American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

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.

That's a bit of a misrepresentation of what I'm saying - I'm not saying that that position is in and of itself indicative of moral grandstanding. There are, in my view, more extreme positions than what Altaguy was saying that are at least theoretically defensible, including things like a spectrum of moral personhood that could go all the way up to adulthood, or even anti-natalism (which I don't really think makes much sense but there are certainly people who have advanced it in earnest). What I was referring to as moral grandstanding is the certitudinous attitude that there's nothing worth even discussing, just hand-waving away any notion that, for example, late term abortion is even up for debate... Which seemed to be what was implied by the statement "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."

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

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.

As I pointed out, Canada is already such a state.

[GirlySports]

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.

Sure you can and in fact have to. The GOP have won on guns and taxes and immigration and still fight the fight to prevent changes. The Dems govern like they'll be in power in perpetuity.

Do you think that if Roe is repealed that the GOP will rest on that? They will use it to push forward.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Sure you can and in fact have to. The GOP have won on guns and taxes and immigration and still fight the fight to prevent changes. The Dems govern like they'll be in power in perpetuity.

Do you think that if Roe is repealed that the GOP will rest on that? They will use it to push forward.

How have they won on those issues? Stricter gun laws and immigration both have positive polling.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

How have they won on those issues? Stricter gun laws and immigration both have positive polling.

They haven't outright bans guns like in other countries and immigration is still pretty tough, it's not an open border. And they'll fight to prevent any more changes.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's a bit of a misrepresentation of what I'm saying - I'm not saying that that position is in and of itself indicative of moral grandstanding. There are, in my view, more extreme positions than what Altaguy was saying that are at least theoretically defensible, including things like a spectrum of moral personhood that could go all the way up to adulthood, or even anti-natalism (which I don't really think makes much sense but there are certainly people who have advanced it in earnest). What I was referring to as moral grandstanding is the certitudinous attitude that there's nothing worth even discussing, just hand-waving away any notion that, for example, late term abortion is even up for debate... Which seemed to be what was implied by the statement "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."

The garbage thing about the late-term "debate" is that it is almost always made in poor faith as a stepping-stone to erode a woman's right to choose and to impose a situation of state intervention in a private matter where no-one has proven harm. But there is decidedly proven harm in fettering the right to choose, and state intervention contributes to that.

What I definitely don't understand about your (extended) arguments here is that you seem to be summing up the pro-life/pro-choice stances and making it seem as if you're saying something novel. Yes, if a person believes we are murdering fetuses, they might hold a pro-life view. That goes at four weeks, or thirty weeks. It's the same debate: should you legislate on that opinion or allow for choice? Some here seem to believe that it's morally outrageous not to legislate term-limits on abortion, despite evidence that legislating that would have no effect on abortions, and negative effects on women's health.

I believe that it should remain a choice, and the fact is that 100% of women (or close enough) are choosing not to have late-stage abortions absent a compelling medical reason.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

The garbage thing about the late-term "debate" is that it is almost always made in poor faith as a stepping-stone to erode a woman's right to choose and to impose a situation of state intervention in a private matter where no-one has proven harm.

I guess if you're just going to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is almost always bad actor who's lying about what they believe, there's no real conversation to be had about anything. In my experience, though, people who assume that about others based on the position they've adopted without any other information about them are really just trying to protect themselves from having to defend their own beliefs.

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

What I definitely don't understand about your (extended) arguments here is that you seem to be summing up the pro-life/pro-choice stances and making it seem as if you're saying something novel.

I don't think I am, which is why it's strange that you would act as if your contrary view is something super obvious, with which any disagreement isn't to be entertained ("get out of here" was how you started off).

Yes, if a person believes we are murdering fetuses, they might hold a pro-life view. That goes at four weeks, or thirty weeks.

Not necessarily. That's true of some people, obviously. There are quite a lot of other people who would say that it's murder at 30 weeks but not at four weeks.

My point about your latter, empirical argument is, if you're trying to convince those people - who think it's okay at four weeks but not at 30 - that there's no need to outlaw that late term abortion because there are relatively few such abortions, what they're going to hear is, "there's no reason to outlaw the murder of babies in this circumstance, because relatively few babies are murdered in that circumstance". The obvious, completely logical response, ten times out of ten, will be "relatively few murdered babies is still too many, I want zero, so I'm not changing my position that this should be outlawed". It's an argument that is inherently useless - no one will find it at all convincing unless they've already decided that they agree with you about the central point of the subject under debate.

It's the same debate: should you legislate on that opinion or allow for choice? Some here seem to believe that it's morally outrageous not to legislate term-limits on abortion, despite evidence that legislating that would have no effect on abortions, and negative effects on women's health.

First, I don't really buy your statement that there's evidence that it would have no effect on abortions. There would almost certainly be SOME effect, even if - as seems likely - it would take us from "few" to "fewer few". As I'm trying to tell you, even that is enough, for a lot of people, to make it worthwhile.

Second, what you're really positing here is a utilitarian argument about weighing costs and benefits - weighing the harm caused by, effectively, forcing a woman to carry a late-stage pregnancy to term and presumably giving the kid up for adoption against the harm of ending the pregnancy. In your view, since the latter is no harm at all by your definition of what "harm" is, this is an easy call, but there's no reason to think your definition of "harm" is any better than any competing definition anyone might want to put forward - including one that says it's harmful to end the life of a foetus at 30 weeks.

So yeah, I get what you believe, but you've offered no compelling reason to prefer your view of things to anyone else's.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I guess if you're just going to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is almost always bad actor who's lying about what they believe, there's no real conversation to be had about anything. In my experience, though, people who assume that about others based on the position they've adopted without any other information about them are really just trying to protect themselves from having to defend their own beliefs.

Haha, on the heels of Kavanaugh's lies on this exact topic, you say this? Why would you pretend that gaslighting isn't exceptionally common.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Not necessarily. That's true of some people, obviously. There are quite a lot of other people who would say that it's murder at 30 weeks but not at four weeks.

That's what I said.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

First, I don't really buy your statement that there's evidence that it would have no effect on abortions.

There's an argument that legislating on late-term abortions increases the number of abortions, forcing earlier/emergency decision-making. Regardless, given that we are at 100% effectively, it's moot.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Second, what you're really positing here is a utilitarian argument about weighing costs and benefits - weighing the harm caused by, effectively, forcing a woman to carry a late-stage pregnancy to term and presumably giving the kid up for adoption against the harm of ending the pregnancy. In your view, since the latter is no harm at all by your definition of what "harm" is, this is an easy call, but there's no reason to think your definition of "harm" is any better than any competing definition anyone might want to put forward - including one that says it's harmful to end the life of a foetus at 30 weeks.

??? huh?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Haha, on the heels of Kavanaugh's lies on this exact topic, you say this? Why would you pretend that gaslighting isn't exceptionally common.

I didn't say anything about gaslighting and I don't think Brett Kavanaugh's statements are in even relevant. Even if he had said publicly that he was opposed to late term abortion only, and then privately said "actually I don't care, I just want abortion outlawed entirely", that would be one guy. But I don't think he did say that - what he did was mislead the public about whether he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Regardless, I'm not denying that there are a lot of people who use rhetoric to attempt to disguise ideological positions that are in fact devoid of principle - I'm obviously far too big a cynic to ever deny that that happens. But to attribute that behaviour to anyone expressing an argument that on its face is reasonable is a step way, way too far.

There's an argument that legislating on late-term abortions increases the number of abortions, forcing earlier/emergency decision-making. Regardless, given that we are at 100% effectively, it's moot.

Well, we're not, though, are we? If it's actually the case that there are zero late term abortions performed in Canada every year, that's certainly good evidence that there's no practical point in outlawing them. But I thought the actual reality is that there are, in the grand scheme of things, not very many such abortions.

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

??? huh?

I'm now confused about what you're confused about. Do you not recognize that you're making a utilitarian argument?

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, we're not, though, are we? If it's actually the case that there are zero late term abortions performed in Canada every year, that's certainly good evidence that there's no practical point in outlawing them. But I thought the actual reality is that there are, in the grand scheme of things, not very many such abortions.

There are very, very few late-term abortions. And 100% of the ones there are, are assumed to have a compelling medical reason behind them.

I'm not making a utilitarian argument. Perhaps the use of the word "Harm" got you.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

There are very, very few late-term abortions. And 100% of the ones there are, are assumed to have a compelling medical reason behind them.

Okay. And now we're back to "very few isn't zero", and the target number is zero, for anyone who thinks it's baby murder, so your argument does no useful work. But to be fair, I bet you're right about the compelling medical reason - I think the response to that would be "okay, just outlaw it but have a carve-out for any compelling medical reason, given that you've apparently acknowledged that that's a consideration worth paying attention to."

I'm not making a utilitarian argument. Perhaps the use of the word "Harm" got you.

Well, yeah, it would... also the fact that you explicitly said that the problem is that outlawing abortion is harmful to the woman in question, and that if someone could demonstrate to your satisfaction that there was other harm that outweighed it, that would be a relevant consideration, but no one has done so. Which is inherently a utilitarian argument.

But hey, maybe I misunderstood you.

[afc wimbledon]

I would guess the few late term abortions that are carried out are in order to keep the mother alive, those are the only cases I have ever heard of myself

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think the minister of truth will handle this one no worries.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Yoho

I think the minister of truth will handle this one no worries.

So about that wellness check…

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Okay. And now we're back to "very few isn't zero", and the target number is zero, for anyone who thinks it's baby murder, so your argument does no useful work. But to be fair, I bet you're right about the compelling medical reason - I think the response to that would be "okay, just outlaw it but have a carve-out for any compelling medical reason, given that you've apparently acknowledged that that's a consideration worth paying attention to."


Well, yeah, it would... also the fact that you explicitly said that the problem is that outlawing abortion is harmful to the woman in question, and that if someone could demonstrate to your satisfaction that there was other harm that outweighed it, that would be a relevant consideration, but no one has done so. Which is inherently a utilitarian argument.

But hey, maybe I misunderstood you.

Find 1 non medically necessary late term abortion and we can have this discussion. In the absence of that case why should the state spend resources intervening?

There is a much better conversation around sex selective abortions done between 10 and 20 weeks. At least there is eveidence of them happening each year.

[GirlySports]

The DCCC chairman. Yikes.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1521476369603080193

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

Find 1 non medically necessary late term abortion and we can have this discussion. In the absence of that case why should the state spend resources intervening?

Well, I doubt you'll be able to find ANY information about this on a case by case level, because it's all private, and that's as it should be of course. So I think you're asking for something that's fairly impossible to provide.

But I don't need to provide it anyway because I don't really need to be convinced - I'm fine with Canada's abortion laws as they stand. Really, my view is that no matter where you stand on this, it's necessary to acknowledge that there isn't a clear, obvious answer on questions related to abortion and acting like there is demonstrates extreme intellectual laziness and self-righteous arrogance. But since you're kind of required to find a place to stand, because declining to take a position is a position of its own, I'm willing to listen to a much wider variety of views about this without TOO much pre-judgment... I mean there are anti-natalists out there whose view is legitimately that every pregnancy should result in an abortion, and while I have never been able to find someone who could make a convincing case for any version of that theory I'm at least in principle willing to hear them out.

[GGG]

That’s two separate debates you are conflating

The ethics of abortion and pregnancy and the laws surrounding the the practice of abortion are two completely different discussions.

I think that having a discussion around the ethics of late term abortion or that all pregnancies should end in abortion are interesting view points for debate.

However when someone discusses the banning of late term abortion or your corellary of forcing abortions on everyone as a matter of law on genera they should be dismissed without much thought as they are not serious people.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

That’s two separate debates you are conflating

The ethics of abortion and pregnancy and the laws surrounding the the practice of abortion are two completely different discussions.

No they're not. One follows the other. If you think the answer from a moral perspective is X, you will support laws that result in X. If you think that preventing a woman to make the choice to end her pregnancy is in all circumstances morally wrong, you will want laws that reflect that. If you think that an abortion after after 20 weeks is baby murder, you will want laws that reflect that. You could certainly argue that a range of legal regimes around abortion are aligned with your moral views, but what that range is is inherently going to be governed by your moral views.

So no, they aren't two separate debates when one inescapably relies on the other, and as a result, your statement about people who are proponents of banning late term abortion as a matter of law being "not serious people" is completely asinine. There are plenty of serious people who would take the view that the law should draw a line at some number of weeks after which no abortion should be permitted - say, for example, the United Kingdom, which draws that line at 23 weeks and 6 days.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

The DCCC chairman. Yikes.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1521476369603080193

What is wrong with that? The Republicans are the ones who blocked Obama nominee to the Supreme Court which led to them having this 6-3 advantage. Democrats (and some centrists) have this idea that they are in control of everything and when the other side does something they dislike its the Democrats fault that they didn't do something 10 years ago to prevent it from happening.