Abortion debate (moved from 2012 election thread)

[storm5510]

An instant, if I may. I have mentioned my sister being a health care professional since 1998 several times. I saw her yesterday at a funeral visitation for a relative of her husband. I asked her what she thought about all this. I was expecting a firm response one way or the other. I didn't get that though. Her response was ambiguous, at best. If we had been in a much more private setting, I would have pressed a bit more, but given the circumstances, I didn't. I might at some future date after everyone has had the time to digest the absolute value.

[kruoli]

Not having a single-sided opinion does not sound shunning at all. IMHO you cannot say everything is bad about abortion, the same applies for the other side. While the former in general is a content-free statement, I think that this position is looked at far too little.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by kruoli

IMHO you cannot say everything is bad about abortion, the same applies for the other side.

So what I hear you say is: "Things aren't always only A or B. Sometimes a little of A and a little of B makes sense. Some situations A is best and some situations B is best."

[kruoli]

Yes! Assume your child is prone do be dying in one stage of your pregnancy, and you can prove that somehow in advance. Or you can prove that a pregnancy will kill the mother in all cases. In those cases, why should an abortion should be forbidden?

At least ethically, why should you abort a healthy baby that does not harm the mother and will be born in the next few days?

These are extrema, for me at least the way to go lies in between.

[rogue]

Originally Posted by M344587487

Blaming "white men" instead of the elite is no better than kriesel bringing up minorities in place of the poor IMO, I'm assuming your point is more elite vs poor rather than male vs female? If it is male vs female I apologise, "cis white male" is incorrectly used so often as the bad party in discussions when something else is more appropriate it's staggering.

Should I have been more specific, e.g. "older conservative men"? See https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/...ic-tables.aspx. Even though only about 3 in 10 of people with post-graduate degrees in college are pro-life, yet we have at least 5 of 9 on SCOTUS who are. Since that is statistically significant, it should be obvious that being pro-choice is a litmus test for conservatives.

Unfortunately when Roe vs Wade is overturned, I expect a number of conservative states to fall in the 8% category of this graph: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion...tion-quandary/, which mean illegal with no exceptions. That isn't supported by the most people, even those who are pro-life, but the loudest voices seem to have control over the Republican party right now.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by kruoli

At least ethically, why should you abort a healthy baby that does not harm the mother and will be born in the next few days? These are extrema, for me at least the way to go lies in between.

This is (clearly) a very sensitive subject domain. A whole lotta fundamentals come into the calculus.

In the very subjective example I gave, my long-term girlfriend and I had agreed we didn't want children. And then the accident happened.

She told me about the situation as soon as she knew. She made the decision to abort (I was willing to support whatever she decided). We did the paperwork, and the deed was done within about five (5#) weeks.

Some might argue we were selfish for killing a (possibly viable) child.

But, the heart had not yet even started to form when we removed the cell cluster from her body. And it would have been an unwelcomed event if not managed the way we did.

[M344587487]

Roe vs Wade has been overturned as of a few hours ago. Also some want to keep the overturning train going; "Justice Clarence Thomas, part of Friday’s majority, called on the court to overturn other high court rulings protecting same-sex marriage, gay sex and the use of contraceptives": https://apnews.com/article/abortion-...29e58cf8d8a7b0

[ATH]

So the US wants to turn back time? Party like it is 1776 again?

[kruoli]

Yes, like it is meant to be in Originalism.

[rogue]

The conservatives on SCOTUS are chipping away at many things: Miranda rights, separation of church and state, any laws limiting gun ownership.

Conservatives have complained about "activist courts" for decades. This SCOTUS has made some extreme rulings in favor of conservatives. Established precedent doesn't mean anything for this SCOTUS. Everything disliked by conservatives is "on the table". If it isn't in the constitution or wasn't considered by the framers of the constitution, it can be taken away by over-zealous state legislatures. Gun ownership is an exception.

[rogue]

What concerns me the most with this SCOTUS is the future elections. We have a number of states that will refuse to certify election results, especially if a Democrat wins, claiming fraud even if there is no evidence. Conservatives have already been programmed to not trust voting machines, absentee voting, ballot boxes, etc. What will happen if a state gives electors of the opposing party, which is what some states tried to do in the last election? What if some states throw out large numbers of votes because of "supposed" fraud? How with SCOTUS handle this? Will SCOTUS say "it's a state issue"? Will SCOTUS say "it is a matter for congress"?