8 ms·

While I personally have strong pro-choice views I think this was correctly decided for the reasons you state. Abortion is a case where there is genuine disagre

While I personally have strong pro-choice views I think this was correctly decided for the reasons you state. Abortion is a case where there is genuine disagreement among the public and at its core exists a genuine moral question. Most partisans talk past each other, but the core of it is about the rights of the unborn and at which point that becomes relevant. It's different because of this from gay rights and contraception which don't have this other element in question (for contraception specifically those against abortion because of rights of the fetus should be in favor of easier access). It's also why European laws around this are more strict, Denmark allows abortion without cause up to 12 weeks and with cause after.[0] It's better for these questions to be decided by states and democratic process than SCOTUS - the latter which we've seen cause extreme polarization. If you hold the view that the fetus at some point is a life with rights than the political activism here is consistent. Where this occurs I think is a legitimate question (big difference between zygote and day before birth). There is a lot of bad faith, sloppy reasoning, and motivated reasoning arguing here from partisans across the board. There are also real tradeoffs and young women will be the most harmed in states with bans because they have the least autonomy, but I can at least understand the strongest arguments from the other side [1]. Something like the laws in Denmark being passed at the congressional level is probably the desirable compromise outcome. At the moment at least SCOTUS thinks states cannot ban the ability to travel to a different state for abortions, the ability to exit is important. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Denmark [1]: https://www.lesswrong.com/s/3ELrPerFTSo75WnrH/p/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b https://www.lesswrong.com/s/3ELrPerFTSo75WnrH/p/PeSzc9JTBxha...

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
Excellent post and well reasoned. I agree that the root of the issue here is one that will never have a definite answer. Germany has roughly the same laws as Denmark, and now after this decision many states will continue to have the same abortion laws they have had for the last 50 years, many will have on par with Europe, and some will outright ban. There is no making everyone happy, but 50 options that are easier to change seem like a compromise to a binary split that will always be under attack.
- timmytokyo 4y ago
  Except the goalposts have now been moved. We should anticipate that Republicans in the US Congress will attempt to codify a federal ban on abortion in all 50 states. Indeed, many are already advocating this. We should also anticipate that other freedoms once thought protected by the US Constitution and Supreme Court will come under threat. Justice Thomas writes in his concurring opinion in Dobbs that he would like to see Obergefell, Lawrence and Grisword overturned. These decisions protect same-sex marriage, same-sex relationships, and contraception. The overturning of Roe comes just days after another ruling by the same Supreme Court in which they took away states' rights to regulate the possession of guns. States rights has always been a rhetorical tactic used by conservatives as a convenient ruse to achieve their aims. When the argument from states rights is helpful to their political aims, they rely on it. When it's harmful, they ignore it.
  - gonehome 4y ago
    This interview talked about some of this better than I can, I thought it was interesting: https://overcast.fm/+vpWZx2bsc https://overcast.fm/+vpWZx2bsc Hopefully the arguments in there are correct and this isn't likely to expand.
  - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    >The overruling of Roe comes just days after another ruling by the same Supreme Court in which they took away states' rights to regulate the possession of guns. States rights has always been a rhetorical tactic used by conservatives as a convenient ruse to achieve their aims. When the argument from states rights is helpful to their political aims, they rely on it. When it's harmful, they ignore it. You do not at all seem to understand the NYRPA vs Bruen ruling or topic. It makes me question the rest of your reasoning. Overturning Roe comes one day after a Supreme Court ruling that ends the process of New York's MAY ISSUE (if you are wealthy, make a donation, are connected) a concealed carry permit practice. It turns out the state doesn't get to require you to prove a need before you have your rights. There is no right besides 2A that ever faces this level of scrutiny and abuse. It doesn't help that the NYPD has multiple times since that lawsuit initially started been found guilty of corruption by the state's own investigators, when they initially withhold completely appropriate requests but favored "others". You do not understand the topic you referenced.
the_mar 4y ago
Don't you think it's better if morality issues are left to individuals? Don't want an abortion? Don't get one. Care about fetus rights? Start help centers for pregnant women, engage in education and activism, provide social nets for new mothers and children. It's not like we have mandatory abortions. To me, the abortions is similar to the right to chose to end your own life, ultimately, you can't outlaw killing yourself.
- gonehome 4y ago
  The critical difference is the individual rights of the fetus. If you hold that at some point the fetus has rights of its own then this becomes more difficult. I think that’s the fundamental question and what makes this issue challenging. For a provocative example, we don’t allow infanticide to be left up to the individuals moral decision, and then suggest those that care about it engage to help stop infanticide. We decide at that point the infant has rights and we care about suffering. I think for societal pragmatic reasons women should retain the right to terminate pregnancy even though it does result in ending a life and in some cases suffering of the unborn (depending on stage). But I don’t pretend that tradeoff isn’t a real thing, I just think that’s the best outcome on net. I also think contraception should be widely and easily available to reduce the likelihood of this happening generally. I can understand how a reasonable person could disagree and have stronger views about when the fetus’ individual rights should kick in.
  - camgunz 4y ago
    > The critical difference is the individual rights of the fetus. Theoretically yeah, but the stats [0] pretty much moot it. Some quick clips: - 79.3% of abortions were performed at ≤9 weeks’ gestation - nearly all (92.7%) were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation The point here is that "nearly all" abortions occur very early in development. It's hard to imagine that something the size of a chocolate chip has "individual rights", especially when balanced against the rights of the pregnant person. This is important because as you move through the trimesters, cases become crushingly tragic [1]. We're talking things like "we probably thought your fetus was abnormal in the 2nd trimester but you couldn't bring yourself to do it until the 3rd", cancer, fetal death, etc. There's this myth that it's like Celebrity Deathmatch out there: women vs. babies, but the stats are clear: nearly all abortions happen in the 1st trimester, and then when they don't it's typically scheduling or something very tragic happened. All of which should force us to ask: what's the urgent need for regulation on this? [0]: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm [1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10426234/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10426234/
noelsusman 4y ago
Roe and Casey recognized and dealt with the competing interests involved in abortion. That's why it allowed some restrictions on abortion while declining to do so for similar issues like contraception, interracial marriage, and gay marriage. The status quo did not ignore the interests of the unborn child, while the new status quo completely ignores the interests of the woman. Reproductive rights are fundamental to women's liberty and equality. They should be protected by the courts like many other fundamental rights, not subject to the whims of political majorities.
- thathndude 4y ago
  Fair enough. But then we get back to the core issue. Why should the unelected courts be the ones making this determination of what the appropriate balance is? I know the argument gets overplayed, but there is something to be said about the fact that Roe was decided by nine white men.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
It's simple, fetuses don't have rights. Roe was the right decision. The current SCOTUS went off the farm and are now just an extension of the RNC because of the 6-3 supermajority and recent ruling show they just do whatever the republican platform is wrapping it up in "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution.
BurningFrog 4y ago
In European democracies - typically not dominated by bible thumping Republicans - these things have been decided democratically, like any other law. As a result abortion is a very minor political issue. Some people want more or less restrictions, and occasionally rules get adjusted. If the Supreme Court hadn't suddenly decided to commandeer this issue in 1973, I think the US could also have been like that, and hopefully after a few dramatic years we can get there.
bmitc 4y ago
> Abortion is a case where there is genuine disagreement among the public and at its core exists a genuine moral question. That is not true, at all. It is a small minority that want abortion to be illegal. And of course it's a moral question. What isn't? Quit legitimatizing these minority political groups, as if they have ever considered a moral position in their life or can even describe what morality is. The U.S. is not a democracy by definition, and certainly not one in practice. The problem with people hiding behind this as a "democratic process decision" is that that they are ignoring the fact that the Republicans absolutely refuse to participate in democratic proceedings and work to pass a law in Congress giving people the rights they deserve. Republicans, with the support of a minority in this country, are holding the U.S. hostage. What's insane, is that the Republicans make life harder for this very minority and blame it on everyone else. Abortion is actually not a complex issue. It is a tough issue but not a complex issue. The U.S. is reaching Middle East versions of extremism.
- ducktales 4y ago
  I feel like you may be a bit out of touch with rural / conservative America. Pro life is not an extreme minority opinion. You're free to argue it's an immoral or unjust opinion, or argue it's an opinion that is not internally consistent with their other political opinions.... But to downplay the size of the cohort to diminish the opinion is unproductive in reaching an amenable outcome.
  - bmitc 4y ago
    I am not downplaying it. It is a minority opinion by any poll I have ever seen. It's just that it may not be a minority opinion in certain areas or groups which have unequal power due to gerrymandering and the electoral college. (Again, the U.S. is not a democracy.) So again, by any account I have ever seen on abortion, these folks are the minority by numbers. This minority has long been in use, abused, and stirred up by corporate America and the conservative right. If the U.S. was a true democracy, these people would likely not be getting their way hand over foot. So, I don't think it's myself who is out of touch. I came from rural America. I went to high school with people and my extended family who all are still there. I would consider rural America out of touch with basically anyone else in the world. They want to drag down America with nostalgia for a dream that never existed while they vote for the very people who put and keep them in the predicaments they are in. They and the Republicans are as un-American as it gets. Nothing they stand for is inline with the constitution or America's principles.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Akronymus 4y ago
Personally, I am against abortion. But even then, up to 12 weeks, no questions asked, 12 - 18 weeks under very specific circumstances (incest, rape and such) and afterwards pretty much limited to if the mothers life is at risk (altough, preferably a C-section or something similar) seems like a good compromise. The repeal of RvW allows states to implement no questions asked abortions for up to birth, along with allowing states to ban it altogether, rather than the previous state of the law.
- gonehome 4y ago
  Yeah - this is also the consensus a lot of law has landed on in Europe, I think it's also reasonable (especially as a baseline compromise to prevent total bans). The vast majority (~80%) are within the first 12 weeks anyway, the later ones usually have extenuating circumstances and third trimester was already banned (without cause) in most cases anyway. I'm pretty sure polling also shows most Americans have some nuanced view on this that sits somewhere in this range.
  - Akronymus 4y ago
    > I'm pretty sure polling also shows most Americans have some nuanced view on this that sits somewhere in this range. People, in general, usually have pretty nuanced views. Altough, I personally have seen quite a few cases where people became more hardlined on certain issues after seeing the "oppositions" behaviour on it. (Anti gun people being more hardlined after seeing that pro gun ones go to the range with their kids, for example.)

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago

Excellent post and well reasoned. I agree that the root of the issue here is one that will never have a definite answer. Germany has roughly the same laws as Denmark, and now after this decision many states will continue to have the same abortion laws they have had for the last 50 years, many will have on par with Europe, and some will outright ban. There is no making everyone happy, but 50 options that are easier to change seem like a compromise to a binary split that will always be under attack.

timmytokyo 4y ago
Except the goalposts have now been moved. We should anticipate that Republicans in the US Congress will attempt to codify a federal ban on abortion in all 50 states. Indeed, many are already advocating this. We should also anticipate that other freedoms once thought protected by the US Constitution and Supreme Court will come under threat. Justice Thomas writes in his concurring opinion in Dobbs that he would like to see Obergefell, Lawrence and Grisword overturned. These decisions protect same-sex marriage, same-sex relationships, and contraception. The overturning of Roe comes just days after another ruling by the same Supreme Court in which they took away states' rights to regulate the possession of guns. States rights has always been a rhetorical tactic used by conservatives as a convenient ruse to achieve their aims. When the argument from states rights is helpful to their political aims, they rely on it. When it's harmful, they ignore it.
- gonehome 4y ago
  This interview talked about some of this better than I can, I thought it was interesting: https://overcast.fm/+vpWZx2bsc https://overcast.fm/+vpWZx2bsc Hopefully the arguments in there are correct and this isn't likely to expand.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  >The overruling of Roe comes just days after another ruling by the same Supreme Court in which they took away states' rights to regulate the possession of guns. States rights has always been a rhetorical tactic used by conservatives as a convenient ruse to achieve their aims. When the argument from states rights is helpful to their political aims, they rely on it. When it's harmful, they ignore it. You do not at all seem to understand the NYRPA vs Bruen ruling or topic. It makes me question the rest of your reasoning. Overturning Roe comes one day after a Supreme Court ruling that ends the process of New York's MAY ISSUE (if you are wealthy, make a donation, are connected) a concealed carry permit practice. It turns out the state doesn't get to require you to prove a need before you have your rights. There is no right besides 2A that ever faces this level of scrutiny and abuse. It doesn't help that the NYPD has multiple times since that lawsuit initially started been found guilty of corruption by the state's own investigators, when they initially withhold completely appropriate requests but favored "others". You do not understand the topic you referenced.

the_mar 4y ago

Don't you think it's better if morality issues are left to individuals? Don't want an abortion? Don't get one. Care about fetus rights? Start help centers for pregnant women, engage in education and activism, provide social nets for new mothers and children. It's not like we have mandatory abortions. To me, the abortions is similar to the right to chose to end your own life, ultimately, you can't outlaw killing yourself.

gonehome 4y ago
The critical difference is the individual rights of the fetus. If you hold that at some point the fetus has rights of its own then this becomes more difficult. I think that’s the fundamental question and what makes this issue challenging. For a provocative example, we don’t allow infanticide to be left up to the individuals moral decision, and then suggest those that care about it engage to help stop infanticide. We decide at that point the infant has rights and we care about suffering. I think for societal pragmatic reasons women should retain the right to terminate pregnancy even though it does result in ending a life and in some cases suffering of the unborn (depending on stage). But I don’t pretend that tradeoff isn’t a real thing, I just think that’s the best outcome on net. I also think contraception should be widely and easily available to reduce the likelihood of this happening generally. I can understand how a reasonable person could disagree and have stronger views about when the fetus’ individual rights should kick in.
- camgunz 4y ago
  > The critical difference is the individual rights of the fetus. Theoretically yeah, but the stats [0] pretty much moot it. Some quick clips: - 79.3% of abortions were performed at ≤9 weeks’ gestation - nearly all (92.7%) were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation The point here is that "nearly all" abortions occur very early in development. It's hard to imagine that something the size of a chocolate chip has "individual rights", especially when balanced against the rights of the pregnant person. This is important because as you move through the trimesters, cases become crushingly tragic [1]. We're talking things like "we probably thought your fetus was abnormal in the 2nd trimester but you couldn't bring yourself to do it until the 3rd", cancer, fetal death, etc. There's this myth that it's like Celebrity Deathmatch out there: women vs. babies, but the stats are clear: nearly all abortions happen in the 1st trimester, and then when they don't it's typically scheduling or something very tragic happened. All of which should force us to ask: what's the urgent need for regulation on this? [0]: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm [1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10426234/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10426234/

noelsusman 4y ago

Roe and Casey recognized and dealt with the competing interests involved in abortion. That's why it allowed some restrictions on abortion while declining to do so for similar issues like contraception, interracial marriage, and gay marriage. The status quo did not ignore the interests of the unborn child, while the new status quo completely ignores the interests of the woman. Reproductive rights are fundamental to women's liberty and equality. They should be protected by the courts like many other fundamental rights, not subject to the whims of political majorities.

thathndude 4y ago
Fair enough. But then we get back to the core issue. Why should the unelected courts be the ones making this determination of what the appropriate balance is? I know the argument gets overplayed, but there is something to be said about the fact that Roe was decided by nine white men.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

It's simple, fetuses don't have rights. Roe was the right decision. The current SCOTUS went off the farm and are now just an extension of the RNC because of the 6-3 supermajority and recent ruling show they just do whatever the republican platform is wrapping it up in "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution.

BurningFrog 4y ago

In European democracies - typically not dominated by bible thumping Republicans - these things have been decided democratically, like any other law. As a result abortion is a very minor political issue. Some people want more or less restrictions, and occasionally rules get adjusted. If the Supreme Court hadn't suddenly decided to commandeer this issue in 1973, I think the US could also have been like that, and hopefully after a few dramatic years we can get there.

bmitc 4y ago

> Abortion is a case where there is genuine disagreement among the public and at its core exists a genuine moral question. That is not true, at all. It is a small minority that want abortion to be illegal. And of course it's a moral question. What isn't? Quit legitimatizing these minority political groups, as if they have ever considered a moral position in their life or can even describe what morality is. The U.S. is not a democracy by definition, and certainly not one in practice. The problem with people hiding behind this as a "democratic process decision" is that that they are ignoring the fact that the Republicans absolutely refuse to participate in democratic proceedings and work to pass a law in Congress giving people the rights they deserve. Republicans, with the support of a minority in this country, are holding the U.S. hostage. What's insane, is that the Republicans make life harder for this very minority and blame it on everyone else. Abortion is actually not a complex issue. It is a tough issue but not a complex issue. The U.S. is reaching Middle East versions of extremism.

ducktales 4y ago
I feel like you may be a bit out of touch with rural / conservative America. Pro life is not an extreme minority opinion. You're free to argue it's an immoral or unjust opinion, or argue it's an opinion that is not internally consistent with their other political opinions.... But to downplay the size of the cohort to diminish the opinion is unproductive in reaching an amenable outcome.
- bmitc 4y ago
  I am not downplaying it. It is a minority opinion by any poll I have ever seen. It's just that it may not be a minority opinion in certain areas or groups which have unequal power due to gerrymandering and the electoral college. (Again, the U.S. is not a democracy.) So again, by any account I have ever seen on abortion, these folks are the minority by numbers. This minority has long been in use, abused, and stirred up by corporate America and the conservative right. If the U.S. was a true democracy, these people would likely not be getting their way hand over foot. So, I don't think it's myself who is out of touch. I came from rural America. I went to high school with people and my extended family who all are still there. I would consider rural America out of touch with basically anyone else in the world. They want to drag down America with nostalgia for a dream that never existed while they vote for the very people who put and keep them in the predicaments they are in. They and the Republicans are as un-American as it gets. Nothing they stand for is inline with the constitution or America's principles.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Akronymus 4y ago

Personally, I am against abortion. But even then, up to 12 weeks, no questions asked, 12 - 18 weeks under very specific circumstances (incest, rape and such) and afterwards pretty much limited to if the mothers life is at risk (altough, preferably a C-section or something similar) seems like a good compromise. The repeal of RvW allows states to implement no questions asked abortions for up to birth, along with allowing states to ban it altogether, rather than the previous state of the law.

gonehome 4y ago
Yeah - this is also the consensus a lot of law has landed on in Europe, I think it's also reasonable (especially as a baseline compromise to prevent total bans). The vast majority (~80%) are within the first 12 weeks anyway, the later ones usually have extenuating circumstances and third trimester was already banned (without cause) in most cases anyway. I'm pretty sure polling also shows most Americans have some nuanced view on this that sits somewhere in this range.
- Akronymus 4y ago
  > I'm pretty sure polling also shows most Americans have some nuanced view on this that sits somewhere in this range. People, in general, usually have pretty nuanced views. Altough, I personally have seen quite a few cases where people became more hardlined on certain issues after seeing the "oppositions" behaviour on it. (Anti gun people being more hardlined after seeing that pro gun ones go to the range with their kids, for example.)