Do Married And Settled People Realize That The Overturning Of Roe Affects Them, Too? In Ways One Might Not Have Thought Of? (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

I haven’t entered this forum in months so I haven’t seen the takes here 

Smarter than a lot of us 

 

[parasaurolophus]

A lot of the Trigger laws contain language to allow for abortion if there is a threat to the life or organs of the mother.  Some are extreme and seem to leave no room for anything. 

Guttmacher has a page that shows the 13 states with trigger laws. From their page every one had an exception for the mother's life in danger. 

ETA: actually they say "pregnant person"

 

[The Commish]

I'm saying I now have the power to vote for a representative in my state that is pro-life and they are able to vote for laws that ban abortion.  Prior to yesterday, the best I could do was get a law on the books at 20+ weeks when 95% of the abortions happen well before that.  

Your second question is a bit more muddied.  I am not making a medical decision for a woman, I am protecting what I believe to be a life.  I am acting en loco parentis for that child.

Sorry...guess I am just not following.  You couldn't vote for "pro-life" people before?  If you could your "power" hasn't changed at all.  I get that they can now ban abortions if they choose, but that doesn't impact your part of the process and it doesn't prevent abortions from happening.  Depending where you are new laws CAN make it more difficult.

 

[dkp993]

@rockaction. I’ve been thinking about your question all night. My wife and I are both in our 40s, me in my late her in her early.  We have one child which we didn’t have until I was 40. We tried for almost 8 years to get pregnant but couldn’t. Ultimately had to go IVF. While all of that was happening we had lots of discussions about if something went wrong during her pregnancy and how we would handle it (something very wrong ultimately did and it was terrifying but that’s a different conversation).  Those are all emotional and difficult conversations. Can’t get much more real and raw with your spouse then in the mist of those types of conversations. Part of those conversations for couples in their late 30s and early 40s is understanding the risk for genetic disorders with the child that get exponentially higher the later in life you have one.  I had to have a very honest discussion with myself about am I the type of person who bring a child with those difficulties into this already challenging world. I don’t believe I am. And for as hard as we tried and for as long as we did, I still feel that way.  My belief is that it’s not fair to that child, especially and maybe particularly, when you have a choice.  I know everyone doesn’t feel the way I do, and many might be disgusted with how I feel. But a lot of soul-searching went into that belief. And I don’t want that choice taken away from us, as difficult as it may be.  

 

[parasaurolophus]

I had to have a very honest discussion with myself about am I the type of person who bring a child with those difficulties into this already challenging world. I don’t believe I am. And for as hard as we tried and for as long as we did, I still feel that way.  My belief is that it’s not fair to that child, especially and maybe particularly, when you have a choice.  I know everyone doesn’t feel the way I do, and many might be disgusted with how I feel. But a lot of soul-searching went into that belief. And I don’t want that choice taken away from us, as difficult as it may be.  

Same. Wife and I agreed we weren't those people. We didn't want to have to take care of a child until we died. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Guttmacher has a page that shows the 13 states with trigger laws. From their page every one had an exception for the mother's life in danger. 

ETA: actually they say "pregnant person"

I know it's a side issue, but this thread is itself a bit of an offshoot so this seems like as good a place to park this as any.

No idea who wrote this or where, but I saw an interesting take yesterday that basically argued that the combination of trans activism ("women" is not a category that exists in surface-level reality) and the pandemic (your bodily autonomy is up for negotiation when a third party is involved) did about as much in two years to undermine Roe as right-wing activism did in 50.  That's hyperbole of course, but I'm pretty sure I agree and I'm definitely sure that these things affected my ability to just casually shrug off some of the garden-variety pro-choice talking points.  

"My body, my choice?"  Why would anybody even bother responding to this in 2022?  Nobody* actually believes this.  Certainly not most blue tribe members who supported mask mandates and especially vaccine mandates.

"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament?"  This was always dumb, but its doubly dumb coming from people who can't tell you what a man is.  These people only care about women's rights when it's convenient.  Otherwise they think women either don't exist at all, or they describe them using misogynistic language like "people who menstruate."  

"Republicans only care about kids up until the point of birth?"  Which states moved heaven and earth to keep schools open during the pandemic, and which states tossed black and hispanic kids overboard?  

Once you realize that all of these "arguments" were always bull#### and that nobody actually believed any of this stuff, it becomes a lot easier just to disregard them.  

Edit: Well, technically not "nobody."  Rock is pro-choice and expressed some skepticism about vaccine mandates.  But he's also not the kind of person who argues using bumper-sticker catchphrases.

 

[dkp993]

Edit: Well, technically not "nobody."  Rock is pro-choice and expressed some skepticism about vaccine mandates

Add me to that list (one that I’d wager is larger then you’re implying), though I do understand your overall point. 

 

[the rover]

We don’t know the exact numbers.  You just said it.  If I had to guess I’d say over 500.  The Left burns down cities when 21 unarmed blacks are shot by cops.  Bottom line - there should be no late term abortions unless there is documented medical evidence that the life of the mother is at serious risk.  Can we agree on that?

such a bs non issue.  nobody is performing or having late term elective abortions.  

 

[the rover]

Say Thomas leads the charge on ending both substantive due process and implied privacy rights.  Will states like Missouri and Texas outlaw vasectomies?

 

[parasaurolophus]

Edit: Well, technically not "nobody."  Rock is pro-choice and expressed some skepticism about vaccine mandates.  But he's also not the kind of person who argues using bumper-sticker catchphrases.

For the record, I was against the vaccine mandates as well. Mask mandates too(and I fully back mask wearing).

 

[The Commish]

I know it's a side issue, but this thread is itself a bit of an offshoot so this seems like as good a place to park this as any.

No idea who wrote this or where, but I saw an interesting take yesterday that basically argued that the combination of trans activism ("women" is not a category that exists in surface-level reality) and the pandemic (your bodily autonomy is up for negotiation when a third party is involved) did about as much in two years to undermine Roe as right-wing activism did in 50.  That's hyperbole of course, but I'm pretty sure I agree and I'm definitely sure that these things affected my ability to just casually shrug off some of the garden-variety pro-choice talking points.  

"My body, my choice?"  Why would anybody even bother responding to this in 2022?  Nobody* actually believes this.  Certainly not most blue tribe members who supported mask mandates and especially vaccine mandates.

"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament?"  This was always dumb, but its doubly dumb coming from people who can't tell you what a man is.  These people only care about women's rights when it's convenient.  Otherwise they think women either don't exist at all, or they describe them using misogynistic language like "people who menstruate."  

"Republicans only care about kids up until the point of birth?"  Which states moved heaven and earth to keep schools open during the pandemic, and which states tossed black and hispanic kids overboard?  

Once you realize that all of these "arguments" were always bull#### and that nobody actually believed any of this stuff, it becomes a lot easier just to disregard them.  

Edit: Well, technically not "nobody."  Rock is pro-choice and expressed some skepticism about vaccine mandates.  But he's also not the kind of person who argues using bumper-sticker catchphrases.

I encourage you to not focus on the fringe goofs who do this stuff. For me its not difficult to understand that personal choice should be first in all these things. Of course its not but thats the way it should be IMO. 

 

[ekbeats]

such a bs non issue.  nobody is performing or having late term elective abortions.  

Ignorance is bliss.  I just provided all sorts of evidence that it does happen, including an active abortion it’s in Colorado that advertises it.  You believe what you want to believe rover.  It’s obvious what your intentions are in here, and it’s not a search for truth.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Yes. We have daughters. We have wives that are still fertile. So yeah, “we” know. We’ve noticed who is being come for. Because they are coming for people. And we have noticed.

My daughter said she’s going to fight for rights. Not just her rights. Peoples’ rights. #### this #### already.

You want to talk about taxes? Let’s talk. You want to take away rights from people? Sorry we’re not talking. The other threads can focus on process. In here, I’ll just answer yes. We know. 

 

[the rover]

Ignorance is bliss.  I just provided all sorts of evidence that it does happen, including an active abortion it’s in Colorado that advertises it.  You believe what you want to believe rover.  It’s obvious what your intentions are in here, and it’s not a search for truth.

my brother is a high risk obstetrician.  if he performed an elective late term abortion he'd lose his hospital privileges and board certification.  elective late term abortions don't happen.  it's evangelical sensationalism.

 

[ekbeats]

my brother is a high risk obstetrician.  if he performed an elective late term abortion he'd lose his hospital privileges and board certification.  elective late term abortions don't happen.  it's evangelical sensationalism.

So because your obstetrician brother doesn't perform late term abortions, in an unspecified state by the way, then that means "nobody is performing or having late term elective abortions".  OK.

 

[the rover]

So because your obstetrician brother doesn't perform late term abortions, in an unspecified state by the way, then that means "nobody is performing or having late term elective abortions".  OK.

nobody performs elective late term abortions. you think a woman spends 8 months pregnant and then suddenly changes her mind?  you're buying into evangelical propaganda.

 

[ekbeats]

nobody performs elective late term abortions. you think a woman spends 8 months pregnant and then suddenly changes her mind?  you're buying into evangelical propaganda.

I get it.  You don't want to believe that there are elective late term abortions.  If I was Pro-Choice I wouldn't want to believe it either.  On top of that, the Leftist media drives it into your head that this is "evangelical propaganda."  You take it at face value and refuse to consider anything to the contrary. So you do things like this:

• When a fact, article or study is presented, the first thing you do - before even reading it - is to find a way to discredit the source.
  
• Is it a Conservative website?  Illegitimate.
  
• Is it a anti-abortion site or study?  Illegitimate.
  
• Is it at all related to a religious organization?  Illegitimate.
  

I have to say, I'm frustrated with a lot of the Liberal posters in here who consistently follow this pattern.  You know who you are.  In many ways they're reflective of the modern Left as a whole - they deal in emotions rather than facts.  They view situations through their political biases.  @timschochet just did it tonight.  When he heard examples of Democrat dogwhistles for violence, he dismissed them because they weren't specific enough.  But when it comes to Republican dogwhistles, they are always crystal clear in his mind when the wording is almost always identical.  So you have this completely hypocritical reality where Chuck Schumer's words at the Supreme Court weren't a call to violence, yet Donald Trump's words on January 6th were. 

Meanwhile, guys like me, @BladeRunner, and @GordonGekko formulate our positions based on facts.  Nobody posts more facts and links in here than GG, and it's interesting and insightful that these facts are not only ignored during discussions, but criticized for their magnitude.

So what does that lead to?  It leads to a pretty sad situation where many intelligent, well-read Liberals in here are 100% committed to the party line.   They will rarely waver, if at all.  The only conclusion to be reached is that they are so riddled with confirmation bias that they've become constitutionally incapable of debating in good faith.  Facts aren't used to develop a position - facts are manipulated and dismissed to justify a position that will never change.  I feel comfortable saying this after all the years in these forums.  Honestly, the only Liberals in here with an open mind and independent thought are @dkp993and @KarmaPolice.  At least those are the only ones that come to mind.

I'm in here for one primary reason - to find the truth and engage in honest debate with people to arrive at that truth.  I am labeled a Conservative when in reality I am right down the middle.  I am pro-choice up to viability, then pro-life after that.  I have recently changed my position and become pro gun control.  My views on race have softened considerably over the years.  I 100% believe that systemic racism still exists in this country.  I believe health care is a right and there should be a government backstop for those who don't have coverage through an employer.  I have always been socially liberal, before it was fashionable.  I used to be against trans men using women's restrooms and locker rooms.  I have come around on that and now support them using whatever restroom they desire.  I'm a Conservative on most other issues, but as I said, I am always willing to hear other viewpoints.

And I can say the same for Bladerunner and GG.  We don't always agree in here.  In fact, I have had a couple knock-down, drag-out disagreements with them on certain issues.  But guess what?  We debate the facts, we listen to each other, and we don't take things personally.

So sorry, when you and the other guy in here have made up your mind on this issue, based on one anecdote and citing no evidence whatsoever, while also accusing me of being a propagandist, it really does end the discussion.  Shame too because you guys really do need to know the truth on such an important issue.  Hopefully things change.

EDIT - see my post 7 posts down.  I reacted in anger and should have worded this better.  My only edit here is what you see in this paragraph.  I was tempted to revise the post, but since it has been reposted I am going to leave it as originally written and provide additional context here.  In short, I just want to see everyone in here - Left and Right -  post their views with a little more of a fact base, and to be a little more amiable.  That's all.

 

[ekbeats]

For those interested in learning more about late term elective abortions, here's an analysis of data showing the frequency of these in Arizona in 2017.  

TRIGGER WARNING - this analysis appears on a pro-life website.  It does, however, link to a verified report from the Arizona Department of Public Health - with a link to the actual report on the adhs website.

Roughly 80% of late-term abortions are elective. Here’s how we know.

 

[Nugget]

For those interested in learning more about late term elective abortions, here's an analysis of data showing the frequency of these in Arizona in 2017.  

TRIGGER WARNING - this analysis appears on a pro-life website.  It does, however, link to a verified report from the Arizona Department of Public Health - with a link to the actual report on the adhs website.

Roughly 80% of late-term abortions are elective. Here’s how we know.

Did you read the report and methodology?  Looks like everything that was unreported in a self reporting survey the author wants to use as elective late term abortions. That isn’t what the data is actually saying. 

 

[dkp993]

I get it.  You don't want to believe that there are elective late term abortions.  If I was Pro-Choice I wouldn't want to believe it either.  On top of that, the Leftist media drives it into your head that this is "evangelical propaganda."  You take it at face value and refuse to consider anything to the contrary. So you do things like this:

• When a fact, article or study is presented, the first thing you do - before even reading it - is to find a way to discredit the source.
  
• Is it a Conservative website?  Illegitimate.
  
• Is it a anti-abortion site or study?  Illegitimate.
  
• Is it at all related to a religious organization?  Illegitimate.
  

I have to say, I'm frustrated with a lot of the Liberal posters in here who consistently follow this pattern.  You know who you are.  In many ways they're reflective of the modern Left as a whole - they deal in emotions rather than facts.  They view situations through their political biases.  @timschochet just did it tonight.  When he heard examples of Democrat dogwhistles for violence, he dismissed them because they weren't specific enough.  But when it comes to Republican dogwhistles, they are always crystal clear in his mind when the wording is almost always identical.  So you have this completely hypocritical reality where Chuck Schumer's words at the Supreme Court weren't a call to violence, yet Donald Trump's words on January 6th were. 

Meanwhile, guys like me, @BladeRunner, and @GordonGekko formulate our positions based on facts.  Nobody posts more facts and links in here than GG, and it's interesting and insightful that these facts are not only ignored during discussions, but criticized for their magnitude.

So what does that lead to?  It leads to a pretty sad situation where many intelligent, well-read Liberals in here are 100% committed to the party line.   They will rarely waver, if at all.  The only conclusion to be reached is that they are so riddled with confirmation bias that they've become constitutionally incapable of debating in good faith.  Facts aren't used to develop a position - facts are manipulated and dismissed to justify a position that will never change.  I feel comfortable saying this after all the years in these forums.  Honestly, the only Liberals in here with an open mind and independent thought are @dkp993and @KarmaPolice.  At least those are the only ones that come to mind.

I'm in here for one primary reason - to find the truth and engage in honest debate with people to arrive at that truth.  I am labeled a Conservative when in reality I am right down the middle.  I am pro-choice up to viability, then pro-life after that.  I have recently changed my position and become pro gun control.  My views on race have softened considerably over the years.  I 100% believe that systemic racism still exists in this country.  I believe health care is a right and there should be a government backstop for those who don't have coverage through an employer.  I have always been socially liberal, before it was fashionable.  I used to be against trans men using women's restrooms and locker rooms.  I have come around on that and now support them using whatever restroom they desire.  I'm a Conservative on most other issues, but as I said, I am always willing to hear other viewpoints.

And I can say the same for Bladerunner and GG.  We don't always agree in here.  In fact, I have had a couple knock-down, drag-out disagreements with them on certain issues.  But guess what?  We debate the facts, we listen to each other, and we don't take things personally.

So sorry, when you and the other guy in here have made up your mind on this issue, based on one anecdote and citing no evidence whatsoever, while also accusing me of being a propagandist, it really does end the discussion.  Shame too because you guys really do need to know the truth on such an important issue.  Hopefully things change.

Good post ek.  Thanks for the kind words and I’m happy to be grouped with guys like @KarmaPolice, he’s a good egg.  

One thing I would add is, like you I think I’m pretty much in the middle. In fact you and I align almost exactly on the bolded.  The fact you’re labeled a conservative and me a liberal when we align on probably 90+% of key items shows how divided and polarized this nation has become (which your post speaks too).  

 

[the rover]

Did you read the report and methodology?  Looks like everything that was unreported in a self reporting survey the author wants to use as elective late term abortions. That isn’t what the data is actually saying. 

yeah the conclusions aren't supported by the data.  the reality is doctors aren't performing elective late term abortions and they're not going to risk their careers to do it.  this is pure fear-mongering.  

 

[rockaction]

Do you think we would have still gotten here if those types of things were reigned in years ago, or was this outcome what was coming from the right anyway? 

This is a really good question and I don't think it would have made a whit of difference. The pressure from the base, which was increasing, was to overturn Roe. That was it and full stop. 

 

[ekbeats]

Did you read the report and methodology?  Looks like everything that was unreported in a self reporting survey the author wants to use as elective late term abortions. That isn’t what the data is actually saying. 

I read it, yes.  First off, it's not a self-reporting survey.  The AZ abortion reporting is required by statute.  There were 12,336 abortions - 157 after 21 weeks (1.3% - which is consistent with national data).  It is a requirement that the provider report includes a reason for the abortion.  The only 2 reasons that are shown in the AZ Report are maternal health and fetal health.  Why is that I wonder?

Maternal health - for late term abortions, the mother's health is "less than 6".  Let's assume the high end, that it is 5.

Fetus health - for late term abortions, this number is 31.

So of the 157 later term abortions, the number of those that were done due to the health of the mother of the fetus was 32-36.  That means that 125-129 late term abortions were due to other reasons.  What are the other possible reasons?

• The pregnancy is the result of a sexual assault.
  
• The pregnancy is the result of incest.
  
• The woman is being coerced into obtaining an abortion.
  
• The woman is a victim of sex trafficking.
  
• The woman is a victim of domestic violence.
  
• Purely elective.
  

I'm sure there are some in every category.  I'm also sure that "Purely elective" is not an insignificant number.

 

[ekbeats]

Good post ek.  Thanks for the kind words and I’m happy to be grouped with guys like @KarmaPolice, he’s a good egg.  

One thing I would add is, like you I think I’m pretty much in the middle. In fact you and I align almost exactly on the bolded.  The fact you’re labeled a conservative and me a liberal when we align on probably 90+% of key items shows how divided and polarized this nation has become (which your post speaks too).  

I was too harsh in that post.  As usual, I get myself in trouble when I post after a few drinks.  

Here's the deal though... I'd really like to see guys like @the rover, @squistion and @cockroach (best name in here btw) come into the fold and be a little less acerbic (10 point word).  I'm certain they have important views and insights, and I really do want to hear them.  They are all smart dudes and if they are in here, they obviously care and are looking for something.  Same goes for anyone else in here who has been burned and has resorted to nastiness - Left and Right.  Be the change you want to see.  That was told to me in a former life in here, by one of my adversaries I might add, and it resonates with me to this day.  If that person is here under a new alias, thank you.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I think there are going to be a lot more unwanted children straining our already lacking social safety nets and the effects will ripple through society in a variety of ways.

This is easy to fix.  Just adopt the mentality that government is the problem (thanks Ronnie Ray Gun) and slash federal safety nets.  Add capacity to for profit prisons.  Vilify the poor and downtrodden and disenfranchised in our society.  Turn tech and financial sector barons into cultural icons.  Express outrage when the minorities dare to express discontent.  Honestly if we all just take a page from Nancy Reagan (just say no) and GW Bush (a thousand points of light) everything will be hunky dory, mmmkay?

After all, this model is working so well, amiright?

Empathy and compassion are for fools.  Life is short; make sure you take care of you and yours, and to hell with anyone else.

 

[KarmaPolice]

This is a really good question and I don't think it would have made a whit of difference. The pressure from the base, which was increasing, was to overturn Roe. That was it and full stop. 

I think at the end of the day you are correct in the eventual outcome.   I think where it might have made a difference is for people like ek and others who were mostly with the left on the issue (or at least not wanting bans or RvW overturned) and there might have been slightly more resistance from that side of the aisle.   

 

[KarmaPolice]

Good post ek.  Thanks for the kind words and I’m happy to be grouped with guys like @KarmaPolice, he’s a good egg.  

One thing I would add is, like you I think I’m pretty much in the middle. In fact you and I align almost exactly on the bolded.  The fact you’re labeled a conservative and me a liberal when we align on probably 90+% of key items shows how divided and polarized this nation has become (which your post speaks too).  

I appreciate the kudos from you and ek, but I am for sure not above sinking to pot shots and crappy posts.   

Anyway, the bolded is a lot of the issues with this place and SM in general.  We have had several threads where A LOT of us say similar to what you and ek are saying - how much most of us agree with each other at the core.   Then 100%, and it usually just takes the next post or the next day, we go right back to the .      you and I are usually labeled lefties and ek is on the right for whatever reason, though many times I agree with a lot of what posters like ek, IK, and others are saying on social issues which is where I am usually on the left on.    Like ek posted above, my approach about guns has softened and I am not for banning those, my thoughts on trans in sports and DQSH are way more in line with the right than what I see from the left, etc..    I would say the farthest left position I have is on legalization of drugs and prostitution, and I seem to be way more permissive and forgiving about what flies in "art" like movies, books, and tv.   

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm certain they have important views and insights, and I really do want to hear them.  They are all smart dudes and if they are in here, they obviously care and are looking for something.  Same goes for anyone else in here who has been burned and has resorted to nastiness - Left and Right.  Be the change you want to see.  That was told to me in a former life in here, by one of my adversaries I might add, and it resonates with me to this day.  If that person is here under a new alias, thank you.

I snipped this a bit just to remove references to specific posters.  

I think part of what we're seeing in this forum is a reflection of what we're seeing in society at large.  People are becoming more tribal.  That means that they're no longer interacting with people who see the world differently than them, they're no longer trying to understand where they're coming from or encountering strong forms of their arguments in the wild.  So you get people who can't think beyond the meme level, can't evaluate evidence for or against a particular proposition, toss out wildly inconsistent arguments across unrelated issues with zero realization that they're contradicting themselves, and so on.  That's just tribalism.  Tribalism closes epistemic windows and makes people stupider.

It took a lot longer for this forum to get infected with this stuff than most other places on the internet that I visit.  But it was only a matter of time.  You can't keep an infectious disease at bay forever.  Eventually it's going to show up in your community. 

The other thing though is that this forum has really thinned out at the upper end.  We used to have a bunch of really good left-of-center posters here.  I don't want to start naming names because I'll inevitably omit a bunch of people which will be taken as a slight, and besides that's too sappy.  They know who they are.  Some of them still post here to varying degrees, some migrated to the FFA full time, and some just left.  People like the guys you mentioned filled the void and here we are. 

I'm sure some of the better left-wing posters feel the same way about the right.  My sense is that our side of the aisle isn't fielding as strong a team as we did 10 years ago, but I don't think I have as good a feel for the red team on this site as I do for the blue team (not sure if that makes sense or not, but I'll bet I'm not the only person who experiences this). 

Sometimes I wish we could have two threads on every topic -- one for the slap-fighting, insults, and whataboutism, and another for people who just want a frank exchange of ideas.  I don't mean that everybody has to be nice and chummy in that second thread, just that we stick to substance.   

 

[timschochet]

I know it's a side issue, but this thread is itself a bit of an offshoot so this seems like as good a place to park this as any.

No idea who wrote this or where, but I saw an interesting take yesterday that basically argued that the combination of trans activism ("women" is not a category that exists in surface-level reality) and the pandemic (your bodily autonomy is up for negotiation when a third party is involved) did about as much in two years to undermine Roe as right-wing activism did in 50.  That's hyperbole of course, but I'm pretty sure I agree and I'm definitely sure that these things affected my ability to just casually shrug off some of the garden-variety pro-choice talking points.  

"My body, my choice?"  Why would anybody even bother responding to this in 2022?  Nobody* actually believes this.  Certainly not most blue tribe members who supported mask mandates and especially vaccine mandates.

"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament?"  This was always dumb, but its doubly dumb coming from people who can't tell you what a man is.  These people only care about women's rights when it's convenient.  Otherwise they think women either don't exist at all, or they describe them using misogynistic language like "people who menstruate."  

"Republicans only care about kids up until the point of birth?"  Which states moved heaven and earth to keep schools open during the pandemic, and which states tossed black and hispanic kids overboard?  

Once you realize that all of these "arguments" were always bull#### and that nobody actually believed any of this stuff, it becomes a lot easier just to disregard them.  

Edit: Well, technically not "nobody."  Rock is pro-choice and expressed some skepticism about vaccine mandates.  But he's also not the kind of person who argues using bumper-sticker catchphrases.

I haven’t read this post until now (finally back in town.) And I strongly disagree with you. I was in favor of forcing people to take vaccines (still am.) And I strongly believe in a woman’s right to choose what she wants for her body, including abortion. And I don’t find any contradiction between these two beliefs. 
 

The key issue with regard to the vaccine was public health. Covid as a disease was affecting all of society, not just those who contracted a severe version of it- our hospitals were packed, (preventing or inhibiting treatment of other sickness), business was shut down, travel was shut down. Making sure everyone got the vaccine was necessary, IMO, for society as a whole. In the future we may have much more serious pandemics in which a disease is much more fatal and even more easily spread. The principle of the government enforcing public health measures is not something we should abandon. 

None of this has anything to do with abortion. It’s not a communicable disease. If my wife or girlfriend gets an abortion, it doesn’t increase or decrease the chances that your wife or girlfriend will get one. It’s simply not the same principle at all thus there is no contradiction. 

I

 

[timschochet]

I snipped this a bit just to remove references to specific posters.  

I think part of what we're seeing in this forum is a reflection of what we're seeing in society at large.  People are becoming more tribal.  That means that they're no longer interacting with people who see the world differently than them, they're no longer trying to understand where they're coming from or encountering strong forms of their arguments in the wild.  So you get people who can't think beyond the meme level, can't evaluate evidence for or against a particular proposition, toss out wildly inconsistent arguments across unrelated issues with zero realization that they're contradicting themselves, and so on.  That's just tribalism.  Tribalism closes epistemic windows and makes people stupider.

It took a lot longer for this forum to get infected with this stuff than most other places on the internet that I visit.  But it was only a matter of time.  You can't keep an infectious disease at bay forever.  Eventually it's going to show up in your community. 

The other thing though is that this forum has really thinned out at the upper end.  We used to have a bunch of really good left-of-center posters here.  I don't want to start naming names because I'll inevitably omit a bunch of people which will be taken as a slight, and besides that's too sappy.  They know who they are.  Some of them still post here to varying degrees, some migrated to the FFA full time, and some just left.  People like the guys you mentioned filled the void and here we are. 

I'm sure some of the better left-wing posters feel the same way about the right.  My sense is that our side of the aisle isn't fielding as strong a team as we did 10 years ago, but I don't think I have as good a feel for the red team on this site as I do for the blue team (not sure if that makes sense or not, but I'll bet I'm not the only person who experiences this). 

Sometimes I wish we could have two threads on every topic -- one for the slap-fighting, insults, and whataboutism, and another for people who just want a frank exchange of ideas.  I don't mean that everybody has to be nice and chummy in that second thread, just that we stick to substance.   

And this post I agree with nearly 100%. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I haven’t read this post until now (finally back in town.)

I hope you had a good time in Europe.  I've had the experience of being out of town, with spotty internet access, when there is huge breaking news, and it's really disorienting.  Sorry, man.

 

[pantherclub]

We don’t know the exact numbers.  You just said it.  If I had to guess I’d say over 500.  The Left burns down cities when 21 unarmed blacks are shot by cops.  Bottom line - there should be no late term abortions unless there is documented medical evidence that the life of the mother is at serious risk.  Can we agree on that?

Posts like this is why I seldom frequent this board.  Good god man grow up

 

[pantherclub]

And two-thirds of Americans oppose late term abortions.

This is where the Left lost me.  Governor Northam, the New York law, 7 states allowing abortion up until labor…. I’m ok with abortion up until viability.  But the Left went nuts and started allowing it up until birth, which the vast majority of people agree is infanticide.

The left.  Lololololol.  Yeah man this is all on the left.  They are the only ones that get abortions.   You see you are the problem framing this as left vs right when it couldn’t be further from that.   

 

[KarmaPolice]

The left.  Lololololol.  Yeah man this is all on the left.  They are the only ones that get abortions.   You see you are the problem framing this as left vs right when it couldn’t be further from that.   

On the flip side you are putting motivation on him that he is not saying.  

There has been a lot of talk in here about surveys like he linked- vast majority of the US oppose late term abortions.  He is saying on this topic the leaders from the left or blue states go too far with allowing these procedures, and it pushes people like him away.  

I don't think he or most in here are blaming the overturning of RvW solely on the left, and 0 clue why you posted the implication that only people on the left get them.  

What I wonder, and hope, is if the laws some of these red states are gearing up to roll out will similarly turn people like ek off to their pov as they push farther the other way than polls show the US wants.  

 

[Nugget]

I read it, yes.  First off, it's not a self-reporting survey.  The AZ abortion reporting is required by statute.  There were 12,336 abortions - 157 after 21 weeks (1.3% - which is consistent with national data).  It is a requirement that the provider report includes a reason for the abortion.  The only 2 reasons that are shown in the AZ Report are maternal health and fetal health.  Why is that I wonder?

Maternal health - for late term abortions, the mother's health is "less than 6".  Let's assume the high end, that it is 5.

Fetus health - for late term abortions, this number is 31.

So of the 157 later term abortions, the number of those that were done due to the health of the mother of the fetus was 32-36.  That means that 125-129 late term abortions were due to other reasons.  What are the other possible reasons?

• The pregnancy is the result of a sexual assault.
  
• The pregnancy is the result of incest.
  
• The woman is being coerced into obtaining an abortion.
  
• The woman is a victim of sex trafficking.
  
• The woman is a victim of domestic violence.
  
• Purely elective.
  

I'm sure there are some in every category.  I'm also sure that "Purely elective" is not an insignificant number.

I didn’t see a category for both maternal health and fetal health.  Here is the form. Looks like there could be multiple choices, so I’m not sure where they captured a choice for both. 
 

Here is the 2020 report  not sure why we are using the 2017 report. 
 

To summarize your concern, of the 1.3% of abortions that occurred after 20 weeks, 75% give or take were elective?  

 

[KarmaPolice]

I snipped this a bit just to remove references to specific posters.  

I think part of what we're seeing in this forum is a reflection of what we're seeing in society at large.  People are becoming more tribal.  That means that they're no longer interacting with people who see the world differently than them, they're no longer trying to understand where they're coming from or encountering strong forms of their arguments in the wild.  So you get people who can't think beyond the meme level, can't evaluate evidence for or against a particular proposition, toss out wildly inconsistent arguments across unrelated issues with zero realization that they're contradicting themselves, and so on.  That's just tribalism.  Tribalism closes epistemic windows and makes people stupider.

It took a lot longer for this forum to get infected with this stuff than most other places on the internet that I visit.  But it was only a matter of time.  You can't keep an infectious disease at bay forever.  Eventually it's going to show up in your community. 

The other thing though is that this forum has really thinned out at the upper end.  We used to have a bunch of really good left-of-center posters here.  I don't want to start naming names because I'll inevitably omit a bunch of people which will be taken as a slight, and besides that's too sappy.  They know who they are.  Some of them still post here to varying degrees, some migrated to the FFA full time, and some just left.  People like the guys you mentioned filled the void and here we are. 

I'm sure some of the better left-wing posters feel the same way about the right.  My sense is that our side of the aisle isn't fielding as strong a team as we did 10 years ago, but I don't think I have as good a feel for the red team on this site as I do for the blue team (not sure if that makes sense or not, but I'll bet I'm not the only person who experiences this). 

Sometimes I wish we could have two threads on every topic -- one for the slap-fighting, insults, and whataboutism, and another for people who just want a frank exchange of ideas.  I don't mean that everybody has to be nice and chummy in that second thread, just that we stick to substance.   

I think both sides on these boards suffer from the same we see any other place on the internet - the loudest/most frequent posters tend to lean toward the more extreme views of their politics, and then those two sets of posters battle it out, fight with each other, can't let past history with each other go, and overall drag the discourse down with them.  

 

[KarmaPolice]

One other thing that popped into mind today that maybe people should keep in mind is that there could very well be reasons outside of specific policies that keep people from liking one party.    I am being serious above that I find myself agreeing more with the likes of ek, IK, hell- even BR more than people would expect given my "lib" label around here.   I really do agree with a lot of their specific ideas and policies.   Two things keep me away from the GOP though, and make me very reluctant to vote for them for more than at the local level:  the religious lean and the underlying "I did it, why can't you?/bootstraps" attitude.  Those two things are very much oppositional to my worldview and how I filter things.  

 

[shader]

I haven’t read this post until now (finally back in town.) And I strongly disagree with you. I was in favor of forcing people to take vaccines (still am.) And I strongly believe in a woman’s right to choose what she wants for her body, including abortion. And I don’t find any contradiction between these two beliefs. 
 

The key issue with regard to the vaccine was public health. Covid as a disease was affecting all of society, not just those who contracted a severe version of it- our hospitals were packed, (preventing or inhibiting treatment of other sickness), business was shut down, travel was shut down. Making sure everyone got the vaccine was necessary, IMO, for society as a whole. In the future we may have much more serious pandemics in which a disease is much more fatal and even more easily spread. The principle of the government enforcing public health measures is not something we should abandon. 

None of this has anything to do with abortion. It’s not a communicable disease. If my wife or girlfriend gets an abortion, it doesn’t increase or decrease the chances that your wife or girlfriend will get one. It’s simply not the same principle at all thus there is no contradiction. 

I

I’m big on principles too. The principle on a vaccine mandate to keep someone from transferring a communicable disease and hurting others is sound (not the thread to discuss whether that actually works or not). But I understand and agree with the principle.  You’re looking out for other people.

In an abortion you’re literally killing another human. It runs entirely counter to the principle above and is an extremely selfish decision.

 

[(HULK)]

Really. A question for the right here. Are you willing to potentially watch your wife die if she gets accidentally pregnant at the age of forty or forty-five (assuming an unplanned pregnancy) and you happen to live in a state that outlaws abortion even in the event of life-threatening pregnancy? 

Have we thought about our tribal affiliations long and hard enough to sacrifice our wives, potentially, to a state system that knows no bounds and will indeed affect some of us in the future? 

I do. My wife's 3rd pregnancy (after having 2 daughters) happened WHILE she had an IUD in. The pregnancy was ectopic, which means it had 0% of surviving, and also that if it wasn't aborted, my wife would most likely have died. My takeaway from all of this used to be that man my boys can really swim, but now it's that in some states the policy has become, too bad, you can just die over there now.

This happened to a married couple, using birth control, who would've carried the baby to term and raised it had it not put my wife in clear mortal danger. I cannot believe that there are now places in this country where keeping my wife alive is now illegal.

 

[Uwe Blab]

I do. My wife's 3rd pregnancy (after having 2 daughters) happened WHILE she had an IUD in. The pregnancy was ectopic, which means it had 0% of surviving, and also that if it wasn't aborted, my wife would most likely have died. My takeaway from all of this used to be that man my boys can really swim, but now it's that in some states the policy has become, too bad, you can just die over there now.

This happened to a married couple, using birth control, who would've carried the baby to term and raised it had it not put my wife in clear mortal danger. I cannot believe that there are now places in this country where keeping my wife alive is now illegal.

Feel free to throw this back in my face in the near-ish future if I'm wrong, but I cannot imagine that these types of pregnancies and terminations aren't going to be allowed as things get sorted here in the coming days, weeks, months.  I realize that at this very moment they are not in trigger states and deep red states...but these situations will have to be rectified.  Yes, even in Alabama, WV, Oklahoma, etc.  I think we are suddenly in this crazy out-of-equilibrium time for this and things will sort towards accounting for the obvious like ectopic pregnancies.  On the other end of things, I actually wonder if California is already (?) opened up to "anything goes, no questions asked until out of the birth canal."  Obviously that needs to be rectified as well, IMO.

 

[(HULK)]

Feel free to throw this back in my face in the near-ish future if I'm wrong, but I cannot imagine that these types of pregnancies and terminations aren't going to be allowed as things get sorted here in the coming days, weeks, months.  I realize that at this very moment they are not in trigger states and deep red states...but these situations will have to be rectified.  Yes, even in Alabama, WV, Oklahoma, etc.  I think we are suddenly in this crazy out-of-equilibrium time for this and things will sort towards accounting for the obvious like ectopic pregnancies.  On the other end of things, I actually wonder if California is already (?) opened up to "anything goes, no questions asked until out of the birth canal."  Obviously that needs to be rectified as well, IMO.

Is it acceptable to you that in the rush to implement these abortion bans, some women will likely die as a result? ~2% of pregnancies are ectopic. Even if it is sorted eventually, the delays can and will result in women dying.

I find it inexcusable and indefensible.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Feel free to throw this back in my face in the near-ish future if I'm wrong, but I cannot imagine that these types of pregnancies and terminations aren't going to be allowed as things get sorted here in the coming days, weeks, months.  I realize that at this very moment they are not in trigger states and deep red states...but these situations will have to be rectified.  Yes, even in Alabama, WV, Oklahoma, etc.  I think we are suddenly in this crazy out-of-equilibrium time for this and things will sort towards accounting for the obvious like ectopic pregnancies.  On the other end of things, I actually wonder if California is already (?) opened up to "anything goes, no questions asked until out of the birth canal."  Obviously that needs to be rectified as well, IMO.

I agree with this, FWIW.  Up until two days ago, pro-life legislators and governors were free to pass all kinds of "pure" pro-life legislation that would rile up the base, signal one's pro-life bona fides, and trigger the libs, all without having to worry about, you know, any of that stuff actually becoming law or anything. 

Now all of the sudden, they're going to actually have to enforce the legislation that they pass.  I really don't think you're going to see bans on abortion for ectopic pregnancies and stuff like that.

 

[Uwe Blab]

Is it acceptable to you that in the rush to implement these abortion bans, some women will likely die as a result? ~2% of pregnancies are ectopic. Even if it is sorted eventually, the delays can and will result in women dying.

No, not at all. 

 

[ekbeats]

The left.  Lololololol.  Yeah man this is all on the left.  They are the only ones that get abortions.   You see you are the problem framing this as left vs right when it couldn’t be further from that.   

Not at all what I was saying.  But yes, this is very much a Left and Right issue.  Democrats are taking the barbaric position of wanting abortions up until birth, and many Republicans are being unreasonable in wanting a complete abortion ban.  I have criticized both in here.

 

[ekbeats]

On the flip side you are putting motivation on him that he is not saying.  

There has been a lot of talk in here about surveys like he linked- vast majority of the US oppose late term abortions.  He is saying on this topic the leaders from the left or blue states go too far with allowing these procedures, and it pushes people like him away.  

I don't think he or most in here are blaming the overturning of RvW solely on the left, and 0 clue why you posted the implication that only people on the left get them.  

What I wonder, and hope, is if the laws some of these red states are gearing up to roll out will similarly turn people like ek off to their pov as they push farther the other way than polls show the US wants.  

Thanks KP.  He isn’t in here a lot so he doesn’t have that context.  With regard to the bolded, yes - I am totally turned off by all-out abortion bans.  I am right down the middle on abortion, which means I am usually attacked from both sides.

 

[(HULK)]

Thanks KP.  He isn’t in here a lot so he doesn’t have that context.  With regard to the bolded, yes - I am totally turned off by all-out abortion bans.  I am right down the middle on abortion, which means I am usually attacked from both sides.

Me too, it seems like this issue pulls people to each end of the spectrum though.

I self described as pro-life but I think wholesale bans are a terrible idea for a multitude of reasons. There is lots of grey area and it's been largely ignored by those that have argued the issue for so long.

I've always thought that we should've pushed to reduce the occurrence of abortions by pushing birth control, counseling, facilitating adoption better, etc. It doesn't have to be all about the who has the right to dictate what happens in a person's body. I do consider most abortions to be a social ill, but I also think we shouldn't dictate what women do with their body. No room for our voices in the conversation though, not this one.

 

[ekbeats]

I didn’t see a category for both maternal health and fetal health.  Here is the form. Looks like there could be multiple choices, so I’m not sure where they captured a choice for both. 
 

Here is the 2020 report  not sure why we are using the 2017 report. 
 

To summarize your concern, of the 1.3% of abortions that occurred after 20 weeks, 75% give or take were elective?  

You have to read the statutes on reporting requirements.  The abortionist has to report on one of the reasons list, and one of them is “mother won’t provide.”  And the state - for one reason or another - only reports out on two reasons - mothers health and fetus’s health.  This lack of transparency is intentional, and it’s terrible.  If you are going to allow a viable fetus to be killed you should at least have to be above board and honest as to why.

My concern is that there is plenty of evidence that elective late term abortions are being done. Even if that number is 1 it is too many.  In my opinion it’s the most heinous crime to kill a defenseless baby that could be delivered and survive.

How about I get to ask you some questions now?

Do you believe that an elective abortion (ie not at all related to the physical health of the mother or fetus) after the date of viability is murder?  Do you think it should be legal?  What restrictions would you put on it?

 

[Manster]

I do. My wife's 3rd pregnancy (after having 2 daughters) happened WHILE she had an IUD in. The pregnancy was ectopic, which means it had 0% of surviving, and also that if it wasn't aborted, my wife would most likely have died. My takeaway from all of this used to be that man my boys can really swim, but now it's that in some states the policy has become, too bad, you can just die over there now.

This happened to a married couple, using birth control, who would've carried the baby to term and raised it had it not put my wife in clear mortal danger. I cannot believe that there are now places in this country where keeping my wife alive is now illegal.

There's no way this is true.  People who are pro life are not monsters.  Ectopic pregnancy is something that must be TREATED to ensure survival of a woman.  Like an appendectomy....you can't just ignore it.

This is the equivalent of gun nuts thinking any bit of gun legislation is going mean they are coming for our guns.

 

[Nugget]

You have to read the statutes on reporting requirements.  The abortionist has to report on one of the reasons list, and one of them is “mother won’t provide.”  And the state - for one reason or another - only reports out on two reasons - mothers health and fetus’s health.  This lack of transparency is intentional, and it’s terrible.  If you are going to allow a viable fetus to be killed you should at least have to be above board and honest as to why.

My concern is that there is plenty of evidence that elective late term abortions are being done. Even if that number is 1 it is too many.  In my opinion it’s the most heinous crime to kill a defenseless baby that could be delivered and survive.

How about I get to ask you some questions now?

Do you believe that an elective abortion (ie not at all related to the physical health of the mother or fetus) after the date of viability is murder?  Do you think it should be legal?  What restrictions would you put on it?

I think women should basically have access to abortions for any reason up until 16 weeks.  From 16-24 weeks, there needs to be medical supervision. After 24 weeks there should be restrictions and multiple medical personnel involved. I think the ultimate decision should be between women and their doctors. I don’t think legislatures get involved in other medical procedures, but I’m not sure how medical standards are applied or established in determining heart transplants or hip replacements.   I can’t see supporting a murder charge on the woman or the medical team. I can see prohibiting abortions if there is not medical concurrence on the need. I can see an ethics board for doctors if they don’t follow guidelines. I don’t know the exact mechanism, but I’m pretty sure I don’t want the Kansas legislature in charge of it. 

 

[The Z Machine]

I really don't think you're going to see bans on abortion for ectopic pregnancies and stuff like that.

Quoted so I can return to this later.  I hope you're right, but I fear you're wrong.