7 ms·

It is interesting that in many countries in Europe the situation have settled in some kind of middle ground, but in the US the sides seem to push for the extrem

by smsm42 4y ago

It is interesting that in many countries in Europe the situation have settled in some kind of middle ground, but in the US the sides seem to push for the extreme outcomes - either a total lack of restrictions (including some advocating for "after-birth abortions") or a total ban. Moreover, the propaganda seems to often conflate non-extreme proposals with extreme ones - such as calling restricting abortions after 15 weeks "abortion ban" without qualifications. I wonder if there's a place to arrive to some reasonable compromise here or the only solution is to oscillate between the extremes, geographically and temporally, depending on which tribe has more power at the moment.

anon291 4y ago
Because roe made the compromises impossible.
- gedy 4y ago
  I think it was more that it bypassed the political discussion needed to come to compromise (in written law). Which is unfortunate, as the 70s and 80s were a much easier time to have US political parties work together and compromise.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  So what did the Roe ruling do that made compromise impossible?
  - scarmig 4y ago
    It short circuited the political process and substituted it with legal doctrine, which lends itself to absolutist, logically consistent moral positions as opposed to the messy and incoherent compromises that come out of politics.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      And yet what we're seeing post Roe, are absolutist, logically consistent moral positions in places like Idaho, where 1 party rule has resulted in a political platform that allows no exceptions whatsoever, even for the life of the mother.
      - smsm42 4y ago
        This however is a pretty recent phenomenon, I think, as a result of rushing to the extremes. I suspect this position will be moderated soon, though with current toxic political climate, it may take a bit for things to cool off so that such things would not be seen as "ceding ground to them".
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        jfengel 4y ago
        Tell me about the last time you believe the political climate got less toxic.
        smsm42 4y ago
        In early 2000s, the racial tensions in the US were less toxic. Then of course it kinda went sideways. Also, I think gay acceptance is gaining grounds. Some things are improving, though not too many, unfortunately.
      - fundad 4y ago
        The no exceptions whatsoever bans are the model for the national ban that will come ones Republicans have the power to do it. If they believe all abortion is murder, what amount of murder would you expect them to tolerate?
        ModernMech 4y ago
  - anon291 4y ago
    Well in its original form Roe laid out, without any legislative input, a full on trimester system in which abortion was definitely legal until the third trimester, thus making regulations like the ones you mention impossible. This was somewhat relaxed with PP v Casey, but I don't think the kinds of regulations you mention would even be legal then. Thus, by making the compromise position untenable, it naturally brought out extremists on both ends.
a_shovel 4y ago
> (including some advocating for "after-birth abortions") Could you double-check that? I've never heard this, but I've seen a couple of pro-life groups say that pro-choice groups are advocating for that, as a sort of propaganda to equate not just abortion with murder, but abortion providers with murderers too.
- geekbird 4y ago
  Yeah, IME that's what the anti-choice folks say about the pro-choice folks, but I've never heard it from actual pro-choice folks. Yes, there is some joking about "post natal abortions" for certain extremist politicians, but it's never serious about permitting after-birth abortions".
  - scarmig 4y ago
    I think Peter Singer at one point argued in earnest for legal infanticide in certain situations, but I'm not sure of his current position, and regardless infanticide is far from representative of mainstream pro-choice discourse.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    > anti-choice FYI, "anti-choice" is a pejorative, as is "pro-abortion" for pro-choice people. Let's steer clear of mudslinging on such a controversial topic, so as to avoid a flamewar. :)
    - jfengel 4y ago
      "Anti-choice" is purely descriptive. They are opposed to you having that choice. It's less pejorative than the implication that "pro-life" connotes that the opposition is "anti-life". Few pro-lifers seem to put any effort into guaranteeing life for anybody -- often in favor of capital punishment, and practically never advocating policies that preserve life such as health care. "Anti-choice" is about the most dispassionate, accurate label I can apply. There is a choice that the wish to deny. Any other term is a euphemism.
somenameforme 4y ago
When you read the writings of people like RBG this is one of the big reasons that she wasn't really fond of Roe v Wade to begin with. It took an issue that was gradually being moderated naturally, and then suddenly forcibly swung hardcore in one direction. In her words this "activated" people that, until then, had remained on the periphery, which must certainly go some way towards explaining the scenario in the US. In many ways I think its an apt warning about trying to change a society through force or coercion instead of through cooperation and mutual respect.
- bdowling 4y ago
  > It took an issue that was gradually being moderated naturally, and then suddenly forcibly swung hardcore in one direction. Justice Roberts made a similar point in his dissent in Obergefell.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  Yeah, I think that's probably right. I was was already aware that before Roe, abortion was only legal on a handful of states (including New York). However, I recently read in the NYT that New York even came close to repealing its abortion law a year or so before Roe. It only survived because of the governor's veto. The court's actions, especially when so poorly-reasoned, were bound to create a strong backlash, and the ones that could persevere long enough to counter such an undemocratic decision we're going to have the strongest opposite polarization to the court. And then that backlash created it's own polarized backlash. Now the backlashes reinforce each other.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  So were the judges back then just really bad at law?
  - smsm42 4y ago
    On the contrary, they were very good at law - so good that they went much farther than the law should have gone, and used their mastery of the existing law to create a set of wholly novel legal constructs that had no basis in preceding law and were only supported by their art. However, what is created by legal art, can also be undone by legal art, it is lacks support in societal consensus. Eventually, that is exactly what has happened.
elil17 4y ago
No one is advocating for killing infants. The whole “after birth abortion” thing comes from a philosophy paper written by two British authors in the Journal of Medical Ethics wheee they argued that what they termed “after birth abortions” in certain circumstances could be logically consistent under some ethical frameworks. There was public outcry from pro-choice activists against their argument, and they later published a letter clarifying that they were opposed to any actual policies legalizing infanticide. This all happened in 2011-2012. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/after-birth-abortion/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/after-birth-abortion/ Anti-abortion advocated have claimed that people support killing children as old as 5, but no one who actually holds this view has been identified. Additionally, some people said they were in favor of “fourth trimester abortions” on a survey, but that question was obviously rather misleading. The respondents probably didn’t that pregnancy ends after 3 trimesters. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-old-college-sigh/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-old-college-sigh/
- smsm42 4y ago
  No one advocating for killing them directly, but there are people advocating for making it legal to kill them if the doctor and the mother so desire, even after live birth. For example: https://cnsnews.com/news/article/emily-ward/virginia-governor-describes-how-post-birth-abortion-would-proceed https://cnsnews.com/news/article/emily-ward/virginia-governo... I didn't choose the source and it may be biased - I just took the first link to the matter I found - but I think the gist of it is adequately shown - the law as proposed would make it ok to kill live born infant if the adults present decide that's what they want. No limits, no restrictions, no conditions. It may not be the main goal of the law, but it would be one of the results. It's hard to pin down the exact position though because as I understand the law wasn't passed and the politicians are prone to change their positions if they lead to backlash, but at least as it was initially proposed, no state involvement in such decisions were intended - purely private matter concerning only persons present.
  - gaganyaan 4y ago
    I really hate lying for Jesus. That article has lots of quote mining, and buried at the bottom where they begrudgingly include the full quote is: > there may be a fetus that’s non-viable You need to not read or link to fake news.

by smsm42 4y ago

anon291 4y ago

Because roe made the compromises impossible.

gedy 4y ago
I think it was more that it bypassed the political discussion needed to come to compromise (in written law). Which is unfortunate, as the 70s and 80s were a much easier time to have US political parties work together and compromise.
hotpotamus 4y ago
So what did the Roe ruling do that made compromise impossible?
- scarmig 4y ago
  It short circuited the political process and substituted it with legal doctrine, which lends itself to absolutist, logically consistent moral positions as opposed to the messy and incoherent compromises that come out of politics.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    And yet what we're seeing post Roe, are absolutist, logically consistent moral positions in places like Idaho, where 1 party rule has resulted in a political platform that allows no exceptions whatsoever, even for the life of the mother.
    - smsm42 4y ago
      This however is a pretty recent phenomenon, I think, as a result of rushing to the extremes. I suspect this position will be moderated soon, though with current toxic political climate, it may take a bit for things to cool off so that such things would not be seen as "ceding ground to them".
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - jfengel 4y ago
        Tell me about the last time you believe the political climate got less toxic.
        smsm42 4y ago
        In early 2000s, the racial tensions in the US were less toxic. Then of course it kinda went sideways. Also, I think gay acceptance is gaining grounds. Some things are improving, though not too many, unfortunately.
    - fundad 4y ago
      The no exceptions whatsoever bans are the model for the national ban that will come ones Republicans have the power to do it. If they believe all abortion is murder, what amount of murder would you expect them to tolerate?
      - ModernMech 4y ago
- anon291 4y ago
  Well in its original form Roe laid out, without any legislative input, a full on trimester system in which abortion was definitely legal until the third trimester, thus making regulations like the ones you mention impossible. This was somewhat relaxed with PP v Casey, but I don't think the kinds of regulations you mention would even be legal then. Thus, by making the compromise position untenable, it naturally brought out extremists on both ends.

a_shovel 4y ago

> (including some advocating for "after-birth abortions") Could you double-check that? I've never heard this, but I've seen a couple of pro-life groups say that pro-choice groups are advocating for that, as a sort of propaganda to equate not just abortion with murder, but abortion providers with murderers too.

geekbird 4y ago
Yeah, IME that's what the anti-choice folks say about the pro-choice folks, but I've never heard it from actual pro-choice folks. Yes, there is some joking about "post natal abortions" for certain extremist politicians, but it's never serious about permitting after-birth abortions".
- scarmig 4y ago
  I think Peter Singer at one point argued in earnest for legal infanticide in certain situations, but I'm not sure of his current position, and regardless infanticide is far from representative of mainstream pro-choice discourse.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  > anti-choice FYI, "anti-choice" is a pejorative, as is "pro-abortion" for pro-choice people. Let's steer clear of mudslinging on such a controversial topic, so as to avoid a flamewar. :)
  - jfengel 4y ago
    "Anti-choice" is purely descriptive. They are opposed to you having that choice. It's less pejorative than the implication that "pro-life" connotes that the opposition is "anti-life". Few pro-lifers seem to put any effort into guaranteeing life for anybody -- often in favor of capital punishment, and practically never advocating policies that preserve life such as health care. "Anti-choice" is about the most dispassionate, accurate label I can apply. There is a choice that the wish to deny. Any other term is a euphemism.

somenameforme 4y ago

When you read the writings of people like RBG this is one of the big reasons that she wasn't really fond of Roe v Wade to begin with. It took an issue that was gradually being moderated naturally, and then suddenly forcibly swung hardcore in one direction. In her words this "activated" people that, until then, had remained on the periphery, which must certainly go some way towards explaining the scenario in the US. In many ways I think its an apt warning about trying to change a society through force or coercion instead of through cooperation and mutual respect.

bdowling 4y ago
> It took an issue that was gradually being moderated naturally, and then suddenly forcibly swung hardcore in one direction. Justice Roberts made a similar point in his dissent in Obergefell.
tablespoon 4y ago
Yeah, I think that's probably right. I was was already aware that before Roe, abortion was only legal on a handful of states (including New York). However, I recently read in the NYT that New York even came close to repealing its abortion law a year or so before Roe. It only survived because of the governor's veto. The court's actions, especially when so poorly-reasoned, were bound to create a strong backlash, and the ones that could persevere long enough to counter such an undemocratic decision we're going to have the strongest opposite polarization to the court. And then that backlash created it's own polarized backlash. Now the backlashes reinforce each other.
hotpotamus 4y ago
So were the judges back then just really bad at law?
- smsm42 4y ago
  On the contrary, they were very good at law - so good that they went much farther than the law should have gone, and used their mastery of the existing law to create a set of wholly novel legal constructs that had no basis in preceding law and were only supported by their art. However, what is created by legal art, can also be undone by legal art, it is lacks support in societal consensus. Eventually, that is exactly what has happened.

elil17 4y ago

No one is advocating for killing infants. The whole “after birth abortion” thing comes from a philosophy paper written by two British authors in the Journal of Medical Ethics wheee they argued that what they termed “after birth abortions” in certain circumstances could be logically consistent under some ethical frameworks. There was public outcry from pro-choice activists against their argument, and they later published a letter clarifying that they were opposed to any actual policies legalizing infanticide. This all happened in 2011-2012. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/after-birth-abortion/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/after-birth-abortion/ Anti-abortion advocated have claimed that people support killing children as old as 5, but no one who actually holds this view has been identified. Additionally, some people said they were in favor of “fourth trimester abortions” on a survey, but that question was obviously rather misleading. The respondents probably didn’t that pregnancy ends after 3 trimesters. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-old-college-sigh/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-old-college-sigh/

smsm42 4y ago
No one advocating for killing them directly, but there are people advocating for making it legal to kill them if the doctor and the mother so desire, even after live birth. For example: https://cnsnews.com/news/article/emily-ward/virginia-governor-describes-how-post-birth-abortion-would-proceed https://cnsnews.com/news/article/emily-ward/virginia-governo... I didn't choose the source and it may be biased - I just took the first link to the matter I found - but I think the gist of it is adequately shown - the law as proposed would make it ok to kill live born infant if the adults present decide that's what they want. No limits, no restrictions, no conditions. It may not be the main goal of the law, but it would be one of the results. It's hard to pin down the exact position though because as I understand the law wasn't passed and the politicians are prone to change their positions if they lead to backlash, but at least as it was initially proposed, no state involvement in such decisions were intended - purely private matter concerning only persons present.
- gaganyaan 4y ago
  I really hate lying for Jesus. That article has lots of quote mining, and buried at the bottom where they begrudgingly include the full quote is: > there may be a fetus that’s non-viable You need to not read or link to fake news.