Well, yes, the majority of people are disgusted by the idea of a 10-year-old girl is being forced to carry a pregnancy (the fact that she was trapped makes it all the more monstrous). That the NRL is of a different opinion only shows that they are an extremist organization, way out on the fringes.

Even in this extreme case though, if said 10-year-old victim were 1 hour away from being able to give birth, I don't think it would make sense to allow an abortion (though of course a C-section can be performed at any time). So clearly there is some line, even for the most extreme cases.

> That the NRL is of a different opinion only shows that they are an extremist organization, way out on the fringes

It's the oldest and largest national anti-abortion organization in the United States, hardly the fringes. They do a lot of campaign financing.

>> That the NRL is of a different opinion only shows that they are an extremist organization, way out on the fringes

> It's the oldest and largest national anti-abortion organization in the United States, hardly the fringes. They do a lot of campaign financing.

IHMO, whether it was fully understood by the GP or not, "extremist organization, way out on the fringes" was probably in relation to the US Democratic Party, not American politics in general.

It's toxic, misleading, and annoying, but I think a lot of rhetoric nowadays is trying to manipulate the "Overton window" to partisan advantage rather than debate the issue itself.

No, it's true in relation to the politics of ordinary Americans. Look at any polls on abortion, and you'll see that this type of ban is well on the fringes.

Even more so if you were to present this explicit situation - I'd bet even some of the most religious people you find would be hard pressed to say that a ten year old girl should be forced to carry that pregnancy to term.

Well we don't have to just blindly guess, we could also look at some research.

> More than a third of abortion opponents (36%) say it should be legal if the pregnancy results from rape, with 27% saying “it depends” and 37% expressing opposition to legal abortion even in this situation https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abo...

...and the largest anti-abortion organization in the country agrees with the decision to deny her healthcare. Does that match their constituents' beliefs?

I would say that 37% of 37% of the population is quite a fringe position.

More than a third (not counting "it depends" respondents)?! I guess I define "fringe" as something other than "mainstream" but your definition may vary.

Is the agreement by the largest anti-abortion organization in the country to deny her healthcare in line with their constituents' beliefs?

The Catholic Church is one of the oldest and richest institutions on Earth. Its views on contraception are still way out on the fringes of public opinion.

There are about 70 million Catholics in the US, 20% of the population. Are a majority of their members' views on abortion out of line with the Catholic Church? They're a pretty sizable part of "public opinion."

> Are a majority of their members' views on abortion out of line with the Catholic Church?

Yes. Also, I was specifically talking about contraception, not abortion.

Oh, they aren't very good Catholics then! Those numbers are much higher amongst practicing Catholics, and their self-reported views on abortion are very mainstream, not on the fringes at all.

Disgusted but apparently still voting for it.

Of course, some legislation could ban abortions while make exceptions for 10-year-old rape victims or other extreme cases. There's a lot of middle ground between banning all abortions and allowing all abortions. We don't need to legislate according to extremes.

We don't need to, but that's the way things are going. Allowing abortion for rape and not in other cases is ideologically inconsistent with the idea that fetuses are persons, and so what we are actually seeing is that state legislatures are passing extreme legislation to maintain consistency with that premise. They are able to do so because states are so polarized that they can pass extreme legislation without any repercussions.

Half of the problem here is that reasonable people think this will be a states' rights issue with reasonable exceptions that local people can all agree on, but with which others might differ. Whereas what's actually happening is that extremist state legislatures are seizing on the issue to pass the most restrictive abortion laws they possibly can, and the GOP at the national level is salivating over the prospect of a national abortion ban as soon as they regain control of the government (see statements from VP Pence, Mitch McConnell, and various House republicans). People thought throwing the issue back to the states would be the end of it, but it's clearly not.

> Half of the problem here is that reasonable people think this will be a states' rights issue with reasonable exceptions that local people can all agree on, but with which others might differ.

It wasn't like we had a referendum and reasonable people voted for this to be a states' rights issue. Rather, we never had an abortion law or anything in the constitution that could reasonably be interpreted as a right to abortion, so the Supreme Court overturned RvW. What we need is a federal law (Amendment?) that protects abortion access for the most extreme cases (i.e., the cases where a healthy majority of Americans agree).

And yet, what we had was a reasonable state of affairs: there was a sliding scale between more permissive and restrictive abortion options as a pregnancy progressed, and every person could make up their minds as to whether they would seek an abortion based on their circumstances and health within those limits. The status quo was that 99% of abortions were performed in the early stages where the fetus is still not developed, with virtually none of the morally complicated late term abortions actually occurring.

What then happened is that a president elected by a minority of the country appointed extreme Justices, who were confirmed by a Senate that also represented a minority of the country, and they made a unilateral decision based more on their personal religious beliefs than the actual law. Rather than settle the issue as they thought it would, they have thrown the whole country into abject chaos. A lot of reasonable people, and in fact highly distinguished legal scholars (including decades of Justices) interpreted the Constitution as supporting Roe, so calling them unreasonable is, I think, not right and adds insult to injury.

What is certainly unreasonable is where we have landed. State legislatures are passing the most extreme laws they can possibly can, with no exceptions for rape or incest. Forcing 10 year olds to flee a state to get an abortion because she was raped is not reasonable. Forcing mothers to wait until an ectopic pregnancy has ruptured before providing abortive care just because a heartbeat is detected on an unviable fetus is not reasonable. Just this weekend the Idaho GOP moved so far as to advocate for no exceptions at all even to save the life of the mother. That's not reasonable, that's extremism.

Far from this being an issue thrown to the states, now the GOP is turning toward a nationwide abortion ban if they retake the government. This is completely unsustainable and will likely tear this country apart.

> And yet, what we had was a reasonable state of affairs: there was a sliding scale between more permissive and restrictive abortion options as a pregnancy progressed, and every person could make up their minds as to whether they would seek an abortion based on their circumstances and health within those limits. The status quo was that 99% of abortions were performed in the early stages where the fetus is still not developed, with virtually none of the morally complicated late term abortions actually occurring.

I probably agree with some/much of the spirit of this paragraph, but I don't think "every person could make up their minds about <ending a life>" is a reasonable state of affairs--I want it codified in law as with homicides--generally prohibited with exceptions for a few extreme cases (e.g., self-defense). I think we should also strive to avoid the problem as much as possible by minimizing unwanted pregnancy (improve access to birth control). We should also invest more in family, adoption, and foster services on the backend. I think it's totally fair to criticize pro-life people for failing to support these sorts of programs while also advocating against abortion.

> What then happened is that a president elected by a minority of the country appointed extreme Justices, who were confirmed by a Senate that also represented a minority of the country, and they made a unilateral decision based more on their personal religious beliefs than the actual law. Rather than settle the issue as they thought it would, they have thrown the whole country into abject chaos. A lot of reasonable people, and in fact highly distinguished legal scholars (including decades of Justices) interpreted the Constitution as supporting Roe, so calling them unreasonable is, I think, not right and adds insult to injury.

I think packing the courts is reprehensible (as were many actions of that particular president), but we need court reform to prevent this kind of abuse in general. However, I believe (though I suspect you will disagree) that this is largely an orthogonal issue--I don't believe this court acted on their personal religious beliefs, but rather I believe (as do many prominent pro-choicers, by the way) that Roe v. Wade was extremely tenuous and the proper channel for establishing abortion policy is legislative.

> What is certainly unreasonable is where we have landed. State legislatures are passing the most extreme laws they can possibly can, with no exceptions for rape or incest. Forcing 10 year olds to flee a state to get an abortion because she was raped is not reasonable. Forcing mothers to wait until an ectopic pregnancy has ruptured before providing abortive care just because a heartbeat is detected on an unviable fetus is not reasonable. Just this weekend the Idaho GOP moved so far as to advocate for no exceptions at all even to save the life of the mother. That's not reasonable, that's extremism.

I agree with this, but again, the answer is legislative--the Supreme Court is responsible for interpreting the Constitution, and it's eminently plausible to interpret the Constitution as being silent on abortion. We should have passed some sensible abortion legislation decades ago.

> I don't think "every person could make up their minds about

Agreed, I was implying that it was left up to the individual within the bounds set by Roe and Casey, which had limits that worked. It seemed that most of the debate of the past centered on exactly the cutoff, which is an important issue but much different than the current debate of "should women have access to abortion whatsoever?"

> though I suspect you will disagree

I do disagree. The reason is that at least two of the Senators who confirmed the Justices who concurred with the Dobbs decision have come out to say they felt at least one of those Justices, one who squeaked by with a 50 vote margin, lied to them during his highly politicized confirmation process. If this were a straightforward matter of poor jurisprudence, then it would be enough to say that. Instead, there was a certain level of at best coy obfuscation, to at worst outright fingers-crossed deceit during the confirmation processes. That makes it impossible for me to see the decision as anything other than motivated by ideology. They said what they needed to in order to get confirmed, and as soon as the majority was solidified, they immediately used their power to do what they wanted to all along.

> Roe v. Wade was extremely tenuous and the proper channel for establishing abortion policy is legislative.

Perhaps it was tenuous according to some, but it was also tested in court, reaffirmed, and part of our social contract for 50 years. Maybe the stick holding up the roof of your house isn't the best, but it's still holding up the roof, so perhaps we shouldn't just get rid of it one day in June because it's not the best? Why isn't anyone thinking about the roof?

> I agree with this, but again, the answer is legislative

I don't think the conservative majority on the Supreme Court agrees. There's nothing in their opinion that would suggest to me that they wouldn't strike down Roe codified by the Congress. My reading of the opinion is that they would strike down any right to abortion not enshrined in the Constitution as an amendment. Amending the Constitution to protect abortion is neigh impossible, and so I don't think we will have anything close to a codified Roe v. Wade as long as the majority of the court remains conservative. Instead about half the states in the country will outlaw abortion full-stop, no exceptions; while the other half services the women and children fleeing those states seeking healthcare, likely maintain the same safeguards offered by Roe in the first place.

I wish National Right to Life felt the same way.

> There's a lot of middle ground between banning all abortions and allowing all abortions

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others?

> Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others?

As a rhetorical tactic, do you have a lot of luck with obvious deliberate obtuseness?

I'm simply repeating the mantra of the disciples of Kang and Kodos. If you have a problem I suggest you take it up with them.