Future of Abortion rights in america. Civil on topic discussion PLEASE.

Gaztopian said:

There are outliers in every demographic, but that doesn't change the prevailing trend therein. It isn't a stretch to say conservatives are generally pro-life and liberals generally pro-choice.

Click to expand...

You may confusing social issues with fiscal issues.

minnie616 said:

You may confusing social issues with fiscal issues.

Click to expand...

Are you saying social conservatives are largely pro-choice and social liberals pro-life?

I answered other because I think theres a part you left out.

I think restrictions will increase sometime in my life time to 20-23 week mark but at the same time I think the grey areas will be also restricted and states trying to infringe on womens rights will find themselves with no room to play in. To many states are trying an mostly failing to back door abortion based on various lies or dishonesty and its going to eventually force precedence that stops that nonsense. Again its funny because its another one of those situations where those people are going to protect abortion rights and make them even more concrete even though they are against those rights lol. Dummies.

LaylaWindu said:

OK the other abortion thread actually went very well, only one real dishonest poster tried anything and we mostly ignored him. So now lets try to continue that, It was a good thread I thought.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/abort...-lets-try-honest-and-civil-communication.html






Ok I'm prolife obviously but I wanna know what people honestly think the future holds for abortion rights. I would like a more restrictive RvW and move to a more European style, 12-18 week ban. With the rights we all have, where most civilized countries are and with the precedence already set I don't think it will ever being lower than 18 weeks in the US. This is not what I want it's what I honestly think will happen. Some links on the abortions around the world are at the end

So the questiontopic is:

What do you think the future holds for abortion rights in america?

Restrictions will lessen in restrictions <24 weeks to unlimited
Restrictions will remain mostly unchanged
Restrictions will increase in restrictions 20-23 weeks
Restrictions will increase in restrictions 16-19 weeks
Restrictions will increase in restrictions 12-15 weeks
Restrictions will increase in restrictions 8-11 weeks
Restrictions will increase and abortions will be mostly banned
Restrictions will increase and abortions will be completely banned

I'm only interested in what you think the future holds for restrictions not in depth views or attacks on others.

Thank you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law
The World's Abortion Laws 2016
Abortion Laws Around the World | Pew Research Center

Click to expand...

The hurdle that has to be cleared before one begins to address "restrictions on developmental stages" of the yet to be born is to understand why women have the Constitutional right to control their reproductive roles. This is where the problem for most pro-life advocates begins.

minnie616 said:

You may confusing social issues with fiscal issues.

Click to expand...

Meh I'm not so sure about that. Many conservatives seem willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces on this issue, since restricting abortion would increase public spending on welfare and other public assistance.

Not to mention that their tax dollars are being well spent on reproductive counseling and subsidized birth control:

U.S. Taxpayers Save $7 for Every $1 the Government Spends on Family Planning

Gaztopian said:

Perhaps a conservatives vs. liberals issue then?

Click to expand...

Nope, not that either in any more of a way than stereotypical.

Removable Mind said:

The hurdle that has to be cleared before one begins to address "restrictions on developmental stages" of the yet to be born is to understand why women have the Constitutional right to control their reproductive roles. This is where the problem for most pro-life advocates begins.

Click to expand...

I'd have to say I agree in some ways and it's why I could never support total bans. As a woman myself I could never subject women to be forced in to birth for any and all reasons, that's moving us as a country back. I however do stay pro-life because I do think there should be a limit to it and the idea of two lives shouldn't be ignored or lightly taken.

LaylaWindu said:

I'd have to say I agree in some ways and it's why I could never support total bans. As a woman myself I could never subject women to be forced in to birth for any and all reasons, that's moving us as a country back. I however do stay pro-life because I do think there should be a limit to it and the idea of two lives shouldn't be ignored or lightly taken.

Click to expand...

By "limit", I assume that means the moment the state has a legal interest and can intervene?

Roe v Wade created the instrument that allows the state to have an interest at a specific time - after conception.

Then in the 1992 case, Planned Parenthood v Casey, the S.C. added two other elements:

1) "Undue burden" was introduced, which means the state can't impose intentional restrictions that make it difficult for women to get an abortion within the Constitutional boundaries. This didn't give rights to the yet to be born, but diminished the rights of women.

2) As medical technology advances in a way that it can be used to enhance the survivability of a fetus outside the womb at a stage of development that is less mature than the current known stage of development referred to as "viable". Then that stage will become the new benchmark for "viability".

Consequently there are "limits" in place, which have more protective elements for the yet to be born. But unfortunately, the "Undue Burden" clause has been turned into a judicial loophole by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of Texas. The 5th Circuit Judges have indulged in redefining "Undue Burden", which led to a S.C. case heard just 2 and half weeks after Scalia's death. The decision will be announced in June.

If the Court's decision is a tie (4 and 4), then the 5th CCA's decision will be honored until such a time the case can be reheard, which there are no rules that says that it has to be reheard within a specific timeframe. In other words, all women within the 5th's jurisdiction (several states) are held captive to its decision, which makes abortion much, much, more difficult to obtain. Most of the judges are anti-abortion. This is judicial activism at its best. They found a loophole and used to maintain more control over women's reproductive rights and role.

Removable Mind said:

By "limit", I assume that means the moment the state has a legal interest and can intervene?

Roe v Wade created the instrument that allows the state to have an interest at a specific time - after conception.

Then in the 1992 case, Planned Parenthood v Casey, the S.C. added two other elements:

1) "Undue burden" was introduced, which means the state can't impose intentional restrictions that make it difficult for women to get an abortion within the Constitutional boundaries. This didn't give rights to the yet to be born, but diminished the rights of women.

2) As medical technology advances in a way that it can be used to enhance the survivability of a fetus outside the womb at a stage of development that is less mature than the current known stage of development referred to as "viable". Then that stage will become the new benchmark for "viability".

Consequently there are "limits" in place, which have more protective elements for the yet to be born. But unfortunately, the "Undue Burden" clause has been turned into a judicial loophole by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of Texas. The 5th Circuit Judges have indulged in redefining "Undue Burden", which led to a S.C. case heard just 2 and half weeks after Scalia's death. The decision will be announced in June.

If the Court's decision is a tie (4 and 4), then the 5th CCA's decision will be honored until such a time the case can be reheard, which there are no rules that says that it has to be reheard within a specific timeframe. In other words, all women within the 5th's jurisdiction (several states) are held captive to its decision, which makes abortion much, much, more difficult to obtain. Most of the judges are anti-abortion. This is judicial activism at its best. They found a loophole and used to maintain more control over women's reproductive rights and role.

Click to expand...

When I said limit in my statement it was for me personally and there's a limit to which I can't simply ignore there ate two lives. Also I don't support the state working on disingenuous ways to be restrictive because that also damages the cause.

LaylaWindu said:

When I said limit in my statement it was for me personally and there's a limit to which I can't simply ignore there ate two lives. Also I don't support the state working on disingenuous ways to be restrictive because that also damages the cause.

Click to expand...

I genuinely do understand your beliefs - that all should acknowledging that there are two lives involved in this dilemma. And at the same time you have a problem with state coercion and/or infringement. But what do you perceive to be an equitable remedy?

Removable Mind said:

I genuinely do understand your beliefs - that all should acknowledging that there are two lives involved in this dilemma. And at the same time you have a problem with state coercion and/or infringement. But what do you perceive to be an equitable remedy?

Click to expand...

Yes I certainly do have a problem with what some states are trying because it's going to be anti productive. It's hinders real talks and what may be real changes in the future. Now I myself don't think america will ever have a system I'd want. I think in the future restrictions may move to the 18-20 week range. In my own poll I voted the 16-19.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/abort...ts-america-civil-topic-discussion-please.html

As for a remedy one isn't possible. That's what I think a lot of people miss. I could come up with something that may satisfy myself but that doesn't make it the remedy that america should use or that's one that relates to rights. I think that's another thing people are afraid to admit or aren't honest about. They assume their own remedy is just right.

LaylaWindu said:

Yes I certainly do have a problem with what some states are trying because it's going to be anti productive. It's hinders real talks and what may be real changes in the future. Now I myself don't think america will ever have a system I'd want. I think in the future restrictions may move to the 18-20 week range. In my own poll I voted the 16-19.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/abort...ts-america-civil-topic-discussion-please.html

As for a remedy one isn't possible. That's what I think a lot of people miss. I could come up with something that may satisfy myself but that doesn't make it the remedy that america should use or that's one that relates to rights. I think that's another thing people are afraid to admit or aren't honest about. They assume their own remedy is just right.

Click to expand...

I don't think that your limitations are all that unreasonable. Most all pro-choice use the stage of "viability" as their line in the sand, if you will. And usually 20 weeks cut-off is acceptable among many, if not most, pro-choice advocates.

I agree with your comments above, which I bolded. This is a difficult social dilemma, but I believe even a more difficult dilemma for individual women who are faced with having to make such a choice. But the last two sentences in your comment - is probably the most significant perspective that you've shared. We are all worlds unto ourselves. I don't think we're capable of being any other way...YET!

I think that people also overlook the fact that most pro-choice women have, do, and will openly admit that they wouldn't personally have an abortion. But that they realize the many variables that might necessitate a woman choosing to have an abortion, which they believe government should have no interest.

The primary conflict between pro-choice and pro-life advocates comes a set of variables that are often referred to by pro-life advocates as "abortion out of convenience". The single most condemned element of abortion by pro-life advocates is related to the term or word "convenience" because they have their own personal concept of what "convenience" means to them.

The word or term "convenience", is abstract and purely subjective, even among pro-choice advocates. For example, most pro-choice condemn abortion out of convenience beyond the developmental stage of viability.

With the above being said, we do have a history to review with regard to women's sense of responsibility in their reproductive roles. We know that most conceptions are brought to full-term. And using the Canadian laws to illustrate a point that I think is often overlooked or ignored is that Canada has zero restrictions on abortion. Yet, women in Canada have a slight higher rate of having 12 weeks and under abortions that women in America...which is currently in the lower 90% range. Why? Because women know that their are risks that they don't want to have to be faced with by prolonging getting an abortion past the 12 or 13 week time frame.

So I opine that the vast majority of women do make prudent choices as to when they have abortions. But pro-life advocates don't care about that. They look way more at WHY they choose to abort.

This is a tough deal...but in the end, my support goes to women's rights to equal to protection under the law, the right to due process under the law, and the right to privacy - all enjoyed in the same manner as men.

Removable Mind said:

I don't think that your limitations are all that unreasonable. Most all pro-choice use the stage of "viability" as their line in the sand, if you will. And usually 20 weeks cut-off is acceptable among many, if not most, pro-choice advocates.

I agree with your comments above, which I bolded. This is a difficult social dilemma, but I believe even a more difficult dilemma for individual women who are faced with having to make such a choice. But the last two sentences in your comment - is probably the most significant perspective that you've shared. We are all worlds unto ourselves. I don't think we're capable of being any other way...YET!

I think that people also overlook the fact that most pro-choice women have, do, and will openly admit that they wouldn't personally have an abortion. But that they realize the many variables that might necessitate a woman choosing to have an abortion, which they believe government should have no interest.

The primary conflict between pro-choice and pro-life advocates comes a set of variables that are often referred to by pro-life advocates as "abortion out of convenience". The single most condemned element of abortion by pro-life advocates is related to the term or word "convenience" because they have their own personal concept of what "convenience" means to them.

The word or term "convenience", is abstract and purely subjective, even among pro-choice advocates. For example, most pro-choice condemn abortion out of convenience beyond the developmental stage of viability.

With the above being said, we do have a history to review with regard to women's sense of responsibility in their reproductive roles. We know that most conceptions are brought to full-term. And using the Canadian laws to illustrate a point that I think is often overlooked or ignored is that Canada has zero restrictions on abortion. Yet, women in Canada have a slight higher rate of having 12 weeks and under abortions that women in America...which is currently in the lower 90% range. Why? Because women know that their are risks that they don't want to have to be faced with by prolonging getting an abortion past the 12 or 13 week time frame.

So I opine that the vast majority of women do make prudent choices as to when they have abortions. But pro-life advocates don't care about that. They look way more at WHY they choose to abort.

This is a tough deal...but in the end, my support goes to women's rights to equal to protection under the law, the right to due process under the law, and the right to privacy - all enjoyed in the same manner as men.

Click to expand...

Thank you and I bolded what I think are important parts of your post also. I agree with the word convenience, in my groups we do not use that word. I know it was a catch phrase for a while and used to describe certain types of abortions but we think it's dishonest and not an accurate description at all. It's one of those false terms that are used more for sensationalizing and not honest talks. So many talks are cut short and stopped before they take off by things like "convenience", "murders", ""meaningless glob of cells" etc. We avoid stuff like that in my groups simply because they are counter productive and disingenuous.

The second bolded point is also something that is frowned upon by my groups and the majority of normal prolifers I know, so please don't group us all together. While I am most certainly sure some women are careless I agree the reality is most are not and most do take the decision seriously. I have never been able to convince myself of the talking points that it's just a lot of sluts and floozies having thoughtless abortions, that's silly. Reality doesn't support that.

LaylaWindu said:

Thank you and I bolded what I think are important parts of your post also. I agree with the word convenience, in my groups we do not use that word. I know it was a catch phrase for a while and used to describe certain types of abortions but we think it's dishonest and not an accurate description at all. It's one of those false terms that are used more for sensationalizing and not honest talks. So many talks are cut short and stopped before they take off by things like "convenience", "murders", ""meaningless glob of cells" etc. We avoid stuff like that in my groups simply because they are counter productive and disingenuous.

The second bolded point is also something that is frowned upon by my groups and the majority of normal prolifers I know, so please don't group us all together. While I am most certainly sure some women are careless I agree the reality is most are not and most do take the decision seriously. I have never been able to convince myself of the talking points that it's just a lot of sluts and floozies having thoughtless abortions, that's silly. Reality doesn't support that.

Click to expand...

Well, I think that our exchange really brings to the forefront that there is a philosophical continuum on which we all have a position.

If the far left end of the continuum represents 100% pro-abortion and the far right end represents 100% anti-abortion I believe that there's few people who are 100% on either end of the continuum. And to me, being 100% isn't a healthy place to be in matters such as this.

So I certainly don't find you to be at the extreme end of anti-abortion. But I also believe that you'll find that very few pro-choice advocates who are at the extreme end of pro-abortion.

In fact, I would say that the closer to the center a person is from the extreme end of pro-abortion comes the majority of "Pro-Choice". And the closer to the center of the continuum from the extreme end anti-choice come the majority of "Pro-life" because most do believe that in cases of rape, incest, or the long-term health or life of the woman is at stake - those are valid reasons for abortion.

To make myself more clear...

I distinguish "Pro-Abortion as being different than "Pro-Choice". I see a pure pro-abortion person as an individuals who sets zero limits on abortion - up to minutes before the natural birth time of a fetus.

I distinguish "Anti-Abortion" as being different than "Pro-life". I see a pure anti-abortion person as an individual who believes that the fetus' life always comes before the life of the woman who hosts its presence - under all circumstances.

Unfortunately, there's no way to bring both sides to the center of the continuum. Dunno. Maybe believing that the center of the continuum even exists is wishful thinking.

Thanks...

Removable Mind said:

Well, I think that our exchange really brings to the forefront that there is a philosophical continuum on which we all have a position.

If the far left end of the continuum represents 100% pro-abortion and the far right end represents 100% anti-abortion I believe that there's few people who are 100% on either end of the continuum. And to me, being 100% isn't a healthy place to be in matters such as this.

So I certainly don't find you to be at the extreme end of anti-abortion. But I also believe that you'll find that very few pro-choice advocates who are at the extreme end of pro-abortion.

In fact, I would say that the closer to the center a person is from the extreme end of pro-abortion comes the majority of "Pro-Choice". And the closer to the center of the continuum from the extreme end anti-choice come the majority of "Pro-life" because most do believe that in cases of rape, incest, or the long-term health or life of the woman is at stake - those are valid reasons for abortion.

To make myself more clear...

I distinguish "Pro-Abortion as being different than "Pro-Choice". I see a pure pro-abortion person as an individuals who sets zero limits on abortion - up to minutes before the natural birth time of a fetus.

I distinguish "Anti-Abortion" as being different than "Pro-life". I see a pure anti-abortion person as an individual who believes that the fetus' life always comes before the life of the woman who hosts its presence - under all circumstances.

Unfortunately, there's no way to bring both sides to the center of the continuum. Dunno. Maybe believing that the center of the continuum even exists is wishful thinking.

Thanks...

Click to expand...

I have found the same to be true in my travels also, most people are somewhere in the middle. I myself identify as pro-life but have been told but at least one nutty extremist here that I'm not. It's like you said the reality is if 5 is the middle and that's the line between pro life/choice I bet the majority ranges from 3-8 and very few are 1/2s and 9/10s.