I think "safe, legal and rare" is the way to go. Generally speaking that would cover rape, life of mother, forced incest and so on. I know that that broad scope was supported by Reagan to Hillary to Trump, which encompasses a wide variety of groups. 

Should everything come down from DC? I don't think so. Laws closer to home matter more on a variety of things, this being one of them. 

Time and time and time again Democrats have had every opportunity to codify Roe V Wade. In fact, remember when Obama said that he would handle that on day one of his presidency? Of course, once he got into office he then said that it was not his top priority. 

The unlikable fact is that Dems had zero intention on ever doing it because it has always been one of their main money makers for campaigning. It was a problem that could never be solved. That's just the truth of it. 

If anybody wants to work up a good lather from self righteous fury, they should look to the people who have always dangled the carrot but never let them eat it. But we all know THAT will never ever ever ever ever ever happen. 

posted by CenterBHSFan

I think "safe, legal and rare" is the way to go. Generally speaking that would cover rape, life of mother, forced incest and so on. I know that that broad scope was supported by Reagan to Hillary to Trump, which encompasses a wide variety of groups. 

Should everything come down from DC? I don't think so. Laws closer to home matter more on a variety of things, this being one of them. 

Time and time and time again Democrats have had every opportunity to codify Roe V Wade. In fact, remember when Obama said that he would handle that on day one of his presidency? Of course, once he got into office he then said that it was not his top priority. 

The unlikable fact is that Dems had zero intention on ever doing it because it has always been one of their main money makers for campaigning. It was a problem that could never be solved. That's just the truth of it. 

If anybody wants to work up a good lather from self righteous fury, they should look to the people who have always dangled the carrot but never let them eat it. But we all know THAT will never ever ever ever ever ever happen. 

Well Democrats ran into the same problem Republicans are at now, where is the line? Easy to do in the abstract with Roe on books. But, now that it is gone, all options are on the table from total ban to full allowed. 

I also doubt any law any Obama Congress would have passed would have withstood the Roe overturn by the court.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Well Democrats ran into the same problem Republicans are at now, where is the line? Easy to do in the abstract with Roe on books. But, now that it is gone, all options are on the table from total ban to full allowed. 

I also doubt any law any Obama Congress would have passed would have withstood the Roe overturn by the court.

I think it very well could have. Whereas before it was just considered as "settled law", meaning that everyone at the time assumed nobody would turn the matter to the states. And as long as that thought prevailed, it could be campaigned easily, which is exactly what happened. Now that it is a state issue, the first thing people did was shit their pants. Some just farted a lot. 

The question about how far into the pregnancy abortions are allowed to happen will be an interesting debate to follow because I, the person who is against abortion as birth control, have an exception. I will explain shortly but right now I have a stupid ass webinar to do that has nothing whatsoever to do with my job.

tbc

posted by CenterBHSFan

I think it very well could have. Whereas before it was just considered as "settled law", meaning that everyone at the time assumed nobody would turn the matter to the states. And as long as that thought prevailed, it could be campaigned easily, which is exactly what happened. Now that it is a state issue, the first thing people did was shit their pants. Some just farted a lot. 

The question about how far into the pregnancy abortions are allowed to happen will be an interesting debate to follow because I, the person who is against abortion as birth control, have an exception. I will explain shortly but right now I have a stupid ass webinar to do that has nothing whatsoever to do with my job.

tbc

In this Supreme Court now, nothing is settled law. And yeah, people were rightly concerned depending on which state they lived in. As mentioned, red states voted the last 2 years to protect the right to choose the option, as they voted in pro-choice.....

If anything, the last two years has shown the myth abortion was used largely as birth control as false. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

In this Supreme Court now, nothing is settled law. And yeah, people were rightly concerned depending on which state they lived in. As mentioned, red states voted the last 2 years to protect the right to choose the option, as they voted in pro-choice.....

If anything, the last two years has shown the myth abortion was used largely as birth control as false. 

Most of what you said the last few posts is true.

But it most certainly is not a myth that the vast majority of abortions are basically “oops” birth control and not because of serious medical issues.

Statistically close to 96% of abortions are not medically necessary and therefore elective or “birth control”.

A multifaceted study by the NIH lists the most common reasons why..they are financial, need to focus on other kids, bad timing, etc.  none of the top 5 or 6 reasons have any medical reason at all.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3729671/

Ok back to finish my thought/exception to elective abortions. Beyond mother's health, rape, etc. there are also cases where parents find out early in pregnancy that there is something terribly wrong with the baby's health. Things like Harlequin syndrome, where even though medicine is making advances, more often than not the baby dies in less than a month. An extremely painful existence for the baby and despair and shock of the parents. It's an awful thing. And even though it hurts my soul to say it, and am thankful I was never in this situation, but things like this should also be an exception to the general rule of thumb. 

posted by jmog

Statistically close to 96% of abortions are not medically necessary and therefore elective or “birth control”.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

They’ll get to an agreement on this one. I’m certain of it. 

Over/under on posts prior to the weekend?

posted by queencitybuckeye
and the true conservative view on this is that the choice is yours to make and any fallout from it is between you and your maker, whomever or whatever you believe that to be.

Sorry, but that is not all the way true. 

The real question is when one believes/understands life to begin.

Most conservatives believe you can’t kill it once it’s a human life. Most liberals are still ok with killing it up to a certain point because of body autonomy of the mother.

So no, the conservative view isn’t “let them choose what they want and their maker sort it out”

The conservative view is once we (personal or as a society) believe it’s a human life it needs to be protected.  Some conservatives say conception, some say heartbeat, some say viability, some say not until birth, etc.

"true conservative"

This is probably like trying to nail jello to a wall, imo. We talk a lot of and about liberalism and progressivism but never really talk beyond surface level conservatism. Hmmm...

posted by jmog

The real question is when one believes/understands life to begin.

Where we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree is who the "one" is. Society? Conservatives? Liberals? The clergy?  I'm going to stick with the pregnant party.

posted by Automatik

Wonderful! The ruiners are back. 

I just like how geeblock said he didn’t have time to argue then posted a half dozen more times still arguing. 

posted by queencitybuckeye

Where we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree is who the "one" is. Society? Conservatives? Liberals? The clergy?  I'm going to stick with the pregnant party.

At the end of the day when life actually begins isn’t an opinion. It’s objective not subjective.

People may disagree and argue but that doesn’t make all 300 different opinions correct.

There are extreme views either way we can all agree are off base. But it’s not subjective like what one’s favorite color is.

It’s a scientific principle that science can figure out (and actually has but that’s a different discussion).

If one pregnant woman says life begins at conception and another pregnant woman says it doesn’t begin until birth they can’t both be right on when life begins. . Thats just logically wrong.

posted by QuakerOats

Over/under on posts prior to the weekend?

22

posted by jmog

At the end of the day when life actually begins isn’t an opinion. It’s objective not subjective.

People may disagree and argue but that doesn’t make all 300 different opinions correct.

There are extreme views either way we can all agree are off base. But it’s not subjective like what one’s favorite color is.

It’s a scientific principle that science can figure out (and actually has but that’s a different discussion).

If one pregnant woman says life begins at conception and another pregnant woman says it doesn’t begin until birth they can’t both be right on when life begins. . Thats just logically wrong.

Understood. I simply see no need for a consensus. To me it's a strictly individual issue.

posted by queencitybuckeye

Understood. I simply see no need for a consensus. To me it's a strictly individual issue.

When life begins is a scientific issue not an individual subjective issue.

posted by jmog

When life begins is a scientific issue not an individual subjective issue.

So where is the line where Government should be involved? How early in the process? 

posted by jmog

Most of what you said the last few posts is true.

But it most certainly is not a myth that the vast majority of abortions are basically “oops” birth control and not because of serious medical issues.

Statistically close to 96% of abortions are not medically necessary and therefore elective or “birth control”.

A multifaceted study by the NIH lists the most common reasons why..they are financial, need to focus on other kids, bad timing, etc.  none of the top 5 or 6 reasons have any medical reason at all.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3729671/

Let me clarify. The stereotypical view from the right that abortion is by far largely used as birth control for loose women is dead. I agree with your over 10 year old study that the picture is more complicated for reasons, not ones the right has been using for years. 

Again, the last 2 years has shown more people the complexities of the issue and that it is not a simple pro and con issue. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

So where is the line where government should be involved? How early in the process? 

If there is a provable beginning of life it should be protected until said life will cause irreparable harm to another life.

The old adage that I can swing my own arms around until I come in contact with your face. That is until you “consent” to contact by starting the fight in the first place.  

posted by jmog

If there is a provable beginning of life it should be protected until said life will cause irreparable harm to another life.

The old adage that I can swing my own arms around until I come in contact with your face. That is until you “consent” to contact by starting the fight in the first place.  

And the Government is the best entity to make that decision?

I won't get into a protracted debate, but will point out that if one is equating viability outside the womb with "a life", those are not at all equivalent.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

And the Government is the best entity to make that decision?

The government is design, but our founding documents (DoI, Constitution) to instill laws and order that protect things like life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. 

Who else would we setup to protect life? We have laws against murder, laws against even unintentional, but negligent killing (manslaughter), laws that are in place to even protect ourselves from killing ourselves (seat belt laws, etc). 

Who else would you prescribe to have laws protecting life once we establish scientifically when life begins?

posted by queencitybuckeye

I won't get into a protracted debate, but will point out that if one is equating viability outside the womb with "a life", those are not at all equivalent.

Some people absolutely believe life begins at "viability". I think that's asinine because the viability line moves as neo-natal technologies improve. That would, again, make when life begins subjective to current technologies. Viability 100 years ago may have been 8 months, now there are babies that survive and thrive (eventually) at 5 months (21 weeks).

I'm sure eventually we will have the technology to just completely grow a human from a mother and fathers gametes completely outside of the woman so the "viability outside the womb" is absolutely a fallible logic discussion.

That doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of people who currently say life begins at viability and/or life has "value" (meaning you can't abort it) at viability outside of the womb.

Scientifically when life begins should have a set "date", it can't be arbitrary to what one person (mother) believes, or the current technology.  

I've been hearing and seeing people bitch about taxpayer money being spent on a bridge instead of the usual insurance claims.

I look at it much differently.

At least taxpayer money is being spent on US soil. 

I'd be interested to know after how many weeks would someone consider losing a fetus via assault or car accident to be murder?

My guess is the vast majority of people would answer something less than 15 weeks.  Point being, I think even individual answers/feelings would change based on their life situation.  And to JMOG's point, I think we all know those answers would be different at different stages in life, very different.  And that's significant - your individual situation shouldn't determine whether or not that fetus is actually a life, nor should it change.