Roe V Wade history?

[piece-itpete]

The investigative Dynamic Duo, Woodward and Armstrong, covered the inside story of Roe vs Wade in their great book 'The Brethren'.

I highly rec reading at least that chapter. Whether you're for or against the outcome, it was definitely legislating from the bench.

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Ascribing uncompromisable sacred status to zygotes is likewise a personal care and indulgence, of a religious nature. Some people do this ascribing, some don't. It boils down to whose attitude toward a zygote should prevail, that of the person carrying it, or that of others, who thereby gain profound control over the person.

Yeah, the position that life begins at conception probably has religious origins. So, let's set that aside for a minute and get specific, because (with apologies to those coming at this argument with a religious axe to grind) the devil is in the details.

If Democrats could wind back the clock to 1992, and agree as a matter of principle that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare", I suspect a healthy majority of Americans could get behind that. But witnessing some of State the laws, and quasi-nonsensical positions (as we heard this week on Capitol Hill from the testimony of abortion advocates and other recent testimony from those on the left) like a woman is defined by a person's preferred identification, or maybe as with our newest SCOTUS justice a lack of willingness to take a public position on the definition of a woman, or that men can get pregnant and have abortions, and late 3rd trimester abortions are just fine regardless of circumstance, and/or abortion as a birth control method is encouraged....well, you get the idea.

As I've already documented in this thread, these are NOT mainstream ideas. In fact, as early as 2012 when Tulsi Gabbard invoked Clinton's "safe, legal and rare" phrase in a Democrat election-year debate, she was roasted for it by members of her own party. The Dems have since expunged any trace of "safe, legal and rare" from their platform.

Most folks tend to agree with the idea that abortion isn't birth control, but should be an option in some cases, such as rape or incest (which account for a tiny percentage of reported reasons for abortion). So-called late-term abortions are just as rare, by the way.

But that's not what this argument is really about (nor is it about "zygotes") though the comments by many in this thread would suggest otherwise. To me, it's not even about choice. If it were about choice, then more folks on the left and right of this argument might find at least a little common ground.

It can't be about "choice" when the pro-abortion crowd takes a presidential candidate to task for suggesting that the term "rare" has no place in a discussion of abortion advocacy. It can't be about choice when one side of the argument can't even agree on what a woman is. It can't be about choice when the hint of a threat to Roe V Wade prompts protests outside the homes of SCOTUS judges (which certainly appear to be in violation of Federal law, even though the current Justice Dept doesn't have the balls to enforce that law).

This is about one side advocating for abortion on demand, for any reason, any time, anywhere and there is no middle ground to that position. And sure, there are extremists on the pro-life side. At one time, there may have been some ability to find common ground on regulating abortions, but the extremists on the left now regard themselves as the "centrists" in this argument.

If I'm incorrect on this, then please let me know where in this debate the "less extreme" sides of this argument might find compromise and agreement.

[Chicks]

Forced birther tells Congress that fetuses are incinerated to generate electricity for D.C

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2022/...es-and-streets

Pretty sure we all know which side has the nuttiest nut jobs.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by whell

(nor is it about "zygotes")

By clinging tenaciously to "zygotes" the hope is the diminution of humane consideration and especially conscience.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

By clinging tenaciously to "zygotes" the hope is the diminution of humane consideration and especially conscience.

Oh you see right through me. I of course should drop all more specific terms in favor of 'baby?' But for the vast majority of pregnancy terminations, zygotes is technically correct. Because the vast majority of pregnancy terminations are by prevention of implantation, by device or drugs. The current ideology would rule these terminations murder. Do you share this view?

Again, rights in conflict. You ascribe moral status and rights to a developing human, pre-brith, from the point of a fertilized egg forward. I say the woman, whether adult or barely-pubescent girl, has rights to bodily autonomy. A right you also share. Would you like it if someone took away your bodily autonomy because someone really needed your bone marrow? What compels me to recognize these purported rights of, in general, insensate clusters of cells, over the rights of grown free citizens?

You have only your moral sense to support your view. Why should your moral sense rule others? This is another of those issues that Lewis Carrol described, when he had a character say 'The question is, which is to be master--that's all.'

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Oh you see right through me. I of course should drop all more specific terms in favor of 'baby?' But for the vast majority of pregnancy terminations, zygotes is technically correct. Because the vast majority of pregnancy terminations are by prevention of implantation, by device or drugs. The current ideology would rule these terminations murder. Do you share this view?

Again, rights in conflict. You ascribe moral status and rights to a developing human, pre-brith, from the point of a fertilized egg forward. I say the woman, whether adult or barely-pubescent girl, has rights to bodily autonomy. A right you also share. Would you like it if someone took away your bodily autonomy because someone really needed your bone marrow? What compels me to recognize these purported rights of, in general, insensate clusters of cells, over the rights of grown free citizens?

You have only your moral sense to support your view. Why should your moral sense rule others? This is another of those issues that Lewis Carrol described, when he had a character say 'The question is, which is to be master--that's all.'

I see you ducked the question. My post wan't about "seeing through you", nor do I care about that. The post wasn't even about my " moral view" though I suspect you'd rather make the conversation about that.

No, it was about the apparently leftward drift and extreme positions that many abortionists have adopted over time. I described some very specific practices that many abortion advocates favor, and have stated that while most folks when polled say they want Roe v Wade left alone, that same polling reveals a lack of support for those more controversial procedures.

So, the question again is: given the extreme positions that exist with most abortion advocates, and discounting the extremities of individuals on both sides of this debate, is there any common ground where there might be agreement or compromise?

[whell]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

By clinging tenaciously to "zygotes" the hope is the diminution of humane consideration and especially conscience.

Agreed.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Forced birther tells Congress that fetuses are incinerated to generate electricity for D.C

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2022/...es-and-streets

Pretty sure we all know which side has the nuttiest nut jobs.

Yes, we do.

https://news.yahoo.com/dem-witness-t...204839024.html

Aimee Arrambide, the executive director of the abortion rights nonprofit Avow Texas, was asked by Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., to define what "a woman is," to which she responded, "I believe that everyone can identify for themselves."

"Do you believe that men can become pregnant and have abortions?" Bishop asked.

"Yes," Arrambide replied.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

I see you ducked the question.

Didn't duck a thing. Post was on point with Dondilion's post, and I was replying to him, not to you. I never respond to your posts--well, hardly ever. The reason I don't reply to you, btw, is you are so often over-argumentative. See above.

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Didn't duck a thing. Post was on point with Dondilion's post, and I was replying to him, not to you. I never respond to your posts--well, hardly ever. The reason I don't reply to you, btw, is you are so often over-argumentative. See above.

"Over-argumentative". Right....