The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[twa]

Polling is fun, and subject to bias

Quote

A new poll conducted by the Barna Group reveals that an overwhelming majority of Americans—nearly 7 out of 10—agree with the premise of the Heartbeat Protection Act of 2017.

Otherwise known as the "federal heartbeat bill," HR 490 was offered by pro-life U.S. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who has vowed to introduce the bill into every Congress until it is adopted. In a nutshell, the bill would prohibit abortions everywhere in America whenever a fetal heartbeat is detected.

According to the Barna findings, 69 percent of Americans agree with the statement "If a doctor is able to detect the heartbeat of an unborn baby, that unborn baby should be legally protected." While the measure is much greater support among Republicans (86 percent) and independents (61 percent), even a majority of Democrats (55 percent) who were polled said they supported the statement.

https://www.charismanews.com/politics/issues/62995-barna-poll-7-out-of-10-americans-support-heartbeat-bill-legislation

 

 

[Bozo the kKklown]

CBS News: A pregnant 11-year-old rape victim in Ohio would no longer be allowed to have an abortion under new state law

[Springfield]

Ultimately, I think that these laws won’t effect me or my wife as we are married and planning on possibly having one more kid.

 

...except it could.  My wife is about to be 35, so any future pregnancies carry a certain amount of “risk” both to her and to the child.  The option to abort the pregnancy if needed should still be available.

 

Anti-abortion folks are just simple.

[superozman]

22 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

CBS News: A pregnant 11-year-old rape victim in Ohio would no longer be allowed to have an abortion under new state law

 

I saw this yesterday, and IMO, this goes to the most extreme case to say "This is why we shouldn't have this bill".  However, when you read the bill, a doctor can logically, simply argue that this 11 year old's health would be in danger in numerous ways if she went to term.  Then normal abortion laws kick in, 24 hours to look over information given, everyone sign off and that 11 year old (hopefully) with her parents give the doctor the decision.

 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

34 minutes ago, twa said:

Polling is fun, and subject to bias

 

Remember when all the polls said Hillary was going to win?  Fun times.

[nonniey]

1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

 

The vast majority of the public is pro-choice. The only place where the "argument is being won" are the most bigoted and backwards parts of America.

 

You are also an extremist, don't pretend otherwise. It's really too bad we have to share the country with you medieval wankers.

The vast majority are also opposed to allowing late term abortions on viable fetuses. The United States is the most permissive country in the world (Tied with a very few) when it comes to allowing late term abortions.  No European country for example would allow what a few of our states allow (Not even Holland).

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by nonniey

[Bang]

Conservatives love themselves a nanny state.

 

**** your theocracy.

 

~Bang

[No Excuses]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

Where do you get that from?

 

Things are split about 50-50 if you just ask pro-life or pro-choice.

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx

 

Essentially 50% believes abortion should be legal under certain circumstances.

 

And it has been that way for decades.

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/183434/americans-choose-pro-choice-first-time-seven-years.aspx

 

Aggregates of all polling seem to put the number around 55%-60% pro-choice and 70% for not overturning Roe:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/07/19/whos-in-favor-of-abortion/

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by No Excuses

[nonniey]

46 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Ultimately, I think that these laws won’t effect me or my wife as we are married and planning on possibly having one more kid.

 

...except it could.  My wife is about to be 35, so any future pregnancies carry a certain amount of “risk” both to her and to the child.  The option to abort the pregnancy if needed should still be available.

 

Anti-abortion folks are just simple.

Do you live in Alabama? (And no I don't agree with Alabama's new law).

[NoCalMike]

29 minutes ago, superozman said:

 

I saw this yesterday, and IMO, this goes to the most extreme case to say "This is why we shouldn't have this bill".  However, when you read the bill, a doctor can logically, simply argue that this 11 year old's health would be in danger in numerous ways if she went to term. 

 

 

 

Oh wait, you mean a medical decision being made between Doctor & patient? What a novel idea. Maybe from here on out Women can use "my life is in danger" the way police do.  

Edited May 15, 2019 by NoCalMike

[No Excuses]

20 minutes ago, nonniey said:

The vast majority are also opposed to allowing late term abortions on viable fetuses. The United States is the most permissive country in the world (Tied with a very few) when it comes to allowing late term abortions.  No European country for example would allow what a few of our states allow (Not even Holland).

 

 

“Late term abortions” make up around 1% of all abortions. It’s a nonsense issue made up my conservatives that hardly ever happens in the real world.

 

And the real irony is that what limited data is available on the few late-term abortions seems to suggest that a good amount of them happen because of lack of access to early-abortion care facilities, something that has been a deliberate attempt of state-level Republican policies: 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/tough-questions-answers-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/

Edited May 15, 2019 by No Excuses

[Warhead36]

I just don't get it. How does a woman having an abortion affect your life at all? Let them do whatever they want.

 

Republicans care so much about unborn babies, but as soon as they come out the womb...death to their health insurance! Let them die by gunfire!

[PeterMP]

9 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Aggregates of all polling seem to put the number around 55%-60% pro-choice and 70% for not overturning Roe:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/07/19/whos-in-favor-of-abortion/

 

 

I wouldn't call 55-60% a vast majority, and there are plenty of people that support Roe v. Wade, think there should be restrictions and identify as pro-life.  Your link also never puts the numbers out there of 55-60% as identifying as pro-life.  Your link doesn't support what you've said, and even from your story, it is support not COMPLETELY overturning Roe v. Wade.

 

"A December 2016 Pew poll found 69 percent of Americans saying they did not want to see Roe v. Wade completely overturned."

 

There is a difference.

[nonniey]

1 minute ago, No Excuses said:

 

“Late term abortions” make up around 1% of all abortions. It’s a nonsense issue made up my conservatives that hardly ever happens in the real world.

 

And the real irony is that what limited data is available on the few late-term abortions seems to suggest that a good amount of them happen because of lack of access to early-abortion care facilities, something that has been a deliberate attempt of state-level Republican policies: https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/tough-questions-answers-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/

Yep 1% and yes even among those 1% the vast majority are legitimately done. I think it is only between 3 and 10 thousand abortions per year of viable fetuses that are terminated by (ethically challenged?) abortion providers who are protected by the law they work under.  

 

So I take it you are good with that? It is only 3-10 thousand after all.  I'm not good with that.

[Springfield]

7 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Do you live in Alabama? (And no I don't agree with Alabama's new law).

 

Nope.

 

My understanding is that these laws will be popping up all over the country in conservative states in hopes of challenging Roe.  It’s no secret that Trump has been trying to fill the courts with litmus tester conservative justices.  I think the conservative states are trying their luck now that the opportunity has presented itself.

 

Virginia, while solidly blue, certainly has a large area of red still left and the state House isn’t exactly lopsided to the left.  We’re basically one bad election away from republican control.  Doubt the governor goes republican any time soon though, so at least there’s that.

 

(and again, I never PLAN on having my wife get an abortion.  There are certainly circumstances where we would consider it though)

[Fresh8686]

Anybody been reading up on Dr Giulio Tononi's work Consciousness via the framework of Integrated Information Theory?

I bring it up here, because his work is seeking to provide a framework for answering what are the criteria and commensurate threshold levels that need to be met for consideration of the presence of consciousness. Eventually this could prove to be a better determinant for when abortion can and cannot be done rather than things like heartbeat or whatever.
 

Quote

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2014.0167

Abstract

The science of consciousness has made great strides by focusing on the behavioural and neuronal correlates of experience. However, while such correlates are important for progress to occur, they are not enough if we are to understand even basic facts, for example, why the cerebral cortex gives rise to consciousness but the cerebellum does not, though it has even more neurons and appears to be just as complicated. Moreover, correlates are of little help in many instances where we would like to know if consciousness is present: patients with a few remaining islands of functioning cortex, preterm infants, non-mammalian species and machines that are rapidly outperforming people at driving, recognizing faces and objects, and answering difficult questions. To address these issues, we need not only more data but also a theory of consciousness—one that says what experience is and what type of physical systems can have it. Integrated information theory (IIT) does so by starting from experience itself via five phenomenological axioms: intrinsic existence, composition, information, integration and exclusion. From these it derives five postulates about the properties required of physical mechanisms to support consciousness. The theory provides a principled account of both the quantity and the quality of an individual experience (a quale), and a calculus to evaluate whether or not a particular physical system is conscious and of what. Moreover, IIT can explain a range of clinical and laboratory findings, makes a number of testable predictions and extrapolates to a number of problematic conditions. The theory holds that consciousness is a fundamental property possessed by physical systems having specific causal properties. It predicts that consciousness is graded, is common among biological organisms and can occur in some very simple systems. Conversely, it predicts that feed-forward networks, even complex ones, are not conscious, nor are aggregates such as groups of individuals or heaps of sand. Also, in sharp contrast to widespread functionalist beliefs, IIT implies that digital computers, even if their behaviour were to be functionally equivalent to ours, and even if they were to run faithful simulations of the human brain, would experience next to nothing.

 

[Larry]

41 minutes ago, nonniey said:

The vast majority are also opposed to allowing late term abortions on viable fetuses. 

 

 

Something which happens incredibly rarely. And, apparently, only in very specific cases. 

 

Granted, what I learned about it comes from some articles I read when that abortion doctor (Tiller?) got murdered. But the things that the article mentioned:. 

 

He was one of only four (now three) doctors in the entire country willing to perform late term abortions. 

 

The four of them combined performed (I don't remember the number, but less than 100) last year. 

 

For every one he had performed, he had to maintain documentation to prove that either the mother would have died or suffered irreparable harm if the pregnancy continued, or that it was biologically impossible that the fetus would survive birth. 

 

(One case the article mentioned - There's supposedly this incredibly rare medical condition, in which the fetus fails to grow lungs. The fetus is alive right now. It's heart is beating. He's kicking inside mommy. He moves his arms. And it is absolutely guaranteed that it will die, two minutes after birth). 

 

And not only does the doctor need to certify this, in writing. Two other doctors have to certify it, too. 

 

These laws aren't about preventing 100 abortions three weeks before the due date. They're about preventing 500,000 abortions one week after the pregnancy test. 

[bearrock]

12 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Yep 1% and yes even among those 1% the vast majority are legitimately done. I think it is only between 3 and 10 thousand abortions per year of viable fetuses that are terminated by (ethically challenged?) abortion providers who are protected by the law they work under.  

 

So I take it you are good with that? It is only 3-10 thousand after all.  I'm not good with that.

 

I could support a drastic curtailing of late term abortion (health of mother exception only in case of viable fetus.  I suppose rape/incest too, but not really sure why those scenarios would go all the way to late term) in exchange for vast expansion of early care/abortion availability for pregnant women, easy access to plan B pills, and easy access to birth control.  

[Springfield]

How about this.  Abortion ban in exchange for national health care and UBI.  Seems like a fair trade.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I get frustrated when so many people throw around Roe v Wade like it said abortion is a women's right and that is that.  That is not even close to what was ruled.  For those not aware:

Quote

The court divided pregnancy into three trimesters, and declared that the choice to end a pregnancy in the first trimester was solely up to the woman. In the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion, although not ban it, in order to protect the mother’s health.

In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger.

https://www.history.com/topics/womens-rights/roe-v-wade#section_4

[NoCalMike]

I also question polls when it comes to abortion specifically Roe v. Wade because as society gets further removed from a pre-Rove v. Wade era, less people know and really understand what it was like back then for women.   And if you think this will stop at abortion you are very likely wrong.  A lot of these evangelicals see abortion as only one piece to the puzzle and while a portion of them are truly being honest with their "sanctity of life" belief, there is also a portion that want to go back to an era where women in general had less independence and economic mobility.  Birth control and any other preventative measures for becoming pregnant in the first place is the next step. 

Edited May 15, 2019 by NoCalMike

[PeterMP]

32 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

I just don't get it. How does a woman having an abortion affect your life at all? Let them do whatever they want.

 

We legislate many things that then don't affect other people in the population.  In the context of this conversation, the obvious analogy is if somebody decides to kill their 2 day old infant, how does it affect me?  Why should it be illegal?

[TheGoodBits]

29 minutes ago, Springfield said:

How about this.  Abortion ban in exchange for national health care and UBI.  Seems like a fair trade.

 

Yep, I’ve been saying that for years. If Republicans really wanted to significantly reduce abortions they could invest in helping women afford children, invest in education about and access to contraceptives. They don’t support any of that. 

[bearrock]

23 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I get frustrated when so many people throw around Roe v Wade like it said abortion is a women's right and that is that.  That is not even close to what was ruled.  For those not aware:

https://www.history.com/topics/womens-rights/roe-v-wade#section_4

 

Well, it is a right until fetus becomes viable outside the womb.  States can start curtailing it after fetus becomes viable outside the womb.  (Casey has a clearer discussion of the current constitutional framework).

[TheGreatBuzz]

14 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

Yep, I’ve been saying that for years. If Republicans really wanted to significantly reduce abortions they could invest in helping women afford children, invest in education about and access to contraceptives. They don’t support any of that. 

I've been saying the Left and Right should get together and have an "abortion and gun control" give and take.  Solve both issues.

 

 

7 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Well, it is a right until fetus becomes viable outside the womb.  States can start curtailing it after fetus becomes viable outside the womb.  (Casey has a clearer discussion of the current constitutional framework).

 

Um, that is not what Roe v Wade says.  

 

35 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

In the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion, although not ban it, in order to protect the mother’s health.