine-tuned niggling might be possible.

In this post, which you didn't link; https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post54232435

Because you're skipping right over #5, where I make it clear that the entire exercise is a waste of everyone's time. Not only do pro-life arguments on this point not have any credible basis in actual reality, they are also fundamentally irrelevant.

This is how academic discussion and debate work; you consider the opponent's premises for internal merit, and whether their conclusions can be properly drawn from them. Going point-by-point to demonstrate how their premises lack said internal merit, and that even if they had internal merit they still don't lead to their desired conclusions, that's how debunking a position works.

It's not a "concession". There were no "concessions" in that post. It's "dunking on bad ideas and pointing out how garbage they are". This is basic debate shit, dude. I know, this is a forum and you can't expect decent academic discussion standards here, so sue me for holding myself to a higher standard.

[PosPosPos]

ok, wow, and here i was errantly expecting replies that understood the content of the original post, and apparently that's on me.

i am the most powerfully pro-abortion person on this forum, you're really barking up the wrong tree here to mistake my thinking that some people are a bit too soft in their rhetoric against regressive forced birthers with me agreeing with forced birthers.
jesus, that's honestly kind of hilarious.

Then act like it and stop preaching to the choir, stop being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

[Captain N]

II see no other tenable solution except to accept medical ethics, and trust that serious doctors with seriously higher professional background thought about these things. Which requires the pro-life movement to stop shaming the practice.

Unfortunately you won't see them accept medical ethics. It's the same as it was with COVID. Those folks are so deeply entrenched into what they were told by their politicians of choice that they won't accept anything provided by the medical field. It's why they bomb abortion clinics and/or stand outside places like Planned Parenthood and verbally and sometimes occasionally physically assault women going in or coming out.

They'll never stop shaming the practice because for these sociopaths they believe their cause is just. Truth and evidence be damned.

[Captain N]

It seems you may have found the crossroads that I did with this recent conversation, then.

If the exercise is futile, why exactly are we posting in the thread about abortion? Before I come off as aggressive, I honestly am asking myself that same question, because I've "self-flatulated" just as much in this thread. Thanks for the word reference, @Malkiah.

Before it comes, you don't have to scold me, Endus. I'm just venting/joking around.

Most of us are posting here in response to the bad faith actors who simply lie about the stances Pro-Life people take to push across their agenda. It's why a majority of them do not care for medical ethics or the years of experience that those in the medical field have to prove what an abortion actually is. There's no crossroads -- it's more battle lines because for a majority of the Pro-Life crowd the stance is that the life of the fetus outweighs the life of the woman carrying it. The Pro-Choice side is that the life of the mother and her right to own her own body is more important than the fetus. Neither is going to yield on it and its a perfect demonstration of how one side is completely wrapped up in their stance due to feels and the other has facts and evidence.