American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[opendoor]

How many abortions occur after fetal viability that aren't done for health reasons? My understanding is the number is effectively zero in places with accessible abortions earlier in pregnancy.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

The garbage thing about debates over "late-term" abortions is that it is entirely political/religious. Abortions should be a medical decision made behind closed doors.

Statistics show that abortions performed beyond 20 weeks are exceedingly rare - and even rarer still when access to abortion is unfettered earlier in a pregnancy - and yet the discussion around them is continually brought up, especially in the US. There are certain scenarios beyond twenty weeks where a doctor and their patient might choose to get one: like, say, if the woman's life were threatened.

I don't want a woman and her doctor to have to justify to the state why they performed a medical procedure. Especially when the justifications for that necessity have continually been shown to be nearly irrelevant.

Which is a reasonable position to have, if you acknowledge that you're taking the moral position that there's no other "person" involved beyond the woman in question, regardless of when the abortion is performed in the term. You seem to just be taking that as a given, when it's actually a totally reasonable point of disagreement.

It's actually pretty damned difficult to decide at what point a viable foetus becomes a human being that should have rights. You seem to think that it's at the point of birth, regardless of whether that's at 9 months on the dot or some time earlier. Fine - I'm not actually sure if I disagree. But to act like that's just an obvious thing everyone should agree on without question is absurd.

The point about there being very few post-20-week abortions is a totally separate point and a strange one to make if you're coming from the position that there's no difference in terms of legal rights between aborting a foetus at 20+ weeks and aborting one at, for example, 4 weeks.

I'm pro-choice but the tendency by some to act like there's simply no room for disagreement about anything remotely related to abortion from the perspective of what the law should be or how people should behave is intellectually dishonest moral grandstanding.

[Matata]

At the moment of conception a unique and complete human genetic code is created, the question really is "at what age does a human being acquire the right to exist and protection from the state?" I still think that it's a complex issue that's best handled behind closed doors by family and medical professionals, but then there's those outside cases of doctor's who'll abort a healthy, 9 month baby and I can't call it anything but murder.


The mental gymnasts pro-lifers do in refusal to acknowledge the fetus as a human being absolutely disgusts me. They make a lot of arguments I agree with, but you have to deny pretty cut and dry science in order to justify stripping a fetus of it's humanity and inherent worth.

[photon]

Will Democrats add more SCOTUS judges to stop this? No.
Will Democrats change the senate rules to pass a law about abortion (or voting rights, or anything else to help themselves)? No.

I'm skeptical they'll even make this a key issue in the midterms.

[PeteMoss]

Not that CP are where political debates are won and lost - but this discussion is a prime example of why Republicans win culture wars. They are about to ban abortions in a boat load of red states and somehow that discussion lasted about 2 posts and now its a debate about when abortion should be legal and how pro-lifers are anti-fetus.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by photon

Will Democrats add more SCOTUS judges to stop this? No.
Will Democrats change the senate rules to pass a law about abortion (or voting rights, or anything else to help themselves)? No.

I'm skeptical they'll even make this a key issue in the midterms.

We know why both of those won't happen (Manchen and Sienema).

[photon]

Very true.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Not that CP is where political debates are won and lost - but this discussion is a prime example of why Republicans win culture wars. They are about to ban abortions in a boat load of red states and somehow that discussion lasted about 2 posts and now its a debate about when abortion should be legal and how pro-lifers are anti-fetus.

I don't think this is a good example. I doubt there's anyone in this thread who thinks that the GOP banning abortion outright is a good thing that should be happening, so there's not really any debate to be had here. What would be the point of a dozen people posting "how terrible"?

The conversation finds the point at which there are actual differences of opinion among posters and that's where things stick.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The point about there being very few post-20-week abortions is a totally separate point and a strange one to make if you're coming from the position that there's no difference in terms of legal rights between aborting a foetus at 20+ weeks and aborting one at, for example, 4 weeks.

No it isn't. It illustrates that the existing rules have effectively eliminated what many people who want to more heavily regulate abortion are purportedly against. If non-health related late term abortions are what they're against, then they should be satisfied with the current system. But instead, advocates often use those as a boogeyman to restrict general abortion access and place a burden on those who are forced to justify a medically necessary procedure to the state due to increased restrictions.

[photon]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1521299870824353797

[direwolf]

Well, if there's anything that will motivate Democrat voters, this will surely be it. And with all the voter suppression and evil shenanigans currently being done by the GOP in state legislatures across the country, you folks in the U.S. better get out there and vote like your lives depend on it. Because this is likely the last chance to save your democracy before things get much, much worse.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by opendoor

No it isn't. It illustrates that the existing rules have effectively eliminated what many people who want to more heavily regulate abortion are purportedly against.

Right. Which is a separate argument and one that is logically inconsistent with the position that it shouldn't matter to you when an abortion is performed, because whether it's late term or early term, it's simply a medical decision between the woman and her doctor with no morally relevant third person involved. That's what Altaguy's position is. Which is why I said the number of late term abortions that actually take place in practice is a separate argument that doesn't align with his primary position.

Ultimately, what is being argued is that even if you accept that late term abortion is a bad thing, it's not a widespread problem, and therefore not worth taking up time and political bandwidth arguing about. That's a reasonable place to stand I guess... but when the other side is saying "well I see late term abortion as the murder of a baby, so if your response is that the current system has relatively few baby murders, I'm not going to be satisfied with that given how bad I think murdering babies is" I don't know who you think is likely to be convinced that that's a satisfactory response. It sort of assumes the person you're talking to already agrees with you.

I obviously agree that wedge issues - and abortion is the ultimate example - take up a massively outsized portion of everyone's public and political attention considering the problems faced by society and how little overall political will / energy is available to solving these problems, so getting bogged down in it is effectively creating opportunity costs that are completely unacceptable... but I'm not one of the people who thinks this is baby murder, so my priorities are set accordingly.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by photon

https://twitter.com/user/status/1521299870824353797

The idea that Collins was unaware of what these Justices would do is just rubbish, she was perfectly well aware of what she was voting for, her statements were just to assuage her voting base.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

We know why both of those won't happen (Manchen and Sienema).

Not necessarily. It's not an issue for Biden or Pelosi either. But it's never their fault. Nothing is Pelosi's fault. Nothing is Schumer's fault. Nothing is Biden's fault just like nothing was Obama's fault. There is no one to blame for not countering the Republicans (except for non-voters and tepid voters). Just another unpreventable loss on an issue that polls favorably across the entire country.

Photon is right, it won't even be an issue in November. Why? Because it doesn't affect most liberal elite voters. They'll still be able to get abortions.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Right. Which is a separate argument and one that is logically inconsistent with the position that it shouldn't matter to you when an abortion is performed, because whether it's late term or early term, it's simply a medical decision between the woman and her doctor with no morally relevant third person involved. That's what Altaguy's position is. Which is why I said the number of late term abortions that actually take place in practice is a separate argument that doesn't align with his primary position.

It's not inconsistent. For the state to limit access to a medical procedure and take it out of the hands of the doctor and the patient, then there is the burden to show that there's some sort of harm taking place. Absent that, it's purely a medical decision, which is what Altaguy is saying. Sure, if doctors were aborting infants during labor, or people were regularly getting 35+ week abortions for non-medical reasons, then maybe it would warrant government intervention. But we can only deal with the reality that exists, and that's one where late term abortions for non-medical reasons are basically non-existent.

When someone gets a limb amputated or goes on chemotherapy, we don't require that the patient and the doctor justify that to the state and get permission. That's because those things (like late term abortions) are invariably done for medical reasons. Now if people started abusing that and causing widespread harm as a result, then maybe there'd be an argument that the state should intervene as they do in other medical situations (i.e. restricting access to some prescription drugs).

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Matata

At the moment of conception a unique and complete human genetic code is created, the question really is "at what age does a human being acquire the right to exist and protection from the state?" I still think that it's a complex issue that's best handled behind closed doors by family and medical professionals, but then there's those outside cases of doctor's who'll abort a healthy, 9 month baby and I can't call it anything but murder.


The mental gymnasts pro-lifers do in refusal to acknowledge the fetus as a human being absolutely disgusts me. They make a lot of arguments I agree with, but you have to deny pretty cut and dry science in order to justify stripping a fetus of it's humanity and inherent worth.

Can you point to a case where a heathy 9 month old baby was aborted?

Also how do you feel about masturbation and unfertalized eggs going to waste?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by opendoor

It's not inconsistent. For the state to limit access to a medical procedure and take it out of the hands of the doctor and the patient, then there is the burden to show that there's some sort of harm taking place. Absent that, it's purely a medical decision, which is what Altaguy is saying. Sure, if doctors were aborting infants during labor, or people were regularly getting 35+ week abortions for non-medical reasons, then maybe it would warrant government intervention. But we can only deal with the reality that exists, and that's one where late term abortions for non-medical reasons are basically non-existent.

When someone gets a limb amputated or goes on chemotherapy, we don't require that the patient and the doctor justify that to the state and get permission. That's because those things (like late term abortions) are invariably done for medical reasons. Now if people started abusing that and causing widespread harm as a result, then maybe there'd be an argument that the state should intervene as they do in other medical situations (i.e. restricting access to some prescription drugs).

Again, you are conflating two different arguments. The first argument is that this is analogous to amputating a limb or going on chemotherapy. If that is your position, then it doesn't matter WHEN you amputate that limb or go on chemotherapy. There's no debate about whether the timing of when you amputate your limb makes that amputation a more or less immoral act. If that is what you think abortion is, effectively, then the "reality that exists" about late-term abortion is totally irrelevant, according to your own view of what late term abortion actually entails - just like it would be for late term chemotherapy or late term amputation.

As to whether there is harm, you are assuming that everyone agrees about what constitutes "harm", and that harm to the foetus is not a relevant consideration. That is a point about which reasonable people can differ. The statistics indicate that very few foetuses are aborted late term, proportionally speaking. It's also the case that very few babies are murdered between their birth and their first birthday, proportionally speaking. If the position you're arguing against is that those are morally the same action, and should be treated the same by the law, you're not going to convince anyone who believes that, any more than you'd be able to convince them that it's not worth worrying about the murder of 6-month-olds because mothers murdering their 6-month-old is rare.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by opendoor

It's not inconsistent. For the state to limit access to a medical procedure and take it out of the hands of the doctor and the patient, then there is the burden to show that there's some sort of harm taking place. Absent that, it's purely a medical decision, which is what Altaguy is saying. Sure, if doctors were aborting infants during labor, or people were regularly getting 35+ week abortions for non-medical reasons, then maybe it would warrant government intervention. But we can only deal with the reality that exists, and that's one where late term abortions for non-medical reasons are basically non-existent.

A better analogy would be that we would only need legislation around euthanasia if a bunch of people were abusing it to secure inheritances, and not before. But we impose all sorts of laws and regulations intended to prevent even rare abuses.

The fact is that AltaGuy’s opinion - that gestation term should have no bearing on the state’s handling of abortion - is far outside the mainstream even of pro-choice supporters. As Corsi says, it’s the kind of moral grandstanding you see on social media but which ignores the complexity of the issue.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Not necessarily. It's not an issue for Biden or Pelosi either. But it's never their fault. Nothing is Pelosi's fault. Nothing is Schumer's fault. Nothing is Biden's fault just like nothing was Obama's fault. There is no one to blame for not countering the Republicans (except for non-voters and tepid voters). Just another unpreventable loss on an issue that polls favorably across the entire country.

Photon is right, it won't even be an issue in November. Why? Because it doesn't affect most liberal elite voters. They'll still be able to get abortions.

That's because the issue was won. Now it will be lost and it will become a big election topic. You don't campaign on issues you've won on. Particularly one where your position is pro-choice not pro-abortion.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

That's because the issue was won. Now it will be lost and it will become a big election topic. You don't campaign on issues you've won on. Particularly one where your position is pro-choice not pro-abortion.

Correct. Those opinions are from 2017...things may have changed a little since then.