Amy Coney Barrett

[Anastasis 23394]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Not so fast, my friend. In what sense is a <13 week old fetus "living"?

Provide me any robust definition of life (i.e., one that be used broadly to classify life/not-life on earth consistently) and let's apply it to a fetus @ 9 weeks and see if it qualifies. 

[Anastasis 23394]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Agreed.

 

And this is where I think that we should spend our time or effort imo. Identifying the points where reasonable people with different views can find agreement. Reasonable people can I think disagree on complex and multi-faceted issues such as abortion, but still find common group for greater good. This is not however a particular strength of our political environment at the moment.  

[Rougarou 594]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Agreed.

Not so fast, my friend. In what sense is a <13 week old fetus "living"?

(Viability is generally put around 24 weeks.) (I choose <13 because that's when 90+% of abortions happen.)

The philosophical place of the fetus is undetermined and has been for all of recorded human history. That should be pretty instructive as to what it means to be "a human" and whether or not the fetus fits into that category.

Much like the religious do with faith, we should embrace the mystery instead of forcing answers that don't work.

What's interesting to me is that you (and me, and our kids) were called a "fetus" the second before we were vaginally discharged somewhere between 38 and 42 weeks (I'm guessing, which is the normal "full term" definition I believe). The 5 minutes before you were born you were a fetus and not a human being; does anyone really believe that?

I think that is the problem you are addressing-- there are no clear lines of demarcation or thresholds which we can point to as black and white, right and wrong. I do think there are others who don't subscribe to my thinking (which is all abortion is murder), who can try and make arguments very early (basically before a heart beat) that seem practical and ethical if I put myself in their shoes and their lacking of my values informed by certain faiths and beliefs, and can accept politically that without agreeing with it morally.

But there are still obviously some differences and it probably defaults to most, sane people's "Roth test" of "I know it when I see it" meaning that aborting a 35 week "fetus" or 38 week "fetus" or 30 week "fetus", seems to be playing with semantics at best, embracing euthanization at worst.

That said, I am honest about the dilemma of abortion being made legal. Of course people talk about the health of the mothers/baby who do illegal/blackmarket abortions, but also in the sense that many, many (if not most) of the people getting abortions are in some ways being responsible. They realize they are poor, can't afford a baby, can't raise a baby well, won't be able to give the energy and resources and love into a baby to optimize and maximize their potential or just are honest about their selfishness to not want to share limited resources and time with a baby. These poor, unprepared, unwilling, and generally unable people would be bringing untold lives into this world to be an anchor around the necks of the already choking middle and upper-middle class, but that being said; I'd choose paying more taxes and sacrificing my quality of life, if it means saving babies from being cut down in the womb.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Rougarou

[bad_teammate 13132]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Provide me any robust definition of life (i.e., one that be used broadly to classify life/not-life on earth consistently) and let's apply it to a fetus @ 9 weeks and see if it qualifies. 

Asked you first, brother.

The reality of the fetus is that it is in a liminal state. The fact that it is a transition between non-existence and independence makes it a hard question (and one that has been hard for as long as humans have existed) and one not suited to easy answers like "It's alive!" and "It's not alive!"

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

And this is where I think that we should spend our time or effort imo. Identifying the points where reasonable people with different views can find agreement. Reasonable people can I think disagree on complex and multi-faceted issues such as abortion, but still find common group for greater good. This is not however a particular strength of our political environment at the moment.  

Definitely, but we're in an unfortunate position in America where those who are loyal what is SUPPOSED TO BE the heart in a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions, religious faith, aren't united behind a "common good" type of vibe.

[Anastasis 23394]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Asked you first, brother.

OK.  Here is one that is generally robust. 

Properties of Life

All living organisms share several key characteristics or functions: order, sensitivity or response to the environment, reproduction, growth and development, regulation, homeostasis, and energy processing. When viewed together, these characteristics serve to define life.

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

On 9/28/2020 at 1:18 PM, StruggleBus said:

If men bore children at least PUSH PRESENTS wouldn't fucking exist

 

23 hours ago, elfenix said:

do i even want to ask?

Hell, I'm female and I don't want to know either.

 

 

22 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Thinking Brown v. Board was wrongly decided should be enough, too. 

Yeah, I was reading a little about that. Religion doesn't enter into it (w/respect to any candidate), but I sense a little too stringent application of 'equality' that leans toward the common belief set (among certain Americans) that the Civil War is over, you're free go forth and forget that the Constitution didn't include you vibe. If an attack on this is performed (a selective hacking away) in a manner similar to Roe v Wade or the VRA, or it's turned over to states, this is a bolder statement that sends us further on the path of minority rule.

[bad_teammate 13132]

22 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

The 5 minutes before you were born you were a fetus and not a human being; does anyone really believe that?

"A human being" is semantic (not dismissing, but it's worth nothing), but the reality is that we as humans have considered the born and unborn distinct for as long as we have been us. And the closer to fetus on the fetus-to-baby continuum the entity lies the less weight we put on it, collectively. That's just how it is.

Quote

But there are still obviously some differences and it probably defaults to most, sane people's "Roth test" of "I know it when I see it" meaning that aborting a 35 week "fetus" or 38 week "fetus" or 30 week "fetus", seems to be playing with semantics at best, embracing euthanization at worst.

Given how exceedingly rare late-term abortion is (1% done after 21 weeks, basically zero in the 30+ week range you're discussing here), I'm not sure what you're taking issue with. No one likes 30+ week abortions or wants them to happen. We're getting into strawman territory here.

Quote

They realize they are poor, can't afford a baby, can't raise a baby well, won't be able to give the energy and resources and love into a baby to optimize and maximize their potential or just are honest about their selfishness to not want to share limited resources and time with a baby. These poor, unprepared, unwilling, and generally unable people would be bringing untold lives into this world to be an anchor around the necks of the already choking middle and upper-middle clas

Oh it's just class antagonism cool cool OK

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

OK.  Here is one that is generally robust. 

Properties of Life

All living organisms share several key characteristics or functions: order, sensitivity or response to the environment, reproduction, growth and development, regulation, homeostasis, and energy processing. When viewed together, these characteristics serve to define life.

The closer to "fetus" on the "fetus-to-baby" continuum the less the fetus has of the bolded elements.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

I agree with much of what @Anastasis wrote about "abortion as birth control", but let's be honest:  post Roe V Wade, abortion rates drop much more precipitously under Democrat administrations than Republican administrations.  This is the single most important point if one wants to be "pragmatic".

[washparkhorn 9935]

29 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

What's interesting to me is that you (and me, and our kids) were called a "fetus" the second before we were vaginally discharged somewhere between 38 and 42 weeks (I'm guessing, which is the normal "full term" definition I believe). The 5 minutes before you were born you were a fetus and not a human being; does anyone really believe that?

I think that is the problem you are addressing-- there are no clear lines of demarcation or thresholds which we can point to as black and white, right and wrong. I do think there are others who don't subscribe to my thinking (which is all abortion is murder), who can try and make arguments very early (basically before a heart beat) that seem practical and ethical if I put myself in their shoes and their lacking of my values informed by certain faiths and beliefs, and can accept politically that without agreeing with it morally.

But there are still obviously some differences and it probably defaults to most, sane people's "Roth test" of "I know it when I see it" meaning that aborting a 35 week "fetus" or 38 week "fetus" or 30 week "fetus", seems to be playing with semantics at best, embracing euthanization at worst.

That said, I am honest about the dilemma of abortion being made legal. Of course people talk about the health of the mothers/baby who do illegal/blackmarket abortions, but also in the sense that many, many (if not most) of the people getting abortions are in some ways being responsible. They realize they are poor, can't afford a baby, can't raise a baby well, won't be able to give the energy and resources and love into a baby to optimize and maximize their potential or just are honest about their selfishness to not want to share limited resources and time with a baby. These poor, unprepared, unwilling, and generally unable people would be bringing untold lives into this world to be an anchor around the necks of the already choking middle and upper-middle class, but that being said; I'd choose paying more taxes and sacrificing my quality of life, if it means saving babies from being cut down in the womb.

Viability is the legal line in the sand. It has been since Roe v. Wade.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11753511/

Viability of a fetus it means: "having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus. Viability exists as a function of biomedical and technological capacities, which are different in different parts of the world. As a consequence, there is, at the present time, no worldwide, uniform gestational age that defines viability.

Viability is not an intrinsic property of the fetus because viability should be understood in terms of both biological and technological factors. It is only in virtue of both factors that a viable fetus can exist ex utero and thus later achieve independent moral status. Moreover, these two factors do not exist as a function of the autonomy of the pregnant woman.

When a fetus is viable, that is, when it is of sufficient maturity so that it can survive into the neonatal period and later achieve independent moral status given the availability of the requisite technological support, and when it is presented to the physician, the fetus is a patient. In the United States viability presently occurs at approximately 24 weeks of gestational age (Chervenak, L.B. McCullough; Textbook of Perinatal Medicine, 1998)."

Prevent conception = no viability + no abortion

Lower viability to conception = no Constitutionally protected abortion under Roe.

I think most on the evangelical/"every sperm is sacred" side of the ledger are more concerned with sexual intercourse outside of marriage. That's not an abortion issue; that's a moral/control issue for those who want to tell others what to do with their bodies. 

[Anastasis 23394]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The closer to "fetus" on the "fetus-to-baby" continuum the less the fetus has of the bolded elements.

Even a two cell embryo has complex biological regulation and homeostatic processes, and clearly meets the scientific criteria for life. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Even a two cell embryo has complex biological regulation and homeostatic processes, and clearly meets the scientific criteria for life. 

Within itself, sure, but not really with the environment in which it lives.

Think of the Schaivo case, which was essentially a proxy fight for abortion. The question of her being "alive" was similar to the one we're discussing here.

 

[Horn Dog 9674]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

A fetus is a living multicell differentiated organism with a genetic makeup consistent with what we have classified as human. "Person hood" is a philosophical term, not a scientific one. I will grant you that it is also used as a legal term. One of the knowledgeable lawyers here can probably outline the history of that term from a legal perspective, and its use for example to deny certain sets of humans their humanity, as a mechanism to justify things like slavery. A human sperm is a human gamete consisting of an expression of 23 chromosomes, one-half of the genetic material consistent with the diploid human genetic profile.  Analogy to a fetus or even a zygote is not appropriate imo.  A stem cell is a pluri-or multi-ponent cell extracted in a destructive process, at least in the case of embryonic and fetal stem cells, from an early embryo which contains the full suite of human genetic information.  A stem cell is one of the "products" possible to harvest when you destroy an embryo.  Clearly there are meaningful biological, and I would argue ethical, differences between a sperm, a stem cell harvested from a destroyed embryo, and a embryo or a fetus.

Thanks for responding, I enjoy reading your input.  I agree  there are  biological differences in those examples, but my point was when do you draw the line and why?  Is the line when there is multicellular,  differentiate form with a certain genetic make up?  Certain embroynoic cell malignancies have those characteristics..is it unethical to treat (and thus kill) those?  Is it the number of chromosomes?  Are fetuses with chromosomal abnormalities less human then those with 46?   Is it when someone says its "non-viable"?  That is not always clear cut. So what is the line and why?   Obviously good people can disagree and in general I completely agree with your statement that it is best not to get in the weeds and instead focus on a socially acceptable  solution, but that is what RVW attempted-  a compromise.  Furthermore, not what most abortion opponents advocate. They want life declared at conception and for that 2 cell organism to have the same rights as born children and adults. 

Since this is a ACB thread, and she as well as other conservatives had stated that cases before the SC should be ruled as the constitution is written and how the founding fathers understood things at the time it is interesting to look at this issue from that perspective.  Although the founding fathers did not understand about zygotes, multi differentiates cells, etc, they surely did understand the concept of growing fetuses in their wives wombs.  Yet they gave rights such as citizenship and the right to be a future president "upon birth" not "upon conception".  Why?  The only logical conclusion on can reach is that they saw birth as a milestone worthy of obtaining rights and a strict interpretation of their actions would imply that they saw fetuses as lesser then born people not worthy of constitutionally guaranteed rights.  This is not to say that fetuses should not have any rights.  But any rights given to fetuses is bestowed by modern law, not the constitution.

[Anastasis 23394]

8 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Since this is a ACB thread, and she as well as other conservatives had stated that cases before the SC should be ruled as the constitution is written and how the founding fathers understood things at the time it is interesting to look at this issue from that perspective.  Although the founding fathers did not understand about zygotes, multi differentiates cells, etc, they surely did understand the concept of growing fetuses in their wives wombs.  Yet they gave rights such as citizenship and the right to be a future president "upon birth" not "upon conception".  Why?

That's an interesting angle that I do not think I have seen articulated previously. Would be interesting to see the response from an originalist legal mind to the question. 

[washparkhorn 9935]

36 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

That's an interesting angle that I do not think I have seen articulated previously. Would be interesting to see the response from an originalist legal mind to the question. 

Good colloquy between a Federalist and a Choice advocate on citizenship upon conception, inter alia.  https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/abortion-and-the-courts

The Federalist's position: 

Quote

 

An unborn baby is a member of the species homo sapiens who is in utero: a legally cognizable person who exists from the moment of conception. This person can be protected by the law in many ways, for example, fetal homicide statutes. A murderer who kills a pregnant woman and her unborn baby commits double homicide. The baby is not part of the mother's body, nor the mother's property. She is a separate "person." And her personhood does not depend on whether she is wanted or not. The killer is guilty of double homicide even if he killed the mother and the unborn baby while they were on their way to the abortion clinic.

The Constitution, however, does not speak to the issue of abortion one way or another. UntilRoe v. Wade erroneously disrupted the Constitution's plan of self-government, citizens of each state could determine the degree to which they want to criminalize the killing of unborn persons through abortion statutes, just as they decide the manner in which they want to criminalize the killing of born persons through murder statutes. The Constitution doesn't require that all abortions be prohibited, nor does it require that all murders be prohibited.

Unfortunately, Roe v. Wade made such a mess of the law on the constitutional meaning of "person" that it is not only tiny members of the species homo sapiens who suffer; the majesty and power and rational force of American law also suffer, to the detriment of all who respect it and look to it for guidance and teaching. Justice Blackmun in Roe expansively held that the constitutional right to privacy is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision to abort a baby. To do this, he thought that he had to engage in the most literalistic and narrow construction possible to decree that unborn human beings are not "persons" under the 14th Amendment.

The constitutional "personhood" ruling is, like the rest of Roe, judicial fiat in search of a rationale, and - again, like the rest of Roe - it comes up woefully short. Blackmun reasoned (being charitable with this term), first, that the other uses of "person" in the Constitution apply only postnatally. As John Hart Ely noted, Blackmun "might have added that most of [the Constitution's clauses] were plainly drafted with adults in mind, but I suppose that wouldn't have helped." Second, Blackmun asserted that "throughout the major portion of the nineteenth century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today . . . ." 410 U.S. at 158.

Tellingly, however, the Court had construed the word "persons" in the Constitution only one other time. In 1886, it held that a corporation - a fictional, nonhuman entity - is a "person" entitled to equal protection and due process of law. Corporations don't exactly fit the way "person" is used elsewhere in the Constitution; they can't be fugitive slaves, or senators, or presidential electors, for example. Blackmun ignored this analytically, as well as the 1968Levy v. Louisiana ruling upholding the constitutional rights of illegitimate children, in which the Court reasoned, "We start from the premise that illegitimate children are not 'nonpersons.' They are human, live, and have their being. They are clearly within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." 391 U.S. at 70.

As for Blackmun's other justification for his decree that the unborn are not constitutional "persons," it's flatly wrong. In fact, while the 14th Amendment was pending in Congress and the states were debating ratification, almost all the states revised their abortion statutes from the common law protection of the unborn only after "quickening" to conform to advances in the scientific understanding of the beginning of life. The medical profession rejected the "quickening" doctrine and accepted the science that a new human life begins at conception. The American Medical Association successfully lobbied most states to protect unborn life from conception by criminalizing all abortions. Accordingly, it makes little sense that the very state legislatures that were enacting these laws had a different understanding as they ratified the 14th Amendment.

In sum, Roe was clearly wrong in rejecting the fact that the unborn baby is a constitutional "person." Equally clearly, the Constitution leaves it to We The People to determine how the law shall protect such persons, without interference from unelected judges.

 

 

[Message Board User 12389]

Thoughts @TwiceHorn?

 

[Horn Dog 9674]

2 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Good colloquy between a Federalist and a Choice advocate on citizenship upon conception, inter alia.  https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/abortion-and-the-courts

The Federalist's position: 

 

This is very interesting thank you for posting.  So as I understand it the Federalist viewpoint is that Blackburn was incorrect in asserting that the constitution did not grant “personhood” to a fetus and that a fetus is in fact a “person” upon conception.  If that is true then shouldn’t a fetus of a foreign tourist couple be granted citizenship upon conception in the US?  If not, wouldn’t that mean the constitution is allowing for a class  of “persons” who are potentially stateless?  That seems strange.

 Furthermore, since the constitution instructs the census to “count all persons living in the United States” doesn’t that mean that fetuses are being illegally not counted?  The only other logical conclusion is that the constitution is allowing for a separate class of “persons” in our country, that are considered differently then “born persons” which again seems unconstitutional.

[TwiceHorn 31289]

Nothing terribly remarkable in there.  Some things attempt to show she's a human being.  Some conservative fodder (2nd Amendment, Immigration).  She actually ruled as part of a unanimous opinion denying qualified immunity to a copy who falsified a warrant affidavit.  That should be unremarkable, but it isn't.

[Mo Horn 8807]

 

[TheStoicPaisano 9904]

 

 

[Horn Dog 9674]

17 minutes ago, TheStoicPaisano said:

 

 

If this whole "SC justice" thing doesn't work out, Ms. Barrett would make an excellent Big 12 ref

[Anastasis 23394]

1 hour ago, Horn Dog said:

If this whole "SC justice" thing doesn't work out, Ms. Barrett would make an excellent Big 12 ref

Why be anti-abortion when you can BE an abortion. 

[zork 629]

 

Edited October 1, 2020 by zork

[gmr548 16518]

It'd be pretty fucking funny if COVID running through the ranks of the GOP, spreading from Trump, caused a few quarantines and delayed the confirmation until after the election. I have no doubt McConnell would still ram it through, but the political price of doing that in a lame duck session with the President and very possibly the Senate majority changing would have a staggering political price.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11668]

Re: Lee

 

 

 

[wildcat09 29261]

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

It'd be pretty fucking funny if COVID running through the ranks of the GOP, spreading from Trump, caused a few quarantines and delayed the confirmation until after the election. I have no doubt McConnell would still ram it through, but the political price of doing that in a lame duck session with the President and very possibly the Senate majority changing would have a staggering political price.

[StassneyHorn 6540]

Mike Lee is out for next 2 weeks. If Collins and Murkowski are serious about not confirming, it’s be nice to be serious about avoiding quorum.

[elfenix 34172]

seems like ACB's intro being a superspreader event is a sign from god

[Anastasis 23394]

26 minutes ago, elfenix said:

seems like ACB's intro being a superspreader event is a sign from god

God has a sense of humor too. 

[Macanudo 12928]

47 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

God has a sense of humor too. 

Blasphemous rumors. 

[Jive Turkey 12568]

 

[Bullneck 18987]

 

 

[Anastasis 23394]

37 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

 

 

She’s probably already immune. But twitter good. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

No.

She's the next SC justice. Just fucking deal with it.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23359]

Amy Covid Barrett

[Asithappens 974]

19 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Amy Covid Barrett

My thoughts exactly.

[orangecat92 306]

Ever notice senate votes never have all 100?  Cavanaugh vote 50 to 48, example.  Quorum is 51 and evidently v prez cannot count toward 51.   With senators recovering from covid , there will not be 51, unless some senator with covid votes. 

[hobbes2702 12847]

3 minutes ago, orangecat92 said:

Ever notice senate votes never have all 100?  Cavanaugh vote 50 to 48, example.  Quorum is 51 and evidently v prez cannot count toward 51.   With senators recovering from covid , there will not be 51, unless some senator with covid votes. 

Gotta get outta committee first 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20345]

My theory is that, secretly, the GOP doesn't want a vote on ACB.  They only want to pretend to their supporters that they're doing everything they can. You think Ladybugs or Donald Trump gives a shit about fetuses?

 

[ndawg 1242]

12 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

My theory is that, secretly, the GOP doesn't want a vote on ACB.  They only want to pretend to their supporters that they're doing everything they can. You think Ladybugs or Donald Trump gives a shit about fetuses?

 

This does make make sense. Part of the GOP strategy has to be that they actually need to pace themselves. Their base may be chomping at the bit to go full handmaiden's tale, but if they do that, they will lose their wealth along with the economy. After all, they need the US to be a decidedly secular society in order to maintain their wealth. Abortion and supreme court justices seem like a great way to stage a quality loss, because the current supreme court already works just fine for the wealthy people that the GOP serves. They've got Citizen's United already, for example. So, by deliberately losing on the issues that matter most to evangelicals, they actually lose nothing of value; the country remains secular enough to sustain an economy that substantiates their wealth, and the evangelicals, being true zealots, will never give up their cause, no matter how many Ls they take.

Edited October 6, 2020 by ndawg

[C-Man 27059]

27 minutes ago, orangecat92 said:

Ever notice senate votes never have all 100?  Cavanaugh vote 50 to 48, example.  Quorum is 51 and evidently v prez cannot count toward 51.   With senators recovering from covid , there will not be 51, unless some senator with covid votes. 

Didn't Lee -- or one of the other infected Senators -- say he'd wear a haz-mat suit in order to make his vote to confirm ACB?

[wildcat09 29261]

4 minutes ago, ndawg said:

This does make make sense. Part of the GOP strategy has to be that they actually need to pace themselves. Their base may be chomping at the bit to go full handmaiden's tale, but if they do that, they will lose their wealth along with the economy. After all, they need the US to be a decidedly secular society in order to maintain their wealth. Abortion and supreme court justices seem like a great way to stage a quality loss, because the current supreme court already works just fine for the wealthy people that the GOP serves. They've got Citizen's United already, for example. So, by deliberately losing on the issues that matter most to evangelicals, they actually lose nothing of value; the country remains secular enough to sustain an economy that substantiates their wealth, and the evangelicals, being true zealots, will never give up their cause, no matter how many Ls they take.

The GOP wealthy absolutely do not think this.

[DDD Dad 14252]

5 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Didn't Lee -- or one of the other infected Senators -- say he'd wear a haz-mat suit in order to make his vote to confirm ACB?

Won't Mitch just change the rules to allow remote voting?

[ndawg 1242]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

The GOP wealthy absolutely do not think this.

I'm sure some do, some don't. I'd guess it would depend on how much each one relies on superstitious rationalizations for their sociopathy. But anyone among them who is unashamed of their greed enough to prioritize it above all else understands two things:

1. If the taliban wing of the GOP takes control, this country will no longer be capable of maintaining our post WWII dominance in science and technology, which spells doom for our economy as a whole
2. If a concession ever needs to be made, the evangelicals are the ideal choice to grab the short straw, because their support can be taken for granted

I've met plenty of wealthy GOPers that are not religious but have zero problem prohibiting abortion, because they know they can still get their daughter a safe abortion if they need to. Rules for thee, not me, and all that.

[Your Mom 4797]

33 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Won't Mitch just change the rules to allow remote voting?

This right here.. They can do whatever they want at the moment. 

[henrygandorf 29179]

yeah, i asked a couple of weeks ago about a quorum scenario.  of course at that point, i was hoping that a couple senators could just "stay home" instead of a nay vote, which might be better optics for them.  then if all the dems stayed home, you're short of 50.

then covid-19 entered the chat.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

On 9/29/2020 at 2:36 PM, Rougarou said:

What's interesting to me is that you (and me, and our kids) were called a "fetus" the second before we were vaginally discharged somewhere between 38 and 42 weeks (I'm guessing, which is the normal "full term" definition I believe). The 5 minutes before you were born you were a fetus and not a human being; does anyone really believe that?

I think that is the problem you are addressing-- there are no clear lines of demarcation or thresholds which we can point to as black and white, right and wrong. I do think there are others who don't subscribe to my thinking (which is all abortion is murder), who can try and make arguments very early (basically before a heart beat) that seem practical and ethical if I put myself in their shoes and their lacking of my values informed by certain faiths and beliefs, and can accept politically that without agreeing with it morally.

But there are still obviously some differences and it probably defaults to most, sane people's "Roth test" of "I know it when I see it" meaning that aborting a 35 week "fetus" or 38 week "fetus" or 30 week "fetus", seems to be playing with semantics at best, embracing euthanization at worst.

That said, I am honest about the dilemma of abortion being made legal. Of course people talk about the health of the mothers/baby who do illegal/blackmarket abortions, but also in the sense that many, many (if not most) of the people getting abortions are in some ways being responsible. They realize they are poor, can't afford a baby, can't raise a baby well, won't be able to give the energy and resources and love into a baby to optimize and maximize their potential or just are honest about their selfishness to not want to share limited resources and time with a baby. These poor, unprepared, unwilling, and generally unable people would be bringing untold lives into this world to be an anchor around the necks of the already choking middle and upper-middle class, but that being said; I'd choose paying more taxes and sacrificing my quality of life, if it means saving babies from being cut down in the womb.

Your last sentence is the biggest problem for most anti-choice people.  They also generally believe in the conservative bootstraps ideal.  So not only do they want to prevent a poor potential mother from having an abortion, they also want to make her solely responsible for raising a child, and then also ultimately punish the mother or child when/if they make the bad decisions that some poor people make.  In many ways, the USA is a political clusterfuck because the supposedly laissez faire right wing takes a hardline on issues like abortion but provides no backstop at all for them.

Realistically, while I am against banning abortion, any ban should also come with a fully funded nanny state that allows the mother to fulfill her dreams while also paying for the child to be raised.  This needs to go far beyond SNAP and TANF, and needs to include day care and tutoring at the very least.  We also need to reform the adoption system that essentially "sells" babies.  Adoptive parents shouldn't have to go into debt to adopt a baby.  That money should go towards raising the baby.

However, this idea that the potential child is a part of the "people" and not just the child of the mother is something that the USSR believed and it was why they banned abortion up until 1955.  But even there, it failed, as the USSR had a very high illegal abortion rate prior to 1955 and the highest legal abortion rate in the world after 1955. At the end of the day, for a potential mother, whether a baby feels like an anchor to her isn't only, or even mostly, based on finances.

As for your first 3 paragraphs, fetus is an old word.  All of what you say is just semantics.  There are multiple bright line events that occur in the growth of a fetus.  Heartbeat.  Brain function.  Viability outside the womb.  We could probably find an agreeable cutoff point.  Yet everyone fights this fight in both directions with the "if I give an inch, they'll take a mile" strategy.

But also, it should be a women's choice.  And there's a reason that women largely support abortion remaining legal.  Its entirely on them.  Humans are a fragile species.  Our young aren't truly capable of surviving on their own for roughly the first 10 years of life.  And the fact that humans not only still exist, but thrive, is due entirely to women taking the responsibility of motherhood seriously.  Yet ever since we were living in caves, some women probably weren't ready and threw newborns off the cliff.  So while men like you and I can certainly have opinions, and we can save newborns from being tossed off the cliff these days, the decision on whether or not to allow another lifeform to grow and feed inside someone should fall on the person who has that lifeform growing and feeding inside of them. 

If/when we invent an artificial womb, then perhaps others can or should be involved in the decision making process.  Yet even if that occurs, I imagine we will then be looking at a significant number of people that follow the artificial womb/orphanage/prison route because the only form of socialism that US conservatives seem willing to fund is the prison system.

 

 

[GRHorn 105]

 

 

[GRHorn 105]

 

 

[Pancho 44487]

You can be a woman and still be anti-women.