Roe Overturned?
-
I think what Jon may be missing, is that it isn't going to matter a lot in the blue states or much in the red states. Purple states will be where things are the most contentious.
And while it certainly will be an issue, I think the economy will override it as the driving force in contested districts.
-
@jon-nyc said in Roe Overturned?:
It’s a net loser for the GOP electorally. Although polling is very sensitive to phrasing, it can be safely said that most people are uncomfortable with abortion in general but want it to be legal in early stages. Outright bans are going to be unpopular and the edge cases (e.g. rape victims, doomed pregnancies etc forced to carry to term) are going to get a lot of play in the media.
Agree. Look at the Fox News poll posted earlier in this forum thread. Over 60% were said to favor the Supreme court taking no action. I think that Fox News generally is more conservative, so a pretty reliable number I think on an issue like this.
-
-
@taiwan_girl said in Roe Overturned?:
@jon-nyc said in Roe Overturned?:
It’s a net loser for the GOP electorally. Although polling is very sensitive to phrasing, it can be safely said that most people are uncomfortable with abortion in general but want it to be legal in early stages. Outright bans are going to be unpopular and the edge cases (e.g. rape victims, doomed pregnancies etc forced to carry to term) are going to get a lot of play in the media.
Agree. Look at the Fox News poll posted earlier in this forum thread. Over 60% were said to favor the Supreme court taking no action. I think that Fox News generally is more conservative, so a pretty reliable number I think on an issue like this.
Fox News polls typically generate more liberal numbers than many other polls.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
-
Another indicator - ask Mitch McConnell a question about abortion and you’ll get an answer about inflation.
-
@jon-nyc said in Roe Overturned?:
Another indicator - ask Mitch McConnell a question about abortion and you’ll get an answer about inflation.
Mitch is very good at manipulating rules in the Senate. I don't think he's nearly that good in predictive politics.
If the economy is not good, I just don't see the overturn of Roe being a bellwether issue come midterms...
-
-
@Copper said in Roe Overturned?:
An additional leak, an illustration, from the scotus opinion.
I know it was a joke, but this really is why there is a divide. For me, I cannot NOT see the fetus as another human being (which I think it obviously is), so it's hard for me to understand the position (and honestly, the passion) that it should be legal to end that separate, growing, human life.
Regardless of my opinion, I'd imagine the appropriate legality (whether at the state or federal level) would be that abortion is allowed before there is a beating heart (around 6-8 weeks) or at the worst before the 2nd trimester, and only otherwise allowed for health risks to the mother, child, or unviable pregnancies.
-
@89th said in Roe Overturned?:
I cannot NOT see the fetus as another human being (which I think it obviously is), so it's hard for me to understand the position (and honestly, the passion) that it should be legal to end that separate, growing, human life.
I think there are only two logically coherent point of views on the issue.
Either at the moment of conception you have a life that is morally equivalent to a fully grown human. Abortion at any point and under any circumstance is murder and should be punished as such. That would include, for instance, the usage of IUDs. It's not my position, but I think it is at least logically coherent.
Or you have a grey area, a spectrum of "humanhood". In this point of view it makes a big difference whether an abortion takes place on day 0 (IUDs, morning-after pill), week 4, week 12, or week 35. That would be my position on the issue.
The "it's my body until birth" position, on the other hand, is incoherent. The location of a body is obviously irrelevant when considering how bad it would be to abort/kill it.
-
@Klaus said in Roe Overturned?:
The "it's my body until birth" position, on the other hand, is incoherent. The location of a body is obviously irrelevant when considering how bad it would be to abort/kill it.
Yes but it seems the pro-choice side do not consider it to be a(nother) body, they consider it to be the fetus to be THE woman's body. Certainly the fetus is attached to the mother's body, but indeed I agree it's hard to ignore the fetus is a separate human body (that is growing within, and nourished by, the woman's body).
-
@89th said in Roe Overturned?:
@Klaus said in Roe Overturned?:
The "it's my body until birth" position, on the other hand, is incoherent. The location of a body is obviously irrelevant when considering how bad it would be to abort/kill it.
Yes but it seems the pro-choice side do not consider it to be a(nother) body, they consider it to be the fetus to be THE woman's body. Certainly the fetus is attached to the mother's body, but indeed I agree it's hard to ignore the fetus is a separate human body (that is growing within, and nourished by, the woman's body).
- The new baby does not have the same DNA as the mother. It is its own distinct person.
- If the baby can live outside of the womb, is it ethical to kill it inside of the womb? If not, the argument resolves to 23 weeks (youngest preemie to survive) for even the most ardent abortionist.
As medical science progresses, it is inevitable that the age of viability will lower. Abortionists are left with less and less ground to stand on...
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Klaus said in Roe Overturned?:
The location of a body is obviously irrelevant when considering how bad it would be to abort/kill it.
The location of the body is very much relevant. Imagine having an “artificial womb” where one can gestate fetuses completely outside of another human’s body — whatever happens to that fetus in the artificial womb will pose no danger to another human, the gestation will pose no restriction on another human’s freedom of movement, it will induce no discomfort, no impact on schooling or career development — then “abortion” can be completely absolutely outlawed because the fetus as a body can pose no adverse risk to any other separate body. But we are far from perfecting the artificial womb nor the transference of the fetus from one womb to another womb (supposedly a volunteer’s^), so one body (the fetus) must still impose on another body (the one with the womb gestating said fetus) to survive, and we continue to struggle with balancing between the wellbeing of the fetus vs. the wellbeing of its gestating host, keep arguing over exceptions for “health of the mother,” rape, incest, etc.
Side note ^ : wouldn’t it be nice if we have the technology to safely transfer a fetus from one womb to another? Then all the well-meaning “save the babies” crowd can volunteer to “adopt” and continue to gestate the fetuses from the other pregnant women who are unfit or unwilling to carry the fetuses to term.
Hey Elon, start working on “artificial womb” and “safe fetus transfer” technologies, solve the abortion problem with tech!
-
I fail to get your argument, Ax. Are you saying because the fetus cannot survive without the mother it is the women's right to abort him/her as she pleases, until the day the baby is born?
It is quite normal that there are such dependencies between humans. A baby also cannot survive on its own. I don't see why that plays a role, or why the existence of a hypothetical artificial womb would change anything. When there's a tradeoff to be made between the health of the mother and the health of the baby, sometimes a difficult choice needs to be made, but that's not what the abortion debate is about.
-
@Jolly said in Roe Overturned?:
- The new baby does not have the same DNA as the mother. It is its own distinct person.
- If the baby can live outside of the womb, is it ethical to kill it inside of the womb? If not, the argument resolves to 23 weeks (youngest preemie to survive) for even the most ardent abortionist.
As medical science progresses, it is inevitable that the age of viability will lower. Abortionists are left with less and less ground to stand on...
The “viability” argument as presented today is problematic. If a “viable” preemie is truly “viable” then simply induce early labor or C-section any post-“viable” preemie from its unwilling (or unfit) host who is seeking an abortion then transfer the preemie’s custody to the state’s adoption agency and you’re done. But instead the anti-abortion crowd often choose to insist that the unwilling (or unfit) host of the fetuses to carry the fetuses to term. If you want to be realistic about this, if a preemie does not have a realistic alternative outside its original womb to survive, than it’s not really “viable”.
-
@Klaus said in Roe Overturned?:
I fail to get your argument, Ax. Are you saying because the fetus cannot survive without the mother it is the women's right to abort him/her as she pleases, until the day the baby is born?
It is quite normal that there are such dependencies between humans. A baby also cannot survive on its own. I don't see why that plays a role, or why the existence of a hypothetical artificial womb would change anything. When there's a tradeoff to be made between the health of the mother and the health of the baby, sometimes a difficult choice needs to be made, but that's not what the abortion debate is about.
Most inter-dependencies between any two humans are transferable. E.g., post birth, a baby can depend on just about any adult to provide it with whatever he needs to survive, that adult need not be a specific human being -- parent, aunt/uncle, older sibling, older cousin, grandparent, state welfare worker, charitable volunteer, foster parent ... any of them will do. One "parent" doesn't want to do it? Fine, let one or more of the other willing alternatives pick up the slack. This is when you can say "location does not matter" -- for indeed you can easily relocate a child post-birth to just about anywhere to be cared for by just about anyone independent of any specific person.
But not so for a fetus pre-birth. There is as yet no viable alternative to continue gestating a pre-birth fetus other that the original gestating host. That's why the wellbeing of the fetus and the wellbeing of the gestating host are intertwined in ways that are fundamentally different from other human inter-dependencies. In modeling terms, the difference is as fundamental as "one to one" vs. "one to any." All the risk and burden that comes with gestating a fetus can only call onto the original gestating host, they cannot be transferred to anyone else -- that is also key to recognizing that the gestating host therefore has unique and outsized voice on what can happen to the fetus (as long as the fetus is uniquely dependent on the gestating host).
As for "difficult choices" needing to be made, that is practically the bulk of the abortion debate. Practically nearly all abortion-related choices are difficult choices, practically no one wants to go through abortion for fun. In that sense, "difficult choices" are the norm rather than the exception in abortion debates.
-
@Axtremus said in Roe Overturned?:
As for "difficult choices" needing to be made, that is practically the bulk of the abortion debate. Practically nearly all abortion-related choices are difficult choices, practically no one wants to go through abortion for fun. In that sense, "difficult choices" are the norm rather than the exception in abortion debates.
And there is the biggest fallacy with the whole pro choice argument. If it’s just a clump of cells than having an abortion is no more a difficult choice as getting a pedicure… The “safe, legal, and rare” argument is blindingly hypocritical.
-
I will make allowances for medical necessities. I will make allowances for victims of rape. For everyone else, ship up about your rights and consider your responsibilities.
Me/rry/Christmas
