You can already see where we are going — if you care to look. And if you don't care to look, maybe it's because your number is either 0 or 100, but most people think abortion should be permitted (tolerated) up to some point and then not afterwards (or only later to save the life of the mother). It was always a problem that Roe had defined a right that contained time limits. That seemed more legislative than judicial.
But with Roe overruled — if that is indeed what happens — there will need to be legislation, and a number will be chosen. Maybe we'll get one number from Congress, but if not, we'll get numbers from the states, and what should the number be?
Here's a new poll from NPR that may suggest where we will end up:
There could be a much more fine tuned question. For mid-range options, we're only seeing 26 weeks — which is later than the Roe viability line — and 13 weeks — which is still later than the Texas Heartbeat Act at issue in the new case. You've got 59% of people wanting at least 13 weeks of freedom to obtain an abortion, so perhaps that's what we should expect. And yet, it's going to vary from state to state. It's what Congress would end up with if it had the capacity to produce something bipartisan, but I don't expect that.
And I do think that opinion will shift once a substantial proportion of the people focus on the numerical question. I'd like to see a survey that shows clear and neutral pictures of fetal development from week one to week 26 — just pictures, no numbers — and that asks people to choose the point where abortion should be banned (except to save the life of the mother). If you just ask people to pick 26 or 13 — which is what NPR did — it's much more abstract and crude. If you ask people to point at the first image they would want to protect, I wonder what would happen.
I think a lot of people would refuse to participate in a survey like that. But come on! We're going to need a number. No, I suspect most people aren't going to want to talk about numbers. But I think we'll end up with legislation, and a number is going to be needed.
Posts
121 comments:
I would prefer "Only to protect the life of the mother", but am willing to accept the first trimester as a compromise.
Embryology used to be a required course for medical school. That requirement ended sometime in the 70s. I wonder why ? No I don't.
If we made it 18, my kids wouldn't sass me so much.
Years, I mean.
I have no problem with abortion within the first trimester.
You might convince me to extend that period a bit, but it then verges on executing a viable child for the sake of personal convenience.
I would be interested in seeing statistics on when abortions occur during gestation. For example. If 80% occur in the first 15 weeks, and 90% in the first 20 weeks, that will say something about how to address availability of abortions after 20 weeks.
People also respond to incentives, so one would think that a substantial proportion of women who had abortions at 16 or 17 weeks would have had them by 15 weeks if that’s what the law required.
And if a Woke state or business wants to boycott states with a 15 week standard (for example), then would they also boycott other nations with cutoffs at 15 or fewer weeks?
Well, it says 27% of Republicans are good for allowing the first three months. That ought to give Congress an un-blockable bipartisan bill, assuming Congress represents its constituents (which it doesn't).
Thanks for the poll.
Lucky 13! Let’s do it. Denmark does 12 weeks though.
Number of weeks or heartbeat is very much an issue in NE.
"Pregnant person." Huh.
Abortion is a subject that generates a great emotional response regardless of one's position. If we're going to be able to live together and deal with this, it cannot be an all-or-nothing result for either side. Can we please try to balance people's deeply held conviction, religious or otherwise, and come to some accommodation? I can live with the general European formulation, which is much like Bill Clinton's used to be: Safe, legal, rare, restricted at some point.
I hope we do not have to choose between "anytime" and "never." I'm afraid I would have to go with "anytime" if the only other choice is "never." I have no idea how many agree with me.
If all that happens post-Roe/Casey is that legislatures discuss numbers, then we'll have some very stupid legislators. Sounds like we reduce legislative analysis to an amateurish equivalent of Blackmun's stab at hospital procedures. Not quite the internally inconsistent and logically limited rant of "my body, my choice," but getting there.
The issues should be viability itself and what support is extended to all concerned parties pre-viability and once medicine verifies viability.
Even though I am against all forms of abortion except for saving the life of the mother because I think all dividing lines fail except at conception, I do like your proposition. I think there is a strong reason why pro-abortion advocates resist the requirement that all abortion are preceded with an ultra-sound. They fear that it will reduce abortion demand significantly.
I think most people have an uncomfortable truce about abortion. they know in their heart that it is abhorrent, but they also have compassion for the women who are in difficult situations, so they accept the sad compromise and allow them some chance to remedy the situation. A number is an abstract that they can hold on to and thus accept a level of ignorance as to the what is happening. They can accept that it is just a "blob of cells". However, when shown a picture, their ability to disassociate will be greatly challenged, and many (as you surmise) will not want to participate is such a poll to continue their self-imposed ignorance. But those who do look, many might be shocked at how "early" they would draw a line. By 10 weeks it looks unmistakably human, and our innate desire to protect the vulnerable might have a significant impact on what we could accept.
Maybe showing pictures will actually push people toward the edges. It's kind of "in your face" that it's all a continuum.
Reminds me of one of my favorite jokes:
A man meets a very attractive woman on a plane, and asks her if she would sleep with him for 5 million dollars.
"Of course!", she exclaims.
He says, "Well then, would you do it for 5 dollars?"
She exclaims, "Certainly not! What kind of woman do you think I am?"
He says, "We've already established that, ma'am. Now we're haggling over the price."
I'm pretty suspicious of this survey. I doubt if 40% of Democrats are in favor of abortion until birth. If 67% of Republicans are against any abortion except for limited exceptions, Mississippi wouldn't be 15 weeks and Texas wouldn't be 8 weeks. I suspect states will end up in ranges similar to European countries which are mostly below the 15 week limit at issue in Dobbs and at or above the 8 weeks in Texas.
I'm not an expert on Roe and have only ever considered Abortion from the perspective of principles. However, I hear the term "right to abortion" tossed around alot.
It's not an enumerated right, but let's skip over that for a second. Every enumerated right has developed sets of restrictions on it - some at the state level, others at the federal level. Free Speech is free....unless it's yelling Bomb in a theater or inciting a riot, etc.
I don't see why the "right to abortion" should or will be any different. And I would hope that the federal level would set minimum requirements (i.e. none after 16 weeks) and then let individual states restrict further as they deem appropriate.
Don't forget,
available at any time; but ONLY if the woman's life/health/feelings/desires/wishes require it
Pregnant person. Lol. I guess NPR doesn’t know what a woman is either.
Democrat and Republican politicians are absolutely shocked by the idea that Roe might be gone as a national wedge issue.
So a wedge issue must be created to take its place.
The Senate democrats put forth a bill that allowed partial birth abortion if a single medical professional (like a midwife) deemed the mothers health to be at risk (not life - health and that could mean mental health). Obviously, that’s a bill that not even all the democrats support.
There could have been a bill that focused on 26 weeks and after that, if the mothers life is at risk. The republicans and moderates would come back to 13 weeks. And then the debate would be anchored and some compromise would emerge. There would be nationwide access to abortion but with limits.
For the extremists on both sides, the issue would be gone as a wedge.
So politicians cannot allow this issue to be framed in a way that allows for a compromise. If suburban white women are going to be retained as a democrat voting block, this is the only issue that keeps them. Otherwise, they’ll vote their economic interests and we can’t have that.
I’m picking on the Dems but I can see the GOP doing something similar if they were in power. And I bet Dems wish the GOP was in power right now.
Congress has no legislative role. It’s up to the state legislatures.
I think most states will in time pick some developmental milestone and go with whatever the associated number. Given that Alito’s draft mentions the quickening as a historical goalpost that might be where a lot of states end up, even if that wasn’t his intent.
Legally, I believe there is a better answer than "weeks" of gestation, which for one thing dates from the beginning of the woman's last period, not conception itself.
The end of human life is defined medically and legally by the absence of certain brain waves. Let's define the BEGINNING of human life by the PRESENCE of those same waves. The time of ovulation is IMO too variable to establish the legal criterion based upon onset of menses. One of my children was conceived on Day 27, and would be "4 weeks" even before implantation. Brain waves are measurable and related to the baby, not the mother.
The number will depend on where the largest number of people find the sonogram image cute, given the split between more tolerance and less tolerance of abortion. Like I said.
Perhaps have runoff elections. Vote for your favorite number, take the winners and runoff elections for those, and so forth until it's between two numbers. Winner gets it.
Why do they never include "Be available upon doctor's recommendation" or "Be available when fetus is determined to be medically unviable by medical professionals"?
I doubt that 46% of democrats actually support about-to-be-born abortions. That figure is clearly driven by the immediate politics of the situation, the equivalent of saying "I strongly believe in a woman's right to choose."
If I'm wrong, God have mercy on us.
The heartbeat law is word magic instead of image magic. There's no heart when the heartbeat is detected. It's an autocatalytic reaction.
I see a certain % of people would ban abortion under all circumstances, and I think I have read that legislation doing so has at least been introduced in a number of states. The Cardinal is a great 1963 film by Otto Preminger that features as one the subplots the main character, a priest, deciding to let his pregnant sister die rather than permit an abortion necessary to save her life. The writers and director of the film do not express much criticism of this choice.
The two dissenting justices in Roe would have held unconstitutional any law that did not have an exception for abortions necessary to save the life of the mother. It is a measure of how far the discourse has moved that this view, then held by the two most conservative justices on the Court, now seems somewhat out of favor, and might not even garner a majority on the current court.
{Do comments using 'garner" get published?}
Human rights from from baby's first heart beat at six weeks until granny's last, from baby's emergence of coherent nervous system function, until granny's disordered conclusion. An exquisite symmetry in inertia, if not momentum.
There is no mystery in sex and conception. A woman, and man, have four choices: abstention, prevention, adoption ("shared responsibility"), and compassion ("personal responsibility"), and an equal right to self-defense through reconciliation. The wicked solution a.k.a. planned parent/hood is neither a good nor exclusive choice.
That said, we should be wary of exercising liberal license to save and progress rites for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes. The Pro-Choice "ethical" religion denies women and men's dignity and agency, and reduces human life to negotiable commodities. Never again, and again, and again.
Re: my comment about not believing the 46% figure for Dems, that goes for the 17% of Republicans said to oppose abortion in all circumstances, as well. I know a lot of republicans, and a lot of Christian Evangelicals, and in my experience that position enjoys very, very little support, and is one that is quickly discarded upon questioning. It's not even the position of the Catholic Church (the official one). It's a way of saying "I really think fetuses are babies and should be treated as such."
My debate position has been consistent for a long time. Some place in early adulthood.
When does the govt have power to protect the life of a baby in utero?
As the graph shows, we get a range from the cross section of those submitting to the poll.
The ONLY logical path is for State legislatures to hammer out when the governments power to protect life attaches to a baby in utero. Yes this may be somewhat messy, but that is the result of living in the freedom of a self governing populace.
If abortion is going to be legal, I would set it at 10 weeks, the latest a medical (pill) abortion can be performed. If this is about privacy, let a woman kill her child in her own home. I imagine the only real argument against that is there would no fetal body parts to use.
This is tangential, but what is the status of the leak investigation?
Will the Supreme Court release the information?
The Court should have its own large police force.
I'm sticking to my theory that the original leak was SCOTUS to the WH, to give them a warning of what was coming so that the left could start preparing. From what I've been told by others who are more knowledgeable, no one on either side is ready for Roe to be repealed. Too many apple carts would be overturned, and too many grifters who never expected it to happen.
I think a lot of people would refuse to participate in a survey like that.
Because they know their number and their picture would not line up.
Once you remove the baby, all you're left with is "weeks".
Is it even arguable that a 7-month fetus - which, if both, is likely only to need NICU for "feed and grow" purposes - is a baby and that aborting such a fetus is in fact killing a baby?
This poll makes half of Democrats sound like ghouls.
"Pregnant Person"
So the numbers do seem pretty clear where that poll falls out.
I do question where it is assumed congress has the authority to regulate abortion. They will absolutely try, but what is the constitutional justification that will pass muster? And no matter how they regulate it, states on either side of their limitations will likely challenge it.
"Pregnant Person"
So the numbers do seem pretty clear where that poll falls out.
I do question where it is assumed congress has the authority to regulate abortion. They will absolutely try, but what is the constitutional justification that will pass muster? And no matter how they regulate it, states on either side of their limitations will likely challenge it.
Available/allowed/permitted.
Hell of a poll. Probably took some sampling to get the wording to line up closer with the desired results.
I would consider answering affirmatively to the "available" option even if I am mostly anti. Shit happens. The procedure has to be "available."
Also, Althouse, those fetal photos are kept largely out of the public eye by the media for a reason.
I think you understand that.
Tangentially on topic: US Marshalls assigned to the six Republican-appointed justices and their clerks after receipt of credible deaths threats.
I see we're discussing 'pregnant persons'.
OK - then how about this compromise:
For pregnant women: zero weeks
For pregnant non-women: 40 weeks
That gives an average of 20 weeks, which seems to be a middle-of-the-road compromise. Let's do it!
The 'only in the case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother' option has been put out there going way back to the Roe vs. Wade time frame, but I've not seen much analysis on how this would work.
If those were the criteria that would override abortion limits, how many 'pregnant persons' would be claiming "I was raped!! (No, I don't want to press charges; I'll just take the abortion, thank you)."? Or if circumstances were somehow clear that rape/incest was not in the picture, then the 'pregnant person's' pro-abortion doctor would just testify that "the mother's life is in danger!" (and say it with a straight face since there is always some level of risk in a pregnancy)
The end of human life is defined medically and legally by the absence of certain brain waves. Let's define the BEGINNING of human life by the PRESENCE of those same waves. ... Brain waves are measurable and related to the baby, not the mother.
This booked argument dos not work because the trajectory of life flows in one direction.
If someone was brain or heart dead, we would do everything we could to try and revive them. Only when we have reasonable certainty that there was no chance of it returning would we declare death.
Thus in one case you have someone we try mightily to get brain waves by using our medical skill. On the other you have someone who we have a strong expectation that the brainwaves are going to appear, but we use our medical skill to prevent them.
Failure to try and revive a person can be considered malpractice, but purposely preventing someone from getting to active brainwave status is considered healthcare.
The entire purpose of the legislative process is to find compromise.
"That seemed more legislative than judicial." Was. WAS more legislative than judicial.
Courts should not legislate. We pay corrupt legislators to do that for their donors and lobbyists and PACs.
With electrochemical pumps, technological augmentation, parent\hood from baby to granny "burdens", Jew... White... Yellow privilege, people of wrong attributes, Downs syndrome oddities, etc., there is a clear, diverse, and a progressive model of viability, there are precedents for if they can, when they can, get away with it.
At any time.
When the mother is already in full term labor, and all the baby wants to do is take its first breath of air in one piece.
Of course no one would ever actually do that, but still it’s important they have the choice.
First Trimester: Abortion on Demand
Second Trimester: Life of the mother
Third Trimester: Life of the mother
Abstention, prevention, adoption, and compassion, and an equal right to elective abortion for self-defense through reconciliation. The issue that needs to be discussed is the practical and philosophical apologetics of self-defense.
I'm a bad person. Rock thrower.
So I want the NYT to republish Lennart Nilsson's 1965 photo essay, "A Child Is Born".
Serious question: People keep talking about the US Congress passing a law. Doesn't the leaked decision explicitly prevent that? Wouldn't abortion laws be reserved to the states going forward? What am I missing?
Pollsters should ask...
"Do you prefer to use the term fetus or baby when talking about the unborn?"
"Do you think an unborn child (or fetus) should be legally classified as a non-person, or do you think the unborn are people with rights?"
This would be super-helpful for us all to know. And yet pollsters never ask questions like this. It's almost like poll questions are written by pro-choice people or something.
When should it be legally acceptable to kill a human being?
Any dividing line that is drawn creates a class of human beings that is now (again) deemed to be sub-human. Any dividing line based on certain criteria is to likewise consign disabled people to sub-human status.
You have difficulties breathing because of poor lung function? You need to walk around with an oxygen tank? Well, guess what? You're no longer protected in the law. You can be legally killed.
That is the logic of this proposed culture of death.
Raise your hand if you have a strong opinion about abortion? 🙋♂️🙋♀️🙋🙋♀️🙋🙋♀️🙋♂️🙋♀️🙋🙋🙋♀️🙋♀️🙋♂️🙋♀️
Okay, keep your hand raised if you can tell me the difference between an "embryo" and a "fetus." 🙎♀️🙎♀️🙎♀️🙎♀️🙎♂️🙎🙎♂️🙎♀️🙎♀️🙎♀️🙎♂️🙎🙎♂️🙎♂️🙎🙋♀️
Anyone else see a problem here?
But with Roe overruled — if that is indeed what happens — there will need to be legislation, and a number will be chosen. Maybe we'll get one number from Congress
If Congress tries, there's at least 6 votes to say "not a Federal issue", so we can toss that out.
Looking at these NPR numbers:
42%: Never, or only in the case of (actual) rape, incest or the LIFE (not the "health") of the mother is in significant threat
22%: Only through the first trimester, so we have 64% (last poll I saw had 65%, so the result is reasonable) saying States should ban anything after the 1st trimester.
Quit likely you could get an American majority for Texas SB 8 / fetal heartbeat.
Throw out NY and CA, which will be "abortion uber allies", and almost all of the rest of the country Will be at the Dobbs line or earlier, and the voters will like that.
Which says this is an electoral loser for the Dems
I have no trust in the abortionists. They thrive on blurred lines- pushing forward the conception time so all abortions are done w/in the proper timeframe wouldn’t bother them in the least. All for rape/incest/health of the mother and none for birth control/sale of body parts.
Utopia.
"A man meets a very attractive woman on a plane, and asks her if she would sleep with him for 5 million dollars.
"Of course!", she exclaims."
If you believe this, I've got a bridge to sell you.
I think they ought to outlaw all abortions, personally. And obviously there's a constitutional right to emergency contraception for rape victims.
Many abortions should be classified as homicides and punished severely when babies are intentionally killed. Right now, in all 50 states, the standard of human death is total brain death. Babies start to have brain activity 6 weeks after conception (8 weeks after mom's last menstrual period). So an abortion after that point should be a very serious felony for the abortionist. (You might punish the mom, or the dad, as accessories for paying for the homicide, but you don't have to -- none of the moms in the Gosnell prosecutions were prosecuted).
As for early abortions, they should be criminalized, too, but maybe a misdemeanor or low felony.
Pianoman said...
She exclaims, "Certainly not! What kind of woman do you think I am?"
He says, "We've already established that, ma'am. Now we're haggling over the price."
The problem with that joke is that there's a huge difference between a "cheap whore" and an expensive one.
So no, you have NOT established what she is, which is why she's quite properly insulted by the second question
Most of Europe puts the line at 12 weeks.
Politicians are lazy and somewhat cowardly. Nothing will get passed in the Legislature. Only speechifying and dirty politics will come out of Washington. We should dock all their pay for being lazy. Let the States do what they do. The end.
And if you don't care to look, maybe it's because your number is either 0 or 100
100 weeks is about 8 weeks past their first birthday. At that point you're beyond infanticide and into toddlercide.
I've always assumed the initial compromise would be a ban around the end of the first trimester.
Initial because people's minds might be changed in either direction over time.
If people picked using pictures I think the line would be drawn somewhere around 8-10 weeks.
For the extremists on both sides, the issue would be gone as a wedge.
Well, we cannot have that, can we?
I completely agree with Mr. Wibble above, but I thought it was my idea first. Great minds do think alike.
The WH has been managing this issue since they received the Alito draft in February. That is why the leaker will never be found.
The median American believes abortion should be legal through the first twelve weeks of pregnancy and prohibited thereafter. Coincidentally that's the law in many advanced democracies including Ireland -- and if it works for Ireland, it works for me.
I say allow parents (birthing or paying) to terminate their offspring right up to the age of majority. That approach would provide parents with some much-needed leverage over teenagers in this country.
I like your idea, Ann.
Eleanor brought up a good point that the abortion procedure changes as the fetus develops. Along with pictures of fetal development, people should understand how an abortion is performed at each stage. The "how" it's done can affect people's views as much as the "why" it's done.
This "pregnant person" nonsense really ticks me off.
For a man to become pregnant, which I doubt is actually possible, about a million bucks of medical intervention would be needed. After all that expense, the law needs to allow for him to change his mind during the pregnancy and have an abortion after all, flushing all that cost down the toilet? There is a rationale for that?
The idea of reduction to absurdity has itself been reduced to absurdity. Everyone actually does know what a woman is.
I don't know that the specifics of the compromise matter as much as the implicit deal that the centers of both parties on abortion need to tell their respective crazies to STFD and STFU.
The GOP needs to declare victory and move on from promising to ban abortion.
The Democrats need to accept defeat and agree that reasonable restrictions on the procedure are not the realization of The Handmaids' Tale.
Unfortunately, I think Tom above is probably right about what will happen. The difference between a restriction at 14 or 16 weeks will become the new end of the Republic.
I concur with Bart Hall 12:00 regarding brain waves. More generally, the demarcation would be more conducive to eventual widespread acceptance if tied to some biological characteristic of the developing child (perhaps proto-heartbeat, experience of pain) rather than some arbitrary number of weeks. The picture survey is an interesting idea for such a “biological characteristic” test. But this being politics, an arbitrary number of weeks may be the best we can do.
Only in the case of rape. To save the life of the mother is an emotionally attractive choice, but it's a fake issue. It virtually never happens but will quickly become commonplace if it is a justification for abortion. Not sure the point of including incest. Why is that there? Other then, like saving the life of the mother, it sounds good provided you don't think about it.
Zero.
Serious question: People keep talking about the US Congress passing a law. Doesn't the leaked decision explicitly prevent that? Wouldn't abortion laws be reserved to the states going forward? What am I missing?
That struck me as well. If Roe isn't constitutionally protected, then the question becomes whether or not it falls under the scope of Congress's powers per the Constitution. I think that this SCOTUS would say, "no."
The WH has been managing this issue since they received the Alito draft in February. That is why the leaker will never be found.
I think that the leak of Breyer's retirement, and now this, occurred because the Admin was desperate to change the narrative and try to rally their base. Remember, prior to the news about Roe, the major story was student loan forgiveness. The WH has been resistant for over a year to it, but they seem to be losing ground, especially as the economy continues to deteriorate. With their poll numbers in decline, the continuing war in Ukraine, and rampant inflation, I think they pushed it out there as a distraction.
In Europe, term limits for the various countries are typically 12 weeks. Huge difference compared to the US which are often 20 or 24 weeks. Interesting, I have never seen an attempt to explain or justify the difference in any abortion debate. Can't be science
The sister in "The Cardinal" was established as a drunken slut as I recall. I thought that was an anti-Catholic movie when I saw it in 1964.
Whiskeybum said...
The 'only in the case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother' option has been put out there going way back to the Roe vs. Wade time frame, but I've not seen much analysis on how this would work.
If those were the criteria that would override abortion limits, how many 'pregnant persons' would be claiming "I was raped!! (No, I don't want to press charges; I'll just take the abortion, thank you)."?
1: The rape has to be reported w/n 48 hours of the rape, or of the first chance the woman has to report the rape
2: Charges must be pressed, and victim must be wiling to testify under oath against the rapist, if caught
3: (What I would add) If it's a "he said - she said" situation, the woman gets an abortion, and then a jury comes back with it was only a "regret == rape" "rape", then the woman is prosecuted for the abortion.
If you're only having sex with a guy because you want to trap him into a relationship with you, don't have sex with him.
Because his refusal to go out with you does not turn the sex into rape.
Yes, he said he'd love you in the morning. If you believed him, then that's an argument for sterilizing you for extreme stupidity, not for making him guilty of rape.
(No, I've never lied to get sex, and never would. But it's not the State's job, or the University's job, to enforce proper social etiquette. And given people's ability to hear what they want to hear, short of having a recording where he flat out lied to you, my sympathy for you is going to be really low. it's your job to protect yourself. No one else)
Three months, then for medical emergencies after that.
Are people OK with using abortion+societal pressure to effectively eliminate Downs syndrome babies, like Iceland and Denmark have done?
Are people OK with using abortion+societal pressure to effectively eliminate Downs syndrome babies, like Iceland and Denmark have done?
Call it what it is -- hate crime.
It's never OK to kill a baby. In fact, it's down right evil.
Men need to stand up. They are killing your offspring.
"In 2019, 79% of all U.S. abortions occurred prior to the 10th week of gestation; 93% occurred prior to 14 weeks’ gestation (CDC)."
Oddly, the CDC hasn't got more recent numbers
But, though I know it is still a harsh reality, I would support up to the 14th week, so 93% of abortions are covered. I would defer to women who have experienced pregnancy past the 14th week if they supported an earlier cut off since they will have better knowledge of fetal development than someone who hasn't had the experience.
Serious question: People keep talking about the US Congress passing a law. Doesn't the leaked decision explicitly prevent that? Wouldn't abortion laws be reserved to the states going forward? What am I missing?
That struck me as well. If Roe isn't constitutionally protected, then the question becomes whether or not it falls under the scope of Congress's powers per the Constitution. I think that this SCOTUS would say, "no."
Congress could pass an Amendment and send it to the states for ratification.
Given that Alito’s draft mentions the quickening as a historical goalpost
Sigh. Must we go over this nonsense again.
Quickening was never an element of the substantive law of abortion. It was, instead, a matter of evidence.
To convict of abortion, it is necessary to prove that the child was alive at the time and had not already died of natural means. Quickening is that evidence, that is, quickening is that stage when the child noticeably starts moving and kicking. That is the only relevance of quickening.
Mark said...
"A man meets a very attractive woman on a plane, and asks her if she would sleep with him for 5 million dollars.
"Of course!", she exclaims."
If you believe this, I've got a bridge to sell you.
****************
I agree. The more likely answer would be:
"Show me the money!"
Let's define the BEGINNING of human life by the PRESENCE of those same [brain] waves.
Let's not. Otherwise, how do we explain the growth of the entity from sperm-ovum union into a more developed body, with the taking in of oxygen and nutrients, etc., just like any of us, but at a younger stage? How do we explain that if not that it is life? Magic?
’Are people OK with using abortion+societal pressure to effectively eliminate Downs syndrome babies, like Iceland and Denmark have done?’
Fuck no.
For those of you saying legal during first trimester, until three months/12 weeks:
Do you admit or deny that we are still talking about killing a human life?
Just be honest about what it is being proposed. Aside from the rightness or wrongness, admit that we are talking about killing.
Maybe it's OK to kill some human beings. Maybe some life is unworthy of life. At least have the decency to say it.
As a practical matter, there aren't going to be any prosecutions for abortions before 4 to 8-10 weeks. Not before 4 weeks because a woman likely isn't even going to be aware she is pregnant until then. And not before 8-10 weeks because, again, for any homicide prosecution, there must be proof that the victim was actually alive and not already dead at the time of the procedure. In the case of a pregnant mother, it would need to be proved that she did not already have a miscarriage.
Unless and until there is the sound of a beating heart on ultrasound, it is unlikely that that can be established as an evidentiary matter. A dead body afterward doesn't provide that proof.
After Roe, it's going to come down to a number — a number of weeks
That's a bit misleading. Texas passed a 20-week law just a few years ago, and last I checked, that was/is during the era of Roe.
Maybe we'll get one number from Congress
I suppose they could in opposition of the majority opinion (if it publishes as leaked).
As for number, the state of the art for surviving a neonatal birth is 23 weeks of gestation. You can expect it to improve some, but there's a lot of development that is lost even at 23 weeks. 20 weeks has always seemed a good split to me, which is why I supported the previous Texas law, but not the "heartbeat law".
Gahrie said...
Congress could pass an Amendment and send it to the states for ratification.
that takes a 2/3 majority in each house of congress
so no, that's not going to happen
Our daughter is 20 weeks pregnant now with her first child. Got the 3-D ultrasound done. The boy is a BABY now, no question. Looking honestly at fetal development, 8-10 weeks seems like a good cut-off going by morphology.
Maybe we'll get one number from Congress
What, as a regulation of interstate commerce? Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, ignoring City of Boerne v. Flores?
Let's do better with our constitutional law.
I am surprised how few Republicans agree with the 6 week TX law.
effinayright said...
"A man meets a very attractive woman on a plane, and asks her if she would sleep with him for 5 million dollars.
..The more likely answer would be:
"Show me the money!"
there was an old alcoholic, used to post here; and he'd FREQUENTLY say drunken crap like..
"I wish i could play Donald Trump, for a MILLION DOLLARS A HOLE!! I'd get Rich!"
People would point out, that he was an alcoholic bum, without a penny to his name; and he'd say..
"Doesn't Matter! If i could play Donald Trump for a MILLION DOLLARS A HOLE; i'd be rich!!"
Then, he'd vomit; and pass out.
Talking about A MILLION DOLLARS is a lot different; than HAVING a Million Dollars
Maybe it's OK to kill some human beings. Maybe some life is unworthy of life. At least have the decency to say it.
In most places, you aren't going to be able to achieve a total ban on abortion. It is what I want, and what is morally right, but not an option right now. Right now we need to save as many children as we can, and a ban after the first trimester will save millions of lives.
Frankly the best hope is the development of an artificial womb, and at that point banning abortion becomes possible.
hmmm great thread ..men who dont have babies AN ARMY WOMEN who do BARELY represented seems about how it goes..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
It would be instructive in the extreme to do the poll as has been suggested by several here, by just showing pictures of feti (I know, but that's what it ought to be in the Latin, isn't it?) and asking people at what stage they'd end unrestricted abortion - without attaching gestational ages to the pictures. I've never seen that '60s documentary that was mentioned above - "The Birth of a Child"? Something like that? - but I saw a bunch of stills from it when I was a kid, and it was awe-inspiring as a process; it was also shocking (to my mind, miraculous - but I'm trying to give my philosophical opponents some cover) how soon a clump of cells begins to look like a human baby.
But you couldn't do the poll that way. The pro-abortion side simply wouldn't, because it would be too damaging to their "clump of cells" and "parasite" arguments, and the anti-abortion side would be using it as a gotcha.
I'm anti-abortion, but reluctantly willing to countenance first-trimester abortion at will. And yes, I believe you're still killing a baby.
Remember that woman who filmed herself (while driving) screaming her head off at the deceased RBG?
I hope someone has eyes on her these days.
So people who need a biologist to tell them what a woman is are going to make this determination? Maybe the fetuses should get a vote.
"The 2nd Amendment doesn't preclude common sense gun restrictions."
"Roe vs Wade guarantees unlimited access to abortion right up until birth."
A good percentage of the nation believes both of these statements.
how do we explain the growth of the entity from sperm-ovum union into a more developed body, with the taking in of oxygen and nutrients, etc., just like any of us, but at a younger stage? How do we explain that if not that it is life? Magic?
I have a book that I haven't published yet, called Jesus Christ, a Pro-Lifer. In the first chapter, I talk about conception. Here are some excerpts...
"you will conceive in your womb" (Luke 1:31)
This word, “conception,” is an interesting word. If you look it up in a dictionary, it has two meanings. The first meaning is “the action of conceiving a child or of a child being conceived.” This is the most common understanding of the word. Conception is when a sperm fertilizes an egg. Conception is when human DNA is created. Conception is when pregnancy has started and a baby is on the way.
Of course, there’s a second definition of the word. The second meaning of the word is “the forming or devising of a plan or idea.”
This second definition is interesting, is it not? It might sum up much of our conflict over abortion. Pro-lifers usually put themselves in the first group. Conception is when a baby has been created. And pro-choice people put themselves in the second group. Conception is a plan or idea.
Maybe both sides are right.
Another excerpt from my new book...
Think about human DNA for a second. What is human DNA, if not a blueprint for a human being? When God creates a human being, he first draws up an amazing blueprint. If we wanted to build a human being in a science lab--and skip all the fun of human sexuality--we would first have to figure out the blueprints. We’d have to write out human DNA from scratch.
We might think about conception as God’s plan for a human being. DNA has been created. The blueprints have been drawn up. Creation has begun. A baby is on the way.
The abortion clinic chain, Planned Parenthood, talks about an unplanned pregnancy. “This pregnancy was not planned.” What they mean, of course, is that the two adults involved--the mother and the father--did not plan on a pregnancy.
That language is a little misleading, since every pregnancy has a blueprint. Every unborn child has original human DNA, created by God. Every pregnancy is planned. Maybe it’s not our plan. But we know, from that DNA blueprint, that there is a plan for a human being. And that plan was drawn up by the Creator, the Lord, the giver of life.
"First trimester" drives me crazy, by the way, because it's so damn sloppy. It literally has no medical significance whatsoever. It's a division of the pregnancy into thirds. The first trimester is the first third of the pregnancy. And nobody knows how long a woman's pregnancy is, because it varies for every woman. So they take some arbitrary number (39 weeks) and divided it into thirds (13 weeks) and call it the "end of the first trimester."
If the best we can do, in the 21st century, is divide the pregnancy into thirds and say "you can abort in the first third of the pregnancy, but not the second third or the third third," then I am embarrassed for humanity.
Of course the first trimester is part of the Roe v. Wade opinion. Blackmun himself called the rule "arbitrary" in a secret memo that he passed around to the Court.
Y'all might be happy with arbitrary rules ("you can only have abortions on Monday"), but to adopt them in a life-or-death matter is incredibly stupid. It upsets people.
I imagine a lot of people will suggest "first trimester" or "viability" (I see a lot of mentions of both in this thread) because those are the ideas our authorities made up in Roe v. Wade. Try to do a little work and/or thinking yourself, rather than regurgitating failed rules from 50 years ago.
for any homicide prosecution, there must be proof that the victim was actually alive and not already dead at the time of the procedure.
Sure, but that problem exists throughout the pregnancy. Suppose you're a doctor and you do an illegal abortion at 30 weeks, killing the baby. The DA still has to prove the baby was alive and that the doctor killed her. How does he prove his case if doctor, mother, and father all claim there was a miscarriage and the doctor was innocent?
Brain is better than heartbeat because we don't prosecute doctors for a homicide when they take a beating heart out of a brain-dead patient.
If heartbeat was the relevant standard, we would do that. And pro-lifers would be furious about heart transplants.
But we're not furious. As far as I know, no pro-lifers are trying to stop heart transplants. Pope John Paul II -- very pro-life -- made clear that the Catholic church supports heart transplants, and that it's not a sin to do one or receive one.
Heartbeat is not the relevant biological criteria for homicide. It's brain activity.
I wonder how many people who talk about Roe v. Wade have actually read Roe v. Wade? A person can agree or disagree with the opinion’s analysis and conclusion, but it’s overview of abortion over history is interesting.
I actually see no reason to believe the poll numbers, any more than I believe any of the other drivel from NPR. They have proven to be willing to fake facts in order to advance an agenda.
The more important thing I see is, this is a matter for the States to decide. It is NOT an enumerated power, any more than murder statutes. We are going to end up with 50 different laws, based on what the people of each State want, which is exactly what should happen. Does that mean abortion on demand in California? Almost certainly, because that is what the people of that state want. Is there going to be a near ban in Texas? That is the way to be, because that is what the people of that state want.
Doesn't matter if we like what people of other states decide, we do not live there. If we do not get our heads out of the sand and start living like we are the United States and not some monolithic superstate, then we are not going to have a United States anymore. We are too different.
I really like the recommendation for photos. My opinion on abortion was strongly affected by seeing the Body Worlds exhibit many years ago. It's truly enlightening when can see how the developmental stages look.
Pro-lifers usually put themselves in the first group. Conception is when a baby has been created. And pro-choice people put themselves in the second group. Conception is a plan or idea.
These are equal and complementary ideas. Evolution of a distinct human life begins at conception. The plan or idea is conceived with a consensus and birthed when a woman and man have sex. There is no mystery... or there shouldn't be, and hasn't been for millennia, and longer, since humans first determined or appreciated the reproductive nature of couples.
"The 2nd Amendment doesn't preclude common sense gun restrictions."
Commons sense: elective abortion in self-defense through reconciliation.
Common seance: elective abortion for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes.
The goal of ending slavery was not to end diversity [dogma]. The goal of ending diversity [dogma] was not equal outcomes, but rather equal opportunity. The goal of ending reproductive rites is neither redistributive nor retributive change, but rather to reconcile and secure the rights of mother, father, and "our Posterity" in her evolution from baby to granny. Unfortunately, demos-cracy is aborted in darkness, but as a civilized society, we strive to discourage diversity dogmatism (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry). While spontaneous abortion is Her Choice ("acts of Gaia"), elective abortion for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes is her Choice.
"Are people OK with using abortion+societal pressure to effectively eliminate Downs syndrome babies, like Iceland and Denmark have done?"
Call it what it is -- hate crime.
There are diverse precedents for class-based bigotry, including judgment, labels, and abortion of lives deemed to be a "burden". That said, religion (e.g. moral principles in a universal frame, ethical principles in a relative frame, and their legal or consensus cousin) to mitigate social progress, and competing interests to curb others from running amuck.
Saint Croix- very good<3
I have 2counterpoints:
1. Unplanned pregnancy definition. Anyone who is surprised to find themselves pregnant after sexual intercourse is being willfully ignorant. I would also add- if they do find themselves pregnant- it’s fixable. And knowing there’s a “safety net” in abortion allows a callousness of heart to develop- a desensitization of the act of denying another human being, no matter how small- her right to Life. Hardness of heart is sinful nature.
John 12:48 - He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
My 2nd point: w/the ability and allowance of the human body to be mutilated into alternative forms- who needs DNA? I’m being factious, yet my inability to see the shape w/in the actual reality of G*d given DNA- our distinct, uniquely designed being right down to identifiable fingerprints- is play dough in today’s culture. Hadn’t thought of that before.
We are molded as if potter’s clay, biblically. By Abba/Father.
Those among us who chose mutilation: do so as play dough.
Good luck w/your book- that’s exciting!
How about...
- Unlimited in cases of rape
- Unlimited to save the life of the mother
- 26 weeks for first abortion
- 13 weeks for second abortion
- Sterilizan thereafter
- Same for the father of the 3rd
That last one is tricky, but it gives men some skin in the game.
Godot said...
- Unlimited in cases of rape
1st trimester in case of rape. If you're waiting longer than that, it's not about the rape
Farmgirl, you are absolutely right.
Anyone who is surprised to find themselves pregnant after sexual intercourse is being willfully ignorant. I would also add- if they do find themselves pregnant- it’s fixable. And knowing there’s a “safety net” in abortion allows a callousness of heart to develop- a desensitization of the act of denying another human being, no matter how small- her right to Life. Hardness of heart is sinful nature.
I agree 100%. That's why I made my comment at 2:16. I think all abortions should be illegal.
We don't have to prove that an abortion is a homicide to outlaw it. Humanity outlaws all kinds of shit that is not a homicide. We have this crime called "attempted murder." Nobody dies in that one. It would be insane for a judge to bang his hammer and say, "Nobody died. You're free to go." Attempted murder is evil as shit, even if you completely miss.
I think we can legitimately outlaw even very early abortions because 1) our death statutes might be wrong, and we want to be over-protective and 2) early embryos have a future life and we might want to protect that and 3) abortion violates the Hippocratic Oath and causes people to lose faith in doctors, not to mention 4) abortion causes people to sport-fuck and this creates a lot of conflicts and problems in our society, ones that abortion does not solve and 5) we want to support marriage for stability in our society, and encourage people to marry and 6) we want to discourage a "disposable" mentality of using people and then discarding them, we'd like to encourage loving relationships.
That's just off the top of my head.
Unlimited in cases of rape
Jane Roe pretended she was raped.
Listen to me when I say this: Emergency contraception fixes the problem of reproduction from rape. I would beg any woman who is raped, please go to a hospital and take emergency contraception. And if you don't want to do that, please swallow two birth control pills (which is the rough equivalent of Plan B, as I understand it).
It's a horrible idea to say "women need the right to commit an atrocity on an innocent baby because of the atrocity of the rape." No, rape victims need a solution that is not an atrocity (emergency birth control) that solves the problem and minimizes any potential guilt or emotional upset.
Who the fuck waits until the 9th month after a rape and then says, "I was raped and this baby needs to die." We should not pass laws that 1) encourage phony rape claims and 2) act as if an atrocity on one innocent person can be fixed by an atrocity on another innocent person.
The glibness by which people are confident that an abortion in the 9th month is fine astounds me. Our media practice of hiding the bodies has made people ignorant, dangerous, and violent.
Working the google, it says that emergency contraception is 95% effective in the 24 hours after a sex act or rape.
So I would support a law that allowed doctors to perform early abortions on women when
1) she was raped and
2) she had filed a complaint with the police
In those cases I would allow doctors to perform non-homicidal abortions.
Post a Comment