Listened to the SCOTUS arguments in their entirety as I worked. There are six judges who clearly think the current "viability" line can be subject to change.

Four of those six gave clear indications they would have no problems overturning Roe in its entirety and were seemingly signaling that they'd do so. Roberts and Gorsuch were both acutely focused on trying to understand the AG's position of why "viability line" shouldn't be changed from 28 weeks. 

Next year, at a minimum, SCOTUS will reverse course on the 28 week viability definition in Roe and leave that up to the states... which is the non-official end of abortion in conservative states. It's also quite possible that they overturn it completely if Gorsuch ends up deciding with the state AG.

11 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

Now if they try to force that decision on other people 

Isn't that the core tenant of the pro-life pro-life argument? Forcing a woman to carry to term?

11 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

If?

"When desperately trying to keep in the middle goes wrong."

9 hours ago, TEW said:

Do you think incentives and disincentives influence behavior?

Almost 70% of people who decide to get abortions are 29 or younger. You're expectation is for kids and young adults to consider the weight of responsibility of caring for another life when, in most cases, they aren't even fully responsible for their own.

I get your argument. But I don't think it'd have the intended consequence you want. It's a punishment/consequence, not a disincentive. Very few kids and young adults think about abortion as a safety net before they decide to engage in sex. That's just not how that works. There's not much thinking that happens at all in those situations. 

15 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

"When esperately trying to keep in the middle goes wrong."

Yeah, he lost me on that one.

He might want to start calling himself "Dr. Philly”

  

9 hours ago, Outlaw said:

"Most kids put up for adoption never find a settled home” Got anything to back that up there chief?

 

8 hours ago, NOTW said:

28% = "most" I guess. 

 

 

Many? Something like 20% spend five years or more in foster care, so the numbers are not exactly good. Ultimately, I think that the state should not be intervening in matters of personal health like this and Roe does a good job of breaking down the accessibility of abortion according to gestational periods. So, in the first trimester when it is literally a tiny mass of cells, you can get an abortion if you choose. Beyond that, the argument is a little more valid that it is something more substantial and akin to a life that would require a doctor's approval as medically necessary.

 

7 hours ago, vikas83 said:

Or…you don’t think it is the role of government to protect people from the consequences of their poor choices. Unless you think people are complete sociopaths, they aren’t going to want to see their kids starve.

 

Not all people who need an abortion are necessarily making "poor choices."  Birth control methods can fail, and in some cases, pregnancy itself can endanger the life of the mother. I don't think most people are sociopaths, but they are incredibly irresponsible, and in this case, it is going to be the kids living in poverty or broken homes who suffer the most. I don't generally mind letting people suffer consequences for their own actions, but in this case, it's not just the parents who would be suffering. I think that if the state is going to force people to give birth, then it should also provide the necessary means for these kids to be healthy and productive members of society. The reality, though, is that if abortion is more widely available, you will have less kids on the welfare rolls that you detest.

13 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Yeah, he lost me on that one.

He might want to start calling himself "Dr. Philly”

  

I'm quite happy to join one of the "sides" on any given topic "when it makes sense".  The desperation comes from people like you desperately trying to find some sense of reason to use to argue your quite regularly flawed partisan opinions.

1 hour ago, mayanh8 said:

Listened to the SCOTUS arguments in their entirety as I worked. There are six judges who clearly think the current "viability" line can be subject to change.

Four of those six gave clear indications they would have no problems overturning Roe in its entirety and were seemingly signaling that they'd do so. Roberts and Gorsuch were both acutely focused on trying to understand the AG's position of why "viability line" shouldn't be changed from 28 weeks. 

Next year, at a minimum, SCOTUS will reverse course on the 28 week viability definition in Roe and leave that up to the states... which is the non-official end of abortion in conservative states. It's also quite possible that they overturn it completely if Gorsuch ends up deciding with the state AG.

 

29 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

I'm quite happy to join one of the "sides" on any given topic "when it makes sense".  The desperation comes from people like you desperately trying to find some sense of reason to use to argue your quite regularly flawed partisan opinions.

If circular logic makes sense to you then cool beans.  I’m still gonna make fun of you for it.

1 hour ago, mayanh8 said:

Isn't that the core tenant of the pro-life pro-life argument? Forcing a woman to carry to term?

I'm not arguing for that. I'm about as pro choice as it gets and I have a huge problem with anyone trying to limit access to it. I just don't find the "religious people don't care about children" trope productive or accurate.

44 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Yeah, he lost me on that one.

He might want to start calling himself "Dr. Philly”

  

 

1 hour ago, mayanh8 said:

Almost 70% of people who decide to get abortions are 29 or younger. You're expectation is for kids and young adults to consider the weight of responsibility of caring for another life when, in most cases, they aren't even fully responsible for their own.

I get your argument. But I don't think it'd have the intended consequence you want. It's a punishment/consequence, not a disincentive. Very few kids and young adults think about abortion as a safety net before they decide to engage in sex. That's just not how that works. There's not much thinking that happens at all in those situations. 

People in their 20s with jobs, age eligible to serve in the military, vote in elections, etc aren't mature enough to take responsibility to not have unprotected sex? But the left wants to give children puberty blockers & have surgery because they are mature enough to know they aren't the same gender? 

Why are these debates always about pro life controlling other's bodies and not about the people getting pregnant not controlling their own bodies to prevent it in the first place? 

1 hour ago, DEagle7 said:

 

 

 

Or maybe it is a matter of not playing any side and trying to be the best one can be instead of driving a partisan line.

If pro lifers backed off trying to overturn Roe, and said let's focus on prevention, we'll agree to fund more education and programs that teach prevention, provide free birth control, but also include equal information and resources about adoption not only abortion I wonder if pro choicers would agree.  Seems the pro choice argument is always about choice...for killing the baby but you don't hear about keeping the baby and adoption.  

5 hours ago, Bill said:

Side bar: is abortion abhorrent and murder in the case of rape/incest?

This aspect always gets raised which is interesting, because if abortion is more acceptable or ok in these cases, then that means there are degrees of morality to it, meaning it is less ok or acceptable when it's not rape or incest.  If that's the case, then we need some type of process to evaluate and determine if abortion is ok or not.  Which opens up that there are scenarios where abortion is then absolutely not ok.  And how does that all get decided?

And does the woman have to prove it was rape?  File a police report and get a rape kit at the hospital?  What about the women who make false rape claims?  She feels guilty she had unprotected sex, so she claims it was rape to make getting an abortion more acceptable. 

3 minutes ago, NOTW said:

If pro lifers backed off trying to overturn Roe, and said let's focus on prevention, we'll agree to fund more education and programs that teach prevention, provide free birth control, but also include equal information and resources about adoption not only abortion I wonder if pro choicers would agree.  Seems the pro choice argument is always about choice...for killing the baby but you don't hear about keeping the baby and adoption.  

I am very much pro choice and I could get behind a movement like that. I believe that education is far more important than anything else and providing options to people to make the best choice for them is always a good thing.

tell that to the pro-lifers who believe in abstinence only until marriage. 

11 minutes ago, NOTW said:

If pro lifers backed off trying to overturn Roe, and said let's focus on prevention, we'll agree to fund more education and programs that teach prevention, provide free birth control, but also include equal information and resources about adoption not only abortion I wonder if pro choicers would agree.  Seems the pro choice argument is always about choice...for killing the baby but you don't hear about keeping the baby and adoption.  

I wonder who are the people that attack Planned Parenthood 

5 minutes ago, NOTW said:

If pro lifers backed off trying to overturn Roe, and said let's focus on prevention, we'll agree to fund more education and programs that teach prevention, provide free birth control, but also include equal information and resources about adoption not only abortion I wonder if pro choicers would agree.  Seems the pro choice argument is always about choice...for killing the baby but you don't hear about keeping the baby and adoption.  

That would be great, but that's never going to be the position of the pro-lifers.  Like DEagle brought up, pro-lifers want to dismantle Planned Parenthood, which is one of the largest contributors to education and prevention.  They're doing the opposite of what you're proposing.  Abortion is the most dug-in of all dug-in political foxholes and it's the driving force for most of the support of one major party.  There's almost certainly no middle ground to be found here.

49 minutes ago, NOTW said:

Why are these debates always about pro life controlling other's bodies and not about the people getting pregnant not controlling their own bodies to prevent it in the first place? 

 

No 👏 birth-control 👏 method 👏 is 👏 100% 👏 effective 👏

10 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said:

I wonder who are the people that attack Planned Parenthood 

 

And?  I don't agree with anyone attacking planned parenthood, and I've said repeatedly we should invest in education and free birth control to prevent pregnancies.  

12 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

That would be great, but that's never going to be the position of the pro-lifers.  Like DEagle brought up, pro-lifers want to dismantle Planned Parenthood, which is one of the largest contributors to education and prevention.  They're doing the opposite of what you're proposing.  Abortion is the most dug-in of all dug-in political foxholes and it's the driving force for most of the support of one major party.  There's almost certainly no middle ground to be found here.

I realize that, it was a hypothetical.  "If" the pro life side were to try and meet in the middle, would the pro choice side as well?  

1 hour ago, NOTW said:

People in their 20s with jobs, age eligible to serve in the military, vote in elections, etc aren't mature enough to take responsibility to not have unprotected sex? But the left wants to give children puberty blockers & have surgery because they are mature enough to know they aren't the same gender? 

I'm not someone who pretends that everyone who enjoys legal agency in their lives are emotionally or fiscally mature enough to fully understand or are even willing to entertain the causality of decisions they make. That comes with real world experience and acceptance of responsibility in their own lives. As a parent of two young adults I'm a realist on the issue. Kids in high school and college make irresponsible decisions. That has and always will be a reality.

6 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

No 👏 birth-control 👏 method 👏 is 👏 100% 👏 effective 👏

Ah, clap emoji.  Powerful.  

You still take risk.  You know that having sex can result in having a baby, the "choice" is in having sex and risking getting pregnant, getting an STD.   If a woman is that poor or scared of having a baby that she would kill the baby and go through a medical procedure to get rid of it and she values not having to deal with a baby over the life of that baby so much...then don't let him finish inside you.  Or double your protection: be on birth control pills, and use a condom.  Or have him pull out.  Or do other things to get off.  But people are irresponsible and then want to throw away the life of a baby because they can't afford it, or they aren't ready for a baby in their life right now.  Let's also talk about women that have more than 1 abortion in their life.  At what point does the pro choice argument hold people accountable for getting pregnant in the first place.  

8 minutes ago, NOTW said:

I realize that, it was a hypothetical.  "If" the pro life side were to try and meet in the middle, would the pro choice side as well?  

Probably not.  I mean, I would, but I'm not militantly pro abortion.  I think of legal abortion as a means to ensure that women aren't dying by administering self-abortions, because much like drug prohibition, making something illegal in no way ends it (especially something like abortion that someone can do to themselves), it merely makes it unregulated.  But like I said, this is such a dug in issue on both sides.  There's no way the two parties could ever come together on this one.

10 minutes ago, NOTW said:

And?  I don't agree with anyone attacking planned parenthood, and I've said repeatedly we should invest in education and free birth control to prevent pregnancies.  

Planned Parenthood is doing exactly what you want done.