This business about "Abortion"

[Maxmars]

I recently found an article in Fox regarding Trumps intentions on the "issue" of abortion.  Needless to say, like all 'sanctioned' media, it is rife with holes and gaps.  But I read these things with that in mind.  I understand that whenever entertainment of the "news" flavor surfaces, it will be in some way biased.  It is the hazard of journalism.  To say it wasn't a 'choice' about how to report and what to say would be as incorrect as it would be correct.

Balanced reporting is about facts, which can be eminently boring to the reporter.  They frequently offset this boredom by including opinions (attributed or otherwise) and craft the story with those opinion driving the narrative.  In modern times, say after the emergence of mass media empires, journalists were encouraged to "engender activism," it would appear it was considered "good business."  The world, suddenly driven to mass consumption of "information," became the petri dish for many bad experiments.  But that's another story.

This article... (Trump promotes abortion compromise as Democrats push issue in 2024 race) Details a few things, namely that Mr. Trump is "announcing" his intention to pursue a "compromise" regarding the existing furor over government mandates regarding abortion limitations.  Apparently, the Democrat party is stridently seeking "changes" that reduces (eliminates?) the government's power to limit a citizen's access to medically-provided abortion services.

Now enter the noise, let's dispel the demons.  I'm not going to talk about whether there is an undue ideological motivation behind one side of the argument, I'm not going to characterize the activism of either camp.  I'm not going to belabor economic exploitation of the topic.  I refuse to name-call and participate in what many seem only too thrilled to do... namely, turn the issue into a social media joke compartmentalized into 'camps.'  But I just want to point out that unless we engage personally, directly, the camps' chatter is pretty much all we get to hear anymore...

Political comprise has a few eternal characteristics... One - Neither side fully "wins." Two - Both sides are free to bitch about it, while keeping the contention alive.  Think of it as a political arms treaty.  Neither party can claim a win, nor can it be said that either side lost; the fight isn't over, but we are going to "move on" for now.  I call it tweaking the status quo.  The radicals on both sides will self-identify as they rage-on forward (hoping to set fire to the other sides ideological edifice), and the press will fan the flames (as they always do) equally self-identifying in form and function.

The American genius for compromise is, unfortunately, often instinctually over-relied upon, I think.  Sometimes "deciding" can't be half-assed or lukewarm - we've already seen where that might lead us as a society.

A compromise on this matter is akin to "kicking the can down the road" which, as we have learned, is considered somewhat 'virtuous' to politicians.  But there is a danger in doing this.  And those who will suffer, are powerless to control the dialogue.  The exploitation of public debate is ever present.

But our political construct demands "dancing around Democracy" and politicians are well-trained in the dance.  With those that they claim as allies, will offer anything to end the debate, from total distraction, to polarizing public relations and theater.  And I think we must refuse them the control of us they so heavily abuse.

Whatever can be said about abortion is usually ignoring something else.  Every statement that is universally true on the matter is refused a place at the table.  Should it be a "never" thing? Should it be completely abolished, "Damn the torpedoes!"-style?  Should be entirely up to the individual(s) directly involved (that's another ball of twine to unravel?) Should only be the child bearer's decision?  Can any other third-party have a "say?" Can a doctor be compelled to provide the service? Can a doctor be compelled to refuse the service?  All of these questions lead to half-answers, and conditional rationale.  A government full of the politically motivated can't possibly be 'relied upon' to provide an answer... all they ever come up with is "ambiguous math."

I will spare you my opinion about it further. I am not a journalist.

Just felt like offering this up for discussion.  If your game.

[BeTheGoddess]

You cant ban abortions, you can only ban safe and legal abortions. The pro-life folk dont realize those newborns found in dumpsters are the result of a ban on abortions.

[Maxmars]

You cant ban abortions, you can only ban safe and legal abortions. The pro-life folk dont realize those newborns found in dumpsters are the result of a ban on abortions.

It reassures me that you are approaching the issue, rather than flittering around the theater and scenery.

I think you cannot "ban" abortions, any more than you can ban sex.  Of course, abortion is no more worthy of being a "right" than eating tacos or having sex in the first place.

People have been aborting pregnancies since they realized it could be done.  This isn't a modern phenomenon (such as social activism and media saturation) ... this is an individual practice that different societies have experienced for centuries at least, millennia more likely.  Was it ever 'safe?'  Probably not for the child bearer (and by definition, certainly not for the nascent human.)

"Legal" abortion seems really difficult to embrace as a concept.  Probably because the idea invokes the opposite idea of "illegal" which implies crime. 

First of all, once it's legal, it begins to take on the air of a "right" ... as if people have been 'oppressed' forever because they couldn't spontaneously abort their pregnancies.  Secondly, abortions have been a reality since before there were ever overlords who deigned to "opine" and "rule" on the practice.  Hell, most men of antiquity probably never even heard of such a thing and would never even consider it in terms of 'social order."

For some in government the idea of a "ban" on abortions has to do with pandering to constituents who like so many of us, find it easy to judge others, never having walked a mile in their shoes.  No politician reminds their adoring crowds that human life can be harsh and complicated enough, and we should not indulge our egos to add 'unforgiving' into the mix.  Others in government are in fact "ideologically biased" (gasp!) which is, in and of itself, not a crime nor a detriment.  Others might be among the sex-crazed wanting nothing more than to cater to the sex-focused (thank you media conditioning.)

We also must embrace another painfully obvious reality.  People start as fetuses.  There's no point in litigating some arbitrary "starting point" measured in microns, minutes, or grams.  I started as one, you started as one, everyone did.  We must stop giving credence to the activist zealots whose success solely depends on "redefining" reality.  When that redefinition falters in its ability to persuade, they break out the "Big Book of Exceptions."  Because if they can't have capitulation in their favor, they will overwhelm the narrative with those aforementioned harsh and complicated realities to anyone remaining in the argument.

In someone's idea of a perfect world, I suppose, a person could just 'decide' that they were not pregnant.  No action needed.  Perhaps a Utopian reality where a person can choose whether or not to conceive at all.  In such a world a person might be able to eat whatever they want, and not get sick, or fat.  A person might be able to cut off their nose to spite their face, and yet it would grow back if it turns out it was a mistake.  This is not such a world, it has never been, nor will it ever be.  Actions have consequences... always.

As BeTheGoddess has so wisely illuminated ... this whole political side show is not really about 'abortion'... it is about 'abortion services.'  There is a discussion to be entertained regarding abortion in principle, but it's the 'services' that provides the dissention, which activists, politicians, and media exploit so well.  This public tug of war is a game/entertainment production, presented by people for whom theater is everything.  Where "Appearances" are more important than reality...

No law will ever stop that people can be in such a state as to not want to be pregnant (then there are the exceptions to 'wanting'.)  Hence, abortions will always exist.

My prognosis: On the heels of the theoretical 'right' to abortion succeeding, you will find a massive 1000% increase 'built-in' to the profit of providing the service... because that's how modern doctors and their insurance masters (banks) "do."  (Of course, the cost will be to the taxpayer, not the patient ... that would be 'wrong.')  If it is outright "banned" we must face the reality that we are proving to people in our society that the resolution of your plight is in someone else's hands... not your own.  That you are not "free" in that way.

The truth is, if this were the democracy that we keep being told it is, LEGISLATORS would take this up, and create a representation of public consensus by virtue of their constituencies.  But they haven't, and it appears that they may never.  Thier 'decision' in the past to relegate this to a high court shows just how cowardly they have been with this subject.  Their job is explicitly to represent us... but they are afraid to... because 'careers.'

Have I tired you out yet?  I have questions and comments on this... but truthfully, because of my nature and inclination, I have avoided encounters on this topic... too much "noise" ... too much "activist poison" in the mix.   But I figure, here in DI, there's a much better chance that we can actually discuss it.  The way politicians and media talking heads never do.

Thanks for participating in this thread... I am grateful.

[FlyersFan]

The truth is, if this were the democracy that we keep being told it is, LEGISLATORS would take this up, and create a representation of public consensus by virtue of their constituencies.  

That's why Roe v Wade was done away with.  It never should have been in the SCOTUS to begin with.  In the USA it's a states rights issue, and that's what it is now.  Every state can decide what the people of that state want.  If the majority say 'no abortion' then that's what it is.  If the majority say 'yes abortion' then that's what it is.  Abortion is a medical procedure in which one human stops another humans heart from beating.  (which the law says about born people is homicide).  Medical procedures are not covered in the US Constitution and therefore each state decides for their own state ... as it should be.

[Maxmars]

That's why Roe v Wade was done away with.  It never should have been in the SCOTUS to begin with.  In the USA it's a states rights issue, and that's what it is now.  Every state can decide what the people of that state want.  If the majority say 'no abortion' then that's what it is.  If the majority say 'yes abortion' then that's what it is.  Abortion is a medical procedure in which one human stops another humans heart from beating.  (which the law says about born people is homicide).  Medical procedures are not covered in the US Constitution and therefore each state decides for their own state ... as it should be.

Oh how I agree!

Roe v Wade as a 'precedent' was a shameful dereliction of our legislator's duty.  And the fact that its reversal caused so much uproar against the court was a shameful activist stratagem.   One which the press and media should be immensely embarrassed about.  They knew that Roe v. Wade was never "law."  They knew that legislators had "kicked the can down the road" for their own political convenience - and the court had been left no choice but to make a ruling - for the sake of political theater.  But the fantasy of the "abortion rights" trope was "sold" to the public anyway.  Journalist "activism" anyone?

I try not to expound on my own predilections and opinions about the matter, because I think whether it is morally right or wrong is entirely beside the point that it has been monumentally mishandled and allowed to be the subject of theatrical endeavors by activists, the ideologically motivated, and "commerce."  Expecting resolution of this matter by the clown-show is self-defeating... they just want this show to continue... with legislators claiming no responsibility for the one thing they are there to do.  Make a case and vote on it as your constituency demands... we call it "democracy" ... just do it.

[BeTheGoddess]

It reassures me that you are approaching the issue, rather than flittering around the theater and scenery.

I think you cannot "ban" abortions, any more than you can ban sex.  Of course, abortion is no more worthy of being a "right" than eating tacos or having sex in the first place.

People have been aborting pregnancies since they realized it could be done.  This isn't a modern phenomenon (such as social activism and media saturation) ... this is an individual practice that different societies have experienced for centuries at least, millennia more likely.  Was it ever 'safe?'  Probably not for the child bearer (and by definition, certainly not for the nascent human.)

"Legal" abortion seems really difficult to embrace as a concept.  Probably because the idea invokes the opposite idea of "illegal" which implies crime. 

First of all, once it's legal, it begins to take on the air of a "right" ... as if people have been 'oppressed' forever because they couldn't spontaneously abort their pregnancies.  Secondly, abortions have been a reality since before there were ever overlords who deigned to "opine" and "rule" on the practice.  Hell, most men of antiquity probably never even heard of such a thing and would never even consider it in terms of 'social order."

For some in government the idea of a "ban" on abortions has to do with pandering to constituents who like so many of us, find it easy to judge others, never having walked a mile in their shoes.  No politician reminds their adoring crowds that human life can be harsh and complicated enough, and we should not indulge our egos to add 'unforgiving' into the mix.  Others in government are in fact "ideologically biased" (gasp!) which is, in and of itself, not a crime nor a detriment.  Others might be among the sex-crazed wanting nothing more than to cater to the sex-focused (thank you media conditioning.)

We also must embrace another painfully obvious reality.  People start as fetuses.  There's no point in litigating some arbitrary "starting point" measured in microns, minutes, or grams.  I started as one, you started as one, everyone did.  We must stop giving credence to the activist zealots whose success solely depends on "redefining" reality.  When that redefinition falters in its ability to persuade, they break out the "Big Book of Exceptions."  Because if they can't have capitulation in their favor, they will overwhelm the narrative with those aforementioned harsh and complicated realities to anyone remaining in the argument.

In someone's idea of a perfect world, I suppose, a person could just 'decide' that they were not pregnant.  No action needed.  Perhaps a Utopian reality where a person can choose whether or not to conceive at all.  In such a world a person might be able to eat whatever they want, and not get sick, or fat.  A person might be able to cut off their nose to spite their face, and yet it would grow back if it turns out it was a mistake.  This is not such a world, it has never been, nor will it ever be.  Actions have consequences... always.

As BeTheGoddess has so wisely illuminated ... this whole political side show is not really about 'abortion'... it is about 'abortion services.'  There is a discussion to be entertained regarding abortion in principle, but it's the 'services' that provides the dissention, which activists, politicians, and media exploit so well.  This public tug of war is a game/entertainment production, presented by people for whom theater is everything.  Where "Appearances" are more important than reality...

No law will ever stop that people can be in such a state as to not want to be pregnant (then there are the exceptions to 'wanting'.)  Hence, abortions will always exist.

My prognosis: On the heels of the theoretical 'right' to abortion succeeding, you will find a massive 1000% increase 'built-in' to the profit of providing the service... because that's how modern doctors and their insurance masters (banks) "do."  (Of course, the cost will be to the taxpayer, not the patient ... that would be 'wrong.')  If it is outright "banned" we must face the reality that we are proving to people in our society that the resolution of your plight is in someone else's hands... not your own.  That you are not "free" in that way.

The truth is, if this were the democracy that we keep being told it is, LEGISLATORS would take this up, and create a representation of public consensus by virtue of their constituencies.  But they haven't, and it appears that they may never.  Thier 'decision' in the past to relegate this to a high court shows just how cowardly they have been with this subject.  Their job is explicitly to represent us... but they are afraid to... because 'careers.'

Have I tired you out yet?  I have questions and comments on this... but truthfully, because of my nature and inclination, I have avoided encounters on this topic... too much "noise" ... too much "activist poison" in the mix.   But I figure, here in DI, there's a much better chance that we can actually discuss it.  The way politicians and media talking heads never do.

Thanks for participating in this thread... I am grateful.

Ok, you're getting my law school dropout post here..

Death, Person, Crime. Three tests of law for homicide here.

Abortion? is it neither death as they have not been able to live outside the mothers own person, a persons rights come before a non person.

Crime? if the abortion is provided by a safe statutory authority, its not a crime.

Now I get its different over there when some states have foetal rights laws--that shit would not go on here because its a legal shitshow. You cant debate times of gestation, time of birth--its documented.

Not a person until can live outside of its host.

[Maxmars]

Noice!

Rather than invoke homicide, (a legal designation) I prefer simply to remain in the pre-judgment end of the discussion. 

Such matters as choosing to say we can "designate" personhood, rather than "acknowledge" it.  Or how we deign to call it "murder," but we don't prosecute doctors.  If it is a person how does the state recognize the pregnant person, as two people?  There's a lot of litigious tomfoolery in many discussions that simply can't be reconciled with the tools the "law" provides.  It becomes a talking game.  We excel at that.

I'm not presumptuous enough to speak of it in terms of moral judgement, especially when morality can be so "cultural" as to escape my ability to understand it.

I confess, I do value tradition and tend to find guidance within it... within reason.  But tradition never dealt with the abortion issue as we must.  Those were more the 'Because I said so" kind of times.  I find no guidance there.

If I understand you correctly, it's a matter viability.  I must point out that those things change with technology.  Will it be up to those in the technologic realm to determine when it is and isn't viable?  Will we make a law that's vague enough to allow such changes in the world to be included? If so, can such an insubstantial judgment be the basis for a law?  Presuming the hyperbolic notion of someday technology making it possible for an entire pregnancy to develop in vitro, should a 'right' be declared that this is how all abortion must end lest we kill a person?  It's tangled.

In short, I resist that "survivability' should be a measure of personhood.  It seems that the definition personhood should subjected to another person's condition.  It feels like the ultimate vulnerability.  Which of course doesn't matter if you're not the personhood in question.  But many of us were.

This is no challenge to your post.  I'm just spit-balling notions, here... please don't take any of my objections as personal or judgmental.... it's been one of those days.

[quintessentone]

To me, it speaks volumes whenever Trump avoids speaking directly on a political issue, such as abortion, because he wants to win, so walking the balancing beam is the way to get the win. What he does afterwards, is anyone's guess.

[FlyersFan]

Death, Person, Crime. Three tests of law for homicide here.

Death and person ... yes.
Crime ... no.

Coroners will list on a death certificate that a homicide has happened when one person stops another persons heart from beating.  No 'crime' is necessary for the term 'homicide' to be used.  Just that one human has caused the death of another human.  And that's what happens in abortion.  One human causes the heart of another human to stop beating.  That's causing death.

---

To me, it speaks volumes whenever Trump avoids speaking directly on a political issue, such as abortion, because he wants to win, so walking the balancing beam is the way to get the win. What he does afterwards, is anyone's guess.

First time around when he ran he was totally pro life and wouldn't talk about abortion being okay at any stage.  That's what his target audience wanted to hear.  Now, eight years later, the landscape has shifted and so he's trying to mirror what he thinks most people want in order to get more votes.   His position on abortion is extremely fluid.  He was a democrat and totally pro-abortion and then when he ran the first time he was polar opposite to that.  Now he's trying to be somewhere in the middle.  A typical politician trying to get votes.  (even though he claims not to be a politician, he sure acts like one)

[quintessentone]

Death and person ... yes.
Crime ... no.

Coroners will list on a death certificate that a homicide has happened when one person stops another persons heart from beating.  No 'crime' is necessary for the term 'homicide' to be used.  Just that one human has caused the death of another human.  And that's what happens in abortion.  One human causes the heart of another human to stop beating.  That's causing death.

---

First time around when he ran he was totally pro life and wouldn't talk about abortion being okay at any stage.  That's what his target audience wanted to hear.  Now, eight years later, the landscape has shifted and so he's trying to mirror what he thinks most people want in order to get more votes.   His position on abortion is extremely fluid.  He was a democrat and totally pro-abortion and then when he ran the first time he was polar opposite to that.  Now he's trying to be somewhere in the middle.  A typical politician trying to get votes.  (even though he claims not to be a politician, he sure acts like one)

He's a Trump fan first, businessman second, and newly enlightened politician third. Who knows which of the three his actions leans more towards?