Breaking... US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

Yeah, I did say that. Now if you’d point to where I made the comparison to how safe or unsafe pregnancy and giving birth are by comparison, that’d be more useful than accusing me of driving the thread up a blind alley, which is what I was referring to. I take it as a given that you think every post I make is BS, but I don’t take that personally.

And, in related news, Indiana is investigating the doctor (i.e., harassment by government officials) that provided the medical abortion to the 10 year old. The pregnant child was 6 weeks and 3 days pregnant. Can't terminate that pregnancy, nuh-uh.

10 years old, fortunate to be able to travel to another state, and the Doctor now getting harassed about it. This is the impact of Dobbs.

Speaking of Dobbs, a very interesting article from Slate titled "Amy Coney Barrett is in over her head" about the handmaid, highlighting her massive inability as a Justice. She's going to be a useless rubber-stamp for decades. Some of us thought this obvious from the get-go. Heck, some of her classmates signed a petition against her being nominated to the SCOTUS:

No one has argued that if in a particular case an abortion is unsafe it should be given. No one has said that and nor does it require abortion laws to enforce that, there are already laws around general medical practice. 

Are we now just going to overlook the fact that politicians and abortion rights advocates in the US have since Roe v Wade benefitted from the idea of providing for abortion with the rhetoric that it is “safe, legal and rare”? That’s my point. I don’t think anyone should, and I think they behaved irresponsibly in doing so. Never mind lessons in sex education, lessons in civics education would have proven to be far more useful IMO to give people a basic understanding of the laws which govern their society, instead of promoting the idea of a right to abortion being absolute.

Yes people have to make abortion decisions, and any decision around the framework of the law. Doesn't mean it is a smart law. Honestly at this point I have no clue what your point is as your posts seem to contradict.

There’s nothing contradictory in my posts. You claimed that the law prevents a safer decision by forcing the risk of birth, and that the Government is demanding a riskier course of action. I understood what you meant, but neither the law nor Government does either of those things.

The decision in Roe v Wade wasn’t particularly smart either as it didn’t resolve anything in practice, it simply led to the last 50 years of conflict between Federal and States laws in a country of over 300m people with vastly differing opinions and beliefs in regards to abortion and the protection of human life. The right to procreate exists in the Constitution, the right to an abortion does not, it never did, and the decision in Roe v Wade while ideologically it was seen as the right thing to do at the time, it had no Constitutional foundation, least of all claiming that it could be derived from a right to privacy which limits States interference in peoples private lives, while at the same time acknowledging the States interests in when a woman becomes pregnant.

EDIT: You might be wondering why that’s important. Well when people are in desperate situations, they can be coerced into doing pretty much anything, even when it goes against everything they believe in -

https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article/2020/09/14/in-the-1970s-racism-led-to-women-being-sterilized-against-their-will-could-it-happen-again/

It was only a matter of time before control of regulation and determination of their own laws in relation to abortion was put back to each individual States legislature.

While campaigning you don’t know how your congress will look. His congress didn’t have the votes for codifying abortion.

… that would not refute that assessment at all.

Presidents don’t use their acceptance or inaugural speech to say all the promises they have to break this term because they don’t have the votes. It came back up 3 months into office to be discussed.

What’s disingenuous is attempting to make a comparison between two different concepts that aren’t even in the same ballpark. Even if I’d never witnessed a woman giving birth, I’d still be able to understand the concept that ‘safe’, is a relative term.

It’s certainly not the first term that springs to mind after witnessing a woman giving birth, but they involve completely different risks, expectations and outcomes. As technologically advanced as medicine and science have become, transporter technology remains firmly within the realm of science fiction.

Well, how many people die from failed abortions vs. in childbirth? Numbers don't lie (and the latter results in far more deaths.) Abortion is safer than carrying a fetus to term. Full stop.

I think your rejoinder is, "You can't compare them as one is about termination of pregnancy, and the other is about leaving the pregnancy to run its term." But, they are intimately related - both begin with a pregnant person. If, in fact you were concerned about the risk of pregnancy, you'd abort right away. But, no one rightfully does that analysis.

I just don't think that conclusion gets us anywhere.

I never applied any comparison in the first place, my point was that there are risks involved in abortion and the message of “safe, legal and rare” or going on about how safe abortions are, is an obfuscatory sales pitch rather than attempting to inform and educate the general public about abortion. I’d expect it of young influencers on social media -

https://www.thejournal.ie/does-vitamin-c-iburofen-mugwort-tea-papaya-cause-abortion-5807471-Jul2022/?amp=1

I don’t expect it of people in positions of authority who have a responsibility to provide information that isn’t misleading. That’s why I acknowledged that to their credit, PP does state this information on their website. It’s probably not the first result that comes up if anyone is searching for the terms “termination of pregnancy” though -

https://www.euronews.com/amp/2022/06/22/us-lawmakers-demand-action-from-google-over-fake-abortion-clinics

Bit late to find out the terms “termination of pregnancy” are relative too when it’s not the outcome the patient was expecting.

But, no one rightfully does that analysis.

They do, and they decide based upon what information is available to them, that the outcome is worth the risks involved. It doesn’t follow that being concerned about the risks of pregnancy means the only reasonable conclusion is an abortion, unless you ask Richard Dawkins. I wouldn’t though, because he’s an idiot.

I can agree with that: politicization can lead to misrepresented clinical information either side.

I can see why people might conflate the GOAL "safe, legal, and rare" with the actual status, but I wouldn't. And I think most patients know any time they go through any procedure, especially an invasive one, that there are nonzero risks. Whether or not they initially received obfuscation, the clinicians who are - frankly brave enough in the United States to perform these medical procedure are not the people at the last mile who will obfuscate them further, they will explain the risks, their unique medical situation, and the options (but I am happy to be corrected with evidence of abortion malpractice related to misinforming the patients).

Seems legit; no corrections or repudiations from Dawkins after publication that I can find.

You're not adding anything that hasn't already been said here. It was in the ACA, the Congress wouldn't accept it, it was removed. They prioritized the Affordable Care Act over the Freedom of Choice Act, yes, which Senator Obama had cosponsored. You'll find that it's not a very effective attack on Obama.

He stated he would have loved to sign the Freedom of Choice Act as his first action as President, but that clearly was never on the cards, it's not up to POTUS to sign so much as up to the accompanying Congress to pass.

Grand so. Back to attacking Republican nutters.

As was inevitable, TX is leading a suit against the federal govt against the EO invoking federal emergency care laws to enforce medically necessary abortions.

Swalwell broke the witness' logic

They seem to not understand that a rape/medical exempt abortion is still an abortion. It doesn't cease being an abortion simply because it is exempt. You are still greenlighting an abortion.

Is this the only brain loophole through which some conservatives even tolerate a rape/medically exempt abortion? They think it isn't 'killing a baby' etc. because it was a rape/medical threat?

“Do you think a 10-year-old should choose to carry a baby?” Swalwell asked.

“I believe it would probably impact her life and so therefore, it would fall under any exception and would not be an abortion,” Foster replied.

“Wait,” said Swalwell, who then paused as if to gather his thoughts on the answer. “It would not be an abortion if a 10-year-old – with her parents – made the decision not to have a baby that was the result of rape?”

She answered, “If a 10-year-old became pregnant as a result of rape and it was threatening her life, then that’s not an abortion. So, it would not fall under any abortion restriction in our nation.”

Swalwell turned to another witness, Sarah Warbelow of the pro-choice Human Rights Campaign.

“Ms. Warbelow, are you familiar with disinformation?” he asked.

“Yes, I am,” she responded.

“Did you just hear some disinformation?” he queried.

“Yes, I heard some very significant disinformation,” she stated. “An abortion is a procedure. It’s a medical procedure that individuals undergo for a wide range of circumstances including, because they have been sexually assaulted, raped in the case of the 10-year-old. It doesn’t matter whether or not there’s a statutory exemption. It is still a medical procedure that is understood to be an abortion. Beyond that, I think it’s also important to note that there is no exception for the life or the health of the mother in the Ohio law. That’s why that 10-year-old had to cross state lines in order to receive an abortion.”

This just helps highlight how silly the argument is. Even Tylenol is not 100% safe.

Yep.

I think the point being made here was the current assessment is that women's health outcomes and mortality rates fair out safer for abortions than pregnancies.

Yes I know about that. That isn't what you said he said, though.

I didn’t say Dawkins said anything. Here’s exactly what I said -

It doesn’t follow that being concerned about the risks of pregnancy means the only reasonable conclusion is an abortion, unless you ask Richard Dawkins. I wouldn’t though, because he’s an idiot.

If I’m being honest, I’m still not sure it wasn’t a deliberate presentation of a moral conundrum by a bad actor, knowing Richard wouldn’t be able to resist.

How is it being disingenuous to point out that when someone claims abortion is safe, to question their claim? Because that’s what I was doing, because the claim lacks specificity. Hell of a difference between an abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and what’s commonly referred to as a “late term” abortion.

Obviously the first one, which is the vast majority of abortions, is safer. I’d still wonder why anyone would make the point when it’s clearly so obvious. Giving birth is also regarded as safe, and I’d question the lack of specificity were anyone to make that claim too, but it’s an entirely different set of circumstances, which is why I didn’t mention it. I don’t think of them as being comparable.

I kinda half wonder if some (and perhaps many) people actually don't understand the word, mixing the root abort up with abhor. Like, they see an abortion as akin to abhoration, thinking that it's a description of some vile act being named as such, where the specific act is intrinsically linked to the moral qualities of it - and thus, that a morally justified version by default can't be an abortion (abhoration).

The point couldn’t be simpler Christy - it’s a convenient and vague political slogan which hints at support for abortion rights. I could say I too want abortion to be safe, legal and rare… but we undoubtedly have very different ideas as to what we mean by that and how to go about achieving it. If I didn’t make you aware of that, I’d be knowingly misleading you into thinking we’re on the same page.

You can make a complaint afterwards when the outcome isn’t what you had in mind.

Where I was going is that these are all relative terms:

Safe - Depends upon anyone’s interpretation

Legal - Depends upon anyone’s interpretation

Rare - Depends upon anyone’s interpretation

If I’m someone with ne’er an ounce of integrity, it’s the easiest way to gain your support and avoid any interrogation. If you ever change your mind after realising you’d been duped, you’ll be portrayed as a disgruntled ex-supporter.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to in accusing me of leaving out the facts that abortions were carried outside of proper facilities, because I remember referring to this case -

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/01/london-abortion-clinic-criticised-in-inquest-into-womans-death

I don’t imagine that because one woman died in those circumstances, it’s going to change anyone’s opinion on abortion, because they’re not actually concerned with women dying, they’re only using that obvious fact to argue that people need to support abortion to prevent women from dying. It’s a plausible argument, predicated upon the idea that we can’t change the factors which influence those outcomes.

I think we’re probably agreed earlier on in the thread though, that federal and state funding will not be made available to put structures in place to reduce the likelihood of poor outcomes, but it begins long before a woman ever finds herself in a situation where she wants an abortion with the intent that the foetus does not survive, regardless of how safe, legal or rare it is for anyone else.

Again you are being entirely misleading and disingenuous.

"It doesn’t follow that being concerned about the risks of pregnancy means the only reasonable conclusion is an abortion, unless you ask Richard Dawkins." very strongly implies that he said such a thing. Which he did not. He was asked a very specific question about a specific occurrence and gave an answer applicable to those circumstances. He never said abortion in those circumstances or any other was "the only reasonable conclusion". He said that in his view, in those circumstances, it was moral.

You also called one of the most respected scientists in the world "an idiot", talk about arrogant!

So we have misinformation, misrepresentation, disingenuity, and unbridled arrogance - sounds like the usual online pro-lifer alright.