Political Roundtable Part XXX

[Zonkerbl]

More support for Nate's thesis: majority want Roe v Wade to be upheld, but seem to favor reducing the timeline somewhat.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-11-17/americans-support-the-right-to-abortion

Consistent result across polls: 1st trimester ... ok, 2nd trimester... eeeeeeeeh

Nevertheless, if the SCOTUS agrees with Mississippi, that's enough for the Dems to twist into hysteria about Republicans treating women like property.

Is it ok for the Dems to flat out lie and twist the facts about what the SCOTUS does? We're currently in the non-cooperative equilibrium of the infinitely repeated prisoner's dilemma - scruples accomplish nothing, and in fact just makes things worse. The way to punish the GOP for lying is to lie ourselves, until both sides get so sick of not being able to get anything done that they declare a cease fire and get back to evidence-based governing.

Do I think lying is good? No. Do I think telling the truth will help? No.

[nate33]

"This fetus can survive on its own" is an empirically verifiable fact. It's about as crystal clear as you can get. And it doesn't matter that it used to be 24 weeks and now it's 22 weeks. That's a good thing, imo. It didn't used to be true that 22 week old fetuses were viable. Now, due to advances in science, they are. That's a *good* thing, it shows that "viability" is an objective idea that is robust to technological advance.

Either way, I think the viability threshold should be end of the permissible window for abortion, not the beginning. If viability is 22 weeks, then no abortion should be permitted anywhere after 22 week. Abortions can still be outlawed at much earlier times by the States under the premise that a pre-viable fetus still has rights.

I just don't think abortions should be banned prior to 6 weeks. Ultimately, there has to be some "wiggle room" for women who are impregnated against their will, and if we are going to allow very early abortion for rape, there is no logical rationale not to allow it at that same early threshold for any reason.

Please tell me you didn't really mean to say 6 weeks. That's a complete non-starter, and you know it.

Women need access to abortion primarily to address instances when they are impregnated involuntarily, so at a minimum, we need to permit abortion during the very early stages of gestation. But if we are going to accept that a fetus doesn't have rights very early during gestation in cases of rape, then we must logically accept that a very young fetus doesn't have Constitutional rights, period. So abortion should be legally permitted during the very early period of gestation for whatever reason. However, we must bear in mind that, with every day of development, that fetus becomes closer and closer to a human being. That early window of permissible abortion should be as short as reasonably possible. I think 6 weeks should be the maximum threshold where abortion is guaranteed by the courts. Maybe I could be talked into 7 or 8 weeks, but no more. 6-8 weeks is enough time to recognize that you are pregnant and do something about it.

The earliest possible days of viability (22 weeks?) would be the point where abortion should be absolutely forbidden by the Constitution, except for when the life of the mother is at stake. By then, that baby has a right to life that can only be superseded by the mother's right to life.

The abortion rules for time period between these two thresholds should be determined by state legislatures.

[Ruzious]

Either way, I think the viability threshold should be end of the permissible window for abortion, not the beginning. If viability is 22 weeks, then no abortion should be permitted anywhere after 22 week. Abortions can still be outlawed at much earlier times by the States under the premise that a pre-viable fetus still has rights.

I just don't think abortions should be banned prior to 6 weeks. Ultimately, there has to be some "wiggle room" for women who are impregnated against their will, and if we are going to allow very early abortion for rape, there is no logical rationale not to allow it at that same early threshold for any reason.

Please tell me you didn't really mean to say 6 weeks. That's a complete non-starter, and you know it.

Women need access to abortion primarily to address instances when they are impregnated involuntarily; but if we're going to accept that a fetus doesn't have rights very early during gestation, then we must logically accept that a very young fetus doesn't have rights, period. So abortion should be permitted during the very early period of gestation for whatever reason. However, we must bear in mind that, with every day of development, that fetus become closer and closer to a human being. That early window of permissible abortion should be as short as reasonably possible. I think 6 weeks should be the maximum threshold where abortion is guaranteed by the courts. Maybe I could be talked into 7 or 8 weeks, but no more. 6-8 weeks is enough time to recognize that you are pregnant and do something about it.

The earliest possible days of viability (22 weeks?) would be the point where abortion should be absolutely forbidden by the Constitution, except for when the life of the mother is at stake. That baby has a right to life that can only be superseded by the mother's right to life.

The abortion rules for time period between these two thresholds should be determined by state legislatures.

BEFORE ANY... of that is considered, what should always be considered is that the fetus isn't born AND that it's in the body of the mother, and the mother is in charge of her body.

But that's assuming we want to have a civilized nation.

Not to mention... many women (maybe most?) that are/were pregnant - didn't know they were pregnant when they were 6 weeks pregnant.

[Zonkerbl]

6-8 weeks is enough time to recognize that you are pregnant and do something about it.

This isn't true. You can recognize you are pregnant in that amount of time, yes. But many forced birth states have harassed healthcare providers to the point that there is only one abortion provider in the state. So if it's too late for plan b, you have to rustle up the cash to take a bus to the abortion clinic and that takes time.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/29/health/six-states-with-1-abortion-clinic-map-trnd/index.html

This is one of the reasons it's so hard for the Supreme Court to set up a timeline like you want. You can set up a timeline so that *most cases* are accounted for. But that's generally not sufficient.

[Ruzious]

I remember as a kid, in the back of comic books there would be ads to buy a packet of "seahorse" seeds for a few bucks. Put them in water, and they become live organisms. And that... is life.

[nate33]

Please tell me you didn't really mean to say 6 weeks. That's a complete non-starter, and you know it.

Women need access to abortion primarily to address instances when they are impregnated involuntarily; but if we're going to accept that a fetus doesn't have rights very early during gestation, then we must logically accept that a very young fetus doesn't have rights, period. So abortion should be permitted during the very early period of gestation for whatever reason. However, we must bear in mind that, with every day of development, that fetus become closer and closer to a human being. That early window of permissible abortion should be as short as reasonably possible. I think 6 weeks should be the maximum threshold where abortion is guaranteed by the courts. Maybe I could be talked into 7 or 8 weeks, but no more. 6-8 weeks is enough time to recognize that you are pregnant and do something about it.

The earliest possible days of viability (22 weeks?) would be the point where abortion should be absolutely forbidden by the Constitution, except for when the life of the mother is at stake. That baby has a right to life that can only be superseded by the mother's right to life.

The abortion rules for time period between these two thresholds should be determined by state legislatures.

BEFORE ANY... of that is considered, what should always be considered is that the fetus isn't born AND that it's in the body of the mother, and the mother is in charge of her body.

But that's assuming we want to have a civilized nation.

Not to mention... many women (maybe most?) that are/were pregnant - didn't know they were pregnant when they were 6 weeks pregnant.

Yes. A woman should be in charge of her body. Putting restrictions on a woman's dominion over her own body is a serious thing that I don't take lightly. But a baby's life is at stake too. Let's not act like that's not a factor here. I'll never understand why pro-choice types refuse to acknowledge this.

There is no good answer for this dilemma. Either way, a grave injustice is being done. I'm aware of this. I'm honestly looking for an answer that addresses the needs of both sides in the most ethical manner possible.

Regarding the 6 week issue, I'm just asking that women who have sex with people that they don't want kids with, to simply pay attention to their menstrual cycle for the next month after sex. If 4 weeks go by and they're not menstruating, buy an EPT from Walmart for 88 cents and pee on it. I don't think that's some type of wild imposition when we are talking about the actual life of a baby.

[nate33]

6-8 weeks is enough time to recognize that you are pregnant and do something about it.

This isn't true. You can recognize you are pregnant in that amount of time, yes. But many forced birth states have harassed healthcare providers to the point that there is only one abortion provider in the state. So if it's too late for plan b, you have to rustle up the cash to take a bus to the abortion clinic and that takes time.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/29/health/six-states-with-1-abortion-clinic-map-trnd/index.html

This is one of the reasons it's so hard for the Supreme Court to set up a timeline like you want. You can set up a timeline so that *most cases* are accounted for. But that's generally not sufficient.

That's a fair point. I would be against the elimination of access to abortion (or abortion medication) as a backdoor means of eliminating the right to abortion.

[Zonkerbl]

6 weeks is way too early though. The solution you're suggesting doesn't change that. Some women have wildy volatile cycles. Some women will be on contraception and assume they're fine and miss the signs. And like I said just knowing you're pregnant isn't enough. You may have to get to the abortion clinic.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/why-its-so-hard-to-figure-out-youre-pregnant-in-the-first-6-weeks_uk_61320419e4b0aac9c015b7df

[nate33]

6 weeks is way too early though. The solution you're suggesting doesn't change that. Some women have wildy volatile cycles. Some women will be on contraception and assume they're fine and miss the signs. And like I said just knowing you're pregnant isn't enough. You may have to get to the abortion clinic.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/why-its-so-hard-to-figure-out-youre-pregnant-in-the-first-6-weeks_uk_61320419e4b0aac9c015b7df

I didn't see anything in that article that suggested abortion wouldn't be detectable in 4 weeks. I think you make a compelling point about the logistics of having an abortion after discovery of pregnancy might take a bit more than 1-2 weeks given the obstacles some states might throw up. I'd be open-minded to increasing the window from 6 to 8 weeks. I don't see any reason why more than 8 weeks are needed.

[Ruzious]

Women need access to abortion primarily to address instances when they are impregnated involuntarily; but if we're going to accept that a fetus doesn't have rights very early during gestation, then we must logically accept that a very young fetus doesn't have rights, period. So abortion should be permitted during the very early period of gestation for whatever reason. However, we must bear in mind that, with every day of development, that fetus become closer and closer to a human being. That early window of permissible abortion should be as short as reasonably possible. I think 6 weeks should be the maximum threshold where abortion is guaranteed by the courts. Maybe I could be talked into 7 or 8 weeks, but no more. 6-8 weeks is enough time to recognize that you are pregnant and do something about it.

The earliest possible days of viability (22 weeks?) would be the point where abortion should be absolutely forbidden by the Constitution, except for when the life of the mother is at stake. That baby has a right to life that can only be superseded by the mother's right to life.

The abortion rules for time period between these two thresholds should be determined by state legislatures.

BEFORE ANY... of that is considered, what should always be considered is that the fetus isn't born AND that it's in the body of the mother, and the mother is in charge of her body.

But that's assuming we want to have a civilized nation.

Not to mention... many women (maybe most?) that are/were pregnant - didn't know they were pregnant when they were 6 weeks pregnant.

Yes. A woman should be in charge of her body. Putting restrictions on a woman's dominion over her own body is a serious thing that I don't take lightly. But a baby's life is at stake too. Let's not act like that's not a factor here. I'll never understand why pro-choice types refuse to acknowledge this.

There is no good answer for this dilemma. Either way, a grave injustice is being done. I'm aware of this. I'm honestly looking for an answer that addresses the needs of both sides in the most ethical manner possible.

Regarding the 6 week issue, I'm just asking that women who have sex with people that they don't want kids with, to simply pay attention to their menstrual cycle for the next month after sex. If 4 weeks go by and they're not menstruating, buy an EPT from Walmart for 88 cents and pee on it. I don't think that's some type of wild imposition when we are talking about the actual life of a baby.

I understand we have wildly different views on this and try to respect that, but when you start out with this 6 weeks requirement, I don't think there's any way to start negotiating. It's simply never going to work - no matter how logical it might seem to you.

[Zonkerbl]

6 weeks is way too early though. The solution you're suggesting doesn't change that. Some women have wildy volatile cycles. Some women will be on contraception and assume they're fine and miss the signs. And like I said just knowing you're pregnant isn't enough. You may have to get to the abortion clinic.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/why-its-so-hard-to-figure-out-youre-pregnant-in-the-first-6-weeks_uk_61320419e4b0aac9c015b7df

I didn't see anything in that article that suggested abortion wouldn't be detectable in 4 weeks. I think you make a compelling point about the logistics of having an abortion after discovery of pregnancy might take a bit more than 1-2 weeks given the obstacles some states might throw up. I'd be open-minded to increasing the window from 6 to 8 weeks. I don't see any reason why more than 8 weeks are needed.

"Someone using contraceptives that stop periods would not have the sign of a “missed period”"

"“Although lots of changes happen to the body in the early weeks these are often not noticeable to the pregnant person themselves,” says Dr Masters. “Externally nothing would look different.”"

"Historically variable menstrual cycles for some women" doesn't get mentioned in the article.

The question is not "is it theoretically possible to know you are pregnant by changing your behavior in response to this draconian law" That's an undue burden imo. You shouldn't have to change your behavior. The regulation should be behavior neutral. And maybe that's just a difference of opinion between us.

The question should be "statistically speaking when do women know they are pregnant" and a lot of them don't know at 6 weeks. Yes if you're trying you will *probably* know. Yes if you're worried you will *probably* know. But that doesn't cover everybody's circumstances.

[pancakes3]

what's the compelling reason to change it from the current "viability" framework other than to make it more difficult to get abortions?

no fetus is viable until 22 weeks anyway so why hitch the tipping point to 6 weeks +/- 2 weeks for logistical reasons?

[nate33]

what's the compelling reason to change it from the current "viability" framework other than to make it more difficult to get abortions?

no fetus is viable until 22 weeks anyway so why hitch the tipping point to 6 weeks +/- 2 weeks for logistical reasons?

The compelling reason is that we don't know when that "clump of cells" is a "life". Viability is when it is clearly and unequivocally a life, but it may be a human being with a soul and a right to live prior to that. I'd rather err on the side of caution. Or at least develop a framework where individual states can err on the side of caution while still ensuring that women have access to abortion in very early stages of development.

[Zonkerbl]

what's the compelling reason to change it from the current "viability" framework other than to make it more difficult to get abortions?

no fetus is viable until 22 weeks anyway so why hitch the tipping point to 6 weeks +/- 2 weeks for logistical reasons?

The compelling reason is that we don't know when that "clump of cells" is a "life". Viability is when it is clearly and unequivocally a life, but it may be a human being with a soul and a right to live prior to that. I'd rather err on the side of caution. Or at least develop a framework where individual states can err on the side of caution while still ensuring that women have access to abortion in very early stages of development.

"Person" not "life." We kill billions of living things every day. That's not what we're talking about.

[Zonkerbl]

A few minor quibbles: Having a "soul" is a religious idea and not permitted in deciding whether to infringe on women's rights. You could argue a fetus is sentient, but, again, impossible to say when that occurs, it's not a well defined legal term. Certainly the fetus is not sentient when the heartbeat is first detectable, by the way. You could argue that babies are not sentient until well after they're born, when they gain object permanence (for example).

I should say the SCOTUS *shouldn't* use religion in deciding whether to infringe on women's rights. There's nothing stopping them of course. I think if they do, then we can credibly claim the SCOTUS has lost its legitimacy and should be packed. That's the only remedy.

[nate33]

A few minor quibbles: Having a "soul" is a religious idea and not permitted in deciding whether to infringe on women's rights. You could argue a fetus is sentient, but, again, impossible to say when that occurs, it's not a well defined legal term. Certainly the fetus is not sentient when the heartbeat is first detectable, by the way. You could argue that babies are not sentient until well after they're born, when they gain object permanence (for example).

I should say the SCOTUS *shouldn't* use religion in deciding whether to infringe on women's rights. There's nothing stopping them of course. I think if they do, then we can credibly claim the SCOTUS has lost its legitimacy and should be packed. That's the only remedy.

I'm saying that SCOTUS should allow for a framework whereby states could use religion (or philosophy, or ethics, or whatever you want to call it) to draw the line between 6-8 weeks at a minimum, and 22 weeks at a maximum.

[Ruzious]

what's the compelling reason to change it from the current "viability" framework other than to make it more difficult to get abortions?

no fetus is viable until 22 weeks anyway so why hitch the tipping point to 6 weeks +/- 2 weeks for logistical reasons?

The compelling reason is that we don't know when that "clump of cells" is a "life". Viability is when it is clearly and unequivocally a life, but it may be a human being with a soul and a right to live prior to that. I'd rather err on the side of caution. Or at least develop a framework where individual states can err on the side of caution while still ensuring that women have access to abortion in very early stages of development.

I can't imagine there's any precedent for a Supreme Court Opinion using that as a of basis for a decision - not to mention the presence of a soul.

[Zonkerbl]

Speaking of abortion:

https://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe

[Zonkerbl]

A few minor quibbles: Having a "soul" is a religious idea and not permitted in deciding whether to infringe on women's rights. You could argue a fetus is sentient, but, again, impossible to say when that occurs, it's not a well defined legal term. Certainly the fetus is not sentient when the heartbeat is first detectable, by the way. You could argue that babies are not sentient until well after they're born, when they gain object permanence (for example).

I should say the SCOTUS *shouldn't* use religion in deciding whether to infringe on women's rights. There's nothing stopping them of course. I think if they do, then we can credibly claim the SCOTUS has lost its legitimacy and should be packed. That's the only remedy.

I'm saying that SCOTUS should allow for a framework whereby states could use religion (or philosophy, or ethics, or whatever you want to call it) to draw the line between 6-8 weeks at a minimum, and 22 weeks at a maximum.

Yeah whatever they do, they're definitely not going to do *that.* Actually I imagine this is the argument that the pro-choice folks will use against letting states decide.

[nate33]

what's the compelling reason to change it from the current "viability" framework other than to make it more difficult to get abortions?

no fetus is viable until 22 weeks anyway so why hitch the tipping point to 6 weeks +/- 2 weeks for logistical reasons?

The compelling reason is that we don't know when that "clump of cells" is a "life". Viability is when it is clearly and unequivocally a life, but it may be a human being with a soul and a right to live prior to that. I'd rather err on the side of caution. Or at least develop a framework where individual states can err on the side of caution while still ensuring that women have access to abortion in very early stages of development.

I can't imagine there's any precedent for a Supreme Court Opinion using that as a of basis for a decision - not to mention the presence of a soul.

I don't know how many times I have to go through this. The Supreme Court is establishing limits. The States establish policy. The limit on the short end should be the bare minimum time to allow a woman to identify her pregnancy and schedule an abortion. That would satisfy the legal Constitutional requirement for a women to have autonomy over her body. The limit on the far end would be viability, at which point the fetus is a baby and clearly has Constitutional rights. The area in between is up to the States. I'm saying that States should have the flexibility to "err on the side of caution" as I'm suggesting.

You may think 6-8 weeks is too short for your personal tastes, but it's a reasonable minimum standard from a Constitutional standpoint. You would be free to advocate for more time in your state.