ImageImageImageImageImage

Political Roundtable Part XXX

Moderators: nate33, LyricalRico, montestewart

User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 61,496
And1: 14,049
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXX 

Post#721 » by nate33 » Fri Dec 3, 2021 7:04 pm

Zonkerbl wrote:
nate33 wrote:
Zonkerbl wrote: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.

You don't think religious morality informs our policies at the state level?
Zonkerbl
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 6,908
And1: 2,912
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXX 

Post#722 » by Zonkerbl » Fri Dec 3, 2021 7:15 pm

nate33 wrote:
Zonkerbl wrote:
nate33 wrote: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.

You don't think religious morality informs our policies at the state level?


Not only do I think that, I know that. Politicians might be motivated by their religious beliefs to seek to pass certain laws. But the law can't rely on religion for its enforcement. The law can't say "my religion says six weeks."
CRAZY. STUPID. LOUD.
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 61,496
And1: 14,049
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXX 

Post#723 » by nate33 » Fri Dec 3, 2021 7:22 pm

Zonkerbl wrote:
nate33 wrote:
Zonkerbl wrote:
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.

You don't think religious morality informs our policies at the state level?


Not only do I think that, I know that. Politicians might be motivated by their religious beliefs to seek to pass certain laws. But the law can't rely on religion for its enforcement. The law can't say "my religion says six weeks."

This is a pointless distinction.

All lawmakers need to say is that this clump of cells is on it's way to becoming a human life and we think the immorality of killing what is almost certainly going to be a human being outweighs the immorality of denying a woman bodily autonomy beyond 6 weeks.

We already have precedent for this with the courts allowing the banning of abortion after the first trimester even though viability is still impossible. What's the difference between an arbitrary distinction at 15 weeks and an arbitrary distinction at 6 weeks?
Zonkerbl
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 6,908
And1: 2,912
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXX 

Post#724 » by Zonkerbl » Fri Dec 3, 2021 7:23 pm

I'm really looking forward to the SCOTUS abortion decision in June. It's reeeeeeeeally easy to criticize from the sidelines. You got what you wanted - you forced your partisan hacks into the majority. Now they're the dog that caught the car - now what? Governing is not easy folks. It's not like we haven't been wrestling with *precisely these issues* for *fifty years.*
CRAZY. STUPID. LOUD.
Ruzious
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 46,952
And1: 10,914
Joined: Jul 17, 2001
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXX 

Post#725 » by Ruzious » Fri Dec 3, 2021 7:40 pm

nate33 wrote:
Ruzious wrote:
nate33 wrote: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.

Ya know what, if you're that frustrated talking about it here, I'm doubly frustrated trying to listen to you.
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams
User avatar
pancakes3
General Manager
Posts: 8,443
And1: 1,920
Joined: Jul 27, 2003
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXX 

Post#726 » by pancakes3 » Fri Dec 3, 2021 7:48 pm

nate33 wrote:
Zonkerbl wrote:
nate33 wrote:You don't think religious morality informs our policies at the state level?


Not only do I think that, I know that. Politicians might be motivated by their religious beliefs to seek to pass certain laws. But the law can't rely on religion for its enforcement. The law can't say "my religion says six weeks."

This is a pointless distinction.

All lawmakers need to say is that this clump of cells is on it's way to becoming a human life and we think the immorality of killing what is almost certainly going to be a human being outweighs the immorality of denying a woman bodily autonomy beyond 6 weeks.

We already have precedent for this with the courts allowing the banning of abortion after the first trimester even though viability is still impossible. What's the difference between an arbitrary distinction at 15 weeks and an arbitrary distinction at 6 weeks?


the trimester system was in place partially because there wasn't sufficient science available at the time, partially because it was decided by an all-male Court who was not fully briefed on the issue (Blackmun who authored the opinion was the youngest on the Court and he was born in 1908), and also the trimester system did allow for the states to set policy.

The balance has been and will always be between the mother's rights and the state's rights. The trimester system is actually:

1st trimester - no instance where states rights overrule mothers
2nd trimester - certain instances where states rights may overrule mothers - this is the wiggle room you're looking for
3rd trimester - little/no instances where mothers rights overrule states' rights, so unless the mother's health is in danger, states can ban abortions.

Casey shifted the focus of the 2nd trimester to viability, and then using that definition, wiped out the trimester system, and in doing so, eroded the protections that women had from the trimester system.

and on top of that, pro-life has co-opted the term viability when there is already a medical definition - able to live independent of the mother - and is set somewhere between 22-26 weeks, depending on what percentage of viability you subscribe to in defining viability, and is consistent with the trimester framework.

setting it at 6 weeks is, frankly, without legal merit, scientific justification, or practical use.
Bullets -> Wizards
Zonkerbl
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 6,908
And1: 2,912
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXX 

Post#727 » by Zonkerbl » Fri Dec 3, 2021 8:20 pm

Nate, I think what is frustrating to you is that you think it is easy to slide religious ideas into abortion laws and I can assure you the SCOTUS is way ahead of you

Yes you could do these things and the previous SCOTUS would have shot them all down, which is why we don't leave it up to the states

You may be right that the SCOTUS may throw up their hands and say "we don't agree with viability, which is the only objective standard you can use, so we're giving up and overruling Roe and throwing it back to the states"

I think that would be a mistake, but it might happen and you'll get what you want, for a year or so before outraged liberal women storm the voting booth and kick all the old white guys out and pack the SCOTUS with judges who take the Constitution seriously. Well, I guess we'll see. Get out your popcorn.
CRAZY. STUPID. LOUD.
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 61,496
And1: 14,049
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXX 

Post#728 » by nate33 » Fri Dec 3, 2021 8:44 pm

pancakes3 wrote:
nate33 wrote:
Zonkerbl wrote:
Not only do I think that, I know that. Politicians might be motivated by their religious beliefs to seek to pass certain laws. But the law can't rely on religion for its enforcement. The law can't say "my religion says six weeks."

This is a pointless distinction.

All lawmakers need to say is that this clump of cells is on it's way to becoming a human life and we think the immorality of killing what is almost certainly going to be a human being outweighs the immorality of denying a woman bodily autonomy beyond 6 weeks.

We already have precedent for this with the courts allowing the banning of abortion after the first trimester even though viability is still impossible. What's the difference between an arbitrary distinction at 15 weeks and an arbitrary distinction at 6 weeks?


the trimester system was in place partially because there wasn't sufficient science available at the time, partially because it was decided by an all-male Court who was not fully briefed on the issue (Blackmun who authored the opinion was the youngest on the Court and he was born in 1908), and also the trimester system did allow for the states to set policy.

The balance has been and will always be between the mother's rights and the state's rights. The trimester system is actually:

1st trimester - no instance where states rights overrule mothers
2nd trimester - certain instances where states rights may overrule mothers - this is the wiggle room you're looking for
3rd trimester - little/no instances where mothers rights overrule states' rights, so unless the mother's health is in danger, states can ban abortions.

Casey shifted the focus of the 2nd trimester to viability, and then using that definition, wiped out the trimester system, and in doing so, eroded the protections that women had from the trimester system.

and on top of that, pro-life has co-opted the term viability when there is already a medical definition - able to live independent of the mother - and is set somewhere between 22-26 weeks, depending on what percentage of viability you subscribe to in defining viability, and is consistent with the trimester framework.

setting it at 6 weeks is, frankly, without legal merit, scientific justification, or practical use.

That's the part where you lose me. I fail to see how 15 weeks has "merit, scientific justification and practical use", but 6 weeks does not. I've already described the merit, scientific justification and practical use. The merit is that it's early, and the earlier the better when we are asking ourselves when is it okay to destroy a fetus. The scientific justification is that there is sufficient time to medically determine that you are pregnant and make a decision about it. And the practical use is self-evident. It's a compromise between two difficult positions: violating a woman's autonomy over their body, and killing an entity that is on it's way to being a human being.
Zonkerbl
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 6,908
And1: 2,912
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXX 

Post#729 » by Zonkerbl » Fri Dec 3, 2021 8:54 pm

"enough time to know you're pregnant and to also do something about it"

Hm. That's going to vary from state to state based on how many abortion centers they have. Might provide an incentive to have more abortion services actually.

Well, I've gone down this rabbithole about as far as I can as a white male. No way in heck am I dragging my wife into this convo, so I'm out.
CRAZY. STUPID. LOUD.
Zonkerbl
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 6,908
And1: 2,912
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXX 

Post#730 » by Zonkerbl » Fri Dec 3, 2021 8:57 pm

nate33 wrote:
Zonkerbl wrote:
nate33 wrote:You don't think religious morality informs our policies at the state level?


Not only do I think that, I know that. Politicians might be motivated by their religious beliefs to seek to pass certain laws. But the law can't rely on religion for its enforcement. The law can't say "my religion says six weeks."

This is a pointless distinction.

All lawmakers need to say is that this clump of cells is on it's way to becoming a human life and we think the immorality of killing what is almost certainly going to be a human being outweighs the immorality of denying a woman bodily autonomy beyond 6 weeks.

We already have precedent for this with the courts allowing the banning of abortion after the first trimester even though viability is still impossible. What's the difference between an arbitrary distinction at 15 weeks and an arbitrary distinction at 6 weeks?


What precedent are you citing here? I'm pretty sure that has never been decided. They're thinking about 15 weeks for Mississippi, decision to come in June.
CRAZY. STUPID. LOUD.
User avatar
pancakes3
General Manager
Posts: 8,443
And1: 1,920
Joined: Jul 27, 2003
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXX 

Post#731 » by pancakes3 » Fri Dec 3, 2021 9:05 pm

nate33 wrote:
pancakes3 wrote:
nate33 wrote:This is a pointless distinction.

All lawmakers need to say is that this clump of cells is on it's way to becoming a human life and we think the immorality of killing what is almost certainly going to be a human being outweighs the immorality of denying a woman bodily autonomy beyond 6 weeks.

We already have precedent for this with the courts allowing the banning of abortion after the first trimester even though viability is still impossible. What's the difference between an arbitrary distinction at 15 weeks and an arbitrary distinction at 6 weeks?


the trimester system was in place partially because there wasn't sufficient science available at the time, partially because it was decided by an all-male Court who was not fully briefed on the issue (Blackmun who authored the opinion was the youngest on the Court and he was born in 1908), and also the trimester system did allow for the states to set policy.

The balance has been and will always be between the mother's rights and the state's rights. The trimester system is actually:

1st trimester - no instance where states rights overrule mothers
2nd trimester - certain instances where states rights may overrule mothers - this is the wiggle room you're looking for
3rd trimester - little/no instances where mothers rights overrule states' rights, so unless the mother's health is in danger, states can ban abortions.

Casey shifted the focus of the 2nd trimester to viability, and then using that definition, wiped out the trimester system, and in doing so, eroded the protections that women had from the trimester system.

and on top of that, pro-life has co-opted the term viability when there is already a medical definition - able to live independent of the mother - and is set somewhere between 22-26 weeks, depending on what percentage of viability you subscribe to in defining viability, and is consistent with the trimester framework.

setting it at 6 weeks is, frankly, without legal merit, scientific justification, or practical use.

That's the part where you lose me. I fail to see how 15 weeks has "merit, scientific justification and practical use", but 6 weeks does not. I've already described the merit, scientific justification and practical use. The merit is that it's early, and the earlier the better when we are asking ourselves when is it okay to destroy a fetus. The scientific justification is that there is sufficient time to medically determine that you are pregnant and make a decision about it. And the practical use is self-evident. It's a compromise between two difficult positions: violating a woman's autonomy over their body, and killing an entity that is on it's way to being a human being.


no legal merit: it's not in line with the case law, or the constitution. on top of that, setting a deadline by prescribing viability or prescribing trimesters are mutually consistent. moving the goal posts to "but 6 weeks is all we need, on the safe side" is not what the case law sets.

and for the record, you're misusing 15 weeks. 15 weeks happens to be the cutoff of the trimester. what Roe actually said, which I restated, and I"m sure you're smart enough to understand but are choosing to be ignorant on, is that 1st trimester is ok, 2nd trimester is a maybe, and 3rd trimester is a no. The trimester system is not arbitrary, it is just rough and imprecise, but it is how the stages of pregnancy are divided.

the actual deadline is 22 weeks, which is tied to viability. you fail to see this because you're being disingenuous.


no scientific justification: you're again shifting the goalpost to focus on pregnancy when the discussion is about personhood, which is evidenced by viability.


practicalness - women very well could not know that they're pregnant at 6 weeks. very easy to not know. you're not giving women a meaningful ability to exercise their right. a right has no meaning if you can't exercise it, or have a remedy through it. the erosion of the practical ability of women to have abortions (stringent facility classifications, taxes, certifications, informed consent requirements, waiting periods, etc.) are a different discussion about how pro-choice advocates have destroyed the "right" a woman has to abortions.

and this is a point that Nate has already conceded to Zonk on earlier but now is playing the "this is where you lose me. whatever do you mean?" idiot card.
Bullets -> Wizards
Zonkerbl
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 6,908
And1: 2,912
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXX 

Post#732 » by Zonkerbl » Fri Dec 3, 2021 9:59 pm

fwiw, Roberts very explicitly asked if viability was something that was explicitly ruled on in either Roe or Casey. The answer was apparently no. That's why he thinks it's possible to keep Roe but just throw out viability - that is just a convenient heuristic the courts have been using
CRAZY. STUPID. LOUD.
verbal8
General Manager
Posts: 8,212
And1: 1,277
Joined: Jul 20, 2006
Location: Herndon, VA
     

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXX 

Post#733 » by verbal8 » Sat Dec 4, 2021 12:52 pm

pancakes3 wrote:
and on top of that, pro-life has co-opted the term viability when there is already a medical definition - able to live independent of the mother - and is set somewhere between 22-26 weeks, depending on what percentage of viability you subscribe to in defining viability, and is consistent with the trimester framework.

setting it at 6 weeks is, frankly, without legal merit, scientific justification, or practical use.


6 weeks is an abortion ban.

If the "pro-Life" crowd really cared about that, they would promote policies - like contraception availability and support for unwed mothers that reduce abortion rates, rather than trying to make most abortions illegal.
verbal8
General Manager
Posts: 8,212
And1: 1,277
Joined: Jul 20, 2006
Location: Herndon, VA
     

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXX 

Post#734 » by verbal8 » Sat Dec 4, 2021 1:04 pm

Zonkerbl wrote:"enough time to know you're pregnant and to also do something about it"

Hm. That's going to vary from state to state based on how many abortion centers they have. Might provide an incentive to have more abortion services actually.

That seems like something a functional congress could pass. What I think it could end up doing is in clearly establishing abortion as medical care. I think some doctors who are personal against abortion would actually offer it so that the state could have a more restrictive law.
I also think that states should have to enforce child support laws if they are limiting access to abortion.

If Missouri could restrict abortion to 8 or 10 weeks, but would have to open up 10 clinics to do that, you would end up with
- effectively more access to abortion, which is "pro-choice"
- the abortions that do happen, are happening earlier - which would be "pro-life"
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 61,496
And1: 14,049
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXX 

Post#735 » by nate33 » Sat Dec 4, 2021 1:48 pm

verbal8 wrote:
Zonkerbl wrote:"enough time to know you're pregnant and to also do something about it"

Hm. That's going to vary from state to state based on how many abortion centers they have. Might provide an incentive to have more abortion services actually.

That seems like something a functional congress could pass. What I think it could end up doing is in clearly establishing abortion as medical care. I think some doctors who are personal against abortion would actually offer it so that the state could have a more restrictive law.
I also think that states should have to enforce child support laws if they are limiting access to abortion.

If Missouri could restrict abortion to 8 or 10 weeks, but would have to open up 10 clinics to do that, you would end up with
- effectively more access to abortion, which is "pro-choice"
- the abortions that do happen, are happening earlier - which would be "pro-life"

This makes sense to me. This is the type of policy we should be advocating. I'm serious about allowing women access to abortion, I just think it should be as early as possible. If 6 weeks is impossible, then make it 8. I just don't see any reason why abortions should be happening at 12, 15 or 20 weeks (unless the life of the mother is at stake).
Zonkerbl
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 6,908
And1: 2,912
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXX 

Post#736 » by Zonkerbl » Sat Dec 4, 2021 3:14 pm

verbal8 wrote:
pancakes3 wrote:
and on top of that, pro-life has co-opted the term viability when there is already a medical definition - able to live independent of the mother - and is set somewhere between 22-26 weeks, depending on what percentage of viability you subscribe to in defining viability, and is consistent with the trimester framework.

setting it at 6 weeks is, frankly, without legal merit, scientific justification, or practical use.


6 weeks is an abortion ban.

If the "pro-Life" crowd really cared about that, they would promote policies - like contraception availability and support for unwed mothers that reduce abortion rates, rather than trying to make most abortions illegal.


To be precise, it's an abortion ban for poor people.
CRAZY. STUPID. LOUD.
Zonkerbl
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 6,908
And1: 2,912
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXX 

Post#737 » by Zonkerbl » Sat Dec 4, 2021 3:22 pm

nate33 wrote:
verbal8 wrote:
Zonkerbl wrote:"enough time to know you're pregnant and to also do something about it"

Hm. That's going to vary from state to state based on how many abortion centers they have. Might provide an incentive to have more abortion services actually.

That seems like something a functional congress could pass. What I think it could end up doing is in clearly establishing abortion as medical care. I think some doctors who are personal against abortion would actually offer it so that the state could have a more restrictive law.
I also think that states should have to enforce child support laws if they are limiting access to abortion.

If Missouri could restrict abortion to 8 or 10 weeks, but would have to open up 10 clinics to do that, you would end up with
- effectively more access to abortion, which is "pro-choice"
- the abortions that do happen, are happening earlier - which would be "pro-life"

This makes sense to me. This is the type of policy we should be advocating. I'm serious about allowing women access to abortion, I just think it should be as early as possible. If 6 weeks is impossible, then make it 8. I just don't see any reason why abortions should be happening at 12, 15 or 20 weeks (unless the life of the mother is at stake).


I don't agree but whatever. Statistically speaking there are going to be examples, really horrific ones I might add, of medically necessary abortions that need to happen all the way up to giving birth. For example, you don't find out that the baby's brain has developed outside the skull until after the skull forms, which can be in the third trimester. That baby is dead the moment it comes out of the womb, and then the issue is what is the safest way for that to happen for the mother. These are really awful, personal decisions that should be left to the woman and her doctor and be permissible all the way up to birth.

You're trying to get rid of elective abortion, I think that's a terrible idea - teenage girls who get pregnant accidentally and are terrified to go to the doctor until too late are going to be absolutely screwed by your approach and will end up getting illegal abortions and dying, guaranteed. You are advocating for the death of teenage girls, I just don't agree with that as a goal.

I'm *resigned* to the fact that we have a psychotic, hyperpartisan SCOTUS that agrees with you and I'm willing to game out intellectually how it would work in practice. But make no mistake, what you propose is uncaring, murderous, and immoral. 15 weeks at least gives panicked teenage girls a chance to think things through but still, statistically, girls will die if this becomes the law in any state.
CRAZY. STUPID. LOUD.
Zonkerbl
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 6,908
And1: 2,912
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXX 

Post#738 » by Zonkerbl » Sat Dec 4, 2021 3:58 pm

lol I got put in twitter jail FOR A WEEK for joking that I wish I could give cancer to MTG by sneezing on her.

Read on Twitter
?s=20
CRAZY. STUPID. LOUD.
verbal8
General Manager
Posts: 8,212
And1: 1,277
Joined: Jul 20, 2006
Location: Herndon, VA
     

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXX 

Post#739 » by verbal8 » Sat Dec 4, 2021 6:42 pm

Zonkerbl wrote:lol I got put in twitter jail FOR A WEEK for joking that I wish I could give cancer to MTG by sneezing on her.

Can you get cancer from a Rudy Colludy fart?
User avatar
doclinkin
RealGM
Posts: 11,211
And1: 3,410
Joined: Jul 26, 2004
Location: .wizuds.

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXX 

Post#740 » by doclinkin » Sat Dec 4, 2021 10:10 pm

verbal8 wrote:I also think that states should have to enforce child support laws if they are limiting access to abortion.


States do, however this primarily amounts to locking up more economically challenged young men for their inability to get a job.

Return to Washington Wizards