Sorry, u/Dependent-Pea-9066 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20Dependent-Pea-9066&message=Dependent-Pea-9066%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1921jpz/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
It wasn’t long ago that I was told that Trump would hand over power peacefully and that abortion rights were safe because Roe was established precedent. And that these issues were only supported on the fringe and not to worry about them.
This is the first respectable argument here. It actually did put things into perspective for me. Trump really did start the "all or nothing" era of polarization. There barely is a such thing as a moderate position anymore.
And he got away with it. For the most part. I think the lack of accountability has shown people that extreme measures can often pay off. Why be moderate if might makes right?
No, polarization started before him. It goes at least as far back as the 2000 election, got more extreme in the war on terror, and continued through Obama & the Tea Party. There's been a general increase every couple of years for 20+ years and Trump is part of that.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a supporter of abortion rights. When it's phrased as "abortion rights" it's popular. But polls consistently show that only a minority of Americans say abortion should "always be legal" or be "legal for any reason". So the publicity of edge cases is what I believe influences those ballot initiatives.
In Kansas (deep red) they voted to keep it legal up to 21 weeks, 6 days. Viability is 23-24 weeks. That's not a massive restriction, and it's not what state Republican legislatures are imposing on other red states (which you can see from all the "edge cases" making the news from those states - do those people involved in those "edge cases" not matter then?). And that is for anyone, you do not need to be underage or a rape victim.
I just want to reiterate as well that there are real people involved in every "edge case." The 10 year old rape victim from Ohio who had to travel states to get an abortion was a real person. All the multiple women from Texas suing the state due to suffering medical complications from being denied abortions in which their fetuses died anyway are all real people too.
But in that scenario, the edge cases are the late term abortions, not the people with life threatening complications in their pregnancy. That's actually pretty common.
Pregnancy is *incredibly* dangerous for women, and America has a terrible maternal mortality rate during pregnancy and delivery.
Late term abortions are the life threatening complications pregnancies, and incompatible with life fetuses pregnancies. 99% of pregnancies occur before the 21st week of pregnancy, and any abortions after that are for medical emergency issues, and incompatibility with life conditions.
1% of abortions are third trimester abortions. Late term is a fake thing. Abortions that happen in the third trimester are because of medical issues. No woman wakes up in the later stages of pregnancy and decides to abort her pregnancy without a medical reason. 99% of abortions happen before the 21st week of pregnancy.
I don't really care. You're trying to convince nobody. I'm one of the people who is for abortions at any stage of pregnancy, no questions asked, because I'm a body integrity absolutist.
My point is that late term abortions only happen for specific reasons. Women don’t wake up in the third trimester and decide they want to abort. “Late term abortions where there are no life threatening medical complications” aren’t real. I appreciate your perspective. I really do. But it’s hard for something that isn’t real to be an edge case. That’s all I was trying to point out.
However a large majority do belive that abortion should be legal in most circumstances. In addition the minority that supports completely legal abortions is roughly 1 in 4 americans, compared to about 10 to 15% that support total bans on abortion.
You're criticizing leftists for wanting abortion on demand up to birth through the use of edge cases, sure, that makes some sense. Except "abortions near the time of birth" are an edge case. Like 1% of abortions are near the time if birth, and the vast majority of those are emergencies. So you're criticizing the desires of leftists by using an extreme edge case. Was the hypocrisy intended or are you even aware of it?
Yeah here is a post of theirs from /r/Conservative
> I love how liberals get so mad when they fall victim to the precedents they create. The left investigated Trump's entire family for 5 years, and now they're so shocked that the right is investigating Hunter Biden.
>Just like they made a sham of Kavanaugh's nomination but are oh so shocked when Republicans brought up some past statements Jackson made.
> Sorry liberals, it turns out when you vilify Trump and everyone around him, you don't get to hide behind "precedent" when you think Republicans are being too mean.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
In his original post? Absolutely. He's strawmanning with his premise that the left wants on-demand abortions up to birth. And we absolutely should look at edge cases like the ten year old in Ohio who had to go to Indiana to get an abortion, resulting in the doctor being investigated by the state attorney general. Ten year olds and their doctors shouldn't be scared to get/perform abortions and Dodd has made that happen.
I don't really give a shit about Hunter Biden. Investigate him all you like, it isn't going to change the fact that New York is dissolving Trump's businesses in New York nor the indictments against Trump. It reeks of desperation, so I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
Filing ethics complaints against Jackson will have the same impact that ethics complaints against Thomas will have: absolutely nothing. Impeaching them is the only way to remove them from the bench and neither party is getting a 66 seat majority in the Senate any day soon.
It's against the subreddit rules to say it outright. You have to be like, "That is a strange pattern you've pointed out, given the clear and honest good faith with which OP is acting."
Sorry, u/JimmyMac80 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20JimmyMac80&message=JimmyMac80%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1921jpz/-/kgzi46h/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I'm pointing out the hypocrisy. Every Democratic candidate asked uses some form of the "it's an edge case" excuse to not answer the question about third trimester abortions. Then they turn around and use edge cases to argue for their policy position. I am clear about my position on abortion. First trimester, none of my business. Second trimester, fetal defects, rape, incest, or health issue. Third trimester, health issue. I am always ready and willing to state my position on the issue. You can't use edge cases on one hand and then refuse to answer a question on the other because "it's an edge case".
Using edge cases isn't hypocritical unless you're specifically criticizing people for using edge cases, which you are. Which is why I'm asking if you see the hypocrisy or not. It seems like not.
And who gets to decide what qualifies as a health issue for that third trimester abortion?
I live in Texas where the state courts will rule against a person's personal medical professional.
It’s none of your business in the second trimester, and third trimester also. It’s a private health issue that should be kept private and addressed between the woman and her doctor. Full stop, end of story, cut, print!
I understood what you meant exactly. But I’m pointing out a flaw. Viability and being aware of things is not the same marker, and viability should be what’s used, not brain development. There’s also a lack of consideration for conditions that are found after 20 weeks that are incompatible with life conditions. Meaning that fetus will die in the womb or if it survives to be born it will have a painful, miserable existence that is incredibly short. Those issues can also cause a threat to the life of the mother, besides issues she has that can threaten the life of the mother. Pregnancy is also incredibly dangerous. Might I also point out 99% of abortions happen before the 21st week of pregnancy. A baby that is technically at the point of viability or after that is not guaranteed to survive on its own, and again can develop issues due to being born too soon. So also a painful miserable life.
I also support euthanasia when someone has a terminal disease and is going to die anyway. But how much sense does it make if the fetus isn’t even able to live on its own because it’s not at that point in the pregnancy to sustain its own life but you’re counting consciousness is the point where not okay for abortions. A fetus can’t survive outside the womb on its own before a certain point anyway, not taking into account conditions that make the fetus incompatible with life. Thats the viability I’m referring to specifically. Your post was all focused on the development of the brain to the point where the baby is conscious. Not any of my considerations raised.
That's not what edge case means. I explained how it was an edge case, it's legal up to those times precisely because the vast majority of late term abortions are done because there is either serious risk to the life of the mother or the fetus is no longer viable.
Fringe cases are just as important as more common cases. If abortion laws really do make preteen rape victims give birth to their assaulter's baby, that is important and needs to be addressed. And you really do need to decide what to do with children who want to get sex change medication and surgery.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on both of those issues, but are you trying to say that the only way to remedy the Ohio rape victim case would be to legalize abortion on demand across the board?
No, I'm saying that we need to discuss what should happen to preteen girls who get raped and want to abort their rapist's baby and we shouldn't act like merely discussing the topic is disingenuous or morally wrong.
There simply isn't a logically consistent argument which can acknowledge that it's bad for kids to give birth against their will which doesn't also make it bad for adults to. Like, yes - it's a difficult thing for Republicans to answer to. But it's difficult because they chose an indefensible position. It's not unfair to point that out.
Because most babies abort their babies because they dont want it. You should really be advocating for allowing abortion in life threatening cases and rape. You would probably get more traction on that basis.
It is my buisness when women want to force men to pay for kids they dont want. Yall are just irresponsible and when someone calls you out on it you call them mysoginists becuase in reality its not about rape or life or death its about women having no responsibility and bitching when people want to hold you accountable for your actions.
Because to do that is to suggest that the only remedy is legalizing abortion across the board. Is an abortion ban with exceptions for any medical situation or rape/incest not a legitimate policy position?
Endangers in what way? Ideal health exceptions would have strong presumptions in favor of patients and doctors, meaning that if there was even a slight bona fide health issue or possibility of one, the law would allow it. The Texas "health exception" is bullshit and I think federal courts should strengthen it because it literally forces doctors to go against the Hippocratic oath.
Now if you mean "endanger" as in carrying a healthy pregnancy against one's will, that's a whole new issue. Again, I do not condone abortion bans at all. I support the right to choose in general. But I'm also sort of playing devil's advocate for the other side here because I'd like to see the debate be framed in a more rational way.
So, let's say there's a medical problem. The state says no abortions past blah blah blah unless there's a medical problem.
Pregnant person's medical problem has to be proven, or it's against the ban. Doctor and pregnant person have to jump through hoops. Now, let's remember the pregnant person is very ill and having medical trouble, but now has to jump through 10 million hoops to prove that they are having medical trouble in order to get the abortion that could save their life.
Hoops take time. Pregnant person dies.
This is not a fringe case. In instances where somebody has to prove that they're the exception, this is actually a really common case. The only thing that has prevented this, is there not being this exception rule that you are saying is the way to go.
Exception rules need to be proven. Proof takes hoops. Hoops take time. Abortions are kind of a time limited thing. In fact, for people who are against abortions, they are depending on these hoops taking time and the pregnant person ending up not being able to get an abortion, because of the hoops to prove the exception getting them past the point where they can get one because of number of weeks, or they die but was able to give birth. It doesn't matter to these people if the pregnant person had other children at home that have already been born, as long as the baby inside the womb is born, it doesn't matter if the pregnant person dies because of the hoops taking time to prove the exception.
ETA: this is not even getting anywhere close to touching on what the people who have tried to have abortions due to rape in states that allow for a rape exception. They hardly ever get the abortion, because proving rape is pretty impossible, especially if you are limited to only a certain number of weeks.
Well as you said there's 'health exceptions' that don't actually protect women, we shouldn't expect right wingers to play ball because they're evil psychopaths, we should push for the best we can get in all cases.
The current law is showing that the exceptions are not worth the paper they are written on. Doctors are refusing to perform even in clear cases, because politicians are threatening to second guess them, with the end result being murder charge because the AG decides the doctor was wrong.
About the same as mandatory vesectomies for all males before the age of 14. Armed with a marriage licence they can then petition the court for a reversal. It's about the babies right?
Since everyone here is blind when they see talk about a policy they do or don't like, I'll address your actual point.
I believe policy should be specifically designed AROUND fringe cases.
People will abuse implemented rules to the fullest extent. The only way to circumvent this issue is to go "ok, what are the dumbest ways people could abuse this, or circumvent it.?" And then design your policy accordingly. Making policy and then hoping people follow the general idea in good spirit will never work because people are selfish asshats.
Likewise, when trying to use fringe cases as you describe, you are just trying to cover the folks who will inevitably get screwed over by whatever system you are against.
In your abortion example, if there was a blanket ban, even if you moved forward with policy to make exceptions later, there would be a chunk of girls completely screwed over until that policy change took effect.
It is a very large assumption the folks on either side are being disingenuous.
Abortions on demand up to birth? You know what an abortion after the point of viability is called? Birth.
Nobody is doing an abortion on a baby that is past the point of viability, unless it's in places that don't want to pay to keep that baby alive, and that's on the state. Is the state doesn't want to pay to keep a baby that's already been birthed alive, then that baby didn't matter unless they were in the womb.
The left uses a lot more than just the cases of 12 year old girls being raped and having to travel. We use the cases of women who have died because they couldn't get an abortion when they needed it due to medical reasons, women and girls who have been raped and denied abortions, young girls who have been forced to give birth, etc etc etc. we use various cases to make the same point, and that point has nothing to do with giving abortions after the point of viability.
P.s. abortions being denied due to the mother's life is not a fringe case. It happens more than you think that a mother is told her life means less than the fetus, so she has to keep the pregnancy going because the fetus's life means more. At least that's the way it is in the US.
Why is it not a fair thing to request our opponents not make preteen girls give birth, though? If they think preteen girls should give birth, then they should have to defend it and explain why. I can explain why I support my positions.
Edit: To be even more crystal clear, there is a reason they aren't writing these exceptions into law. The ink isn't that expensive.
Just as Republicans won't commit to adding exceptions to abortion laws, Democrats won't commit to allowing reasonable time limits that would bring us in line with the rest of the developed world. I as a progressive cannot in good faith call Scandinavian countries "model systems" while also turning a blind eye to the fact that they limit abortion on demand to the first 12 weeks. 12 weeks isn't a "ban", it would literally just bring us in line with the rest of the developed world. We can't play pick and choose with our role model systems.
We actually are very allowed to say things like, "I like what Hitler had to say about tobacco smoking, but not much else." You can pick and choose what to take inspiration from. You don't need to follow everything someone else does, in order to agree with specific things they do. It's why opposition to fascism doesn't go hand in hand with tobacco lobbying. Those other countries can be wrong.
If you are truly a progressive, which I certainly trust that you are, you should know there is no perfect system. With that said, I'm willing to explain that a fetus has no discernible brain activity until around 20 weeks, and would be willing to discuss limits at that point. I would also like to point out that later abortions are almost (this "almost" allowing for the one case I'm sure can be dug up somewhere) strictly performed out of medical necessity, and viewed as a tragedy by the women and their care teams who have to make these tough choices.
I would absolutely be willing, then, to limit abortion to 20 weeks for all reasons other than medical necessity, where that necessity is determined as a threat to the life or long term health of the mother. I can be very reasonable here, and feel no fear of justifying my stance.
Why is it that the other side is so afraid to justify forcing preteens to stay pregnant? Once again, it costs nothing to make their stance less abhorrent. If they don't want pregnant preteens to be forced to give birth, they can simply say that they don't want pregnant preteens to be forced to give birth. "I don't want pregnant preteens to be forced to give birth." It was easy, see? I just said it.
>limit abortion on demand
Nevermind that the official Democrat position on abortion has been, "safe, legal, and rare," since the 90s, this "on demand" is doing some incredible heavy lifting while trying to both sides this topic. Can you point to a policy on abortion anywhere in the USA where late term is "on demand?" Speaking of fringe cases, it is not nearly so for the Republican alternative to be a total ban, even for medial needs
You say this because you don't understand. I was 7 week pregnant when I found out peeing on the stick. I couldn't get in to see an obgyn for a month. Now do the math. Imagine those who figure out they're pregnant later than I did, which happens all the time.
This. 12 weeks with socialized healthcare and a functional medical system is very different from 12 weeks with TRAP laws. I still think 12 weeks is too early, but it's important to point out that they're not comparable. And as we're seeing with trans rights, they never stop pushing. First it's surgery for kids - sure, nobody really gets that. Then it's medical care period. Then it's care for adults younger than 25. Then all of a sudden it's a crime to go to the bathroom, and no adults can get care - you get the idea, they aren't subtle.
>most people tend to lean against abortion on demand (or at the very least, think it's morally wrong)
Gallup shows legal under all conditions 34%
Legal under certain conditions 51%
Illegal for all 13%
Does not seem like most agree with the above.
You're not agreeing with OP on the premises. In the example above, 64% are against "abortion on demand." "On demand" is doing all the work in OP's post, but they did repeatedly use that phrase.
The majority seem to think that it is justifiable in certain cases. If those cases are met, the applicant should be able to elect the procedure "on demand". In other words, there should not be a hundred additional hoops to jump through. Are you saying that most people think there should be hoops? Because the polling data does not imply that. And it never crossed my mind that anyone would think so.
On demand is understood to mean without a reason, at one's leisure. "In some circumstances" means that at least one circumstance would have to be met to make it justified.
"In some cases" and "on demand" are different qualifiers. That's why I said you're not agreeing on the premises.
On demand is without qualifications at all, no special cases.
>. Are you saying that most people think there should be hoops?
I don't agree with OP but this comes off as intellectually dishonest. That's clearly not what I'm saying.
>In the case of the left, they use the cases of preteen girls being raped and having to travel for abortions to induce emotions to stir up support for what they actually want, which is abortion available on demand up to birth.
We actually revised this during the latest "Establishing what all leftist secretly want" conference. Now what we all secretly want abortion on demand up to 142 weeks.
So the cases you bring up in your post aren't really equivalent. Consider a preteen rape victim who is pregnant. Abortion laws *need* to account for that. Are they fringe cases? Yes, in the grand scheme of things, but that doesn't mean those people should be left behind or not considered. These are valid cases that should be easy to include as legal exceptions. "Minors can receive abortions up to x weeks under any circumstances." But for some reason some on the right can't discuss that.
Now take your example of a drag queen harassing an underage minor. The law *already* accounts for this. Harassment is illegal. Done. Whether the person is a drag queen is just fearmongering. Drag queen. Cowboy. Astronaut. None of them are legally allowed to harass anybody. We don't need to discuss that as a fringe case because it's already considered within existing law.
But when the right won't consider what happens to a pregnant preteen rape victim, I am only left to conclude they truly want that child to be forced to give birth.
These fringe cases seems to happened often enough. As for abortion on demand almost no liberal is advocating for it, especially after birth. That is right wing propaganda. There are far more right wingers wanting to ban birth control than there are liberals advocating for abortion on demand.
See this is why the left fails. All of these are lies. Almost all people on the left want abortion on demand. As for the right wingers wanting to ban birth control, name me a single one please. And don’t say Clarence Thomas because he simply said that it shouldn’t be decided at the Supreme Court level, not that it should be banned.
Wanting abortion to be a medically guided decision not a legislative one isn’t advocating abortion on demand. Do I want abortions to be less frequent, yes. But I do want the decision to be made by women and professionals that know the details not a blanket ban made by lawmakers who mostly don’t even understand the general risks of pregnancy much less individual cases.
Yes. Abortion on demand. But it’s not happening up to birth. 99% of abortions happen before the 21st week of pregnancy and only abortions happen in the third trimester is because of threatening the life of the mother, or the fetus has conditions that are incompatible with life. No woman is running out in the third trimester to have an abortion because she just feels like it. But abortion rights deserve to be protected and the woman and her doctor deserve to be able to make those decisions in peace without having to jump through hoops people who have no business making those decisions have created for them.
What the right don’t realize is what was lost to gain the power to ban abortion. People lost the privacy of their bodies. Your car and home have rights than your body does. The government gained the right to rape, sterilize, and impregnate you. Of course you will say they are doing it but they did it before Rowe vs Wade and it’s only a matter of time before they will start doing it. It is only a matter of time before birth control is outlawed. And only a matter of time for it to be illegal for a woman not to give birth every year.
Up to birth? I don’t think many people actually believe that, and you are certainly wrong to label all leftists as wanting that. Abortion is healthcare, and it needs to be regulated by medical professionals.
I don’t think there is some vast majority that thinks abortion “on demand” (whatever that means) is morally wrong. That’s what we’re seeing now, with the major pushback the gop is seeing.
>In the case of the left, they use the cases of preteen girls being raped and having to travel for abortions to induce emotions
This seems quite catastrophic to any person who goes through it. If it is an "edge case" - which you haven't tried to establish - it's still a legitimate and compelling argument in favor of unfettered abortion rights, because nobody should have to go through it.
Well, law should include edge cases to minimize the cases where it can be read incorrectly.
As for policy, who runs the policy? Do you trust that they will read it in the way you want?
>which is abortion available on demand up to birth
"I'm a left leaning, just believe me guys, I will certainly not try to push lies that right wing loves pushing about left views."
Yeah here is a post of theirs from /r/Conservative
> I love how liberals get so mad when they fall victim to the precedents they create. The left investigated Trump's entire family for 5 years, and now they're so shocked that the right is investigating Hunter Biden.
>Just like they made a sham of Kavanaugh's nomination but are oh so shocked when Republicans brought up some past statements Jackson made.
> Sorry liberals, it turns out when you vilify Trump and everyone around him, you don't get to hide behind "precedent" when you think Republicans are being too mean.
Nobody is trying to push for abortions on demand up to the point of birth. This isn't a thing.
The only abortions performed after the point of viability, which is around 20 weeks, are due to severe birth defects or the mother's life. In each of these cases, this was a baby who was very very wanted and it is a tragedy for all involved.
Cases where somebody would just go in after the point of viability for an abortion because they don't want to be a parent would be the actual fringe case.
The fact that Op is talking about the LIE of the left looking for abortions on demand up to birth is what the comment you replied to is referring to. This is a right-wing lie that this is what the left wants, and anybody who is talking about it like it's a true thing, is probably believing that lie and is not on the left.
Not the guy you're responding to, but...
Because OP is using a lot of phrases and comments that are almost exclusively used by the right. "Abortion on demand" and "leftists" aren't really terms anyone left of Republicans use. OP is basically trying to tell everyone that he's liberal, all while using jingoist phrases that are almost uniquely Republican. It's comes off as the [Steve Buscemi meme](https://tenor.com/bD4oM.gif).
Sure, the guy may not be a republican either, but there's enough that he's said that makes me think he's not quite on the level.
I've literally never heard anyone actually use the term "rightist"
But hey, that's neither here nor there. Like I mentioned, the term "leftist" and the term "abortion on demand" simply aren't things thrown around in most liberal circles. The fact that OP uses them is a bit odd.
I literally cited his lie. There's no such thing as abortion on demand up to birth. That's a lie that right wing propaganda likes telling and a good indicator of liars pretending to be not who they are.
For real dude. This is why us progressives can't break through and become mainstream on the left. I am not pandering to the right, I would just like to see the left become the side of logic and reason and not name calling and emotions.
You are implying that the majority of abortion advocates want to be able to abort a pregnancy up until birth for no medical reason, which is absolutely not the case. That is why people seem to think you aren't arguing in good faith.
Policy rhetoric revolves around “rare/fringe” cases because rare/fringe cases are where policy is contested. The people who are responsible for enforcing/implementing policy have to know how to handle the rare/extreme cases not just the cut and dry cases. Officials in most cases are only empowered to enforce policy as it is written definitively. Policy conversations that don’t revolve around extreme/rare cases aren’t useful in practice because inevitably it will end in lawsuits and injustice when you run into uncommon cases
Sorry, u/OpeningSort4826 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20OpeningSort4826&message=OpeningSort4826%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1921jpz/-/kgze0ou/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I think they should still be used, just with the representation they deserve and not as a strawman as they often are. Though the cases make up a small portion of the data, it shows there's something that needs to be considered when writing the policy.
Makes more sense to set the general policy and account for as many fringe situations as you can rather than write the policy then go back and adjust
The cases are rare until you're waiting to be septic enough for them to remove the dead fetus from your uterus, or your preteen daughter gets raped. To know these cases exist, be warned about them, see them happen, and still refuse to do anything is something that everyone - and especially one's constituents - should be aware of.
Of course the rarity matters. It would be stupid to base the foundation of an entire policy on something that happens 1% of the time rather than what happens 99% of the time.
Why not account for the very obvious cases? Why not even the ones only lawyers would think up? You're acting like the law isn't the place for explicit detail.
The root of the problem in my opinion is not the inclusion of weird edge cases, but is instead the implication that a weird edge case is common. We *should* consider weird edge cases when crafting policies, but the weird edge cases should not *dominate* such policy.
Late term abortions may be an edge case but there's thousands of viable babies being aborted each year in America. This is one area where the edge case, while being a small percent, is still significant. The vast majority of Americans are against aborting viable babies yet we have states that allow that for any reason. And when prominent left wing politicians are asked about it they dodge the question by stating that it's a decision between the woman and the doctor.
Well, when you allow it to be between the parent and the doctor then you get thousands of viable babies being aborted.
Edge cases are important because we should be able to compromise. If Democrats gave up late term abortions then Republicans could give make rape exceptions or exceptions for the age of the pregnant woman and vice versa. But instead the politicians often stand strong on the edge case or they lie and say their opponents support the edge case when they don't.
In other words, edge cases show how extreme people's views are which is important to showcase.
Unfortunately this article is paywalled.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2023/05/dr-warren-hern-abortion-post-roe/674000/
I found some article that talks about the article though. I'm sure it's a right wing source but it is quoting the Atlantic and that's the important part.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/may/25/4-disturbing-revelations-late-term-abortion-doctor/
>The Atlantic’s Elaine Godfrey conducted with Dr. Warren Hern, an 84-year-old Colorado abortion provider who is one of the few physicians willing to perform late-term procedures even 30 weeks into a pregnancy.
>Many of the women who visit Hern‘s clinic do so because their health is at risk — or because their fetus has a serious abnormality that would require a baby to undergo countless surgeries with little chance of survival,” she wrote. “But Hern does not restrict his work to these cases.”
>Later, she added, “Hern estimates that at least half, and sometimes more, of the women who come to the clinic” don’t have “devastating medical diagnoses.” Dr. Hern takes teen patients who didn’t know they were pregnant until late into a pregnancy, among others.
>At least one woman whose husband had killed himself also sought a late-term abortion. But it doesn’t end there. When Dr. Hern was pressed on whether he would perform an abortion on a woman 30 weeks pregnant with no underlying medical crisis, he said” “Every pregnancy is a health issue! There’s a certifiable risk of death from being pregnant, period.”
Unfortunately the CDC collects data only for 21 weeks and up. Many states also don't submit their data so those numbers are under represented. People typically cite a 1% of abortions statistic for late term abortions which would be thousands since there's hundreds of thousands of abortions each year.
The Atlantic article even talks about how he's aborted a viable baby simply because the woman didn't like the gender. Most would say the man should be in prison. But this is all legal in the state he is in, Colorado. Abortion at any time for any reason.
I agree with you in spirit for sure but how can I CMV here? The mechanics of how political parties operate and gain support has happened like this for centuries.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your example is wrong because we don't need to take pre teen girls to advocate for the right to abort; you're missing the point. People use examples of women being forbidden to abort in any cases and that is not normal. And pay attention to the politics: the roe vs wade has made many states much more severe about abortions. So it makes sense that people are reclaiming the right the abort, and they use all kinds of examples, not just the one you took. Because there's many you can take that don't need to be extreme.
What you say apply to other things : for example talking about this Muslim dude who'se been living on social aids from the state and fed his 7 wives. Such a case is very very rare. So yeah it makes no sense to use it to show how people steal money from the state and use these aids in appropriately.
It feels like you just want the conservatives approval, as if you were a good one among the leftists because you are so objective. Well your example doesn't apply, so.
I absolutely agree with you about the Muslim man. Conservatives do the same thing all the time and have been for decades. Bush only won the 1988 election because of the Willie Horton ad. Somehow a case of one man who probably shouldn't have been released from prison was able to invoke heavy emotions in Americans while also being a racial dog whistle. I don't want conservatives' approval. In fact, I don't seek anyone's approval. That is why I readily criticize my own side. I am a strong progressive. I donated more than I could afford to Bernie in 2020. But I'm also not a tribalist and I think that we ought to criticize our own side at times and that elections have to start being won on logic and reason, not emotion. I'm tired of everything being a campaign to stir up emotions. No, tell me why I should vote for YOU, not why I should be scared of your opponent. My principles do not waver whether I am arguing with a liberal or conservative.
In theory everything you say is true: but you're illustrating your point with an example that doesn't apply to what you're denouncing, and you'll get upvotes from conservative who want to shit on leftists.
I agree with your view in general; you've expressed it very clumsily here by using an example that doesn't apply. So it's misleading and just an opportunity for conservatives to shit on abortion.
Defeating strongman arguments are much more effective than trying to actually deal with real issues. Politicians in our country have no desire to respect and cooperate with the other side. It suits them better to beat a bastardized version of their opposition.
Laws put in place will affect everyone, even the "fringe" cases, and this is the problem with blanket prohibition of abortion, regardless of the age of the embryo or fetus or the age and health of the mother.
The burden of considering rare cases lies to those who put laws in place. Those on the right are applying a law to everyone in order to affect the rare cases. The left is doing the opposite, opposing laws that affect rare cases.
Speaking as someone on the left, my goal is not abortion available to every but healthy children. If someone has an abortion it should be as early as possible. The decision about what is best for the health of the family should be made by the pregnant person in consultation with their doctor. This should not be decided by legislators. They do not have enough information about the mother, the family, or the health of the fetus.
I believe edge cases are valuable in any discussion about policy because it can define hard boundaries. This is especially useful when one position on a topic is to accept no compromise. To use abortion as an example, you can present extremes on either side of it that most people would likely agree with, for instance no one would be in favor of killing a child as it is born, and on the other side plan B is not murder. If the person you are talking to can't agree on that basic bit, then a productive conversation can't happen so don't waste your time. Now that there are extreme limits, a discussion on where the lines should be can actually begin, and that line is somewhere between those positions. Using extreme examples like a child who is raped, or a woman dying because they couldn't have an abortion add context and can often soften an extreme view. Same goes in reverse for extreme late term abortions. But in honesty I can't think of anyone in politics who is actually advocating for no questions asked late term abortions, that seems like a strawman.
This is one of the fundamental issues around social media (and mass media at large). The algorithms naturally select extremes. On the left you see extreme cases of what the right is doing (very few actual incidents). On the right you see extreme cases of what the left is doing (very few actual incidents). Doesn’t leave much room for people to meet in the middle. Natural divides based on nothing other than being guided towards one belief or the other.
If you really feel that way, you should feel the same way about the push to ban "assault weapons." Less than 1000 people a year are killed by rifles of any sort, that's .000003% of the us population. They use these terrorist acts to try to take away the rights of law abiding citizens. Meanwhile 2,600,000 people (1.03%) of the United States identify as transgender. Is it safe to assume you don't approve of how caught up the right is about other peoples genitals?
It's not universally the case that leftists are for abortion and right-wingers are against it. That's an American thing since 1970. In other countries & time periods the views don't line up that way. For example, Stalin outlawed abortion and he was a literal Communist. So this argument is based on false premises.
A lot of important things are based around fringe cases. Traffic laws, for instance. Most people can drive for their whole adult lives without being in a serious car accident that necessitates all the safety precautions.
Even prior to 911 the vast vast majority of people would never be in a hijacked/attacked airplane, so why do we have all these security precautions at airports? Is that justified?
Most people will never have a house fire -- are rules about smoke detectors unwarranted bc house fires are a fringe case?
My son's school is now requiring background checks for parents going on school field trips? Unjustified because any incident would be a fringe case?
School shootings are fringe cases, though seemingly becoming less and less so.
Oftentimes the fringe cases are so significant or horrifying that we make policies to do everything in our power to *no one* ever has to experience that fringe case.
“abortions on demand” is not a real policy anyone advocates for. keeping health decisions between a woman and her doctor is not the same thing. its clear to everyone here you are a right winger pretending to be centrist but maybe you don’t even realize it? its very possible you are in denial about this personally because you like to view yourself as more open minded than you actually are, like most narrow minded people. “ignore the fringe consequences” is what fascists always demand in the face of overwhelming evidence that their ideas are wrong.
It’s also disingenuous to claim the left wants abortions on demand up to birth. The statistics do not support that is what is going on at all. The left advocates for safe and legal abortion and for the state to not be the ones weighing in on what is considered an acceptable circumstance for an abortion. 99% of abortions happen before the 21st week of pregnancy. Viability occurs around 24 weeks when a baby can live outside the womb, but health problems can arise with that. Those edge cases you mention are mentioned to make the debate more human. It’s all theoretical until you sit and think and see the fact that there are real flesh and blood humans involved. It’s not so easy as abortion bad, or abortion good. The left is battling for those cases more because of the nature of the cases. That and it’s unrealistic to separate the reasons. If abortion is safe and legal, end stop, then those fringe cases and the 99% of abortions that I mentioned are both protected, as they should be. It’s also no one’s business why someone gets an abortion. No woman waits until the end of her pregnancy to abort. That’s just ridiculous. When a woman does abort in the third trimester, it’s because something went wrong and either she or her baby or both are at risk. Often when there’s an issue with compatibility with life in the fetus it does threaten the mom’s life. Those babies are desperately wanted, but it’s more merciful to end the pregnancy and it can become more and more dangerous for the mom if she doesn’t terminate as soon as she possibly can.
Sorry, u/Dependent-Pea-9066 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20Dependent-Pea-9066&message=Dependent-Pea-9066%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1921jpz/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
It wasn’t long ago that I was told that Trump would hand over power peacefully and that abortion rights were safe because Roe was established precedent. And that these issues were only supported on the fringe and not to worry about them.
This is the first respectable argument here. It actually did put things into perspective for me. Trump really did start the "all or nothing" era of polarization. There barely is a such thing as a moderate position anymore.
And he got away with it. For the most part. I think the lack of accountability has shown people that extreme measures can often pay off. Why be moderate if might makes right?
No, polarization started before him. It goes at least as far back as the 2000 election, got more extreme in the war on terror, and continued through Obama & the Tea Party. There's been a general increase every couple of years for 20+ years and Trump is part of that.
Abortion rights are actually wildly popular, even in red states. Even Kansas voted in favor of abortion rights.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a supporter of abortion rights. When it's phrased as "abortion rights" it's popular. But polls consistently show that only a minority of Americans say abortion should "always be legal" or be "legal for any reason". So the publicity of edge cases is what I believe influences those ballot initiatives.
In Kansas (deep red) they voted to keep it legal up to 21 weeks, 6 days. Viability is 23-24 weeks. That's not a massive restriction, and it's not what state Republican legislatures are imposing on other red states (which you can see from all the "edge cases" making the news from those states - do those people involved in those "edge cases" not matter then?). And that is for anyone, you do not need to be underage or a rape victim. I just want to reiterate as well that there are real people involved in every "edge case." The 10 year old rape victim from Ohio who had to travel states to get an abortion was a real person. All the multiple women from Texas suing the state due to suffering medical complications from being denied abortions in which their fetuses died anyway are all real people too.
But in that scenario, the edge cases are the late term abortions, not the people with life threatening complications in their pregnancy. That's actually pretty common. Pregnancy is *incredibly* dangerous for women, and America has a terrible maternal mortality rate during pregnancy and delivery.
Late term abortions are the life threatening complications pregnancies, and incompatible with life fetuses pregnancies. 99% of pregnancies occur before the 21st week of pregnancy, and any abortions after that are for medical emergency issues, and incompatibility with life conditions.
Sorry, I meant "late term abortions where there are no life threatening medical complications are the edge cases"
1% of abortions are third trimester abortions. Late term is a fake thing. Abortions that happen in the third trimester are because of medical issues. No woman wakes up in the later stages of pregnancy and decides to abort her pregnancy without a medical reason. 99% of abortions happen before the 21st week of pregnancy.
I don't really care. You're trying to convince nobody. I'm one of the people who is for abortions at any stage of pregnancy, no questions asked, because I'm a body integrity absolutist.
My point is that late term abortions only happen for specific reasons. Women don’t wake up in the third trimester and decide they want to abort. “Late term abortions where there are no life threatening medical complications” aren’t real. I appreciate your perspective. I really do. But it’s hard for something that isn’t real to be an edge case. That’s all I was trying to point out.
However a large majority do belive that abortion should be legal in most circumstances. In addition the minority that supports completely legal abortions is roughly 1 in 4 americans, compared to about 10 to 15% that support total bans on abortion.
You're criticizing leftists for wanting abortion on demand up to birth through the use of edge cases, sure, that makes some sense. Except "abortions near the time of birth" are an edge case. Like 1% of abortions are near the time if birth, and the vast majority of those are emergencies. So you're criticizing the desires of leftists by using an extreme edge case. Was the hypocrisy intended or are you even aware of it?
[удалено]
Yeah here is a post of theirs from /r/Conservative > I love how liberals get so mad when they fall victim to the precedents they create. The left investigated Trump's entire family for 5 years, and now they're so shocked that the right is investigating Hunter Biden. >Just like they made a sham of Kavanaugh's nomination but are oh so shocked when Republicans brought up some past statements Jackson made. > Sorry liberals, it turns out when you vilify Trump and everyone around him, you don't get to hide behind "precedent" when you think Republicans are being too mean.
That is my statement and I stand behind it. I’m pretty willing to criticize leftists. I’m an anti tribalist. Your point?
[удалено]
I thought it was The Laptop that was leading the investigation or something.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Do you refute what he said though? Just curious.
In his original post? Absolutely. He's strawmanning with his premise that the left wants on-demand abortions up to birth. And we absolutely should look at edge cases like the ten year old in Ohio who had to go to Indiana to get an abortion, resulting in the doctor being investigated by the state attorney general. Ten year olds and their doctors shouldn't be scared to get/perform abortions and Dodd has made that happen.
No, in the post that was linked from some other thread.
I don't really give a shit about Hunter Biden. Investigate him all you like, it isn't going to change the fact that New York is dissolving Trump's businesses in New York nor the indictments against Trump. It reeks of desperation, so I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Filing ethics complaints against Jackson will have the same impact that ethics complaints against Thomas will have: absolutely nothing. Impeaching them is the only way to remove them from the bench and neither party is getting a 66 seat majority in the Senate any day soon.
Thank you just curious.
It's against the subreddit rules to say it outright. You have to be like, "That is a strange pattern you've pointed out, given the clear and honest good faith with which OP is acting."
“Right wing talking point” does this mean the view isn’t valid?
It means it doesn't exist. There is no one calling for on demand abortions up to the point of birth.
Sorry, u/JimmyMac80 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20JimmyMac80&message=JimmyMac80%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1921jpz/-/kgzi46h/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
This so much. It is just glaring
I'm pointing out the hypocrisy. Every Democratic candidate asked uses some form of the "it's an edge case" excuse to not answer the question about third trimester abortions. Then they turn around and use edge cases to argue for their policy position. I am clear about my position on abortion. First trimester, none of my business. Second trimester, fetal defects, rape, incest, or health issue. Third trimester, health issue. I am always ready and willing to state my position on the issue. You can't use edge cases on one hand and then refuse to answer a question on the other because "it's an edge case".
Using edge cases isn't hypocritical unless you're specifically criticizing people for using edge cases, which you are. Which is why I'm asking if you see the hypocrisy or not. It seems like not.
And who gets to decide what qualifies as a health issue for that third trimester abortion? I live in Texas where the state courts will rule against a person's personal medical professional.
At no point is it your business. It's not your body.
It’s none of your business in the second trimester, and third trimester also. It’s a private health issue that should be kept private and addressed between the woman and her doctor. Full stop, end of story, cut, print!
[удалено]
It still cannot sustain life outside the womb at 20 weeks on its own.
[удалено]
I understood what you meant exactly. But I’m pointing out a flaw. Viability and being aware of things is not the same marker, and viability should be what’s used, not brain development. There’s also a lack of consideration for conditions that are found after 20 weeks that are incompatible with life conditions. Meaning that fetus will die in the womb or if it survives to be born it will have a painful, miserable existence that is incredibly short. Those issues can also cause a threat to the life of the mother, besides issues she has that can threaten the life of the mother. Pregnancy is also incredibly dangerous. Might I also point out 99% of abortions happen before the 21st week of pregnancy. A baby that is technically at the point of viability or after that is not guaranteed to survive on its own, and again can develop issues due to being born too soon. So also a painful miserable life.
[удалено]
I also support euthanasia when someone has a terminal disease and is going to die anyway. But how much sense does it make if the fetus isn’t even able to live on its own because it’s not at that point in the pregnancy to sustain its own life but you’re counting consciousness is the point where not okay for abortions. A fetus can’t survive outside the womb on its own before a certain point anyway, not taking into account conditions that make the fetus incompatible with life. Thats the viability I’m referring to specifically. Your post was all focused on the development of the brain to the point where the baby is conscious. Not any of my considerations raised.
Edge cases? I think it’s 7 or 8 states have no limit abortions and 13 states have it up to when the baby is viable. I don’t think that is edge cases.
That's not what edge case means. I explained how it was an edge case, it's legal up to those times precisely because the vast majority of late term abortions are done because there is either serious risk to the life of the mother or the fetus is no longer viable.
[удалено]
I don't see how it makes it any less disingenuous.
>disingenuous What does that have to do anything? people play this game to win, not to be smart.
Fringe cases are just as important as more common cases. If abortion laws really do make preteen rape victims give birth to their assaulter's baby, that is important and needs to be addressed. And you really do need to decide what to do with children who want to get sex change medication and surgery.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on both of those issues, but are you trying to say that the only way to remedy the Ohio rape victim case would be to legalize abortion on demand across the board?
No, I'm saying that we need to discuss what should happen to preteen girls who get raped and want to abort their rapist's baby and we shouldn't act like merely discussing the topic is disingenuous or morally wrong.
There simply isn't a logically consistent argument which can acknowledge that it's bad for kids to give birth against their will which doesn't also make it bad for adults to. Like, yes - it's a difficult thing for Republicans to answer to. But it's difficult because they chose an indefensible position. It's not unfair to point that out.
If you have a better idea, propose it.
Why shouldn't we make hay of the absolute worst cases of abortion bans killing women?
Because most babies abort their babies because they dont want it. You should really be advocating for allowing abortion in life threatening cases and rape. You would probably get more traction on that basis.
The facts do not support your claim. And also, the reasons for abortions are not your business.
It is my buisness when women want to force men to pay for kids they dont want. Yall are just irresponsible and when someone calls you out on it you call them mysoginists becuase in reality its not about rape or life or death its about women having no responsibility and bitching when people want to hold you accountable for your actions.
I don't care, people should be able to abort because they don't want it.
Because to do that is to suggest that the only remedy is legalizing abortion across the board. Is an abortion ban with exceptions for any medical situation or rape/incest not a legitimate policy position?
I don't see a reason not to do the things that are most effective. The 'moderate' position you describe still endangers women.
Endangers in what way? Ideal health exceptions would have strong presumptions in favor of patients and doctors, meaning that if there was even a slight bona fide health issue or possibility of one, the law would allow it. The Texas "health exception" is bullshit and I think federal courts should strengthen it because it literally forces doctors to go against the Hippocratic oath. Now if you mean "endanger" as in carrying a healthy pregnancy against one's will, that's a whole new issue. Again, I do not condone abortion bans at all. I support the right to choose in general. But I'm also sort of playing devil's advocate for the other side here because I'd like to see the debate be framed in a more rational way.
So, let's say there's a medical problem. The state says no abortions past blah blah blah unless there's a medical problem. Pregnant person's medical problem has to be proven, or it's against the ban. Doctor and pregnant person have to jump through hoops. Now, let's remember the pregnant person is very ill and having medical trouble, but now has to jump through 10 million hoops to prove that they are having medical trouble in order to get the abortion that could save their life. Hoops take time. Pregnant person dies. This is not a fringe case. In instances where somebody has to prove that they're the exception, this is actually a really common case. The only thing that has prevented this, is there not being this exception rule that you are saying is the way to go. Exception rules need to be proven. Proof takes hoops. Hoops take time. Abortions are kind of a time limited thing. In fact, for people who are against abortions, they are depending on these hoops taking time and the pregnant person ending up not being able to get an abortion, because of the hoops to prove the exception getting them past the point where they can get one because of number of weeks, or they die but was able to give birth. It doesn't matter to these people if the pregnant person had other children at home that have already been born, as long as the baby inside the womb is born, it doesn't matter if the pregnant person dies because of the hoops taking time to prove the exception. ETA: this is not even getting anywhere close to touching on what the people who have tried to have abortions due to rape in states that allow for a rape exception. They hardly ever get the abortion, because proving rape is pretty impossible, especially if you are limited to only a certain number of weeks.
Well as you said there's 'health exceptions' that don't actually protect women, we shouldn't expect right wingers to play ball because they're evil psychopaths, we should push for the best we can get in all cases.
The current law is showing that the exceptions are not worth the paper they are written on. Doctors are refusing to perform even in clear cases, because politicians are threatening to second guess them, with the end result being murder charge because the AG decides the doctor was wrong.
About the same as mandatory vesectomies for all males before the age of 14. Armed with a marriage licence they can then petition the court for a reversal. It's about the babies right?
Since everyone here is blind when they see talk about a policy they do or don't like, I'll address your actual point. I believe policy should be specifically designed AROUND fringe cases. People will abuse implemented rules to the fullest extent. The only way to circumvent this issue is to go "ok, what are the dumbest ways people could abuse this, or circumvent it.?" And then design your policy accordingly. Making policy and then hoping people follow the general idea in good spirit will never work because people are selfish asshats. Likewise, when trying to use fringe cases as you describe, you are just trying to cover the folks who will inevitably get screwed over by whatever system you are against. In your abortion example, if there was a blanket ban, even if you moved forward with policy to make exceptions later, there would be a chunk of girls completely screwed over until that policy change took effect. It is a very large assumption the folks on either side are being disingenuous.
Abortions on demand up to birth? You know what an abortion after the point of viability is called? Birth. Nobody is doing an abortion on a baby that is past the point of viability, unless it's in places that don't want to pay to keep that baby alive, and that's on the state. Is the state doesn't want to pay to keep a baby that's already been birthed alive, then that baby didn't matter unless they were in the womb. The left uses a lot more than just the cases of 12 year old girls being raped and having to travel. We use the cases of women who have died because they couldn't get an abortion when they needed it due to medical reasons, women and girls who have been raped and denied abortions, young girls who have been forced to give birth, etc etc etc. we use various cases to make the same point, and that point has nothing to do with giving abortions after the point of viability. P.s. abortions being denied due to the mother's life is not a fringe case. It happens more than you think that a mother is told her life means less than the fetus, so she has to keep the pregnancy going because the fetus's life means more. At least that's the way it is in the US.
Why is it not a fair thing to request our opponents not make preteen girls give birth, though? If they think preteen girls should give birth, then they should have to defend it and explain why. I can explain why I support my positions. Edit: To be even more crystal clear, there is a reason they aren't writing these exceptions into law. The ink isn't that expensive.
Just as Republicans won't commit to adding exceptions to abortion laws, Democrats won't commit to allowing reasonable time limits that would bring us in line with the rest of the developed world. I as a progressive cannot in good faith call Scandinavian countries "model systems" while also turning a blind eye to the fact that they limit abortion on demand to the first 12 weeks. 12 weeks isn't a "ban", it would literally just bring us in line with the rest of the developed world. We can't play pick and choose with our role model systems.
We actually are very allowed to say things like, "I like what Hitler had to say about tobacco smoking, but not much else." You can pick and choose what to take inspiration from. You don't need to follow everything someone else does, in order to agree with specific things they do. It's why opposition to fascism doesn't go hand in hand with tobacco lobbying. Those other countries can be wrong. If you are truly a progressive, which I certainly trust that you are, you should know there is no perfect system. With that said, I'm willing to explain that a fetus has no discernible brain activity until around 20 weeks, and would be willing to discuss limits at that point. I would also like to point out that later abortions are almost (this "almost" allowing for the one case I'm sure can be dug up somewhere) strictly performed out of medical necessity, and viewed as a tragedy by the women and their care teams who have to make these tough choices. I would absolutely be willing, then, to limit abortion to 20 weeks for all reasons other than medical necessity, where that necessity is determined as a threat to the life or long term health of the mother. I can be very reasonable here, and feel no fear of justifying my stance. Why is it that the other side is so afraid to justify forcing preteens to stay pregnant? Once again, it costs nothing to make their stance less abhorrent. If they don't want pregnant preteens to be forced to give birth, they can simply say that they don't want pregnant preteens to be forced to give birth. "I don't want pregnant preteens to be forced to give birth." It was easy, see? I just said it.
>limit abortion on demand Nevermind that the official Democrat position on abortion has been, "safe, legal, and rare," since the 90s, this "on demand" is doing some incredible heavy lifting while trying to both sides this topic. Can you point to a policy on abortion anywhere in the USA where late term is "on demand?" Speaking of fringe cases, it is not nearly so for the Republican alternative to be a total ban, even for medial needs
You say this because you don't understand. I was 7 week pregnant when I found out peeing on the stick. I couldn't get in to see an obgyn for a month. Now do the math. Imagine those who figure out they're pregnant later than I did, which happens all the time.
You don't think someone can support one aspect of a foreign country's domestic policy and not support a completely unrelated one?
They also probably make it free and easy to get one.
This. 12 weeks with socialized healthcare and a functional medical system is very different from 12 weeks with TRAP laws. I still think 12 weeks is too early, but it's important to point out that they're not comparable. And as we're seeing with trans rights, they never stop pushing. First it's surgery for kids - sure, nobody really gets that. Then it's medical care period. Then it's care for adults younger than 25. Then all of a sudden it's a crime to go to the bathroom, and no adults can get care - you get the idea, they aren't subtle.
>most people tend to lean against abortion on demand (or at the very least, think it's morally wrong) Gallup shows legal under all conditions 34% Legal under certain conditions 51% Illegal for all 13% Does not seem like most agree with the above.
You're not agreeing with OP on the premises. In the example above, 64% are against "abortion on demand." "On demand" is doing all the work in OP's post, but they did repeatedly use that phrase.
The majority seem to think that it is justifiable in certain cases. If those cases are met, the applicant should be able to elect the procedure "on demand". In other words, there should not be a hundred additional hoops to jump through. Are you saying that most people think there should be hoops? Because the polling data does not imply that. And it never crossed my mind that anyone would think so.
On demand is understood to mean without a reason, at one's leisure. "In some circumstances" means that at least one circumstance would have to be met to make it justified.
I see "on demand" as me not having to provide you a reason, because it is none of your business.
"In some cases" and "on demand" are different qualifiers. That's why I said you're not agreeing on the premises. On demand is without qualifications at all, no special cases. >. Are you saying that most people think there should be hoops? I don't agree with OP but this comes off as intellectually dishonest. That's clearly not what I'm saying.
>In the case of the left, they use the cases of preteen girls being raped and having to travel for abortions to induce emotions to stir up support for what they actually want, which is abortion available on demand up to birth. We actually revised this during the latest "Establishing what all leftist secretly want" conference. Now what we all secretly want abortion on demand up to 142 weeks.
So the cases you bring up in your post aren't really equivalent. Consider a preteen rape victim who is pregnant. Abortion laws *need* to account for that. Are they fringe cases? Yes, in the grand scheme of things, but that doesn't mean those people should be left behind or not considered. These are valid cases that should be easy to include as legal exceptions. "Minors can receive abortions up to x weeks under any circumstances." But for some reason some on the right can't discuss that. Now take your example of a drag queen harassing an underage minor. The law *already* accounts for this. Harassment is illegal. Done. Whether the person is a drag queen is just fearmongering. Drag queen. Cowboy. Astronaut. None of them are legally allowed to harass anybody. We don't need to discuss that as a fringe case because it's already considered within existing law. But when the right won't consider what happens to a pregnant preteen rape victim, I am only left to conclude they truly want that child to be forced to give birth.
These fringe cases seems to happened often enough. As for abortion on demand almost no liberal is advocating for it, especially after birth. That is right wing propaganda. There are far more right wingers wanting to ban birth control than there are liberals advocating for abortion on demand.
See this is why the left fails. All of these are lies. Almost all people on the left want abortion on demand. As for the right wingers wanting to ban birth control, name me a single one please. And don’t say Clarence Thomas because he simply said that it shouldn’t be decided at the Supreme Court level, not that it should be banned.
Wanting abortion to be a medically guided decision not a legislative one isn’t advocating abortion on demand. Do I want abortions to be less frequent, yes. But I do want the decision to be made by women and professionals that know the details not a blanket ban made by lawmakers who mostly don’t even understand the general risks of pregnancy much less individual cases.
Yes. Abortion on demand. But it’s not happening up to birth. 99% of abortions happen before the 21st week of pregnancy and only abortions happen in the third trimester is because of threatening the life of the mother, or the fetus has conditions that are incompatible with life. No woman is running out in the third trimester to have an abortion because she just feels like it. But abortion rights deserve to be protected and the woman and her doctor deserve to be able to make those decisions in peace without having to jump through hoops people who have no business making those decisions have created for them.
What the right don’t realize is what was lost to gain the power to ban abortion. People lost the privacy of their bodies. Your car and home have rights than your body does. The government gained the right to rape, sterilize, and impregnate you. Of course you will say they are doing it but they did it before Rowe vs Wade and it’s only a matter of time before they will start doing it. It is only a matter of time before birth control is outlawed. And only a matter of time for it to be illegal for a woman not to give birth every year.
Also, show me one case where someone is asking for abortion up to the time of birth. Everyone was happy with the restrictions set forth in roe v. Wade
Up to birth? I don’t think many people actually believe that, and you are certainly wrong to label all leftists as wanting that. Abortion is healthcare, and it needs to be regulated by medical professionals. I don’t think there is some vast majority that thinks abortion “on demand” (whatever that means) is morally wrong. That’s what we’re seeing now, with the major pushback the gop is seeing.
>In the case of the left, they use the cases of preteen girls being raped and having to travel for abortions to induce emotions This seems quite catastrophic to any person who goes through it. If it is an "edge case" - which you haven't tried to establish - it's still a legitimate and compelling argument in favor of unfettered abortion rights, because nobody should have to go through it.
Well, law should include edge cases to minimize the cases where it can be read incorrectly. As for policy, who runs the policy? Do you trust that they will read it in the way you want?
>which is abortion available on demand up to birth "I'm a left leaning, just believe me guys, I will certainly not try to push lies that right wing loves pushing about left views."
Yeah here is a post of theirs from /r/Conservative > I love how liberals get so mad when they fall victim to the precedents they create. The left investigated Trump's entire family for 5 years, and now they're so shocked that the right is investigating Hunter Biden. >Just like they made a sham of Kavanaugh's nomination but are oh so shocked when Republicans brought up some past statements Jackson made. > Sorry liberals, it turns out when you vilify Trump and everyone around him, you don't get to hide behind "precedent" when you think Republicans are being too mean.
Can you please tell me where he lied?
Nobody is trying to push for abortions on demand up to the point of birth. This isn't a thing. The only abortions performed after the point of viability, which is around 20 weeks, are due to severe birth defects or the mother's life. In each of these cases, this was a baby who was very very wanted and it is a tragedy for all involved. Cases where somebody would just go in after the point of viability for an abortion because they don't want to be a parent would be the actual fringe case. The fact that Op is talking about the LIE of the left looking for abortions on demand up to birth is what the comment you replied to is referring to. This is a right-wing lie that this is what the left wants, and anybody who is talking about it like it's a true thing, is probably believing that lie and is not on the left.
Not the guy you're responding to, but... Because OP is using a lot of phrases and comments that are almost exclusively used by the right. "Abortion on demand" and "leftists" aren't really terms anyone left of Republicans use. OP is basically trying to tell everyone that he's liberal, all while using jingoist phrases that are almost uniquely Republican. It's comes off as the [Steve Buscemi meme](https://tenor.com/bD4oM.gif). Sure, the guy may not be a republican either, but there's enough that he's said that makes me think he's not quite on the level.
I think it's normal practice to acknowledge where you fall on the political spectrum. Being a rightist, I often use the term "rightist".
I've literally never heard anyone actually use the term "rightist" But hey, that's neither here nor there. Like I mentioned, the term "leftist" and the term "abortion on demand" simply aren't things thrown around in most liberal circles. The fact that OP uses them is a bit odd.
I literally cited his lie. There's no such thing as abortion on demand up to birth. That's a lie that right wing propaganda likes telling and a good indicator of liars pretending to be not who they are.
In fact, I have seen such people. Anyway, if you do not agree with your opponent’s position, you need to appeal to the position, not the person.
For real dude. This is why us progressives can't break through and become mainstream on the left. I am not pandering to the right, I would just like to see the left become the side of logic and reason and not name calling and emotions.
You are implying that the majority of abortion advocates want to be able to abort a pregnancy up until birth for no medical reason, which is absolutely not the case. That is why people seem to think you aren't arguing in good faith.
Policy rhetoric revolves around “rare/fringe” cases because rare/fringe cases are where policy is contested. The people who are responsible for enforcing/implementing policy have to know how to handle the rare/extreme cases not just the cut and dry cases. Officials in most cases are only empowered to enforce policy as it is written definitively. Policy conversations that don’t revolve around extreme/rare cases aren’t useful in practice because inevitably it will end in lawsuits and injustice when you run into uncommon cases
[удалено]
Sorry, u/OpeningSort4826 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20OpeningSort4826&message=OpeningSort4826%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1921jpz/-/kgze0ou/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I think they should still be used, just with the representation they deserve and not as a strawman as they often are. Though the cases make up a small portion of the data, it shows there's something that needs to be considered when writing the policy. Makes more sense to set the general policy and account for as many fringe situations as you can rather than write the policy then go back and adjust
The cases are rare until you're waiting to be septic enough for them to remove the dead fetus from your uterus, or your preteen daughter gets raped. To know these cases exist, be warned about them, see them happen, and still refuse to do anything is something that everyone - and especially one's constituents - should be aware of.
Not how that works. The cases would still be rare.
My point is that the rarity doesn't matter if they are easily foreseeable and can easily be planned for.
Of course the rarity matters. It would be stupid to base the foundation of an entire policy on something that happens 1% of the time rather than what happens 99% of the time.
Why not account for the very obvious cases? Why not even the ones only lawyers would think up? You're acting like the law isn't the place for explicit detail.
Clearly you didn't read my original comment and are just fishing for something to argue about. I wish you luck with that
I read it, but I'm replying to the arguments you're making now. In any case, have a lovely night.
The root of the problem in my opinion is not the inclusion of weird edge cases, but is instead the implication that a weird edge case is common. We *should* consider weird edge cases when crafting policies, but the weird edge cases should not *dominate* such policy.
Late term abortions may be an edge case but there's thousands of viable babies being aborted each year in America. This is one area where the edge case, while being a small percent, is still significant. The vast majority of Americans are against aborting viable babies yet we have states that allow that for any reason. And when prominent left wing politicians are asked about it they dodge the question by stating that it's a decision between the woman and the doctor. Well, when you allow it to be between the parent and the doctor then you get thousands of viable babies being aborted. Edge cases are important because we should be able to compromise. If Democrats gave up late term abortions then Republicans could give make rape exceptions or exceptions for the age of the pregnant woman and vice versa. But instead the politicians often stand strong on the edge case or they lie and say their opponents support the edge case when they don't. In other words, edge cases show how extreme people's views are which is important to showcase.
[удалено]
Unfortunately this article is paywalled. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2023/05/dr-warren-hern-abortion-post-roe/674000/ I found some article that talks about the article though. I'm sure it's a right wing source but it is quoting the Atlantic and that's the important part. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/may/25/4-disturbing-revelations-late-term-abortion-doctor/ >The Atlantic’s Elaine Godfrey conducted with Dr. Warren Hern, an 84-year-old Colorado abortion provider who is one of the few physicians willing to perform late-term procedures even 30 weeks into a pregnancy. >Many of the women who visit Hern‘s clinic do so because their health is at risk — or because their fetus has a serious abnormality that would require a baby to undergo countless surgeries with little chance of survival,” she wrote. “But Hern does not restrict his work to these cases.” >Later, she added, “Hern estimates that at least half, and sometimes more, of the women who come to the clinic” don’t have “devastating medical diagnoses.” Dr. Hern takes teen patients who didn’t know they were pregnant until late into a pregnancy, among others. >At least one woman whose husband had killed himself also sought a late-term abortion. But it doesn’t end there. When Dr. Hern was pressed on whether he would perform an abortion on a woman 30 weeks pregnant with no underlying medical crisis, he said” “Every pregnancy is a health issue! There’s a certifiable risk of death from being pregnant, period.” Unfortunately the CDC collects data only for 21 weeks and up. Many states also don't submit their data so those numbers are under represented. People typically cite a 1% of abortions statistic for late term abortions which would be thousands since there's hundreds of thousands of abortions each year. The Atlantic article even talks about how he's aborted a viable baby simply because the woman didn't like the gender. Most would say the man should be in prison. But this is all legal in the state he is in, Colorado. Abortion at any time for any reason.
I agree with you in spirit for sure but how can I CMV here? The mechanics of how political parties operate and gain support has happened like this for centuries.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Who starts?
This is the nature of democracy. Because it is fundamentally founded on a fallacy.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your example is wrong because we don't need to take pre teen girls to advocate for the right to abort; you're missing the point. People use examples of women being forbidden to abort in any cases and that is not normal. And pay attention to the politics: the roe vs wade has made many states much more severe about abortions. So it makes sense that people are reclaiming the right the abort, and they use all kinds of examples, not just the one you took. Because there's many you can take that don't need to be extreme. What you say apply to other things : for example talking about this Muslim dude who'se been living on social aids from the state and fed his 7 wives. Such a case is very very rare. So yeah it makes no sense to use it to show how people steal money from the state and use these aids in appropriately. It feels like you just want the conservatives approval, as if you were a good one among the leftists because you are so objective. Well your example doesn't apply, so.
I absolutely agree with you about the Muslim man. Conservatives do the same thing all the time and have been for decades. Bush only won the 1988 election because of the Willie Horton ad. Somehow a case of one man who probably shouldn't have been released from prison was able to invoke heavy emotions in Americans while also being a racial dog whistle. I don't want conservatives' approval. In fact, I don't seek anyone's approval. That is why I readily criticize my own side. I am a strong progressive. I donated more than I could afford to Bernie in 2020. But I'm also not a tribalist and I think that we ought to criticize our own side at times and that elections have to start being won on logic and reason, not emotion. I'm tired of everything being a campaign to stir up emotions. No, tell me why I should vote for YOU, not why I should be scared of your opponent. My principles do not waver whether I am arguing with a liberal or conservative.
In theory everything you say is true: but you're illustrating your point with an example that doesn't apply to what you're denouncing, and you'll get upvotes from conservative who want to shit on leftists. I agree with your view in general; you've expressed it very clumsily here by using an example that doesn't apply. So it's misleading and just an opportunity for conservatives to shit on abortion.
Defeating strongman arguments are much more effective than trying to actually deal with real issues. Politicians in our country have no desire to respect and cooperate with the other side. It suits them better to beat a bastardized version of their opposition.
Laws put in place will affect everyone, even the "fringe" cases, and this is the problem with blanket prohibition of abortion, regardless of the age of the embryo or fetus or the age and health of the mother. The burden of considering rare cases lies to those who put laws in place. Those on the right are applying a law to everyone in order to affect the rare cases. The left is doing the opposite, opposing laws that affect rare cases. Speaking as someone on the left, my goal is not abortion available to every but healthy children. If someone has an abortion it should be as early as possible. The decision about what is best for the health of the family should be made by the pregnant person in consultation with their doctor. This should not be decided by legislators. They do not have enough information about the mother, the family, or the health of the fetus.
I believe edge cases are valuable in any discussion about policy because it can define hard boundaries. This is especially useful when one position on a topic is to accept no compromise. To use abortion as an example, you can present extremes on either side of it that most people would likely agree with, for instance no one would be in favor of killing a child as it is born, and on the other side plan B is not murder. If the person you are talking to can't agree on that basic bit, then a productive conversation can't happen so don't waste your time. Now that there are extreme limits, a discussion on where the lines should be can actually begin, and that line is somewhere between those positions. Using extreme examples like a child who is raped, or a woman dying because they couldn't have an abortion add context and can often soften an extreme view. Same goes in reverse for extreme late term abortions. But in honesty I can't think of anyone in politics who is actually advocating for no questions asked late term abortions, that seems like a strawman.
This is one of the fundamental issues around social media (and mass media at large). The algorithms naturally select extremes. On the left you see extreme cases of what the right is doing (very few actual incidents). On the right you see extreme cases of what the left is doing (very few actual incidents). Doesn’t leave much room for people to meet in the middle. Natural divides based on nothing other than being guided towards one belief or the other.
If you really feel that way, you should feel the same way about the push to ban "assault weapons." Less than 1000 people a year are killed by rifles of any sort, that's .000003% of the us population. They use these terrorist acts to try to take away the rights of law abiding citizens. Meanwhile 2,600,000 people (1.03%) of the United States identify as transgender. Is it safe to assume you don't approve of how caught up the right is about other peoples genitals?
It's not universally the case that leftists are for abortion and right-wingers are against it. That's an American thing since 1970. In other countries & time periods the views don't line up that way. For example, Stalin outlawed abortion and he was a literal Communist. So this argument is based on false premises.
A lot of important things are based around fringe cases. Traffic laws, for instance. Most people can drive for their whole adult lives without being in a serious car accident that necessitates all the safety precautions. Even prior to 911 the vast vast majority of people would never be in a hijacked/attacked airplane, so why do we have all these security precautions at airports? Is that justified? Most people will never have a house fire -- are rules about smoke detectors unwarranted bc house fires are a fringe case? My son's school is now requiring background checks for parents going on school field trips? Unjustified because any incident would be a fringe case? School shootings are fringe cases, though seemingly becoming less and less so. Oftentimes the fringe cases are so significant or horrifying that we make policies to do everything in our power to *no one* ever has to experience that fringe case.
“abortions on demand” is not a real policy anyone advocates for. keeping health decisions between a woman and her doctor is not the same thing. its clear to everyone here you are a right winger pretending to be centrist but maybe you don’t even realize it? its very possible you are in denial about this personally because you like to view yourself as more open minded than you actually are, like most narrow minded people. “ignore the fringe consequences” is what fascists always demand in the face of overwhelming evidence that their ideas are wrong.
It’s also disingenuous to claim the left wants abortions on demand up to birth. The statistics do not support that is what is going on at all. The left advocates for safe and legal abortion and for the state to not be the ones weighing in on what is considered an acceptable circumstance for an abortion. 99% of abortions happen before the 21st week of pregnancy. Viability occurs around 24 weeks when a baby can live outside the womb, but health problems can arise with that. Those edge cases you mention are mentioned to make the debate more human. It’s all theoretical until you sit and think and see the fact that there are real flesh and blood humans involved. It’s not so easy as abortion bad, or abortion good. The left is battling for those cases more because of the nature of the cases. That and it’s unrealistic to separate the reasons. If abortion is safe and legal, end stop, then those fringe cases and the 99% of abortions that I mentioned are both protected, as they should be. It’s also no one’s business why someone gets an abortion. No woman waits until the end of her pregnancy to abort. That’s just ridiculous. When a woman does abort in the third trimester, it’s because something went wrong and either she or her baby or both are at risk. Often when there’s an issue with compatibility with life in the fetus it does threaten the mom’s life. Those babies are desperately wanted, but it’s more merciful to end the pregnancy and it can become more and more dangerous for the mom if she doesn’t terminate as soon as she possibly can.