The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Eris!]

2020 must be your favorite year ever.

2012 was a point of inflection on the curve.
It's all up from here, baby.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

Cool imaginary reality you live in.
In the real world they aren't

I'll be busy most of the eve with laughing at the debate, but. Did you mean to link that graph? I can get back to the rest later, but uh.
The graph shows a high growth among "under any circumstances abortion is fine" people, the slight decrease in "under some circumstances," and a virtual flatline among people opposed in any circumstances. That means about 80% is on board with it at some point or another versus 20% opposed to it in all circumstances.

Are you a Eurofag?
Because in the US "homicide" doesn't imply intent.

"The deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder. " is the literal definition a quick search pulls up, whereas it appears a disambiguation suggests that deliberate just means volitional, and thus can be accidental: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide
So 'killing the killer' and 'homiciding the homicider' are both fundamentally lacking, because I want to make clear that there's no chance of someone making an accident or negligently discharging a gun! Someone intentionally shoots a doc; someone intentionally shoots the shooter. Voluntarily manslaughter the voluntary manslaughterer? Oh, that one rings.

Irrational 'parade of horribles AKA slippery slope'.

I mean, I wouldn't peg you for someone a fan of hood justice, but the world's full of surprises.

Duration arguably could make a difference, location alone can never do so.
The latter leads to the question: 'what about during birth or 30 minutes before?' The only answer to that particular question is state granted humanity (See: genocide)

By state granted humanity, you're saying that the state is deciding the point at which a zygote or a fetus is considered to be human? So it is that if any degree of abortion is allowed, you view that as a state-sponsored deliberate killing of a large group of people ie genocide?
Meaning that if I only believe that past the second trimester, that abortion is the intentional killing of an unborn child - that is when the point at which I would have to view it as state-sponsored genocide?
Is the idea that if the state decides the point at which a zygote/fetus is granted humanity... either that this act in and of itself is immoral, or that giving the state this ability would allow it to later redefine the point at which 'humanity' is granted on a whim? That's a more interesting point. While I personally believe the state setting a line between the first and second trimester as granting that humanity is fine, given your complete distrust of government or the courts I can see why you would be wary of them later changing that arbitrarily to something so extreme as post-birth abortion, as Virginia seemed to dance around in its rhetoric.

If you can find a concise way to make this point, this is definitely one of the stronger ones by my take. I don't consider a first-trimester pregnancy to be a developed human, so seeing that as state-sponsored genocide registers no waves with me. But the arbitrary nature of how that line could be moved is something I cannot argue against.
For as fickle as law is, I would like that line to be codified as clearly in a way that is as difficult as possible to amend or to rescind. Yes, it ultimately eventually could be shuffled about - the same is true of banning the practice outright, however. The next-best-thing to an unreachable goal is still, to me, worth pursuing.

Agreed.
That also means your arguments about the law being an objective standard is false.
It's a random standard made up at will.

I argue that they're as close to "objective" as we have proven that we can get as a society. They are necessarily subject to the will of the masses, which can be bought and corrupted and swayed in any myriad number of ways, and they are then subject to the whims of judges who are (all too often) elected by those same masses. The system is imperfect, but so long as it is the one that exists where I do, I prefer to work within it and attempt, vainly, to fix it.

Only if "shall not" means "no".
Judicial review is meaningless when "shall not" can be interpreted as 'can at a lower standard than the invented right of abortion'.

Outright bans of both are prohibited, but aye, the gist is correct. Guns got to the point through mounds upon mounds of precedent - abortion got the affirmative action treatment.

A new concept that only applies to abortion. That is impossible to reconcile with equal protection.

Right, hence why the "right to protection" is a product of judicial activism, but such an extreme and perverted example that it stands apart from the normal form of activist judgework. My anecdotal experience has led me to find that pro-choice people I know cannot for the life of themselves understand or explain the ruling, and indeed agree with RBG that the ruling is hot garbage.

And so I see the concern that any form of judicial activism can lead to another case as extreme and absurd as RvW, even if I might disagree about how likely that is.

The closest would be this ban on "partial birth" abortion that is in the area of the 30 before birth question above. It was upheld by SCOTUS.
But that is irrelevant to your apples and potatoes conflation.

I mean, it seems only fair to ask if the "NEVER" side can muster up a simple majority if the "ALWAYS" side also can't.

Nah. Since the words of the law don't actually mean what they say to the courts, it's far easier to copy the Democrats and stack the courts to rule ideologically.
Then you can try to amend.

I don't stand in opposition to this, but you still need to get enough people on your side of the aisle to secure the presidency and the senate for those judges (and then enough people to either directly elect state-level ones or elect their electors, depending on the state).
While I might prefer a senate that was less partisan and more civil, I see nothing wrong with the republicans taking the opportunity to try to stack the courts as much and as quickly as they can, and using every tool to do so. The political system allows the dems that same privilege, even if the senate favors republicans and smaller factions at current, as was its design.

Despite my fucking up my point that I can argue that state sponsored genocide can be dangerous to the human race, you refuse to defend your position that state genocide is moral due to Democratic will and law?

I'm saying that by some moral systems, state genocide is moral. If I were a Communist, then the Great Leap Forward was moral; if I were a Nazi, then the holocaust. But I am neither of those. As I do not view a first-trimester fetus as a human or a person, I do not view that as state genocide by your definition, either. And I find second and third trimester abortions to be immoral, just as I find the other genocides immoral. I don't think I'd ever personally use that word to describe it, but I see why you're saying it.

That's called 'profit motive', and is very recent, not quite "throughout human history".

Effective forms of contraception and safe first-trimester abortion are also both very recent, and not present throughout human history. There are any number of variables which could have influenced that shift, just as there are many variables which could have influenced older traditions.

"Seems like" "increasingly" what is this based on?
Media opinion?

Well, using the graph you linked as an example of the polling and the numbers - there is a population explosion in the US when the Boomers come around, right? Around '76, we've got somewhere in the ballpark of 203M people. In 2020, it looks like the estimate is around 332M, a growth of 1.6 or so. It's safe to say that the elderly tend to be more pro-life than the young, who are more likely to be pro-choice.

If the number of people who are adamantly against abortion in all forms has flatlined, it seems logical to assume that it's predominantly made up of the old. The people who were old in 1976 are all dead. In 2020, the Boomers are the old people. It's either this election or the next one in which Boomers are no longer the hegemonic voting bloc in US elections, meaning that enough millennials, X-ers, zoomers, and so-on have begun voting that they collectively outnumber Boomers.

So if pro-life support is steady mostly on the back of one of the largest group of old-age retirees the country has ever seen, what happens as that group begins to pass on? The assumption is that as Millennials/Zoomers age, they'll shift into the under-no-circumstances group. Yet the boomers greatly outnumbered the greatest generation in population when they went on to replace the greatest generation, and the boomers were generally much more religious (and not raised with social media) than are millennials/zoomers.

Plus, the extreme "abortion is cool whenever" group has increased its appeal at the behest of the middle group in more recent years, which doesn't strike me as a great trend if the pattern i nthe '90s repeats.

There's zero reason to make arguments of any kind to convince people.
Just like there was zero arguments made in convincing anyone ever on this subject other than the 9 who had a vote.

Well, to convince enough to get hold of the senate and presidency to move in judges and justices, at least? This will simply be a matter of disagreement - I am not as disillusioned.

Continue to be dwindling that the polling doesn't support.
K.

That part is correct of the graph, at least. The % of population is the same, yep, but above outlines why I speculate it won't last. And at the very least, more people are being convinced that "abortion on demand" is a great idea than are "abortion never".

What you are missing is that passing an amendment either allowing or outlawing abortion, is far more difficult than the normal legislative process, intentionally so. The bar to clear is so high that most people wouldn't even try to push for it. Just look at what happened with the Equal Rights Amendment. It is really difficult to do that and it shouldn't be necessary anyway. The only other way to move the court out of the way and allow any change to abortion laws would be overturn Roe v Wade's decision. States have passed laws on abortion that have been challenged in the courts. In every case the Supreme Court either declined to hear the case at all or made a narrow ruling that avoided dealing with the issue of RvW. Maybe with a conservative court that will no longer be the case.

The grapevine of loosely-legal-adjacent people I hear from (so, anecdotal) suggest that while RvW might still be stuck on the books, the new court might use how porous its grounding is to carve out massive holes to allow states to de facto ban abortion more than they already do - a good number barely have one clinic and do quite a lot to restrict their ability to do much of anything with insurance, is my understanding. The main point of bringing up amendments is simply to suggest that enough of the population exists that the requirements needed for an amendment cannot be me, suggesting it isn't as if no-one is in favor of the thing or the pro-choice stance is just some wacky fringe -- nothing more than that. RvW's entire existence can still be horseshit, and its revision or rescinding is much more onerous than it realistically should be, but those are separate topics - mine was just a very simply, very basic "enough exist that disagree."

 

[Agent Abe Caprine]

Some people firebomb those infanticidal maniacs are are totally morally justified in doing so, Get over it already.

Ice cream man spotted.

 

[Eris!]

By state granted humanity, you're saying that the state is deciding the point at which a zygote or a fetus is considered to be human? So it is that if any degree of abortion is allowed, you view that as a state-sponsored deliberate killing of a large group of people ie genocide?

Yes.

I argue that they're as close to "objective" as we have proven that we can get as a society. They are necessarily subject to the will of the masses, which can be bought and corrupted and swayed in any myriad number of ways, and they are then subject to the whims of judges who are (all too often) elected by those same masses. The system is imperfect, but so long as it is the one that exists where I do, I prefer to work within it and attempt, vainly, to fix it.

There is no fixing something inherently bad. The system of democracy doesn't get "as close to objective as possible." If anything it gets as far from it as possible.

I'm saying that by some moral systems, state genocide is moral.

The only moral systems relevant to this conversation are the ones held by its participants.

If I were a Communist, then the Great Leap Forward was moral;

Holy shit, no. That's not how it works.

As I do not view a first-trimester fetus as a human or a person

Why the fuck not?

There are any number of variables which could have influenced that shift, just as there are many variables which could have influenced older traditions.

We know the explicit variables which caused that shift. They are nine people in black robes.

I'm saying that by some moral systems, state genocide is moral.

By some systems anything is immoral. By some systems A=!A. Literally just stating that disagreement exists is not an argument in and of itself unless you can establish that disagreement is reasonable.

The assumption is that as Millennials/Zoomers age, they'll shift into the under-no-circumstances group.

The vast majority of milennials and zoomers do not live in NYC, San Francisco, or LA, and are probably not in favor of infanticide.

Well, to convince enough to get hold of the senate and presidency to move in judges and justices, at least? This will simply be a matter of disagreement - I am not as disillusioned.

Political solutions are not possible. The political process is intentionally designed to be dysfunctional. Democracy should be abolished. We need a Cincinnatus to kill a whole lot of people and restore normality. Fuck appealing to people. Kill them until there is no one left who wants to commit infanticide.

mine was just a very simply, very basic "enough exist that disagree."

Not a single person in this thread gives a shit. This is not an argument.

 

[ChikN10der]

Well you guys have ruined abortion sperging. I either read outrageous walls of text that are 3/4 retarded or I talk past you and get drowned in a sea of autism.

Everything doesn't have to be a philosophical jerk off session.

 

[Not Really Here]

I'll be busy most of the eve with laughing at the debate, but. Did you mean to link that graph? I can get back to the rest later, but uh.
The graph shows a high growth among "under any circumstances abortion is fine" people, the slight decrease in "under some circumstances," and a virtual flatline among people opposed in any circumstances. That means about 80% is on board with it at some point or another versus 20% opposed to it in all circumstances.

Sorry, they way you were making sweeping statements about the popularity of the issue I assumed you had actually researched the point. Here you go.
Over 24 years that is graphed "under any circumstances abortion is fine" is up 7 points from the start and down 5 from around '93.
That can't be described as "high growth" under any circumstances.
"That means about 80% is on board with it at some point' that include people who are in favor of saving women from ectopic pregnancies(life of the mother), and is actually trending down.

"The deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder. " is the literal definition a quick search pulls up, whereas it appears a disambiguation suggests that deliberate just means volitional, and thus can be accidental: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide
So 'killing the killer' and 'homiciding the homicider' are both fundamentally lacking, because I want to make clear that there's no chance of someone making an accident or negligently discharging a gun! Someone intentionally shoots a doc; someone intentionally shoots the shooter. Voluntarily manslaughter the voluntary manslaughterer? Oh, that one rings.

My point in mocking your use of the word "murder" in the first place, was your attempt to frame the hypothetical using language that mandates 'unjustified'.
This is the last time I'm dealing with this cope.

I mean, I wouldn't peg you for someone a fan of hood justice, but the world's full of surprises.

Glad you can admit you can't defend your fallacious argument.

By state granted humanity, you're saying that the state is deciding the point at which a zygote or a fetus is considered to be human? So it is that if any degree of abortion is allowed, you view that as a state-sponsored deliberate killing of a large group of people ie genocide?
Meaning that if I only believe that past the second trimester, that abortion is the intentional killing of an unborn child - that is when the point at which I would have to view it as state-sponsored genocide?
Is the idea that if the state decides the point at which a zygote/fetus is granted humanity... either that this act in and of itself is immoral, or that giving the state this ability would allow it to later redefine the point at which 'humanity' is granted on a whim? That's a more interesting point. While I personally believe the state setting a line between the first and second trimester as granting that humanity is fine, given your complete distrust of government or the courts I can see why you would be wary of them later changing that arbitrarily to something so extreme as post-birth abortion, as Virginia seemed to dance around in its rhetoric.

This is a perfect example of inconsistency. You use a slippery slope argument to create never ending chains of revenge killing, then later say you're fine with non-democratic segments of the government deciding humanity of genetically distinctly human creatures on a nearly random basis.
No chance of a slippery slope there.

If you can find a concise way to make this point, this is definitely one of the stronger ones by my take. I don't consider a first-trimester pregnancy to be a developed human, so seeing that as state-sponsored genocide registers no waves with me. But the arbitrary nature of how that line could be moved is something I cannot argue against.
For as fickle as law is, I would like that line to be codified as clearly in a way that is as difficult as possible to amend or to rescind. Yes, it ultimately eventually could be shuffled about - the same is true of banning the practice outright, however. The next-best-thing to an unreachable goal is still, to me, worth pursuing.

The condition of "fully developed human" arguably doesn't occur until after the age of 25.
The actual question is 'when does a personality start forming?', and if you can't accurately and provably pin point that time, you can't defend termination using basic ethics, but the stupid framing used to rationalize abortion abhors making and defending these arguments.
Define what is a human, show proof, then argue based on your evidence non-humanity, if you can't do that you have no "choice" argument at all.

I argue that they're as close to "objective" as we have proven that we can get as a society. They are necessarily subject to the will of the masses, which can be bought and corrupted and swayed in any myriad number of ways, and they are then subject to the whims of judges who are (all too often) elected by those same masses. The system is imperfect, but so long as it is the one that exists where I do, I prefer to work within it and attempt, vainly, to fix it.

It's a varied ruleset that is changed at the whim of courts you can't defend against without money, not counting SCOTUS that you can't defend against at all.
We can and have done far better than the current activist standard of 'the law and Constitution is silent here so I'll just make it up'.

I mean, it seems only fair to ask if the "NEVER" side can muster up a simple majority if the "ALWAYS" side also can't.

I didn't say it wasn't "fair", I said that your conflation of 'amendment vs simple majority' was absurd.

I don't stand in opposition to this, but you still need to get enough people on your side of the aisle to secure the presidency and the senate for those judges (and then enough people to either directly elect state-level ones or elect their electors, depending on the state).
While I might prefer a senate that was less partisan and more civil, I see nothing wrong with the republicans taking the opportunity to try to stack the courts as much and as quickly as they can, and using every tool to do so. The political system allows the dems that same privilege, even if the senate favors republicans and smaller factions at current, as was its design.

'And that's how SCOTUS got 4,000 members and became irrelevant'~History teacher in 2060.

I'm saying that by some moral systems, state genocide is moral. If I were a Communist, then the Great Leap Forward was moral; if I were a Nazi, then the holocaust. But I am neither of those. As I do not view a first-trimester fetus as a human or a person, I do not view that as state genocide by your definition, either. And I find second and third trimester abortions to be immoral, just as I find the other genocides immoral. I don't think I'd ever personally use that word to describe it, but I see why you're saying it.

An utterly subjective application of situational ethics rather than morality, but understandable with the current conflation of the words "ethics" and "morality".

Effective forms of contraception and safe first-trimester abortion are also both very recent, and not present throughout human history. There are any number of variables which could have influenced that shift, just as there are many variables which could have influenced older traditions.

I'm glad you can now admit that the current state of reproductive selectivity is recent and not "throughout the history of humanity".

Well, using the graph you linked as an example of the polling and the numbers - there is a population explosion in the US when the Boomers come around, right? Around '76, we've got somewhere in the ballpark of 203M people. In 2020, it looks like the estimate is around 332M, a growth of 1.6 or so. It's safe to say that the elderly tend to be more pro-life than the young, who are more likely to be pro-choice.

Doesn't fit the down on 'abortion under any circumstanced from '93 to today.

If the number of people who are adamantly against abortion in all forms has flatlined, it seems logical to assume that it's predominantly made up of the old. The people who were old in 1976 are all dead. In 2020, the Boomers are the old people. It's either this election or the next one in which Boomers are no longer the hegemonic voting bloc in US elections, meaning that enough millennials, X-ers, zoomers, and so-on have begun voting that they collectively outnumber Boomers.

Argument by assumption again I see. Meh.
Far more likely that people who have had children are against but whatever.

So if pro-life support is steady mostly on the back of one of the largest group of old-age retirees the country has ever seen, what happens as that group begins to pass on? The assumption is that as Millennials/Zoomers age, they'll shift into the under-no-circumstances group. Yet the boomers greatly outnumbered the greatest generation in population when they went on to replace the greatest generation, and the boomers were generally much more religious (and not raised with social media) than are millennials/zoomers.

Unproven assumption/ignore

Plus, the extreme "abortion is cool whenever" group has increased its appeal at the behest of the middle group in more recent years, which doesn't strike me as a great trend if the pattern i nthe '90s repeats.

Almost like you get spikes of approval as a new generation hits fucking years that drops when they have children, or find out they can't and can't adopt a baby in the US without waiting a decade.

Well, to convince enough to get hold of the senate and presidency to move in judges and justices, at least? This will simply be a matter of disagreement - I am not as disillusioned.

What a wonderful "as objective as possible" argument, fact, moral, or ethical standard for law.
Far better than reading the words on the paper and applying it.
Can't wait for the shitshow when someone in Congress gets a Bill passed and signed defining what a human person is.

That part is correct of the graph, at least. The % of population is the same, yep, but above outlines why I speculate it won't last. And at the very least, more people are being convinced that "abortion on demand" is a great idea than are "abortion never".

"more" as in less than '89-'97.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

Well you guys have ruined abortion sperging. I either read outrageous walls of text that are 3/4 retarded or I talk past you and get drowned in a sea of autism.

Everything doesn't have to be a philosophical jerk off session.

what a trove of valuable people farting at each other is lost. nothin personnel, kid
If only you could look at virtually any of the planned parenthood social media pages to get that good, quality shit-flinging

Spoiler: just for you, babe

Caught on to your style, though.

Sorry, they way you were making sweeping statements about the popularity of the issue I assumed you had actually researched the point. Here you go.
Over 24 years that is graphed "under any circumstances abortion is fine" is up 7 points from the start and down 5 from around '93.
That can't be described as "high growth" under any circumstances.
"That means about 80% is on board with it at some point' that include people who are in favor of saving women from ectopic pregnancies(life of the mother), and is actually trending down.

2020-1976 is 44 years. In terms of ANY's highest point of 34, which came in a 5-year high, yes, it is down 5 points from it. 1993 was 27 years ago. Ten years ago, it was at a low point of 21. It has since grown up to 29.
If your time frame is literally just from 1993, okay, sure, there's a dip in ANY and a growth in NONE. If your time frame is all of the data available, the last decade, or the last two decades, ANY's growth outpaces NONE's. When I'm talking about things NOW going the way of the ANY, it is more likely that I'd be referring to the last ten years than the last specifically-for-some-reason-27 years.

My point in mocking your use of the word "murder" in the first place, was your attempt to frame the hypothetical using language that mandates 'unjustified'.
This is the last time I'm dealing with this cope.

So, uh, why'd you say a convicted first-degree murderer, Robert Lewis Dear Jr., was justified?

Glad you can admit you can't defend your fallacious argument.

This is a perfect example of inconsistency. You use a slippery slope argument to create never ending chains of revenge killing, then later say you're fine with non-democratic segments of the government deciding humanity of genetically distinctly human creatures on a nearly random basis.
No chance of a slippery slope there.

I don't know if you need help loading your gun or something, but generally, it takes one guy to buy a piece and shoot someone.

How many people does it take to make those decisions on the court? Now, the cheeky answer is 9, but you have to get legal teams together, go through all of the state and federal courts - that's a lot more people. The people either elect those lower justices directly, or elect the state electors who select them; the people elect the senators which approve the federal ones and indeed the justices directly. Not only does that provide more stopgaps, but it also provides more points at which the electorate influences things. You're also fully able to have the democratically-elected segments of government overturn whatever that court says, if you can get the numbers.

What did you say about apples and potatoes?

The condition of "fully developed human" arguably doesn't occur until after the age of 25.
The actual question is 'when does a personality start forming?', and if you can't accurately and provably pin point that time, you can't defend termination using basic ethics, but the stupid framing used to rationalize abortion abhors making and defending these arguments.
Define what is a human, show proof, then argue based on your evidence non-humanity, if you can't do that you have no "choice" argument at all.

So here's your strat - you stuff shit in peoples' mouth they didn't say and then whine about it. Where'd I say fully developed? I said developed. Earlier, I said location determines the difference between a glob of cells (womb) and a fully-formed human (not in the womb). Nowhere in there am I suggesting that the full development of humans, which indeed is generally 25, is relevant to decide what is and is not a human. The government, any government, every government, is able to decide that any point is their cutoff. We use rhetoric and different systems of morality to guide this point. Yes, you and whatever your system of morality has no literal, direct control - go conquer a country. Or be a doomer about how doing anything is pointless.

Generally, people like me care about "can the fetus feel pain? does the fetus look like humanoid on the ultrasound, is it moving?" and items of that nature to guide our cutoff. The point of abortion should be to cause the least amount of pain possible - if the fetus cannot feel pain, you are causing absolutely none to relieve the mother's. If the fetus can feel pain, then you are causing pain to relieve pain - an equation that shouldn't have to be done, and should be outlawed excepting the viability of the fetus or the mother's health (extreme pain). Appearance or movement may be totally unrelated to whether or not a fetus can feel pain, but we also begin to empathize with the human shape and behavior and begin to see that abortion as ending a human life. A fertilized egg does not have the same effect in the slightest.

It's a varied ruleset that is changed at the whim of courts you can't defend against without money, not counting SCOTUS that you can't defend against at all.
We can and have done far better than the current activist standard of 'the law and Constitution is silent here so I'll just make it up'.

John Marshall began his stint as Chief Justice in 1801. Marbury v. Madison is 1803. I've agreed fully that commerce clause and rvw shit is antithetical even to the concept of judicial review, but the vast majority of court cases about bills and laws are going to involve it. District of Columbia v. Heller, has the court interpreting the second amendment to judge a bill.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

How'd they get that from " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "?

Are you pining for that period of time between 1789 to 1803?

I didn't say it wasn't "fair", I said that your conflation of 'amendment vs simple majority' was absurd.

Where'd I conflate them? I said you had to overcome a bloc, since if there was no bloc, you could just throw it out. That bloc is the one big enough to block an amendment. You're the one that inserted 'simple majority' because that's how you were reading it. Ideally you should just need a simple majority, but I was not conflating the two at all.

An utterly subjective application of situational ethics rather than morality, but understandable with the current conflation of the words "ethics" and "morality".

Back to semantics?
Ethics: a system of moral principles / the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc. / moral principles, as of an individual / that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

Given that I have been saying "system of morals" virtually every single time that I bring it up, I don't much believe that I have been conflating the two as synonymous. Given that I have rejected the idea of a objective morality multiple times, I think it's pretty clear what I'm saying: you cannot prove any morality is objective, which is why religions are systems of belief. You cannot prove to me why your morals are more objective than Jihadi John's morals. You can say that your morals are closer to what the Bible presents than are JJ's, and that you believe the bible to be objective.

I can argue why by some ethics, state genocide is indeed moral; I can argue why by my ethics, it is not moral. I cannot argue from an 'objective' morality whether or not it is, just as you cannot. ...or, have I been talking with God this whole time? Did my whore of a wife make it up there?

I'm glad you can now admit that the current state of reproductive selectivity is recent and not "throughout the history of humanity".

Mmhm, right. Oh, oh, right, morality is solid and unchanging forever and ever, so what was prudently absorbed into the mid-1200s systems of morality will forever remain that way regardless of if any of the circumstances surrounding those moral principles change. If you could just point me to where I could find this objective, unchanging moral truth, it'd really fix me right up.

Doesn't fit the down on 'abortion under any circumstanced from '93 to today.

Argument by assumption again I see. Meh.
Far more likely that people who have had children are against but whatever.

Boomers start in 1945, roundabouts. I agree with your notion that people who have children are more likely to swap to more restrictive stances on it. By 1976, the oldest boomers are around 31. In 1989, (where the growth leading up to 1993 appears) 18 year-olds were born in 1971. These children of the boomers seemed to have been much more keen on abortion, until around looks like '97, where those 18-year-olds are now 26. 1976 - 1971 = 5; 31-5 = 26. Around 26 seems to be prime child-having time, which would be the prime time for the ANY support to drop among that newest group, the X-ers.

Unproven assumption/ignore

Almost like you get spikes of approval as a new generation hits fucking years that drops when they have children, or find out they can't and can't adopt a baby in the US without waiting a decade.

Safe to say that more boomers and x-ers than millennials have had children. Millennials are either choosing not to have children/adopt OR to delay such until later-in-life much more than are previous generations. Religiosity based on every single metric is down for millennials / zoomers (church attendance, professed belief, membership in religious organizations).

Now, if the normal child-having age was 26 for millennials, the oldest millennials would be having children around 2006. Bumping the age up to 30, we expect it around 2010. While there is no significant growth in the ANY statistic between 1998->2010, the movement mostly seems to be between the NEVER and the SOMETIMES. But starting at 2010, when we might expect millennials to start becoming more NONE, support for ANY begins to rise.

I believe that gen-Z starts at 1996, so the oldest zoomer is 18 in 2014. ANY was ticking up between 2010 and 2014, when one would expect it to be ticking down.

Of course, these are all minor fluctuations bit by bit, and the whole of the exercise is inherently speculative. Unless you're God, I mean!

What a wonderful "as objective as possible" argument, fact, moral, or ethical standard for law.
Far better than reading the words on the paper and applying it.
Can't wait for the shitshow when someone in Congress gets a Bill passed and signed defining what a human person is.

I point you back to DC v Heller for a reminder that judicial review has existed for 217 years and is still goin' strong.

But, as I suggested above, by all means - conquer your own country and design a better and more rigid structure of government than this one. Or try to fight back in this one. Or don't do anything at all.

"more" as in less than '89-'97.

Yeah, for getting a beat on the current trend, it really is worthwhile to look at the last 30 years than the last 10 or 20.

The most interesting polls among that Gallup set are the ones that describe self-identification as pro-choice or pro-life both being around 50% each, as well as support for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion outside of circumstances to save the life of the mother. That question stops being asked in 2005, but it seems to be one of the most important ones. That would put the broadly pro-choice support at around 37% to 61%! Of course, that's down from 50-46 in 1984 and 42-56 in 1992, but that's a trend line I'd like to follow. It seems steady between 1996-2005.

 

[ChikN10der]

I'd be happy if someone slapped both of you with a raw salmon...

 

[Eris!]

So, uh, why'd you say a convicted first-degree murderer, Robert Lewis Dear Jr., was justified?

We literally already explained this to you. I don't know why you insist on just asking the exact same question over and over again when both of us have answered it exhaustively.

I don't know if you need help loading your gun or something, but generally, it takes one guy to buy a piece and shoot someone.

How many people does it take to make those decisions on the court? Now, the cheeky answer is 9, but you have to get legal teams together, go through all of the state and federal courts - that's a lot more people. The people either elect those lower justices directly, or elect the state electors who select them; the people elect the senators which approve the federal ones and indeed the justices directly. Not only does that provide more stopgaps, but it also provides more points at which the electorate influences things. You're also fully able to have the democratically-elected segments of government overturn whatever that court says, if you can get the numbers.

Imagine unironically thinking the supreme court is accountable. The single guy with a gun is more accountable and less able to do whatever he pleases than the 9 people in black robes are. They can decide whatever the fuck they want and no one can do fuck all about it.
If you're looking for a slippery slope, there it is.

Where'd I say fully developed? I said developed.

So developed AT ALL? That would be .0001 seconds after conception.

Earlier, I said location determines the difference between a glob of cells (womb) and a fully-formed human (not in the womb).

Without providing a single reason why something so insane and logically incoherent would be true.

We use rhetoric and different systems of morality to guide this point.

Still waiting to hear what that rhetoric is.

Generally, people like me care about "can the fetus feel pain? does the fetus look like humanoid on the ultrasound, is it moving?"

Why? Is a human who can't feel pain not a human? Is a human who doesn't look human not a human? Is a human who doesn't move not a human?
Which of these things is a relevant factor in determining humanity, and how?

The point of abortion should be to cause the least amount of pain possible

The point of abortion is to murder your child to avoid the inconvenience of raising it.

if the fetus cannot feel pain, you are causing absolutely none

So you think painless murder isn't murder? If I shoot you in the head in your sleep is that okay?

A fertilized egg does not have the same effect in the slightest.

It doesn't have the same emotional effect, but it has the same ontological nature, and none of the actual relevant facts of the moral decision have changed.
It's still a human. You're still murdering it. Just because it doesn't feel that way or look that way doesn't make it not true.

How'd they get that from " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "?

By being bad faith actors who are full of shit.

Are you pining for that period of time between 1789 to 1803?

Yes. The wild west was the ideal human society.

you cannot prove any morality is objective, which is why religions are systems of belief. You cannot prove to me why your morals are more objective than Jihadi John's morals.

Is this why you're not even bothering to justify your moral assertions? Because you're a nihilist? Is this why you just assumed as a given that we didn't bother to?
You absolutely can argue for a moral system being true. We have all been doing so in this thread except for you.

I can argue why by some ethics, state genocide is indeed moral;

You can argue anything.
The question is: Do you actually believe it's factually true, and if so why?
If you don't, why are you even arguing?

He's right. You don't understand the distinction between morals and ethics. What you are describing as "moral systems" are actually ethical systems. Ethics are subjective, arbitrary, and constructed, and are practical methods for dealing with a social environment. Morals are real, not man-made, and universal, and are fundamental things which should or should not be done by human beings.
You don't seem to be able to wrap your head around the latter concept, and simply conflate it with the former, thinking our morals are just ethics.
This is just like the murder question. The semantic differences matter.

Mmhm, right. Oh, oh, right, morality is solid and unchanging forever and ever,

Yes. I don't know why you find yourself unable to take people who believe this seriously. Most people on earth believe this. You are the weird one.

regardless of if any of the circumstances surrounding those moral principles change.

Yes.

If you could just point me to where I could find this objective, unchanging moral truth, it'd really fix me right up.

Can you point me to where I can find the first law of thermodynamics? Is it in Greenwich?

Of course, these are all minor fluctuations bit by bit, and the whole of the exercise is inherently speculative. Unless you're God, I mean!

You people treat intellectual humility and self-doubt like some sort of pathology.
Dude, grow some balls.

Why are you ignoring my posts?

 

[Not Really Here]

2020-1976 is 44 years. In terms of ANY's highest point of 34, which came in a 5-year high, yes, it is down 5 points from it. 1993 was 27 years ago. Ten years ago, it was at a low point of 21. It has since grown up to 29.
If your time frame is literally just from 1993, okay, sure, there's a dip in ANY and a growth in NONE. If your time frame is all of the data available, the last decade, or the last two decades, ANY's growth outpaces NONE's. When I'm talking about things NOW going the way of the ANY, it is more likely that I'd be referring to the last ten years than the last specifically-for-some-reason-27 years.

Ah, so aside from my morning math, you think a spike from 0 growth in 2019 to +7 in 2020 is a trend.
Cool.

So, uh, why'd you say a convicted first-degree murderer, Robert Lewis Dear Jr., was justified?

You mean the thing that happened after I mocked you?
As I have said, infanticide is anti survival. Much like the other psychopaths known as serial killers, their actions prove their danger to people who have done nothing.
Except for Dexter.

I don't know if you need help loading your gun or something, but generally, it takes one guy to buy a piece and shoot someone.

Nice dodge on the slippery slope chain you have relied on repeatedly.

How many people does it take to make those decisions on the court? Now, the cheeky answer is 9, but you have to get legal teams together, go through all of the state and federal courts - that's a lot more people. The people either elect those lower justices directly, or elect the state electors who select them; the people elect the senators which approve the federal ones and indeed the justices directly. Not only does that provide more stopgaps, but it also provides more points at which the electorate influences things. You're also fully able to have the democratically-elected segments of government overturn whatever that court says, if you can get the numbers.

Depends on exactly what court, but nice to know that your solution to courts ignoring the law and doing what they want is more law they can ignore.

So here's your strat - you stuff shit in peoples' mouth they didn't say and then whine about it. Where'd I say fully developed? I said developed. Earlier, I said location determines the difference between a glob of cells (womb) and a fully-formed human (not in the womb). Nowhere in there am I suggesting that the full development of humans, which indeed is generally 25, is relevant to decide what is and is not a human. The government, any government, every government, is able to decide that any point is their cutoff. We use rhetoric and different systems of morality to guide this point. Yes, you and whatever your system of morality has no literal, direct control - go conquer a country. Or be a doomer about how doing anything is pointless.

So when confronted with the fact you have an imaginary point in your mind that confers humanity "developed" =developed humanity, rather than any possible objective standard, you bitch about my pinkey finger using the shift key when I was going for inverted commas, then sperg about doomers.
You found me out, my fingers are in fact retarded.
I am shamed.

Generally, people like me care about "can the fetus feel pain? does the fetus look like humanoid on the ultrasound, is it moving?" and items of that nature to guide our cutoff. The point of abortion should be to cause the least amount of pain possible - if the fetus cannot feel pain, you are causing absolutely none to relieve the mother's. If the fetus can feel pain, then you are causing pain to relieve pain - an equation that shouldn't have to be done, and should be outlawed excepting the viability of the fetus or the mother's health (extreme pain). Appearance or movement may be totally unrelated to whether or not a fetus can feel pain, but we also begin to empathize with the human shape and behavior and begin to see that abortion as ending a human life. A fertilized egg does not have the same effect in the slightest.

Ah, personality and humanity don't matter, the 'does it hurt' standard of murder/not murder.
Would you feel the same if that Robert Lewis Dear Jr guy used gas or topical Novocaine followed by a a lethal injection?

John Marshall began his stint as Chief Justice in 1801. Marbury v. Madison is 1803. I've agreed fully that commerce clause and rvw shit is antithetical even to the concept of judicial review, but the vast majority of court cases about bills and laws are going to involve it. District of Columbia v. Heller, has the court interpreting the second amendment to judge a bill.

AKA pulling shit out of their ass instead of 'it says no'.

How'd they get that from " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "?

See above.

Are you pining for that period of time between 1789 to 1803?

It never existed, the current state is as close as we have ever come.
Or so I'm informed.

Where'd I conflate them? I said you had to overcome a bloc, since if there was no bloc, you could just throw it out. That bloc is the one big enough to block an amendment. You're the one that inserted 'simple majority' because that's how you were reading it. Ideally you should just need a simple majority, but I was not conflating the two at all.

What you actually said was

If no-one got together to form that bloc, then you shouldn't have any trouble passing a constitutional amendment to throw out Roe through the Congress or through a states' convention -- who would oppose you enough to block it? Clearly, some bloc exists and in strong enough numbers to rival your side to a standstill. The flipside is similar: they can't codify it into direct law because they don't have the majority to do so either.

Despite your assertion that "the flipside is similar" there's no similarity between passing a bill and an amendment or convention.

Back to semantics?
Ethics: a system of moral principles / the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc. / moral principles, as of an individual / that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

Given that I have been saying "system of morals" virtually every single time that I bring it up, I don't much believe that I have been conflating the two as synonymous. Given that I have rejected the idea of a objective morality multiple times, I think it's pretty clear what I'm saying: you cannot prove any morality is objective, which is why religions are systems of belief. You cannot prove to me why your morals are more objective than Jihadi John's morals. You can say that your morals are closer to what the Bible presents than are JJ's, and that you believe the bible to be objective.

I can argue why by some ethics, state genocide is indeed moral; I can argue why by my ethics, it is not moral. I cannot argue from an 'objective' morality whether or not it is, just as you cannot. ...or, have I been talking with God this whole time? Did my whore of a wife make it up there?

On the difference between morals and ethics.

Mmhm, right. Oh, oh, right, morality is solid and unchanging forever and ever, so what was prudently absorbed into the mid-1200s systems of morality will forever remain that way regardless of if any of the circumstances surrounding those moral principles change. If you could just point me to where I could find this objective, unchanging moral truth, it'd really fix me right up.

I did and you ignored it.

Boomers start in 1945, roundabouts. I agree with your notion that people who have children are more likely to swap to more restrictive stances on it. By 1976, the oldest boomers are around 31. In 1989, (where the growth leading up to 1993 appears) 18 year-olds were born in 1971. These children of the boomers seemed to have been much more keen on abortion, until around looks like '97, where those 18-year-olds are now 26. 1976 - 1971 = 5; 31-5 = 26. Around 26 seems to be prime child-having time, which would be the prime time for the ANY support to drop among that newest group, the X-ers.

Mean age of first time mother in '97 was around 28.

link

Safe to say that more boomers and x-ers than millennials have had children. Millennials are either choosing not to have children/adopt OR to delay such until later-in-life much more than are previous generations. Religiosity based on every single metric is down for millennials / zoomers (church attendance, professed belief, membership in religious organizations).

Now, if the normal child-having age was 26 for millennials, the oldest millennials would be having children around 2006. Bumping the age up to 30, we expect it around 2010. While there is no significant growth in the ANY statistic between 1998->2010, the movement mostly seems to be between the NEVER and the SOMETIMES. But starting at 2010, when we might expect millennials to start becoming more NONE, support for ANY begins to rise.

The hardline 'none' wasn't common even in the '50's, I reject you premise that the none category is where we should look for the trend.
Millennials are the 1981 to 1996 birth cohort.
1981+30=2011
1996+30=2026
If the current age of first birth doesn't rise.

Pretty flat, with just over 1/3 of the generation yet to hit the mean age of first birth.

I believe that gen-Z starts at 1996, so the oldest zoomer is 18 in 2014. ANY was ticking up between 2010 and 2014, when one would expect it to be ticking down.

18 in 2015.
Why would 'any' be expected to be trending up when parents are seeing boys sniffing around their teen daughters?
Note: Geriatric pregnancy starts at 35 and is considered "high risk pregnancy".

Of course, these are all minor fluctuations bit by bit, and the whole of the exercise is inherently speculative. Unless you're God, I mean!

Thanks for the rabbithole caused by your assertions lacking in any data whatsoever.

I point you back to DC v Heller for a reminder that judicial review has existed for 217 years and is still goin' strong.

But, as I suggested above, by all means - conquer your own country and design a better and more rigid structure of government than this one. Or try to fight back in this one. Or don't do anything at all.

non sequitur/ignore

Yeah, for getting a beat on the current trend, it really is worthwhile to look at the last 30 years than the last 10 or 20.

30 data points is far more accurate than 10.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

I'd be happy if someone slapped both of you with a raw salmon...

Do you mean raw, like, it's still alive and wiggling, raw as in it's dead but it ain't scaled, or raw as in it's been scaled and prepared but not cooked? Each of those is a real distinct experience.

Spoiler: ha cha chaaa

Ah, so aside from my morning math, you think a spike from 0 growth in 2019 to +7 in 2020 is a trend.
Cool.

If it's within the last year, that's a huge spike! Of course, just one year isn't worth looking into. The trend over the last decade has been a slow upwards crawl, even if that crawl is up from the last height's lull. Out twenty years, it's a slight growth, and out thirty years, it's a drop with a gradual recovery. We're approaching that high point again - although yes, it's fully possible that ALL spikes back down, just as it's possible that it spikes way up.

You mean the thing that happened after I mocked you?
As I have said, infanticide is anti survival. Much like the other psychopaths known as serial killers, their actions prove their danger to people who have done nothing.
Except for Dexter.

Yes, you still fundamentally found a means to justify a murder. This is why I called the gotcha semantic - legal murder, moral justification. I took this as pretty patent in the question, but evidently not. NOW I'll drop the thing.

Nice dodge on the slippery slope chain you have relied on repeatedly.

There's two slippery slopes here: revenge killing chains and the courts sliding the scale on 'acceptable time to wire hanger a fetus.' One is a lot easier than the other.

Depends on exactly what court, but nice to know that your solution to courts ignoring the law and doing what they want is more law they can ignore.

And the alternative is? Do nothing and sit at home? I can think of no state which creates a constitution it doesn't then bastardize through the courts, no military junta 'preserving the rule of law' that doesn't proceed to bastardize its own laws and constitutions, and not even a country which does a better job at keeping the shit intact at current than the US. We're the best of the worst, unless there's a miracle state out there bigger than Singapore whose system of law and legal interpretation beats ours.

So when confronted with the fact you have an imaginary point in your mind that confers humanity "developed" =developed humanity, rather than any possible objective standard, you bitch about my pinkey finger using the shift key when I was going for inverted commas, then sperg about doomers.
You found me out, my fingers are in fact retarded.
I am shamed.

I mean, the point at which a fetus begins to feel pain can be objectively measured, pretty sure. So far as the point at which it begins to 'look' or 'act' human, yeah, that's probably subjective.

Ah, personality and humanity don't matter, the 'does it hurt' standard of murder/not murder.
Would you feel the same if that Robert Lewis Dear Jr guy used gas or topical Novocaine followed by a a lethal injection?

Ah, but the doctor's got family and friends he's leaving behind, no? There's definite pain involved there.
And to be clear, the idea of having to have the father sign off on an abortion is something that I don't dismiss out of hand for this reason. This is little more than an inkling, given its complications - is the couple still together, will the father make a financial commitment to ensuring the mother is taken care of while she carries it to term, etc. - but the base premise resonates with me. If both the mother and father are on board, and the fetus has yet developed to the point where it registers pain, then it passes my muster. Obviously, your muster relates to something else.

AKA pulling shit out of their ass instead of 'it says no'.

It never existed, the current state is as close as we have ever come.
Or so I'm informed.

I mean, none of us were alive during that brief stint before judicial review - or even before FDR assraped the courts - so who are we but to speculate on the utopia-that-was? Yes, any attempt at restricting it can just be broken again, yet I'm not seeing an alternative but to throw up my hands.

Despite your assertion that "the flipside is similar" there's no similarity between passing a bill and an amendment or convention.

The flipside I'm referencing is someone trying to make all forms of abortion legal at any point. That is, the NEVER side has to get an amendment to pass and can't, and the ANYTIME side has to get an amendment to pass and can't.
By contrast, if we're discussing a bill that would allow all first-trimester abortions, say, then I agree with your point - they will likely just have to pass a filibuster, which is much easier than the amendment process.

On the difference between morals and ethics.

I don't think this fundamentally crosses my point, though. Using the definitions here, there are many competing ideas of morality in the world. There are endlessly more ideas of ethics, obviously given that there are more humans than communities. Just on this topic of abortion, there are those who hold that the moral good for society is the near-wholesale barring of it and those who hold that the moral good for society is the wholesale allowance of it, both finding themselves in communities that agree.

You state that abortion is against the survival of the species. I imagine that this flows both from your ethical and your community's moral perspective on the topic. Since it is against the survival of the species, there is no avenue by which the act can be morally justified, excepting obvious circumstances like the mothers' health - which would, in seeking the survival of the species, change the decision in a logically consistent manner.
Someone else might believe, of their own personal ethics and their own moral code, that not allowing universal abortion is against the survival of the species. My question is reconciling these differences. Indeed, that article itself offers:

In moral decisions, in which the importance of others and their actual situation in the world, is recognised, community decisions are based on dialogue between all those on whom the decision impacts. That dialogue should aim to be inclusive, non-coercive, self-reflective, and seek consensus among real people, rather than seek an elusive absolute moral truth.

Which suggests that what is moral is decided by all of those on whom the decision rests. Abortion functionally effecting all mankind, mankind nevertheless has no unifying take on it. Or that if enough people in a community agree on a position as individuals, that becomes the communal morality.

What I'm failing to grasp at is where the objective standards by which you can compare different communities' beliefs on morality enters the picture. There are people making the laissez-faire abortion appeals not on the idea of the individual "right to privacy" or on "personal freedom," but on the idea that allowing abortion is good for society on the whole. They are considering how their actions would influence everyone else, and they believe both personally and in their communal groups that they are doing what is best for all. Obviously, you - and sizeable communities with different morals - disagree with them and view them as doing harm to all those their decisions affect.

Even the argument that abortion was prohibited throughout most of human history is an appeal primarily to the wisdom of tradition, which obviously doesn't work on a fairly significant chunk of people. Failing any appeal to objective, shared-by-all-humanity-morality that can be made, changing the moral compass of whole groups and communities seems to be the only real way to bridge the gap. The argument that abortion is directly opposed to the survival of humanity would not resonate with a community which has Malthusian worries about overpopulation.

Sortof like, "right" and "wrong" cannot exist without some communal sense of morality on the topic of abortion, which leans towards there never being a way to truly reconcile different moral imperatives or hierarchies. Immediate survival being one community's imperative, its morals are vastly different from a community in which immediate survival is not a primary concern. As what is good for the well-being of a community is necessarily based on its circumstance, there is no all-prescriptive objective morality towards which a community could orient itself, since not all of the world's possible circumstances could possibly be imagined by any singular system. Only an omnipotent God could envision such a system, and so mankind's closest-bet would be to adopt the word of God in the form of religion as a best-case scenario. (Though atheists might reject the idea of God and as such conclude that no-such moral system could exist.)

I did and you ignored it.

If your point was that there is no provably-objective-morality source to glean from, and that the "right" decision is necessarily baked into what morality one is enmeshed in, then I believe I've caught up. Otherwise, I'm still not seeing the holy imperative.

Mean age of first time mother in '97 was around 28.

That's for die niederlande, looks like. This 2016 NHS brief suggests that the median age in 2000 for US first mothers was 24.9, and in 2014 was 26.3.
According to the CDC, the 2018 value is 26.9. It's also interesting to dig into the weeds with that - 30.5 is the average for asians, 27.7 for whites, 25.0/25.1 for hispanics/blacks, and the real champs in the AIAN keepin' it real at 23.5.
So in the end, 27 is about correct for roundabouts now, which does fiddle things around in all of the speculative equation-making, which would squeak down the numbers a bit here and there.

The hardline 'none' wasn't common even in the '50's, I reject you premise that the none category is where we should look for the trend.
Millennials are the 1981 to 1996 birth cohort.
1981+30=2011
1996+30=2026
If the current age of first birth doesn't rise.

My premise isn't that the NONE necessarily reflects winning or losing, although if it were to fall precipitously (and stay depressed), maybe.
Moreso I view more people signing onto ANY as the 'losing the argument' thing. So it is that the net change from '93 to '98 I would view was the anti-abortion side winning the argument, even though they were at a low number and stayed fairly flat throughout. If I had said that the NONE side was itself in decline as a % of the population, then that assertion was indeed wrong.

With the altered numbers in mind, using the 2000 values as close-enough for when millennials would have their first children at age 25, 1981+25 = 2006, and there is a steady decline from around 2007 down to 2010 in the ANY (though NONE also drops before spiking up at '10). The first of the zoomers, if we assume the new median age of 27, would be having their first children around 1996+27=2023 or so. I suppose that'll be the year to see if there's a significant drop in the ANY case, and we're in the later-stages of what one might argue is the intergenerational rise. I still speculate that things'll go differently this time, but time will tell.

Why would 'any' be expected to be trending up when parents are seeing boys sniffing around their teen daughters?
Note: Geriatric pregnancy starts at 35 and is considered "high risk pregnancy".

I was expecting the downshift from 2007-2010 to continue, since more millennials would still be reaching motherhood-age before the lull between generations. That may be rather fallacious of me, though, given how averages work with generational populations. The surge of millennial first-parents may have lessened after that period, replaced with the slower trickle of deviations-from-the-average. I should probably read up on how population waves tend to work with average motherhood expectations and so-on.

Thanks for the rabbithole caused by your assertions lacking in any data whatsoever.

Well, I was flying by the cuff of my pants, so I went with the gists of what I remember reading. Above is the stuff regarding mean age of motherhood for the US, and thissere gallop poll serves on the religious topic. Now, I'm a little surprised by some of the stats - belief in God is still close to 90% when there's no X to Doubt option in the question, and belief in heaven and hell is also rather high.

General importance of religion is on a decline across the 30-year mark, the 20-year mark, and after a brief resurgence in 2012 is downtrending again. The number of people openly tipping their fedoras appears to have doubled to 21%, and the number of people who believe that religion as a whole is losing its influence is 79%. This doesn't do a breakdown based on age, but I think it's safe to say that the decline is going to be more concentrated among the young than in boomers or x-ers that have suddenly lost their faith.

30 data points is far more accurate than 10.

Wouldn't 40 or 50 also be more accurate, then? Yeah, if you want to say on a for-all-time scale, the evidence we have points to the NEVER camp staying steady and the ALWAYS camp fluttering between 22 and 35, but I'm talking about how it looks to be going for the next couple years.

I see the argument for the rise and fall depending on how many of whatever-generation have had children, which could very well toss my speculation in the bucket - but that's just more reason to see if that 2023-ish period and the zoomers differ in any way from the historical trend.

 

[Eris!]

If it's within the last year, that's a huge spike! Of course, just one year isn't worth looking into. The trend over the last decade has been a slow upwards crawl, even if that crawl is up from the last height's lull. Out twenty years, it's a slight growth, and out thirty years, it's a drop with a gradual recovery. We're approaching that high point again - although yes, it's fully possible that ALL spikes back down, just as it's possible that it spikes way up.

Are we looking at the same graph? The trendline on all three lines is literally flat. Its slope is zero.

Yes, you still fundamentally found a means to justify a murder.

No we didn't. It's not a murder, it's a killing.
Justifying a murder is not theoretically possible, murder is defined by being unjustified.

This is why I called the gotcha semantic - legal murder, moral justification.

It's not a "gotcha semantic," it's a fundamentally important distinction which you apparently can't comprehend.

There's two slippery slopes here: revenge killing chains and the courts sliding the scale on 'acceptable time to wire hanger a fetus.' One is a lot easier than the other.

Yeah, the courts.

And the alternative is? Do nothing and sit at home? I can think of no state which creates a constitution it doesn't then bastardize through the courts, no military junta 'preserving the rule of law' that doesn't proceed to bastardize its own laws and constitutions, and not even a country which does a better job at keeping the shit intact at current than the US. We're the best of the worst, unless there's a miracle state out there bigger than Singapore whose system of law and legal interpretation beats ours.

The alternative to behaving improperly and incompetently is behaving properly and competently.

I mean, the point at which a fetus begins to feel pain can be objectively measured, pretty sure.

You can't even objectively measure pain in adults. You can't measure it at all. Doctors literally use emojis and ask which face best relates to your pain, and they just have to trust your answer.

Ah, but the doctor's got family and friends he's leaving behind, no? There's definite pain involved there.

If he doesn't is it okay to murder him?

If both the mother and father are on board, and the fetus has yet developed to the point where it registers pain, then it passes my muster.

Then your muster is broken and you should get a new one, because it just permitted a murder.

who are we

I will literally never understand any statement that involves these words. I'm me. I have the right, and the responsibility, to judge literally anything and everything.

and the ANYTIME side has to get an amendment to pass and can't.

No they don't. They have Roe V Wade.

there are those who hold that the moral good for society is the near-wholesale barring of it and those who hold that the moral good for society is the wholesale allowance of it

Which group is correct?

Someone else might believe,

Who. The. Fuck. Cares?
What do YOU believe?
Argue for it.
Argue against what WE believe.

Literally all you have to say is "People disagree."

1. We fucking know
2. Who fucking cares

What I'm failing to grasp at is where the objective standards by which you can compare different communities' beliefs on morality enters the picture. There are people making the laissez-faire abortion appeals not on the idea of the individual "right to privacy" or on "personal freedom," but on the idea that allowing abortion is good for society on the whole. They are considering how their actions would influence everyone else, and they believe both personally and in their communal groups that they are doing what is best for all. Obviously, you - and sizeable communities with different morals - disagree with them and view them as doing harm to all those their decisions affect.

It is logically necessary that one or the other of these positions is factually correct, and the other factually incorrect.

which obviously doesn't work on a fairly significant chunk of people.

but is it true

Failing any appeal to objective, shared-by-all-humanity-morality that can be made, changing the moral compass of whole groups and communities seems to be the only real way to bridge the gap.

I have a better solution to that problem: An objective, shared-by-all-humanity-morality that does not need to be made, as it already exists.

As what is good for the well-being of a community is necessarily based on its circumstance, there is no all-prescriptive objective morality towards which a community could orient itself,

...That's just false and silly. What is good for the well-being of a community is universal and eternal. It never changes and is not dependent on circumstances.
There is a single, platonic ideal of a community. If you model your community on that ideal, you will have a healthy and prosperous community. If you don't, to the degree that you don't, you won't.

since not all of the world's possible circumstances could possibly be imagined by any singular system

Again, that's just false.

(Though atheists might reject the idea of God and as such conclude that no-such moral system could exist.)

Who fucking cares?
I genuinely don't understand why you rely on the existence of disagreement in and of itself as an argument.

Otherwise, I'm still not seeing the holy imperative.

Try reading.

if you want to say on a for-all-time scale,

The more all-time your scale is, the more objectively correct it is. People like you seem to have a very narrow snapshot view of time where only the present is considered to really exist, which is why you don't see stealing a child's future as wrong. To you, ten years is a long time. To me, a thousand years is barely any time at all.

the evidence we have points to the NEVER camp staying steady and the ALWAYS camp fluttering between 22 and 35, but I'm talking about how it looks to be going for the next couple years.

You're ignoring the perspective that matters in favor of the one that doesn't.

 

[Eris!]

I'm not a Christian, but Christianity had one very strong contribution to western philosophy: the ability to see things from an omniscient perspective. It created the rhetorical tools necessary to not just put yourself in someone else's shoes, but to put yourself in God's shoes. "What would Jesus do?" can be more abstractly stated as, "If I knew everything, and always did everything right, what would I do?" Philosophically that is a powerful tool, and in life it is a stabilizing habit. By reading this thread, you can see the mental and rhetorical consequences of someone not being able to do this.

 

[Maamtis]

I'm pro choice but the way liberals worship abortions is sickening. I think abortions should be a solemn occasion not something to celebrate. I had a pro life person tell me they're not so much against abortions but feel they should be a last ditch thing and there should be an emphasis on contraception instead. Is that true?

 

[CreamyHerman’s]

I’m going to throw my dunce cap into the special Ed debate: I for one think that Abortion is immoral, and that if you can’t wrap it or have strong pull-out game or have enough quid to buy plan B after nutting in someone, you deserve to have that kid in this day and age. If it is in the case of rape and incest, sure. But if you don’t have a condom and you suck at pulling out, maybe.. don’t risk it.

 

[Tomboy Respecter]

Saudi Arabia doesn't have kid trannies or degenrate pride parades bc Islam was right about women

Late as fuck, but Saudis men are super gay (think Ancient Athens gay) because they have basically 0 exposure to women before marriage Same thing with the women too.

 

[Cpl. Long Dong Silver]

Late as fuck, but Saudis men are super gay (think Ancient Athens gay) because they have basically 0 exposure to women before marriage Same thing with the women too.

I'm well aware of man love Thursday. I still would prefer that than western globohomo

 

[Tomboy Respecter]

I'm well aware of man love Thursday. I still would prefer that than western globohomo

I don't 100% agree since I frankly think most Muslim societies are barbaric for the most part, but I can somewhat empathize.
I've been reading this thread and it's kinda weird though seeing people actually say that fetuses are potential human life when they are clearly of the same essence as a regular human life, defective or not. It's not even something that makes sense or can be defended rationally. It doesn't really matter that they can't take care of themselves (neither can the elderly, mentally/physically disabled nor children) or that they don't look attractive/healthy (a lot of people don't look healthy. You'd still identify them as human though.). It's literally based on the fact that they have the potential to become a fully grown adult human in some capacity, which no other living organism can have. It's the same reason we all understand each other to be human beings and not dogs typing at keyboards.

 

[ChikN10der]

Do you mean raw, like, it's still alive and wiggling, raw as in it's dead but it ain't scaled, or raw as in it's been scaled and prepared but not cooked? Each of those is a real distinct experience.

Spoiler: ha cha chaaa

If it's within the last year, that's a huge spike! Of course, just one year isn't worth looking into. The trend over the last decade has been a slow upwards crawl, even if that crawl is up from the last height's lull. Out twenty years, it's a slight growth, and out thirty years, it's a drop with a gradual recovery. We're approaching that high point again - although yes, it's fully possible that ALL spikes back down, just as it's possible that it spikes way up.

Yes, you still fundamentally found a means to justify a murder. This is why I called the gotcha semantic - legal murder, moral justification. I took this as pretty patent in the question, but evidently not. NOW I'll drop the thing.

There's two slippery slopes here: revenge killing chains and the courts sliding the scale on 'acceptable time to wire hanger a fetus.' One is a lot easier than the other.

And the alternative is? Do nothing and sit at home? I can think of no state which creates a constitution it doesn't then bastardize through the courts, no military junta 'preserving the rule of law' that doesn't proceed to bastardize its own laws and constitutions, and not even a country which does a better job at keeping the shit intact at current than the US. We're the best of the worst, unless there's a miracle state out there bigger than Singapore whose system of law and legal interpretation beats ours.

I mean, the point at which a fetus begins to feel pain can be objectively measured, pretty sure. So far as the point at which it begins to 'look' or 'act' human, yeah, that's probably subjective.

Ah, but the doctor's got family and friends he's leaving behind, no? There's definite pain involved there.
And to be clear, the idea of having to have the father sign off on an abortion is something that I don't dismiss out of hand for this reason. This is little more than an inkling, given its complications - is the couple still together, will the father make a financial commitment to ensuring the mother is taken care of while she carries it to term, etc. - but the base premise resonates with me. If both the mother and father are on board, and the fetus has yet developed to the point where it registers pain, then it passes my muster. Obviously, your muster relates to something else.


I mean, none of us were alive during that brief stint before judicial review - or even before FDR assraped the courts - so who are we but to speculate on the utopia-that-was? Yes, any attempt at restricting it can just be broken again, yet I'm not seeing an alternative but to throw up my hands.

The flipside I'm referencing is someone trying to make all forms of abortion legal at any point. That is, the NEVER side has to get an amendment to pass and can't, and the ANYTIME side has to get an amendment to pass and can't.
By contrast, if we're discussing a bill that would allow all first-trimester abortions, say, then I agree with your point - they will likely just have to pass a filibuster, which is much easier than the amendment process.


I don't think this fundamentally crosses my point, though. Using the definitions here, there are many competing ideas of morality in the world. There are endlessly more ideas of ethics, obviously given that there are more humans than communities. Just on this topic of abortion, there are those who hold that the moral good for society is the near-wholesale barring of it and those who hold that the moral good for society is the wholesale allowance of it, both finding themselves in communities that agree.

You state that abortion is against the survival of the species. I imagine that this flows both from your ethical and your community's moral perspective on the topic. Since it is against the survival of the species, there is no avenue by which the act can be morally justified, excepting obvious circumstances like the mothers' health - which would, in seeking the survival of the species, change the decision in a logically consistent manner.
Someone else might believe, of their own personal ethics and their own moral code, that not allowing universal abortion is against the survival of the species. My question is reconciling these differences. Indeed, that article itself offers:



Which suggests that what is moral is decided by all of those on whom the decision rests. Abortion functionally effecting all mankind, mankind nevertheless has no unifying take on it. Or that if enough people in a community agree on a position as individuals, that becomes the communal morality.

What I'm failing to grasp at is where the objective standards by which you can compare different communities' beliefs on morality enters the picture. There are people making the laissez-faire abortion appeals not on the idea of the individual "right to privacy" or on "personal freedom," but on the idea that allowing abortion is good for society on the whole. They are considering how their actions would influence everyone else, and they believe both personally and in their communal groups that they are doing what is best for all. Obviously, you - and sizeable communities with different morals - disagree with them and view them as doing harm to all those their decisions affect.

Even the argument that abortion was prohibited throughout most of human history is an appeal primarily to the wisdom of tradition, which obviously doesn't work on a fairly significant chunk of people. Failing any appeal to objective, shared-by-all-humanity-morality that can be made, changing the moral compass of whole groups and communities seems to be the only real way to bridge the gap. The argument that abortion is directly opposed to the survival of humanity would not resonate with a community which has Malthusian worries about overpopulation.

Sortof like, "right" and "wrong" cannot exist without some communal sense of morality on the topic of abortion, which leans towards there never being a way to truly reconcile different moral imperatives or hierarchies. Immediate survival being one community's imperative, its morals are vastly different from a community in which immediate survival is not a primary concern. As what is good for the well-being of a community is necessarily based on its circumstance, there is no all-prescriptive objective morality towards which a community could orient itself, since not all of the world's possible circumstances could possibly be imagined by any singular system. Only an omnipotent God could envision such a system, and so mankind's closest-bet would be to adopt the word of God in the form of religion as a best-case scenario. (Though atheists might reject the idea of God and as such conclude that no-such moral system could exist.)


If your point was that there is no provably-objective-morality source to glean from, and that the "right" decision is necessarily baked into what morality one is enmeshed in, then I believe I've caught up. Otherwise, I'm still not seeing the holy imperative.

That's for die niederlande, looks like. This 2016 NHS brief suggests that the median age in 2000 for US first mothers was 24.9, and in 2014 was 26.3.
According to the CDC, the 2018 value is 26.9. It's also interesting to dig into the weeds with that - 30.5 is the average for asians, 27.7 for whites, 25.0/25.1 for hispanics/blacks, and the real champs in the AIAN keepin' it real at 23.5.
So in the end, 27 is about correct for roundabouts now, which does fiddle things around in all of the speculative equation-making, which would squeak down the numbers a bit here and there.

My premise isn't that the NONE necessarily reflects winning or losing, although if it were to fall precipitously (and stay depressed), maybe.
Moreso I view more people signing onto ANY as the 'losing the argument' thing. So it is that the net change from '93 to '98 I would view was the anti-abortion side winning the argument, even though they were at a low number and stayed fairly flat throughout. If I had said that the NONE side was itself in decline as a % of the population, then that assertion was indeed wrong.

With the altered numbers in mind, using the 2000 values as close-enough for when millennials would have their first children at age 25, 1981+25 = 2006, and there is a steady decline from around 2007 down to 2010 in the ANY (though NONE also drops before spiking up at '10). The first of the zoomers, if we assume the new median age of 27, would be having their first children around 1996+27=2023 or so. I suppose that'll be the year to see if there's a significant drop in the ANY case, and we're in the later-stages of what one might argue is the intergenerational rise. I still speculate that things'll go differently this time, but time will tell.


I was expecting the downshift from 2007-2010 to continue, since more millennials would still be reaching motherhood-age before the lull between generations. That may be rather fallacious of me, though, given how averages work with generational populations. The surge of millennial first-parents may have lessened after that period, replaced with the slower trickle of deviations-from-the-average. I should probably read up on how population waves tend to work with average motherhood expectations and so-on.


Well, I was flying by the cuff of my pants, so I went with the gists of what I remember reading. Above is the stuff regarding mean age of motherhood for the US, and thissere gallop poll serves on the religious topic. Now, I'm a little surprised by some of the stats - belief in God is still close to 90% when there's no X to Doubt option in the question, and belief in heaven and hell is also rather high.

General importance of religion is on a decline across the 30-year mark, the 20-year mark, and after a brief resurgence in 2012 is downtrending again. The number of people openly tipping their fedoras appears to have doubled to 21%, and the number of people who believe that religion as a whole is losing its influence is 79%. This doesn't do a breakdown based on age, but I think it's safe to say that the decline is going to be more concentrated among the young than in boomers or x-ers that have suddenly lost their faith.


Wouldn't 40 or 50 also be more accurate, then? Yeah, if you want to say on a for-all-time scale, the evidence we have points to the NEVER camp staying steady and the ALWAYS camp fluttering between 22 and 35, but I'm talking about how it looks to be going for the next couple years.

I see the argument for the rise and fall depending on how many of whatever-generation have had children, which could very well toss my speculation in the bucket - but that's just more reason to see if that 2023-ish period and the zoomers differ in any way from the historical trend.

I was thinking whole and dead, but a slimy scaled raw fish slap might be more unpleasant. Either would be funny.

I wouldn't do that to a live fish, it's be cruel.

 

[Eris!]

I'm pro choice but the way liberals worship abortions is sickening. I think abortions should be a solemn occasion not something to celebrate. I had a pro life person tell me they're not so much against abortions but feel they should be a last ditch thing and there should be an emphasis on contraception instead. Is that true?

It might be what that person thinks, but it doesn't make sense to me. "It should be a last ditch thing," or "it should be rare," seem like the least reasonable positions on this issue possible. If you think the fetus is a human being, then killing it is murder, and murder should not be a "last ditch thing," it should be a never thing. If you think it's not a human being, then it's no different from freezing off a wart. In that case, why would you want it to be rare at all?

've been reading this thread and it's kinda weird though seeing people actually say that fetuses are potential human life when they are clearly of the same essence as a regular human life, defective or not.

We're talking to literal retards who never took a logic 101 or philosophy 101 class and don't know what ontology or an essence are.

I'm well aware of man love Thursday. I still would prefer that than western globohomo

Agreed.