American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

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.

One does not naturally follow the other. Your ethical position might inform the other. But they are entirely separate. It’s a completely rational position to believe that abortion is ethically wrong in every circumstance and still believe in free access to abortion is a fundamental right.

And the people in the UK who proposed the 28 week and the the 23 week and in 2008 the 20 week and the 16 week and the 12 week bans are not arguing ethics they are wedging to ban abortion in general. If you don’t like not serious I would accept not genuine or have alterior motives or arguing in bad faith. The person who believes that it is necessary for the state to restrict 3rd trimester abortions but not any other abortions and is arguing from a good faith position does not exist.

This is different then a person arguing that 3rd trimester abortions are unethical

[#-3]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Allowing abortion at 35 weeks is a pretty radical position. Just saying.

Ok, dump the conservative talk shows for a minute, abortion at 35 weeks is called Birth. F off with this BS.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

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.

Officials can't put the onus on the voter everytime and then do nothing. They are not using the mechanisms in place. But yeah keep blaming Republicans.

There are people who vote Democrat down ticket every election for 20 years and they keep losing more and more rights.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

One does not naturally follow the other. Your ethical position might inform the other. But they are entirely separate. It’s a completely rational position to believe that abortion is ethically wrong in every circumstance and still believe in free access to abortion is a fundamental right.

I suppose that it is theoretically possible for those positions to be consistent, but I cannot imagine how. If you think that abortion is ethically wrong in every circumstance, you presumably believe that the reason it's wrong in every circumstance it's that it's murdering babies. I'd be very surprised if you could come up with a rational set of moral principles that believes that, but also believes you should have a fundamental right to murder a baby.

And the people in the UK who proposed the 28 week and the the 23 week and in 2008 the 20 week and the 16 week and the 12 week bans are not arguing ethics they are wedging to ban abortion in general. If you don’t like not serious I would accept not genuine or have alterior motives or arguing in bad faith. The person who believes that it is necessary for the state to restrict 3rd trimester abortions but not any other abortions and is arguing from a good faith position does not exist.

This is a completely ridiculous position to take that isn't even worth responding to. If you're going to, without any basis at all, attribute ulterior (not "alterior") motives to people simply because they've taken a position that millions of other people earnestly support, you're the one who's not being serious. That's just a beyond the pale level of delusion on your part.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I suppose that it is theoretically possible for those positions to be consistent, but I cannot imagine how. If you think that abortion is ethically wrong in every circumstance, you presumably believe that the reason it's wrong in every circumstance it's that it's murdering babies. I'd be very surprised if you could come up with a rational set of moral principles that believes that, but also believes you should have a fundamental right to murder a baby.

Dude, you've lost the plot completely, and now I really do believe you're just trolling. What you just described is being pro-choice. Tons of people believe that abortion is ethically wrong but could recognize that:

a. Banning abortion doesn't stop abortion;
b. The life of the fetus is not the only life at stake in all circumstances;
c. That one's own ethics are not necessarily universally held;
d. That the number of abortions has been going down under the current US laws.

... And a whole bunch of other considerations.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Dude, you've lost the plot completely, and now I really do believe you're just trolling.

Literally everything I've written has been perfectly logically consistent.

What you just described is being pro-choice. Tons of people believe that abortion is ethically wrong

If you think it's ethically wrong then by definition you're saying people shouldn't do it. That's what "ethically wrong" means.

a. Banning abortion doesn't stop abortion;

Whether the measures taken to try to stop something that you think is ethically wrong are effective or not has nothing to do with its rightness or wrongness. This is irrelevant.

b. The life of the fetus is not the only life at stake in all circumstances;

This is the entire basis of the argument for it NOT being ethically wrong.

c. That one's own ethics are not necessarily universally held;

The fact that other people are acting in an unethical fashion because they don't think it's unethical is irrelevant - if YOU think it's unethical, that means that literally by definition you think they should not do that thing.

d. That the number of abortions has been going down under the current US laws.

Again, this empirical fact has nothing to do with whether the act itself is right or wrong in any particular case.

It's as if you fundamentally don't understand what ethics are. The question is, "how ought people to act". That question can be answered generally or specifically. But if your answer is people ought to not have abortions because an abortion is essentially killing a baby, but people should have the right to do that unfettered, you're just... insane.

Unless you have some other reason why abortion would be morally wrong.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

So, I was pretty frustrated with this conversation and was trying to think about how to explain what I was saying up there in as simple and straightforward a way as possible. Is the problem that people aren't appreciating the difference between giving someone the legal right to do something and simply failing to legally prohibit them from doing that thing?

Maybe this will work - suppose that an abortion is about to take place.

• Person A thinks that a foetus is a moral person with rights that need to be taken into consideration. According to person A, those rights are so important that they cannot be superceded by the rights of the mother to bodily autonomy. Accordingly, Person A thinks that the abortion is wrong - i.e., morally impermissible.
• Person B thinks that a foetus is not a moral person and therefore does not have rights until it is born. Therefore, there is no reason that the mother, who has a right to bodily autonomy, shouldn't be able to simply terminate it as she wishes, regardless of when she chooses to do so. Person B thinks the abortion is not wrong - i.e., morally permissible.
• Person C thinks that a foetus is a moral person with rights that need to be taken into consideration. However, Person C thinks that the rights of the mother to bodily autonomy supercede the foetus's rights, and that those rights cannot prevent her from exercising choice about whether to carry a foetus to term. Person C, accordingly, thinks the abortion is morally permissible.
• Person D thinks that a foetus is not a moral person in the early stages of pregnancy, because at that point it has not developed enough to truly be a person yet. However, after a certain number of weeks, it does develop to a point where it attains moral personhood, even though it is not yet born. Once it does, Person D thinks that those rights cannot be superceded by the mother's right to bodily autonomy. Whether Person D thinks that the abortion is morally permissible or not depends on when it takes place.
• Person E is like Person D, but thinks that even after the foetus has developed enough to attain moral personhood, the mother's rights are still more important than the foetus's until it is born. Person E thinks the abortion is morally permissible.
• Person F is agnostic whether the foetus has moral personhood or not, at any particular point. Accordingly, Person F takes no particular view about whether the abortion is morally permissible regardless of when it takes place.

... That is more or less the whole field, although there are other iterations of Persons D and E (i.e., importing medical necessity or other conditions on top of or in place of a term requirement). But if you're like Person A or Person D, you really don't have a place to stand to hold your beliefs about abortion being wrong in the applicable circumstance, while also supporting unfettered access to it.

It's logically consistent to say, "I think what you're doing is morally impermissible, but I think you should have the right to do it", in general. That's a pretty standard argument some people make for unregulated free speech. But if I thought that the wrong thing you were doing was killing a baby, in a situation where I don't think it's morally justifiable to do so, it's hard to imagine how I could rationally justify a legal right to do it.

To suggest, for example, that it makes sense to say, "I think it's morally wrong for you to kill that baby, but the laws people have proposed to stop you from doing it aren't particularly effective and under the current regime of laws the number of babies being killed is dropping over time, so I think you should have a legal right to kill it," is, on its face, an absurd position. At most if that person were rational, they'd say "I don't think you should have a legal right to kill that baby, but for practical reasons I don't support the currently proposed laws to stop you from doing it".

As I said earlier I'm willing to hear a lot of arguments on this topic, but they have to have SOME internal logic to them.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

What a 5th world country... How it is even a question for debate in 2022 is ridiculous.

1st world theme parks and 1st world nukes though!

I’m never spending a cent going down there. #### supporting that place with my vacation time.

[driveway]

A Modest Proposal:

Anyone with testicles should receive a vasectomy at the age of 10. Vasectomies are simple, cheap surgeries which are easily reversible (in most cases). Once a person has reached at least the age of 18 and they desire one, they should receive a reverse-vasectomy.

If the surgery proves irreversible, a standard payout of two-years' worth of the national median salary should be offered.

The cost of both surgeries as well as any recovery time or the cost burden of side-effects should be borne by the state.

[Azure]

Or teach & provide proper birth control? Provide condoms? Abortion rates have fallen the past 40 years because of those policies, no? And isn't that the goal? Reduce even the need for needing an abortion to begin with? I feel it often gets lost in the conversation.

[ResAlien]

The goal should be bodily autonomy not forced morality.

Edit: and I swear to god one of you mouth breathers tries to conflate that with masks and I’m gonna scream. Don’t be dumb.

[Azure]

You mean vaccination policies.

But yes, I agree that the primary issue is bodily autonomy. However, we also know that proper sex education and access to birth control helps reduce the need for an abortion, and given the physical & mental toil that an abortion will obviously create, to me I feel like it just gets ignored. Planned Parenthood as an example does more than provide women with the help to get an 'abortion.' They also help with the other.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Azure

You mean vaccination policies.

But yes, I agree that the primary issue is bodily autonomy. However, we also know that proper sex education and access to birth control helps reduce the need for an abortion, and given the physical & mental toil that an abortion will obviously create, to me I feel like it just gets ignored. Planned Parenthood as an example does more than provide women with the help to get an 'abortion.' They also help with the other.

I think this gets into the religious argument again? Sex not taught other than don't do it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I think this gets into the religious argument again? Sex not taught other than don't do it.

Sure.

But I'd imagine there are many more issues as well.

You're 35, married, 4 kids, and you want to stop having kids. What do you do?
You're 22, sexually active and don't want to get pregnant. What do you do?

Across all demographics, how many women (or men) know the answer to both?

How effective are condoms? 98.5%? If used properly, they alone should reduce abortion rates drastically, no? And we are not even talking about birth control for women.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

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.

They're also not as helpless as they pretend to be. Why, for instance, is Nancy Pelosi still campaigning for a an anti-choice scumbag like Henry Cuellar in his primary?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by rubecube

They're also not as helpless as they pretend to be. Why, for instance, is Nancy Pelosi still campaigning for a an anti-choice scumbag like Henry Cuellar in his primary?

I assume because he's more likely to win the actual seat.

And regardless - how does that matter to anything happening right now?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I assume because he's more likely to win the actual seat.

And regardless - how does that matter to anything happening right now?

How does the history of supporting anti-choice members within your own party affect the lack of federal legislation protecting abortion rights? Is this a serious question?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

So, I was pretty frustrated with this conversation and was trying to think about how to explain what I was saying up there in as simple and straightforward a way as possible. Is the problem that people aren't appreciating the difference between giving someone the legal right to do something and simply failing to legally prohibit them from doing that thing?

Maybe this will work - suppose that an abortion is about to take place.

• Person A thinks that a foetus is a moral person with rights that need to be taken into consideration. According to person A, those rights are so important that they cannot be superceded by the rights of the mother to bodily autonomy. Accordingly, Person A thinks that the abortion is wrong - i.e., morally impermissible.
• Person B thinks that a foetus is not a moral person and therefore does not have rights until it is born. Therefore, there is no reason that the mother, who has a right to bodily autonomy, shouldn't be able to simply terminate it as she wishes, regardless of when she chooses to do so. Person B thinks the abortion is not wrong - i.e., morally permissible.
• Person C thinks that a foetus is a moral person with rights that need to be taken into consideration. However, Person C thinks that the rights of the mother to bodily autonomy supercede the foetus's rights, and that those rights cannot prevent her from exercising choice about whether to carry a foetus to term. Person C, accordingly, thinks the abortion is morally permissible.
• Person D thinks that a foetus is not a moral person in the early stages of pregnancy, because at that point it has not developed enough to truly be a person yet. However, after a certain number of weeks, it does develop to a point where it attains moral personhood, even though it is not yet born. Once it does, Person D thinks that those rights cannot be superceded by the mother's right to bodily autonomy. Whether Person D thinks that the abortion is morally permissible or not depends on when it takes place.
• Person E is like Person D, but thinks that even after the foetus has developed enough to attain moral personhood, the mother's rights are still more important than the foetus's until it is born. Person E thinks the abortion is morally permissible.
• Person F is agnostic whether the foetus has moral personhood or not, at any particular point. Accordingly, Person F takes no particular view about whether the abortion is morally permissible regardless of when it takes place.

... That is more or less the whole field, although there are other iterations of Persons D and E (i.e., importing medical necessity or other conditions on top of or in place of a term requirement). But if you're like Person A or Person D, you really don't have a place to stand to hold your beliefs about abortion being wrong in the applicable circumstance, while also supporting unfettered access to it.

It's logically consistent to say, "I think what you're doing is morally impermissible, but I think you should have the right to do it", in general. That's a pretty standard argument some people make for unregulated free speech. But if I thought that the wrong thing you were doing was killing a baby, in a situation where I don't think it's morally justifiable to do so, it's hard to imagine how I could rationally justify a legal right to do it.

To suggest, for example, that it makes sense to say, "I think it's morally wrong for you to kill that baby, but the laws people have proposed to stop you from doing it aren't particularly effective and under the current regime of laws the number of babies being killed is dropping over time, so I think you should have a legal right to kill it," is, on its face, an absurd position. At most if that person were rational, they'd say "I don't think you should have a legal right to kill that baby, but for practical reasons I don't support the currently proposed laws to stop you from doing it".

As I said earlier I'm willing to hear a lot of arguments on this topic, but they have to have SOME internal logic to them.

You are incorrect about Person C being morally accepting of abortion.

Person C just believes that the state can’t dictate the outcome due to bodily autonomy. They can hold that a person choosing to abort has prevented life from from existing and therefore committed an immoral act but also recognize that the state cannot intervene in bodily automany. I don’t understand how you think this position is not possible.

It simply states that you rights to bodily antimony supersede the rights of the appendage inside of you but if you choose to cause that appendage to not exist you have committed an immoral act.

There are all kinds of acts that various individuals believe are immoral that those same individuals do not believe should be banned by the state.

Essentially the statement that the state has no business in the bedrooms of people is the default position. This does not mean that people who support that position think any consensual act is moral. A perfect low stakes example would be is cheating in a relationship immoral? I certainly believe so. Should cheating be banned by the state? Absolutely not. Your logic holds that I need to want the state to ban any act that I find immorral.

Am I misinterpreting your position?

[bizaro86]

I think abortion is morally wrong, but should be legally permitted, because practically speaking the consequences of forbidding it are worse than the consequences of allowing it. I feel the same way about the state prohibiting all sorts of things that I think are unethical (for example the sale of addictive and harmful drugs like tobacco).

There are lots of things that are morally wrong that aren't illegal, which is as it should be, imo.

[AltaGuy]

It seems to me that the most likely source for the leak at the SC was a conservative staffer worried that Roberts was going to convince Kavanaugh to change his position.

The public perception that if Kavanaugh changes his vote now, he is giving in to public outcry is the scenario that makes the most sense to me.

I was already in favour of Dems stacking the court, now even moreso. The institution has been ruined.