An amusing thought I had ~ Why how right you think you are is irrelevant.

[Jaecp]

Without a external value, what is "better"? Is it your personal opinion that's right? Is it a hard and fast rule? How exactly do you judge that society overall is getting "better"? How does society decide what is fair and what isn't?

Society decides, mostly, through clamor. Gay rights, as a movement, was largely kicked off by a violent riot after a gay bar was raided in NYC. The US, and many countries in the Americas, started off with violent revolutions. People feel slighted, wronged, however you want to articulate it and then they voice those opinions.

Put another way, people argue, a lot. The case is made one person at a time, one voter at a time, and over time peoples views change. It's messy, inarticulate, and slow, but at the same time I believe its the only real way we have.

Put a third way, society is the sum of the people who make up that society. The majority view is what tends to hold. The tyranny of the majority is then tempered, at least in western democracies, with constitutional protections.

It's not a hard and fast rule, anything dealing with people and how they act is going to be fuzzy to the point where most hard and fast rules are going to falter when faced with the ambiguity of the real world.

As to the value question, its about those kinds of framing devices. As imprecise as they can be (and sometimes on framing device is at odds with a proposed solution that would increase a different framing device! Yeesh) it's what I've got to work with!

Better is peoples lives. Are people better off before or after X happened. B/A rule Y was implemented. That kind of thing.

My concern is always people. How it affect the people living their lives on a daily basis. I'm an atheist. I've got another 50-70 years on this planet, if I don't get cut down. Thats it for me. People are the only legacy worth having.

That's interesting, mind making a thread on this?

Which part? The framing devices?

I'm not sure what I would say. My approach to this isn't something I got from a formal class or school of thought. It's just the way I've built that works for me.

Er, if you don't have a external/objective value of perfection, where does the value even come from? How do you know what needs to be fought for in a just society?

People have a way of making their grievances known

The value comes from, in short, a net benefit to people. This is more or less the same question as in the first block of text, so I'm keeping it short here.

Reading Shuny's comments just now, he brings up the point about how ephemeral many things are. No one can know what the future holds, we can merely have guidelines on how to adapt to it!

@Leonhard, Maxvel, BTC. I will respond later.

[Jaecp]

Jaecp-
a very brief response as it's my bedtime, too.

Without a broadly commonly shared set of values, or a goal, its hard to envision a society where there is much agreement on what 'moral progress' actually is. Lacking a moral teleology, you can' t really talk coherently about progress, or thing being better; and you have no way of knowing whether society is permanently changing in a moral direction you approve of, or just changing.

Secondly, the birth rates cited earlier in this thread indicate that the 'progressive; section of US society is very likely to be the smallest, if it exists at all, in the future. So your triumph will no doubt be swamped by masses of children born to people who have views almost opposite to yours. Protestant or Evangelical Christianity may go as a major cultural influence, but I wouldn't count out the reproducing power of Catholics... ... 30 years from now a lot more Americans will be children of Catholics than will be children of secularists.

People rarely agree on what counts as moral progress. Then 50 years or so pass and peoples kids wonder why people used to care so much about something that seems so small and normal now. It's a challenge, for sure, but its a challenge we're in the middle of, are we not?

Also, I am not concerned so much with permanence. I am but a small stone in a mighty river soon to be worn down, washed away, and forgotten in the great march of time. My ethics, to man 200 years in the future, will almost surely have quirks much like the great men of history from 200 or more years ago did that will look like bigotry.

Or, put another way, even people trying really damn hard to live moral lives have aspects of themselves that are an embarrassment to their grandchildren.

The people who make up the non-religious part of the US now were mostly born to religious families. Leonhard also speaks on those people being nominally religious. If people raised up as an evangelical protestant (which includes yours truly) break away from that tradition with any sort of regularity then birth rate isn't the only factor to consider, but also how much those kinds of beliefs stick with people. The Pacific Northwest is chock full of former Christians.

Catholics, yes, although their share as a percentage of the US population has stayed almost bizarrely flat from the numbers I read and vaguely cited in the OP. 1% different from what they were in the 1930's. Plus, you can be a progressive and a catholic. Both my business partner and the VP of the local Young Democrats are Catholic. What was that snaffoo between some nuns and the pope awhile back or whatever about them focusing on helping the poor instead of something else?

There are a lot of rules in the bible, very few people even attempt to know them all, let alone follow every one of them. The bible is a blot test like that. Plenty of people of faith are liberals.

The real question to ponder in relation to this are the ones Leon has been pondering.

[Jaecp]

As a space saver, I'm going to just quote the first few words. I lost a PM a couple days ago because it had accidentally gotten over 10k :-/

Unless you are calling...

We could also add coat hangers, getting punched really hard in the stomach and, I dunno, tripping super hard to the list of “Birth Control”, but that would make no more sense than adding “drowning a puppy in a river” to the list of what constitutes “Animal Control”

Suffice to say that nobody at PP is advocating abortion as birth control.

I think that it is the...

My point was about the reiteration. I am well acquainted with the common beliefs on the people I have discussions with here. Repeating them just wastes both our time.

Not relevant to why the restrictions are in place. One only need look at Kermit Gosnell's case to see that there are those who are choosing to destroy otherwise healthy babies.

It is absolutely relevant. If those women didn't intend to give birth before something huge happened why would they wait so long?

The pro-life side.

No, really. Which organization(s)? Saying things like this side or that doesn't tell me anything.

Individuals are not the one exercising action, but groups.

Sorry, but no.

Why are you linking 538? That graph you posted is in the link I sent you. It only goes back to the mid 90's and, as I wrote that it was since the mid 90's it been flat. It jumped in the first two years the question existed and has stayed more or less the same ever since. It also doesn't actually tell us much.

The reason I used those numbers is twofold. First, that the numbers go back to just after Roe v Wade and, Second, because its a more precise study of US belief about abortion than what buzz word people use to describe themselves.

I don't think you quite understand what they were saying. Our side wants legalized elective abortions on demand gone.

There isn't a side. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of organizations with different viewpoints that we distill down to pro-choice and pro-life as a matter of convenience. It is these organizations that drive things. For the people over there in Central Virginia, the ones you are active with or whatnot, sure. That could be correct. Other groups want so much more.

I think that's more true than you intended.

Thailand is a complicated country. Abortion is illegal. There hasn't been much push for education on contraception until recently. There have been numerous reports of teens trying to buy birth control and not being able to do or being called a slut or whatever. The same slut/stuf dichotomy is even worse over there. It's in a weird situation where once a girl is a prostitute they don't care what the prostitutes do, but the stereotypical asian stuff about wanting good daughters is huge there. Its... culturally its really very unique. I haven't been yet, but Ive read up on it in the past. There really isn't a country quite like it in the world

I mean, it's still a monarchy! Thailand is crazy

And many of the deaths resulted from lack of access to post-abortion medical care.*

Which is damn hard to get when doctors are required by law to turn people in when they see evidence of a back alley abortion.

Hard to say. Different cultures. It's not a simple one law fix. The fact that it IS legal on demand in the US, and we have so many per capita should cause us to want to reduce them with more than just empty words that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare".*

The cultures aren't that different. Western Industrialized Nations usually includes, what, Western Europe where the majority of the US draws strong cultural backround from, the US, Canada and... Japan? It's not a huge list.

Their culture is different from ours. Comparing the two is improper.

Those differences give us insight into why people have abortions. (also, you are pulling out the “different culture inappropriate comparison” thing after bringing up THAILAND?)

I read it. I remain unmoved. It is still snuffing out an innocent human life, and I can not stand for that. Regardless of the selfishness of the mother.

You'll save more “lives” giving condoms to teenagers and dealing with the slut/stud dichotomy stemming from the US's puritan influence than by what pro-life organizations tend to spend their time on.

Abortion isn't going anywhere. You can work to take action to prevent the need people feel for it, whatever that need is, or you can throw up hurdles.

One of these two things will, absolutely, reduce the number of abortions in the regions where the programs are enacted. This is a net gain for your position.

The other will not reduce the number of abortions in the region, but simply kill a lot of people who resort to the back alley treatments out of desperation. If you are truly pro life, and not simply anti-abortion, then these dead women cannot be just discounted.

Abortion isn't going anywhere. When countries ban it, they don't see their rates drop. They just see more dead women who, otherwise, would have survived to be productive members of society.

Hell, in the US when a state puts restrictions on it that mostly just means its a more expensive procedure. You aren't saving a baby, you're making someone drive a slightly longer distance.

I think we've probably hit a dead end with about 80% of the above, so let me ask you this.

Why do you think so many people fight so vigorously for this?

[Jaecp]

There's never been a case of X -> X - Y. The Church has never repudiated any of its official teachings. The few things it teaches dogmatically usually have some other finer distinctions in it one can allow to hold to, and that's why further clarifications can be made.

The body of doctrines isn't static, and I never affirmed that it was. People commit new errors that need to be argued against, and defined to be errors dogmatically, hence the monophysite heresy, the pelegian heresy, the janseist heresy, etc... The doctrines themselves haven't undergone change, or if they have, you'd need to show one.

I'm not completely in disagreement with you though on all things. Take the doctrine of Nulla Salus Extra Ecclesiam, which theologians in the medieval times tended to read as 'without being a visible member of the Church (the Catholic one), no salvation would be possible'. Yet the original point of it was simple whether one could be saved through the way Christ offered, or whether there was some other way. There isn't. So today its often clarified that its at least possible for non-Catholics to be saved due to their imperfect membership, but it is still through the mysterious action of Christ through baptism and through the Church. Though was already taught in the Church Father St. Augustine's writings who said that the children of schismatic aren't guilty of their parents schism.

So there's clearly a development of understanding, after the Church found herself in a new situation of several schisms. Yet the doctrine is the same, you're saved through the actions of Christ and His benevolence, mediated mystically through the action of the Church.

That's about the closest example I can find.

That the doctrine isn't static, that the application of Christianity onto the world of man is not static, is all I am saying with the little formula's I included, initially, a kind of summary.

If you're not interested in knowing our opinions on this stuff, why do you respond to this thread?

I said, “knowing*that in a real or quantifiable sense.”

Thats very different than what I think you were responding to.

I'm discussing it because I find it interesting, but its not like I'm going to solve the problem of just how strict you catholics should be to become the worlds dominant religion against because I think your metaphysics are wrong. Knowing, in a real or quantifiable sense, whether the long term health of the organization is going to be helped by it is not a question thats germane to my life goals, but its an interesting thought experiment.

You're probably thinking much like many well-meaning priests and bishops are today. Unfortunately the parishes they're tending are collapsing at an even faster rate than those who hold a traditional approach. I've got statistics on my side with this. If the German part of the Catholic Church wasn't supported by state taxes (in that country you pay church tax to whatever church you're baptised into), then it would pretty much implode at this point, as the church attendances are abysmal. Meanwhile the Philippine and Spanish communities are doing quite well, but are more traditional.

I'm not saying it would be a matter of 'be traditional and the church would grow', but over time I doubt anything but the traditional communities would survive.

I also find that you paint over huge swaths of people with one brush. People are homogeneous liberals. There's a majority of liberals, I agree, but a lot of other types. If you appeal to one will push away others. However I don't think a liberal church is very appealing except maybe to a few hippy Catholics from the seventies, who've been working very hard to get just that. They want change, and newness, and less of the old, and out with the stuffy rules and priests acting like... priests. Even ordinary protestant Christianity can't recognise these people, because they throw off even the confessions of faith, or redefine anything in modernistic terms so that Resurrection of Christ, no longer means the blood and flesh of Christ becoming alive again by a supernatural miracle, but instead just humanity undergoing revival.

You can't appeal to everyone. You'll either appeal to some subgroups, or others. I know which subgroup I

You don't have to appeal to everyone.

I work in electoral politics and the name of the game is 50%+1 :P

It's quite the problem. Do you go into increasingly insular communities that matter to yourselves and no one else or do you try and find a way to bring people into the group incrementally?

I wonder how the philippine and spanish communities will do once those regions aren't so poor?

[Jaecp]

"Why how right you think you are is irrelevant."

I found this an interesting statement at the beginning of this thread that could be addressed in more specifically.

Buddhism taught me two things that are still very much a part of how I think and believe. Everything is not necessary and impermanent. Virtually everything alive today will have passed away in a few hundred years, except for a few species of trees. Our knowledge of science and almost everything including religion changes over time. What people believed in the past is no longer believed by most people in the present. If any rule hold over time is most things change, except for Natural Laws.

Considering humans are very fallible, what most people believe today is in some way false.

That is a good point,

I'm sure there are plenty of things I'm completely wrong about. Re-evaluating how I operate on the basis of new information is a neccessity. Its why I prefer ethical guidelines as opposed to hard and fast rules. The grey area is scary, but I fear the absolute light and darkness so much more.

It is a different take on the comment. Honestly, it could probably be a phrase incorporated into another 2-3 threads, not neccesary in this subforum, for the various ways it could mean

[Bill the Cat]

I think we've probably hit a dead end with about 80% of the above, so let me ask you this.

Why do you think so many people fight so vigorously for this?

For brevity's sake, I'll snip the rest of the conversation as I've stated my peace on most all of it. I'd like you to explain the question a bit before I give my answer. What do you mean fighting "for this"? For abortion or for the life of the unborn?

[Jaecp]

That's fine,

And it's not for abortion. It's for the choice whether or not to have an abortion. There's a difference.

And yes, I'm asking you what you think the side opposite you does what they do.

[Bill the Cat]

That's fine,

And it's not for abortion. It's for the choice whether or not to have an abortion. There's a difference.

Subtle but not substantial.

And yes, I'm asking you what you think the side opposite you does what they do.

Honestly, I can't think of a single legitimate reason to fight for abortion on demand. And I've read many. I can understand why the health of the mother, inoperable deformities, and even to a minor degree the incest clause people fight for the ability to end those pregnancies, but that's it. As I said, it is snuffing out an innocent human life. I think both sides would be better off working together toward more affordable and available adoption services.

[Jaecp]

Subtle but not substantial.

No, see, it is substantial. Plenty of people who are pro-choice don't like the idea of abortions, for whatever reason, but value a womens right to choose.

Honestly, I can't think of a single legitimate reason to fight for abortion on demand. And I've read many. I can understand why the health of the mother, inoperable deformities, and even to a minor degree the incest clause people fight for the ability to end those pregnancies, but that's it. As I said, it is snuffing out an innocent human life. I think both sides would be better off working together toward more affordable and available adoption services.

You can't?

How about when, in instances where you think Abortion is permissible states making someone go through, say, a transvaginal ultrasound or having mandatory waiting periods or whatever is a waste of time and the delays involved make the health risks of surgery greater?

Part of the problem here, Bill, is that when I asked what org you were with, you just said "the pro-life side" or something to that affect. That'd be as silly as if I'd said the pro choice side. Who do I agree with? NARAL? PP? Catholics for Choice (yes, this is a thing)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor..._United_States

I didn't see a wiki category page for pro-life types, but here is some random group that collected a bunch of anti-abortion organizations

http://www.abortionreason.com/antiab...anizations.php

There aren't sides, there are dozens and dozens of organizations with loosely similar goals. Some of these organizations support abortion under circumstances, others, like Texas State Rep Matt Schaefer, want post-20 weeks no abortion even if doctors know its going to be, like, a stillborn or something.

Anyway,

If you really can't think of a legitimate reason I'd suggest calling up your local planned parenthood clinic, asking for the number of the field organizer working on the advocacy side, calling that person and asking that person why they feel its so important.

Bill, I've been to state senate hearing where organizations whose mission statement, their explicit goal, is the eventual banning of abortion in all forms and for any reason try to make cases for piecemeal restrictions for this reason for that. Those restrictions were argued for in bad faith. What is one to do with that? We know what their real goal is. It's all well and good that you don't, personally, want to do this, but, well, it's kind of irrelevant. At the legislative levels where this stuff affects peoples actual lives its not the individuals, but the organizations, that drive the action. You out there in your suit and tie is going to be drowned out by a sea of pink and purple shirts on one side and whatever color the other side has (bluish gray, the last time I went, but it changes)

[Bill the Cat]

No, see, it is substantial. Plenty of people who are pro-choice don't like the idea of abortions, for whatever reason, but value a womens right to choose.

That's honestly silly. It's still being an accessory to it. No one should have the "right" to destroy an innocent member of our species, regardless of what noun they call it, and no one should fight for someone else's "right" to do it either.

You can't?

No. And I've been listening to them for years. I'm in my mid-40's and have been active with my church in counseling teenagers and fighting against abortion for 2 decades.

How about when, in instances where you think Abortion is permissible states making someone go through, say, a transvaginal ultrasound or having mandatory waiting periods or whatever is a waste of time and the delays involved make the health risks of surgery greater?

I don't see how that is an argument FOR abortion on demand.

Part of the problem here, Bill, is that when I asked what org you were with, you just said "the pro-life side" or something to that affect. That'd be as silly as if I'd said the pro choice side. Who do I agree with? NARAL? PP? Catholics for Choice (yes, this is a thing)

Do you agree with those that believe all that abortion on demand should be legal? I realize what you are saying, and no, the issue isn't quite as binary as it is sometimes is painted. But it is a convenient label IMHO.

I didn't see a wiki category page for pro-life types, but here is some random group that collected a bunch of anti-abortion organizations

http://www.abortionreason.com/antiab...anizations.php

There aren't sides, there are dozens and dozens of organizations with loosely similar goals. Some of these organizations support abortion under circumstances, others, like Texas State Rep Matt Schaefer, want post-20 weeks no abortion even if doctors know its going to be, like, a stillborn or something.

The bill does not say that. Fetal genetic abnormalities are not stillborns.

Anyway,

If you really can't think of a legitimate reason I'd suggest calling up your local planned parenthood clinic, asking for the number of the field organizer working on the advocacy side, calling that person and asking that person why they feel its so important.

I've had that discussion with the one in Richmond. Her excuses were... telling.

Bill, I've been to state senate hearing where organizations whose mission statement, their explicit goal, is the eventual banning of abortion in all forms and for any reason try to make cases for piecemeal restrictions for this reason for that.

As I said, the only way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time.

Those restrictions were argued for in bad faith.

I disagree. And again, we are talking about why abortion on demand should be allowed to continue, not the methods being used to make it more difficult.

What is one to do with that? We know what their real goal is. It's all well and good that you don't, personally, want to do this, but, well, it's kind of irrelevant.

Not really. Saving the 1.2 million innocent human beings who are being annually destroyed is well worth a few missteps and bumps in the road.

At the legislative levels where this stuff affects peoples actual lives its not the individuals, but the organizations, that drive the action. You out there in your suit and tie is going to be drowned out by a sea of pink and purple shirts on one side and whatever color the other side has (bluish gray, the last time I went, but it changes)

I hate ties But, yes, you have a point. Unfortunately the loud mouths tend to get the attention. I really think some of those at Planned Parenthood sincerely believe they are doing what is best for the pregnant girl, but they are simply missing the fact that they are contributing to the ending of a human's life. Honestly, how many unborn babies are destroyed simply because "a baby just isn't convenient right now"? It should be in the best interest of everyone to not allow someone to destroy another human for convenience.

[Jaecp]

That's honestly silly. It's still being an accessory to it. No one should have the "right" to destroy an innocent member of our species, regardless of what noun they call it, and no one should fight for someone else's "right" to do it either.

Saying its silly and then reiterating the talking points of your position does not a conversation make. There is a difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. You can be pro-choice while wishing abortion wasn't a thing.

No. And I've been listening to them for years. I'm in my mid-40's and have been active with my church in counseling teenagers and fighting against abortion for 2 decades.

You've been listening to them for years and can't articulate why the other side cares?

I don't see how that is an argument FOR abortion on demand.

I forgot you don't, apparently, do anything on the legislative level.

Do you agree with those that believe all that abortion on demand should be legal? I realize what you are saying, and no, the issue isn't quite as binary as it is sometimes is painted. But it is a convenient label IMHO.

It's not that its just not binary, but you seem unaware that somewhere between 1/3rd to half of pro-life people (inferable from the gallup numbers posted earlier) want 100% bans on abortion. Having legal, on demand abortion access does not mean people will start using the process more (We already have the highest rate in the West), but it does mean that all of the problems caused by hurdles thrown up by state legislatures will no longer cause negative outcomes for women, predominantly poor women.

Source: Guttenmacher

The clearest documented impact was obtained from analyses of Mississippi’s mandatory
counseling and waiting period law, which requires an additional in-person visit before the
procedure. Following enforcement of the law, abortion rates fell, the number of women going
out of state for an abortion rose and the proportion of second-trimester abortions increased.

Waiting period laws that allow mandatory counseling to be delivered over the Internet or by
mail or telephone appear to impose relatively little cost on patients, and neither the waiting
period requirement nor the mandatory counseling has a measurable impact on reproductive
outcomes, other than to postpone the timing of some abortions.

© Copyright Original Source

The bill does not say that. Fetal genetic abnormalities are not stillborns.

Ah, so you are aware that your whole "I just want to counsel women to give the kid up for adoption" thing isn't how people in positions of power are trying to stop abortions?

I've had that discussion with the one in Richmond. Her excuses were... telling.

You'd need to elaborate on that then because you already said you cant think of why the other side does what they do, but now your saying you've talked to them. Would you like to rephrase your answer to my question on why you think the other side does what they do?

As I said, the only way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time.

I disagree. And again, we are talking about why abortion on demand should be allowed to continue, not the methods being used to make it more difficult.

You disagree? Unless you looked up the state public access TV station and figured out which hearing I was referring to you have no way of arguing for that.

It was a group whose goal was a complete ban. They argued for a stopgap measure with arguments centered around things other than abortion. It was an argument in bad faith. It was practically a textbook example

What is one to do with that? We know what their real goal is. It's all well and good that you don't, personally, want to do this, but, well, it's kind of irrelevant.

Not really. Saving the 1.2 million innocent human beings who are being annually destroyed is well worth a few missteps and bumps in the road.

Perhaps you could response paragraph to paragraph instead of line to line? This response to this line, considering what its saying in the context of the paragraph, is a complete non sequitur.

I hate ties But, yes, you have a point. Unfortunately the loud mouths tend to get the attention. I really think some of those at Planned Parenthood sincerely believe they are doing what is best for the pregnant girl, but they are simply missing the fact that they are contributing to the ending of a human's life. Honestly, how many unborn babies are destroyed simply because "a baby just isn't convenient right now"? It should be in the best interest of everyone to not allow someone to destroy another human for convenience.

It really has nothing to do with "loud mouths", but has to do with groups being more effective than individuals. In state and national level legislative issues, like abortion rights, your views are, more or less, irrelevant. Where is your constituency? I'd be thrilled if we had some group of Christians who wanted to reduce the number of abortions in this country by providing medically sound education to people, cheap or free contraceptives, and increased prominence of adoption programs.

I would be thrilled.

Instead, the people who actually work on the pro-life side do things like, for example, getting states to pass laws mandating that abortion clinics conform to one standard or another that hospitals are required to have to maintain operations. One popular one has to do with hallway width. Hospitals have this regulation because of the size of gurney's. Outpatient clinics like the ones PP operates don't use gurney's.

That ^^^ that right there is not compassion.

All that and more in here, http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/17/1/gpr170109.html from good ole guttmacher. They detail arguments in bad faith, Bill. So, like, its great that you're all for adoption and whatever, but, well, you're just some guy.

The groups make the impact

[Bill the Cat]

Saying its silly and then reiterating the talking points of your position does not a conversation make. There is a difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. You can be pro-choice while wishing abortion wasn't a thing.

Do you wish it wasn't a thing?

You've been listening to them for years and can't articulate why the other side cares?

I can articulate why they SAY they care that abortion on demand is legal, but that wasn't my initial comment. It was that I didn't see a LEGITIMATE REASON. I've heard their reasons, and I stand unimpressed.

I forgot you don't, apparently, do anything on the legislative level.

My pastor does. And he leads our group. So, indirectly, I do.

It's not that its just not binary, but you seem unaware that somewhere between 1/3rd to half of pro-life people (inferable from the gallup numbers posted earlier) want 100% bans on abortion.

That's overly simplistic. I'd bet that if you actually probed them, you'd find dozens of different opinions on exceptions. I don't think very many would demand that a mother continue to carry a fetus that was already dead. Or many who would support carrying an ectopic pregnancy where both mother and child are bound to die.

Having legal, on demand abortion access does not mean people will start using the process more (We already have the highest rate in the West), but it does mean that all of the problems caused by hurdles thrown up by state legislatures will no longer cause negative outcomes for women, predominantly poor women.

Do you think that there were 1.5 million abortions being done in the US before RvW became the law?

Source: Guttenmacher

The clearest documented impact was obtained from analyses of Mississippi’s mandatory
counseling and waiting period law, which requires an additional in-person visit before the
procedure. Following enforcement of the law, abortion rates fell, the number of women going
out of state for an abortion rose and the proportion of second-trimester abortions increased.

Waiting period laws that allow mandatory counseling to be delivered over the Internet or by
mail or telephone appear to impose relatively little cost on patients, and neither the waiting
period requirement nor the mandatory counseling has a measurable impact on reproductive
outcomes, other than to postpone the timing of some abortions.

© Copyright Original Source

Because we need to dig deeper and find out WHY people think destroying a fetus is ok with them.

Ah, so you are aware that your whole "I just want to counsel women to give the kid up for adoption" thing isn't how people in positions of power are trying to stop abortions?

Of course I am. I realize that some methods being used are missteps, such as the clinic restrictions, but I also understand that these roadblocks serve a greater purpose, and can be useful in some cases.

You'd need to elaborate on that then because you already said you cant think of why the other side does what they do, but now your saying you've talked to them. Would you like to rephrase your answer to my question on why you think the other side does what they do?

That's not what I said. I said I can't think of a LEGITIMATE reason they do what they do.

You disagree? Unless you looked up the state public access TV station and figured out which hearing I was referring to you have no way of arguing for that.

True. Sorry. I've seen and read some hearings though, and now that you've cited an example, I can certainly say that I disagree that this type is in bad faith. They are means to an end.

It was a group whose goal was a complete ban. They argued for a stopgap measure with arguments centered around things other than abortion. It was an argument in bad faith. It was practically a textbook example

Again, these things are means to an end. The abortion debate is complex and covers more topics than just the life of the unborn. Restrictions on clinics are for more than just stopping the abortion. They are for protecting the mother's safety and health too. That they are more stringent that other outpatient facilities is honestly inconsequential to my position, because what occurs is more than just having a mole removed.

Perhaps you could response paragraph to paragraph instead of line to line? This response to this line, considering what its saying in the context of the paragraph, is a complete non sequitur.

Not really. It is very relevant. As I said, one bite at a time. Saving the lives of the unborn requires many different angles, all with the goals of protecting both the lives and health of mother and child.

It really has nothing to do with "loud mouths", but has to do with groups being more effective than individuals. In state and national level legislative issues, like abortion rights, your views are, more or less, irrelevant. Where is your constituency? I'd be thrilled if we had some group of Christians who wanted to reduce the number of abortions in this country by providing medically sound education to people, cheap or free contraceptives, and increased prominence of adoption programs.

I would be thrilled.

Instead, the people who actually work on the pro-life side do things like, for example, getting states to pass laws mandating that abortion clinics conform to one standard or another that hospitals are required to have to maintain operations. One popular one has to do with hallway width. Hospitals have this regulation because of the size of gurney's. Outpatient clinics like the ones PP operates don't use gurney's.

That ^^^ that right there is not compassion.

Sure it is. Compassion for the unborn. It's a small roadblock in a much bigger effort.

All that and more in here, http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/17/1/gpr170109.html from good ole guttmacher. They detail arguments in bad faith, Bill. So, like, its great that you're all for adoption and whatever, but, well, you're just some guy.

The groups make the impact

And my group comes from the third largest church in Central Virginia. And we do lobby the state legislature. And some of the things we work toward are probably seen by the other side of the argument as "bad faith", but we see it as the ends justifying the means, as long as the means are not unethical. Working for better and safer clinic construction isn't unethical. But somehow I doubt you'll agree that they are.

[Jaecp]

Do you wish it wasn't a thing?

This is one of those “perfect world” kind of things.

I can articulate why they SAY they care that abortion on demand is legal, but that wasn't my initial comment. It was that I didn't see a LEGITIMATE REASON. I've heard their reasons, and I stand unimpressed.

That's not what I said. I said I can't think of a LEGITIMATE reason they do what they do.

Then you dodged the question earlier. I asked if you could articulate the other sides rationale. In a word, duh, of course you don’t find them be compelling or you would be in my camp. I keep telling you I know what your positions are. Like every other atheist you’ve likely ever interacted with, particularly on the net, I was raised religious. Being able to explain why the other side thinks they do, even as you don’t agree with it, is a very important part of having productive dialogue. That’s why my comments have, by and large, talked about ways to reduce the amount of abortions that happen (a win for you) in a way that doesn’t negatively effect the stuff that I care about (a win for me)

Without understanding what two sides want, finding win-wins is hard. Which is why statements like this are so strange to me since you’ve told me you’ve talked to people, but then when asked to actually say why the other side does what they do you seem unwilling, or able, to do so.

Because we need to dig deeper and find out WHY people think destroying a fetus is ok with them.

You should know this already! You've told me that you've asked people about it!

My pastor does. And he leads our group. So, indirectly, I do.

2 things,
1. Then which group is this? I asked you earlier and you simply said the pro-life side.
2. Ehh, from what you’ve told me you act as a youth counselor. Might as well said my Mayor’s tailor indirectly creates local law.

That's overly simplistic. I'd bet that if you actually probed them, you'd find dozens of different opinions on exceptions. I don't think very many would demand that a mother continue to carry a fetus that was already dead. Or many who would support carrying an ectopic pregnancy where both mother and child are bound to die.

No, it isn’t. The stats from the gallup numbers we’ve both been citing from have a 28 pro in all cases, 50% ok in some cases, and 21% no in all cases. As there is a roughly 50/50 split between each camp in this area we can assign a proportion of the “ok in some cases” and all of the “no in all cases” and from that we can figure that a little under half of pro-life people want a complete ban. It’s a basic inference. Plenty of people in the "ok in some cases" to have that nice, finessed viewpoint, but you can't downplay that a large amount of your side advocates for complete bans. 28 to 21, so 28/49 vs 21/49 or, 57% to 43% of the pro life side, again simply infer able from the stats given. A slim majority, that.

Do you think that there were 1.5 million abortions being done in the US before RvW became the law?

The us population has increased by 50% or more since that era around 200m to 320m, so the numbers need to be treated proportionally. When I was reading this reply on my cellphone I googled up abortion stats pre RvW and while the numbers are incomplete because people don’t exactly collect statistics on underground abortions, estimates put it at a higher per capita rate since some of the estimates were at high as 1.2m/y which would be around 1.9m/y if the same per capita was in effect. By that estimate, we’ve managed to have lower per capita abortion (which, again, is a net positive for you) while avoiding all the negative aspects of back alley abortions.
Also, RvW isn’t the only thing to consider. By the time RvW happened, plenty of states had gotten rid of their bans. By the time RvW happened, about 1/3rd of the country had access to legal abortion that didn’t require the woman to be in danger of dying

Of course I am. I realize that some methods being used are missteps, such as the clinic restrictions, but I also understand that these roadblocks serve a greater purpose, and can be useful in some cases.

True. Sorry. I've seen and read some hearings though, and now that you've cited an example, I can certainly say that I disagree that this type is in bad faith. They are means to an end.

Again, these things are means to an end. The abortion debate is complex and covers more topics than just the life of the unborn. Restrictions on clinics are for more than just stopping the abortion. They are for protecting the mother's safety and health too. That they are more stringent that other outpatient facilities is honestly inconsequential to my position, because what occurs is more than just having a mole removed.

Not really. It is very relevant. As I said, one bite at a time. Saving the lives of the unborn requires many different angles, all with the goals of protecting both the lives and health of mother and child.

Means to an end. Serve a greater purpose. Those words, regardless of what they are being used to describe, have been problematic throughout history. Treating the end as justifying the means has a terrifying track record throughout human history. Does the bible admonish Christians to take a "the end justifies the means" approach or does it counsel an ethical approach to create an ethical solution? I may just be some sort of blasphemous heathen, but I remember what I learned in church and in my own study. I'm not going to throw a bunch of verses at you because I think you already know what your holy book teaches about that, even if you haven't applied it to your evaluation of the kind of bad faith // end justifies the means stuff that we've been talking about

Anyway, no, these regulations are superfluous. They are argued for about being patient safety, but have nothing to do with patient safety. Making a case for one thing, while denying it is actually about something else is dishonest. A basic google search about Abortion TRAP laws brings up any number of examples of laws that have nothing to do with patient safety(these are so trivially not about patient safety I included examples of them before you even made the argument!) like, as I believe I mentioned before, laws regulating that clinics comply with hospital regulations about parking lots, entrences, hallway size, or other structural aspects that a state law has because, you know, ambulances, gurney’s, etc. Outpatient clinics that don’t use gurneys but then have to spend millions of dollars to not be closed down?

Bad faith, Bill. None of that makes the women in the clinic any safer so please don’t take me for a fool who is going to just accept that the laws put into place to close down clinics has anything to do with the safety of the women going to them. Especially since these laws often go against your stated goal from earlier about focusing on 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions since one of the more popular TRAP provisions has to do with making any clinic, even one who only does first trimmest pills, be legally required to have all the equipment of ambulatory surgical center.

If you want people to stop having abortions, convince them to stop. The kinds of road blocks that get thrown up by laws such as the one I mentioned above don’t prevent abortions, they just make them more expensive and the women who can’t afford those costs simply try the riskier methods. Arguments in bad faith are never going to work in the long run. If you can’t convince people your position is correct then throwing up roadblocks isn’t going to stop them.

It really has nothing to do with "loud mouths", but has to do with groups being more effective than individuals. In state and national level legislative issues, like abortion rights, your views are, more or less, irrelevant. Where is your constituency? I'd be thrilled if we had some group of Christians who wanted to reduce the number of abortions in this country by providing medically sound education to people, cheap or free contraceptives, and increased prominence of adoption programs.

I would be thrilled.

Instead, the people who actually work on the pro-life side do things like, for example, getting states to pass laws mandating that abortion clinics conform to one standard or another that hospitals are required to have to maintain operations. One popular one has to do with hallway width. Hospitals have this regulation because of the size of gurney's. Outpatient clinics like the ones PP operates don't use gurney's.

That ^^^ that right there is not compassion.

Sure it is. Compassion for the unborn. It's a small roadblock in a much bigger effort.

And my group comes from the third largest church in Central Virginia. And we do lobby the state legislature. And some of the things we work toward are probably seen by the other side of the argument as "bad faith", but we see it as the ends justifying the means, as long as the means are not unethical. Working for better and safer clinic construction isn't unethical. But somehow I doubt you'll agree that they are.

Since when is arguing in bad faith not dishonest and unethical? I already gave examples of how these kinds of laws have nothing to do with patient safety. If you’re going to throw PRATT’s around can you make sure its not in the post immediately after I address them?

Also, wait, third largest church in central Virginia? Im not sure how you’re defining central VA, but from googling the third largest protestant church in your state has like 8k members. I’d presume that, since your talking about a subsection of your state, that membership is, what, 4k? That’s nice. I guess. Unless 3rd largest in central is 3rd largest overall and you're going to Jerry Falwell Jr's church in which case I may just start giggling.

Also,

Arguments in bad faith are not something that is seen by this side or that. It simply is or is not. If you are disguising your objectives or claiming to be going after another target while your real goal is something else then you are engaging in duplicity and operating in bad faith. Regardless of how righteous you believe your cause to be, it can be attempted in bad faith. You can try to justify the fact that your side has taken to bad faith tactics (that, again, don’t actually prevent abortions), but trying to say that they aren’t being done in bad faith is not in the cards for you.