[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[The Alma Mater]

I meant to save it for Democrats.

Republicans won't lose voters by banning abortion, because they've very publicly wanted to ban abortion for decades. Their supporters all already know that Republicans want to ban abortion, and continue to support them even so. There'll be some people who never thought the leopards would eat their face, but in general, Republican supporters are going to continue being Republican supporters if they overturn Roe.

Did they - or did they assume it was just some talking point the GOP would never seriously take action on ?
Which would be an.. understandable.. position considering they never really did since Reagan.

[Genivaria]

Republicans won't lose voters by banning abortion, because they've very publicly wanted to ban abortion for decades. Their supporters all already know that Republicans want to ban abortion, and continue to support them even so. There'll be some people who never thought the leopards would eat their face, but in general, Republican supporters are going to continue being Republican supporters if they overturn Roe.

Did they - or did they assume it was just some talking point the GOP would never seriously take action on ?
Which would be an.. understandable.. position considering they never really did since Reagan.

I really don't know where Lumen gets all these bad takes.

[Saiwania]

Republicans have been trying to overturn Roe v. Wade for decades, the women who already support them are against Roe.

The GOP is supposedly "big tent" like the Democrats are. So there are probably those women who are against abortion being made legal but consider other issues to be more important for them. The two parties are such that chances are- you'll need to choose which is the lesser evil.

[Kaiserholt]

Until societies start taking into account that the issue of abortion is not just about one life, but two or more lives, conversations on this topic cannot be honest. Fact is, medical science has advanced since Roe v Wade, so the question has to be asked if viability is truly the reason that it was back in 1973…nearly fifty years ago.

[Spirit of Hope]

Until societies start taking into account that the issue of abortion is not just about one life, but two or more lives, conversations on this topic cannot be honest. Fact is, medical science has advanced since Roe v Wade, so the question has to be asked if viability is truly the reason that it was back in 1973…nearly fifty years ago.

Viability standard came from Planned Parenthood vs. Casey in 1992, two decades after Roe.

Medical science has advanced a bunch, but the earliest cases of survival is 21 weeks, and one of those cases is from 1987.

[Vassenor]

Until societies start taking into account that the issue of abortion is not just about one life, but two or more lives, conversations on this topic cannot be honest. Fact is, medical science has advanced since Roe v Wade, so the question has to be asked if viability is truly the reason that it was back in 1973…nearly fifty years ago.

OK, but how does that make it right that a fetus is the recipient of rights afforded to no living person?

[Arlenton]

Until societies start taking into account that the issue of abortion is not just about one life, but two or more lives, conversations on this topic cannot be honest. Fact is, medical science has advanced since Roe v Wade, so the question has to be asked if viability is truly the reason that it was back in 1973…nearly fifty years ago.

Governments, and their courts, could rule that a person/fetus is not a person until they are born. Science doesn't dictate policy.

[Kaiserholt]

Until societies start taking into account that the issue of abortion is not just about one life, but two or more lives, conversations on this topic cannot be honest. Fact is, medical science has advanced since Roe v Wade, so the question has to be asked if viability is truly the reason that it was back in 1973…nearly fifty years ago.

Viability standard came from Planned Parenthood vs. Casey in 1992, two decades after Roe.

Medical science has advanced a bunch, but the earliest cases of survival is 21 weeks, and one of those cases is from 1987.

So the second trimester. Surely after fifty years, we have studied the increase of viability over the second and third trimester. That's the point of science, gathering data that may increase knowledge.

[Kaiserholt]

Until societies start taking into account that the issue of abortion is not just about one life, but two or more lives, conversations on this topic cannot be honest. Fact is, medical science has advanced since Roe v Wade, so the question has to be asked if viability is truly the reason that it was back in 1973…nearly fifty years ago.

OK, but how does that make it right that a fetus is the recipient of rights afforded to no living person?

Considering what abortion is, the ending of viability, what right would the fetus receive that humans don't have? Either before or after the case currently before the Supreme Court?

[The New California Republic]

OK, but how does that make it right that a fetus is the recipient of rights afforded to no living person?

Considering what abortion is, the ending of viability, what right would the fetus receive that humans don't have? Either before or after the case currently before the Supreme Court?

She's referring to the fetus gaining the right to use someone's body against their will, no such right is afforded to people.

[Spirit of Hope]

Viability standard came from Planned Parenthood vs. Casey in 1992, two decades after Roe.

Medical science has advanced a bunch, but the earliest cases of survival is 21 weeks, and one of those cases is from 1987.

So the second trimester. Surely after fifty years, we have studied the increase of viability over the second and third trimester. That's the point of science, gathering data that may increase knowledge.

More premature babies are surviving, but pushing survival any earlier is unlikely absent a radical breakthrough. 21 weeks is the time frame when the fetuses brain starts to develop enough to control bodily functions (breathing, eating, heart pumping) outside the womb. Most fetuses in this time frame don't have the brain structure to survive outside the womb.

[Kaiserholt]

Until societies start taking into account that the issue of abortion is not just about one life, but two or more lives, conversations on this topic cannot be honest. Fact is, medical science has advanced since Roe v Wade, so the question has to be asked if viability is truly the reason that it was back in 1973…nearly fifty years ago.

Governments, and their courts, could rule that a person/fetus is not a person until they are born. Science doesn't dictate policy.

Hence why the debate in this thread exists. The Supreme Court is deciding on this topic. Everyone can hear the debate through PBS. If a case can be made that the viability of the fetus in 2021 is not at the same level as a fetus' viability in 1973, why should the case not be back before the Supreme Court?

[The New California Republic]

So the second trimester. Surely after fifty years, we have studied the increase of viability over the second and third trimester. That's the point of science, gathering data that may increase knowledge.

More premature babies are surviving, but pushing survival an earlier is unlikely absent a radical breakthrough. 21 weeks is the time frame when the fetuses brain starts to develop enough to control bodily functions (breathing, eating, heart pumping) outside the womb. Most fetuses in this time frame don't have the brain structure to survive outside the womb.

And to add to this, the vast majority of abortions are done long before the point of foetal viability anyway.

[Spirit of Hope]

Governments, and their courts, could rule that a person/fetus is not a person until they are born. Science doesn't dictate policy.

Hence why the debate in this thread exists. The Supreme Court is deciding on this topic. Everyone can hear the debate through PBS. If a case can be made that the viability of the fetus in 2021 is not at the same level as a fetus' viability in 1973, why should the case not be back before the Supreme Court?

Again viability wasn't the standard in 1973, that standard came from 1992, and survivability hasn't gotten any earlier than 1992.

[The Alma Mater]

Governments, and their courts, could rule that a person/fetus is not a person until they are born. Science doesn't dictate policy.

Hence why the debate in this thread exists. The Supreme Court is deciding on this topic. Everyone can hear the debate through PBS. If a case can be made that the viability of the fetus in 2021 is not at the same level as a fetus' viability in 1973, why should the case not be back before the Supreme Court?

As has been mentioned numerous times, the person hood or lack thereof of a fetus does not really matter. The question is if humans can be forced to give up bodily autonomy to preserve other life.

[Kaiserholt]

Considering what abortion is, the ending of viability, what right would the fetus receive that humans don't have? Either before or after the case currently before the Supreme Court?

She's referring to the fetus gaining the right to use someone's body against their will, no such right is afforded to people.

Science has advanced to the point where it can describe what you just said in a more honest, scientific way. It's not like we as humanity are new to the concept of causing new life.

[Arlenton]

Governments, and their courts, could rule that a person/fetus is not a person until they are born. Science doesn't dictate policy.

Hence why the debate in this thread exists. The Supreme Court is deciding on this topic. Everyone can hear the debate through PBS. If a case can be made that the viability of the fetus in 2021 is not at the same level as a fetus' viability in 1973, why should the case not be back before the Supreme Court?

Oh you are correct on that, because that is the standard that the SCOTUS is debating on.

But in general, a government is entirely capable of determining whether or not to allow abortion, or set limits on when it can or cannot be done, on a basis completely unrelated to whatever science says. In this case however the SCOTUS is potentially taking science into consideration.

[Kaiserholt]

So the second trimester. Surely after fifty years, we have studied the increase of viability over the second and third trimester. That's the point of science, gathering data that may increase knowledge.

More premature babies are surviving, but pushing survival any earlier is unlikely absent a radical breakthrough. 21 weeks is the time frame when the fetuses brain starts to develop enough to control bodily functions (breathing, eating, heart pumping) outside the womb. Most fetuses in this time frame don't have the brain structure to survive outside the womb.

And those arguments were as true in 1973 as they are today. But as I said, medical science has advanced. Are you, or are you not, willing to take that into account?

[The New California Republic]

She's referring to the fetus gaining the right to use someone's body against their will, no such right is afforded to people.

Science has advanced to the point where it can describe what you just said in a more honest, scientific way. It's not like we as humanity are new to the concept of causing new life.

What on Earth are you talking about? I really don't think you are following what is being said, as what you just said made no sense in relation to what I just said.

[Kaiserholt]

Hence why the debate in this thread exists. The Supreme Court is deciding on this topic. Everyone can hear the debate through PBS. If a case can be made that the viability of the fetus in 2021 is not at the same level as a fetus' viability in 1973, why should the case not be back before the Supreme Court?

Again viability wasn't the standard in 1973, that standard came from 1992, and survivability hasn't gotten any earlier than 1992.

Alright, I correct myself...viability has been around for thirty years, not fifty. That is not a counter-argument to what I said. If it was, that side of the Supreme Court would be making that argument...they're not.

[Kaiserholt]

Hence why the debate in this thread exists. The Supreme Court is deciding on this topic. Everyone can hear the debate through PBS. If a case can be made that the viability of the fetus in 2021 is not at the same level as a fetus' viability in 1973, why should the case not be back before the Supreme Court?

As has been mentioned numerous times, the person hood or lack thereof of a fetus does not really matter. The question is if humans can be forced to give up bodily autonomy to preserve other life.

Yes, I know that the Court of the General Topics Forum has decided. What I'm talking about is the Supreme Court of the United States, and its job to take into account that which has changed since 1973, or 1992, so as to keep things honest.

[Kaiserholt]

Hence why the debate in this thread exists. The Supreme Court is deciding on this topic. Everyone can hear the debate through PBS. If a case can be made that the viability of the fetus in 2021 is not at the same level as a fetus' viability in 1973, why should the case not be back before the Supreme Court?

Oh you are correct on that, because that is the standard that the SCOTUS is debating on.

But in general, a government is entirely capable of determining whether or not to allow abortion, or set limits on when it can or cannot be done, on a basis completely unrelated to whatever science says. In this case however the SCOTUS is potentially taking science into consideration.

And this case will do exactly that, set new allowances and limits on the topic...as it always has.

[Spirit of Hope]

Again viability wasn't the standard in 1973, that standard came from 1992, and survivability hasn't gotten any earlier than 1992.

Alright, I correct myself...viability has been around for thirty years, not fifty. That is not a counter-argument to what I said. If it was, that side of the Supreme Court would be making that argument...they're not.

Well you asked should we re look at the viability standard given changes in medical technology. The answer is no, since medical technology hasn't increased the viability window, just increased survival chances within it.

[Vassenor]

Oh you are correct on that, because that is the standard that the SCOTUS is debating on.

But in general, a government is entirely capable of determining whether or not to allow abortion, or set limits on when it can or cannot be done, on a basis completely unrelated to whatever science says. In this case however the SCOTUS is potentially taking science into consideration.

And this case will do exactly that, set new allowances and limits on the topic...as it always has.

Except that those standards will be based on the feelings of conservative Christians rather than science.

[Kaiserholt]

Alright, I correct myself...viability has been around for thirty years, not fifty. That is not a counter-argument to what I said. If it was, that side of the Supreme Court would be making that argument...they're not.

Well you asked should we re look at the viability standard given changes in medical technology. The answer is no, since medical technology hasn't increased the viability window, just increased survival chances within it.

And now we get back to the topic of honesty. My first comment is on this very page, posted less than an hour ago. There is no indication that I have edited it. Viability is more than the limited scope you've chosen to see it as.