A Civil Abortion Discussion

[Cow Poke]

The one person who seemed to get it...

It appears, contrary to your request for civil discourse, he was being rather....

[guacamole]

I have no argument with the statements, but, with all due respect, the same could have been said many years ago with regards to...

1) The current debate/war is rooted in a disagreement on whether the earth is flat or round.
2) There has been essentially zero progress to aligning the opposing views on whether the earth is flat or round for the last 50 years.
3) There is no basis for believing those views will be aligned in the next 50 years

What changed that debate? Science.

So understanding that the debate hasn't shifted, and that the SCOTUS may/may not turn over Roe, what else can we do to save lives?

[carpedm9587]

That's the reality of the situation. And unfortunately why we are now in the situation we are in with the recent spate of laws from New York, Virginia, Alabama, Georgia, etc. Convincing the "other side", since it is utterly fruitless as-is as you observe, then the only legitimate alternative is to get the court to overturn it. RvW is an awfully reasoned decision. Even some on the left agree that the "right to privacy" crafted by that court is nowhere in the Constitution.

I'm going to suggest that overturning Roe vs. Wade will not end the battle - it will only escalate it. Women outnumber men in the U.S., and the vast majority of them have grown up under Roe v. Wade. If that perceived "right" is overturned, there will be a massive outcry from that population, and all of the men that support them. Liberalism is gaining ground in the U.S., and the statistics show that liberals/democrats are outnumbering conservatives/republicans by significant numbers, and in virtually every demographic. A polarizing issue lie this will rally the left and very likely sweep them into power. Trump's role as president would just be the frosting on the cake. Then SCOTUS can be packed, and a new Roe v. Wade put in place.

I submit that this issue is not going to be resolved by laws. It pits the right of a person to choose their own medical course against the right of the fetus to live. But the fetus is largely invisible and doesn't vote. The women are VERY visible and do.

Yes. But moving or reframing the problem isn't the only course of action. Hence the current Supreme Court makeup that a majority of us on the right voted for. Although, I do not personally think Roberts would vote to overturn RvW TBH...

So it seems to follow - overturn or not overturn - the battle will rage on - without resolution.

If my three points are accurate, then continuing to frame this as "when does a human person begin" will never get us to "minimum abortions." Would you agree?

[guacamole]

It appears, contrary to your request for civil discourse, he was being rather....

...exasperated by people who refuse to budge to consider anything else to be done?

[mikewhitney]

Do you agree with my first three observations?

To repeat:

1) The current debate/war is rooted in a disagreement on when a human person begins.
2) There has been essentially zero progress to aligning the opposing views on when life begins for the last 50 years.
3) There is no basis for believing those views will be aligned in the next 50 years

I disagree with the first two since the issue isn't about when life starts or when the baby becomes a person in the womb.
Number 1 -- the debate is whether government can instigate programs to negatively affect the society's views.
Number 2 is a corollary so that the political interests will not be affected by views on when life begins. It seems that many are not interested in the time that life starts. This only helps in the court decisions to the extent the decisions determine whether a baby is a person yet.

[carpedm9587]

It is one organization that is routinely touted as the "go to" for women's rights.

Yes - it is.

Could you please provide one example making their voice heard in the current climate?

Well, that would require some form of organization that is willing to explore framing the discussion differently. Right now, I know of no such organization. But it is something I am seriously considering be my "retirement" project. Meanwhile, getting one person at a time to consider looking at this differently is what I am spending time on.

[Cow Poke]

So understanding that the debate hasn't shifted, and that the SCOTUS may/may not turn over Roe, what else can we do to save lives?

I don't understand why you (and Carpe, if that's his argument) don't get that the many pro-life pregnancy centers around the country are, indeed, already saving lives, are actively referring for adoptions, are assisting in the expense of those adoptions, are providing free prenatal care, encouragement, support.... along with "women's health care" like mammograms that are not provided by the de facto go-to for the "choice" side.

[Cow Poke]

Well, that would require some form of organization that is willing to explore framing the discussion differently. Right now, I know of no such organization. But it is something I am seriously considering be my "retirement" project. Meanwhile, getting one person at a time to consider looking at this differently is what I am spending time on.

Can you offer an explanation as to why "no such organization" exists on the choice side? What is your opinion as to why Planned Parenthood is allowed to be the de facto spokesorganization for women's health?

[carpedm9587]

I have no argument with the statements, but, with all due respect, the same could have been said many years ago with regards to...

1) The current debate/war is rooted in a disagreement on whether the earth is flat or round.
2) There has been essentially zero progress to aligning the opposing views on whether the earth is flat or round for the last 50 years.
3) There is no basis for believing those views will be aligned in the next 50 years

What changed that debate? Science.

No - it didn't. You will note that the flat-earthers are still out there and science is not convincing them. It most likely never will. So what do we do? We ignore them, because their POV has essentially no impact on day-to-day life for the rest of us.

I suggest we do not have that option with abortion, because the consequences of "do nothing" is that kids continue to die.

So if you agree with my three statements, would you also agree that the logical conclusion from those three statements is:

"Continuing to attempt to reduce abortion to any significant degree by "arguing the science" and "convincing the other side about when life begins" is an exercise is futility. It is essentially doomed to fail."

[carpedm9587]

I disagree with the first two since the issue isn't about when life starts or when the baby becomes a person in the womb.
Number 1 -- the debate is whether government can instigate programs to negatively affect the society's views.
Number 2 is a corollary so that the political interests will not be affected by views on when life begins. It seems that many are not interested in the time that life starts. This only helps in the court decisions to the extent the decisions determine whether a baby is a person yet.

OK - I have to admit to being confused. You don't think that the core issue between pro-choicers and pro-lifers is the issue of when a unique human person begins to exist?

And I'm not sure what government-instigated programs you're referring to?