6 ms·

I'm not saying it's a simple moral question. I'm not sayin abortion is something that has no trade-offs. While I agree with you, how a reasonable person can str

I'm not saying it's a simple moral question. I'm not sayin abortion is something that has no trade-offs. While I agree with you, how a reasonable person can strongly object abortions, and they should not get abortions. But when their moral stance spills out to legislation, I am concerned. You can say we "engage to stop infanticide", but millions of people endure child abuse and thousands die from it every year. And having no access to abortions will surely increase that number. At which point a fetus is a person? We do kind of have an answer to this, when it's viable outside of the mother's body. If we keep going down the rabbit hole of fetus rights, it gets real ugly. Is contraception murder? Is plan b murder? Does having a miscarriage warrant an investigation? Should we prosecute a fetus that absorbed it's twin in-utero? What about IVF and thousands of embryos that are thrown out? What about stem cells?

gonehome 4y ago
I think broad abortion rights is pragmatic policy for the reasons you suggest. I think it's better for societal reasons on net. I also think the compromise around this issue found in European law (Germany, Denmark, France) is pretty reasonable. That said, I don't think a constitutional right exists and the Roe decision that found one was somewhat tortured (even RBG said as much early in her career iirc). Given that this should be argued democratically and via policy. I'm in favor of federal protections that raise the minimum bar to what Europe has and prevents states from enacting all-out bans. I also can see reasonable disagreement about later stage abortion rights for the reasons I mentioned above. It's a messy issue, it's not the job of SCOTUS to legislate these kinds of issues and I think having done so here has ultimately led to a more polarized situation where we're worse off. Fighting this out democratically is probably healthier for our democracy.
- the_mar 4y ago
  Denmark, France and Germany allow on-demand abortions. How was that different from the US until now?
  - gonehome 4y ago
    They only allow it up to a certain point (12 weeks for Denmark the others are similar) and then after that only with cause. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Denmark For those that don't want to click: > "Abortion in Denmark was fully legalized on 1 October 1973,[1] allowing the procedure to be done on-demand if a woman's pregnancy has not exceeded its 12th week. Under Danish law, the patient must be over the age of 18 to decide on an abortion alone; parental consent is required for minors, except in special circumstances. An abortion can be performed after 12 weeks if the woman's life or health are in danger. A woman may also be granted an authorization to abort after 12 weeks if certain circumstances are proved to be present (such as poor socioeconomic condition of the woman, risk of birth defects in the baby, the pregnancy being the result of rape, or mental health risk to mother)." That's a lot more restrictive than the US was prior to this recent decision.
    - the_mar 4y ago
      But the US states could already impose term limits (e.g. Texas). So why did Roe v Wade need to be overturned?
      - gonehome 4y ago
        SCOTUS is tasked with determining if a right is constitutionally protected. There is no right to abortion in the constitution, Roe argued a path to one but it was fairly weak (https://overcast.fm/+vpWZx2bsc https://overcast.fm/+vpWZx2bsc). It was overturned because it's not the court's job to legislate policy beyond that. Part of the reason for that is it creates policy which cannot be reverted by democratic means (except by the kind of extremes we've seen recently) - that's why it's better on net if it's narrow in scope and tied to constitutional rights (imo). IANAL so this is at the edge of my knowledge, but that's my understanding. There is a path to adding things to the constitution, but that power lies with congress.
        the_mar 4y ago
        I'm confused what you're arguing for. You seem to agree, in general abortion should be an option - which is what roe v wade did. States could impose restrictions on how and when abortion is performed. I agree with you, that third trimester on-demand abortions are ludicrous btw. I however do not have that rosy of a perspective that this was overturned due to technicality and that in fact women's rights are about to be stripped the fuck away.
tomp 4y ago
> We do kind of have an answer to this, when it's viable outside of the mother's body. I never understood this argument. There is no baby that is "viable" (able to survive on their own) (well, to be honest, most adults aren't either), and parents are required to care for them (and criminally liable if they fail to do so).
- the_mar 4y ago
  Key here is "outside of the mother's body". Plenty of babies are cared for by people other than their biological mother, I'm sure you've heard of that. What I am sayin here is that if there was a process by which we could take an unwanted fetus and implant it into someone else / allow that child to exist outside of the physical body of a person that doesn't want it, then sure, that is possibly a better alternative to abortion. Short of that, people should not be forcing other people to give births against their will.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  > There is no baby that is "viable" (able to survive on their own) (well, to be honest, most adults aren't either), and parents are required to care for them (and criminally liable if they fail to do so). Babies are viable when they can survive with help from any adult. Before some fetal age, they are completely dependent on the body of the mother - if they are removed from it, no matter how gently, they will die (perhaps there is some way to make a fetal transplant, but that wouldn't necessarily change the equation so much). Once past some age (and especially after birth), they just need someone to take care of them, it doesn't have to be their mother.
  - tomp 4y ago
    > they just need someone to take care of them, it doesn't have to be their mother. Wouldn't it then make more sense to require the mother to take care for the fetus/baby before the age of viability (as she's the only one who can), not after that (and/or after birth) when anyone can? Right now, it's the reverse.
    - 4y ago

gonehome 4y ago

I think broad abortion rights is pragmatic policy for the reasons you suggest. I think it's better for societal reasons on net. I also think the compromise around this issue found in European law (Germany, Denmark, France) is pretty reasonable. That said, I don't think a constitutional right exists and the Roe decision that found one was somewhat tortured (even RBG said as much early in her career iirc). Given that this should be argued democratically and via policy. I'm in favor of federal protections that raise the minimum bar to what Europe has and prevents states from enacting all-out bans. I also can see reasonable disagreement about later stage abortion rights for the reasons I mentioned above. It's a messy issue, it's not the job of SCOTUS to legislate these kinds of issues and I think having done so here has ultimately led to a more polarized situation where we're worse off. Fighting this out democratically is probably healthier for our democracy.

the_mar 4y ago
Denmark, France and Germany allow on-demand abortions. How was that different from the US until now?
- gonehome 4y ago
  They only allow it up to a certain point (12 weeks for Denmark the others are similar) and then after that only with cause. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Denmark For those that don't want to click: > "Abortion in Denmark was fully legalized on 1 October 1973,[1] allowing the procedure to be done on-demand if a woman's pregnancy has not exceeded its 12th week. Under Danish law, the patient must be over the age of 18 to decide on an abortion alone; parental consent is required for minors, except in special circumstances. An abortion can be performed after 12 weeks if the woman's life or health are in danger. A woman may also be granted an authorization to abort after 12 weeks if certain circumstances are proved to be present (such as poor socioeconomic condition of the woman, risk of birth defects in the baby, the pregnancy being the result of rape, or mental health risk to mother)." That's a lot more restrictive than the US was prior to this recent decision.
  - the_mar 4y ago
    But the US states could already impose term limits (e.g. Texas). So why did Roe v Wade need to be overturned?
    - gonehome 4y ago
      SCOTUS is tasked with determining if a right is constitutionally protected. There is no right to abortion in the constitution, Roe argued a path to one but it was fairly weak (https://overcast.fm/+vpWZx2bsc https://overcast.fm/+vpWZx2bsc). It was overturned because it's not the court's job to legislate policy beyond that. Part of the reason for that is it creates policy which cannot be reverted by democratic means (except by the kind of extremes we've seen recently) - that's why it's better on net if it's narrow in scope and tied to constitutional rights (imo). IANAL so this is at the edge of my knowledge, but that's my understanding. There is a path to adding things to the constitution, but that power lies with congress.
      - the_mar 4y ago
        I'm confused what you're arguing for. You seem to agree, in general abortion should be an option - which is what roe v wade did. States could impose restrictions on how and when abortion is performed. I agree with you, that third trimester on-demand abortions are ludicrous btw. I however do not have that rosy of a perspective that this was overturned due to technicality and that in fact women's rights are about to be stripped the fuck away.

tomp 4y ago

> We do kind of have an answer to this, when it's viable outside of the mother's body. I never understood this argument. There is no baby that is "viable" (able to survive on their own) (well, to be honest, most adults aren't either), and parents are required to care for them (and criminally liable if they fail to do so).

the_mar 4y ago
Key here is "outside of the mother's body". Plenty of babies are cared for by people other than their biological mother, I'm sure you've heard of that. What I am sayin here is that if there was a process by which we could take an unwanted fetus and implant it into someone else / allow that child to exist outside of the physical body of a person that doesn't want it, then sure, that is possibly a better alternative to abortion. Short of that, people should not be forcing other people to give births against their will.
tsimionescu 4y ago
> There is no baby that is "viable" (able to survive on their own) (well, to be honest, most adults aren't either), and parents are required to care for them (and criminally liable if they fail to do so). Babies are viable when they can survive with help from any adult. Before some fetal age, they are completely dependent on the body of the mother - if they are removed from it, no matter how gently, they will die (perhaps there is some way to make a fetal transplant, but that wouldn't necessarily change the equation so much). Once past some age (and especially after birth), they just need someone to take care of them, it doesn't have to be their mother.
- tomp 4y ago
  > they just need someone to take care of them, it doesn't have to be their mother. Wouldn't it then make more sense to require the mother to take care for the fetus/baby before the age of viability (as she's the only one who can), not after that (and/or after birth) when anyone can? Right now, it's the reverse.
  - 4y ago