Why Some Arizona Republicans Are Defending Abortion Rights

A handful of Republican lawmakers worked with Democrats to repeal an 1864 law banning most abortions.

Though still on the books, Arizona's near-total ban on abortion was buried deep in the state's history—until recently. An April decision from the state's Supreme Court breathed new life into this long-dormant law.

The ban in question—first passed by the territory of Arizona in 1864 and later codified into Arizona state law—mandated two to five years' prison time for intentionally acting "to procure the miscarriage" of a pregnant woman "unless it is necessary to save her life."

This law became unenforceable in 1973 when Roe v. Wade recognized a federal right to an abortion. Since then, the state passed a number of new abortion restrictions, including a March 2022 law prohibiting abortion after 15 weeks' gestation "except in a medical emergency." So when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in June 2022, no one in Arizona knew which state abortion rules to follow.

Mark Brnovich, then the state's attorney 
general, sought to enforce the more extreme 1864 ban. This led to a legal clash with Planned Parenthood Arizona, which argued that the old ban was superseded by newer laws.

On April 9, the Arizona Supreme Court decided in Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes that the old ban "is now enforceable."

The case was "one of statutory interpretation," as Justice John Lopez IV put it in the majority opinion—not the constitutionality of the old law. The ruling "does not rest on the justices' morals or public policy views regarding abortion," noted Lopez. Rather, it was a matter of determining that Arizona's 2022 abortion law did not "provide independent statutory authority" for repealing or restricting the older ban.

Rather than allow the state to start enforcing the ban immediately, the court remanded the case to a lower court to explore other constitutional issues, suggesting that the older ban could yet be deemed unconstitutional.

Nonetheless, the reaction from Democrats was swift and resolute. President Joe Biden criticized the ruling as "a result of the extreme agenda of Republican elected officials who are committed to ripping away women's freedom." Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes called the ruling "unconscionable and an affront to freedom."

But even some Republican politicians in Arizona expressed discomfort with the decision. Former Gov. Doug Ducey admitted it was not the outcome he "would have preferred." Current Senate candidate Kari Lake, who previously expressed support for the 1864 law, said she opposed this ruling (though she also later walked this back).

Only a few years ago, such reactions from Republicans would have been surprising. But since Roe was overturned, voters haven't proven very friendly to extreme abortion positions or those who support them. The court's ruling centers abortion in Arizona's political landscape in an election year, tying the Republican Party not to the more moderate abortion restrictions that many Americans can get behind but to the kind of extreme ban that even many conservatives do not support.

Perhaps that's why some Republican lawmakers worked quickly with their Democratic colleagues in the state Legislature to repeal the ban. On April 24, the GOP-controlled House passed a repeal bill, after three Republican representatives joined with Democrats in voting to repeal. The following week, it passed the (also GOP-controlled) Senate, with two conservative senators voting to repeal.

Arizona for Abortion Access has gathered enough signatures to put a measure on the November 2024 ballot that proposes a state constitutional amendment to guarantee that "every individual has a fundamental right to abortion" and that the state cannot interfere with that right "before fetal viability unless justified by a compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means."

Leaving abortion up to the states is proving a rocky journey. But it may be the path that eventually leads to reproductive freedom in Arizona.

Comments

[SQRLSY One]

Butt... Butt... Butt every sperm is sacred!!!

Twat next, will Monty Python be repealed ass well?!?!?

[MrMxyzptlk]

Don't give them ideas.

[Mickey Rat]

No, the Oberton Window has moved so far Left that the Pythons are being canceled by the Left for being too far Right.

Plus, you do not seem to even understand what that skit is actually about.

[SQRLSY One]

I'll check with Queen Spermy Daniels (Who Art Drenched in Vaseline), and Her Boy Toy, Der TrumpfenFarter-Fuhrer, and get back to you on that one, I promise!

(She IS Our One True Expert on Spermy Skits and Spermy Skirts!)

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

If only things like abortion restrictions would keep Democrats out of Arizona.

[Mickey Rat]

This is surprising because ENB's writing on this subject is superficial and biased to the pro-abortion extremist end of the debate on this issue.

[TJJ2000]

Maybe my wifes body shouldn't be a public debate.
Why are you so interested in my wife; you don't even know her.

[charliehall]

The libertarian position is that the government shouldn't be regulating abortion.

[Bill Falcon]

Being irresponsible and not being accountable for the results....

Seriously use contraception if you want to have sex and not get pregnant. Condoms are pretty cheap and available and now the pill is OTC.

This whole ENB freaking out about abortion is getting old and honestly has nothing to do with real libertarianism...just go away back to your cosmo DC hole you live in and join the cultural marxists who want to mutilate confused kids...

[Fist of Etiquette]

Because even they realize there are already way too many Arizonians.

[shadydave]

I will mention again that Republicans hold a 4 to 5 point party registration advantage in the State of Arizona, and yet have a Democratic governor and (sort of) two Democratic senators.

As for Doug Ducey, he fell right in line with the blue state governors in pushing obscene COVID restrictions so a friend of libertarians he is not. The man has no principles beyond whatever he thinks is good for Doug Ducey.

[Brandybuck]

> The man has no principles beyond whatever he thinks is good for Doug Ducey.

Just like every other politician ever. You really think Trump has any principles beyond what is good for Trump? Hah!

[charliehall]

Arizona also has a Democratic Attorney General because too many Republican voters died from COVID after refusing vaccines. The Republican incumbent (who lost a primary for the US Senate to an even worse nutjob) was an anti-vaxxer. Junk science propaganda that kills off your voters isn't a good campaign strategy.

[Bill Falcon]

"junk science"...like a vaccine that actually isn't a vaccine and doesn't prevent catching a highly mutable virus? You don't have vaccines for the common cold do you?

[TJJ2000]

Or you can just say it like it is….

Even Republican Voters supported Roe v Wade (majority).
Heck Republicans wrote Roe v Wade.

This whole thing is just POLITICIANS putting on a show for a minority group of activists who want to flex their self-righteous Power-Mad dictator muscle at girls who have UN-married sex (religious dictates).

The propaganda all falls apart because a pre-viable pregnancy has no right to life which is exactly the premise that Roe v Wade used to establish pre-viable ‘Individual Rights’ to their own body.

If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
UR supporting Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction.

No SCOTUS; Nobody needs to loose Individual Rights over their own F'En body.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

You might sound more credible (and sane) if you recognized the core issue (does a fetus have ANY rights?), and not rant about extraneous straw men, like unmarried sex, and recognized that most of us now know what causes pregnancy.

[mr_liberal]

Rights protect you from the government, so you could say a fetus has rights but that doesn't mean abortion should be illegal.

[TJJ2000]

Indeed. "Rights protect you from the (a tyrannical) government"

[TJJ2000]

It has the right to be FREE. (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
Just like the rest of us.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

I assume you don't have children. Or at least I hope you don't.

[TJJ2000]

You assume wrong. Not like that has any bearing on why one would want Gov-Guns out forcing other people to reproduce. I don't think I have a house yet until it's completed either.

[Purple Martin]

You might demonstrate such credibility if you recognized the core issue: The Dobbs decision was purely about a single 100% religion-based argument—determining if and exactly when the supernatural soul attaches to the natural (physical) human body.

There would be no Alito-written Dobbs decision were it not for an absolute religious faith (that is, belief without evidence) in souls.

Without that faith in the indemonstrable proposition of the human soul’s existence, abortion choice would have the same cultural status as the choice of a woman carrying the cancer-causing BRAC1 or BRAC2 genes to have a prophylactic mastectomy. Simply put, there would be no controversy requiring adjudication.

[charliehall]

"does a fetus have ANY rights?"

No.

[mad.casual]

 

AZ welcome back to 1864

Vote accordingly

Ignoring history and the rest of reality in favor of The Current Thing… to the point of aborting women’s suffrage. I totally didn’t see that coming.

Needs a pantsless woman behind her with a coathanger stuck in her cooch holding a sign saying “Support AZ abortions! Stick a coathanger in your vaj!”.

[mad.casual]

extreme abortion positions

"We shouldn't let women abort within our State or municipal borders because it's like murder." is not an extreme abortion position and, despite ENB's idiocy, the electorate knows this.

"We should hunt down women who've had abortions in multiple other states to avoid our laws the *exact* same way we hunt down other people who do the same sorts of things." isn't even really an extreme position, de facto. And again, even a relatively low-IQ subset of the electorate can see through ENB's "MUH EXTREEM MORUL PANICK!" on even trivial review.

"We should hunt down women who've had abortions and execute them to dissuade other women from having abortions." is a pretty extreme position, but nobody's making that and, even then, there's a larger "Sweden doesn't execute anybody, but they also suffer a lot more grenade attacks."/"No abortion clinics... no abortion clinic bombings/FACE Act prosecutions to be had" cultural argument to be had.

At this point, ENB's left to appeal to the exceedingly stupid, motivated to remain stupid, as well as keep others stupid portion of the electorate. It would just be pitiful if it weren't evilly/nefariously hedging for murder.

[mr_liberal]

You need to ask yourself why killing another person is illegal. Why has that been true of every society throughout human history. Then you'll realize why abortion isn't murder.

[mad.casual]

Then you’ll realize why abortion isn’t murder.

I’d say you should read what I wrote and that you’ll realize that I didn’t say abortion is murder, and then you’ll realize that we don’t all live in your head. But I strongly surmise you can’t or won’t, because you didn’t read what I wrote to begin with. You need this “bootleggers and baptists” narrative to exist in order to rationalize your irrationality, rectify your inconsistencies, and parse your personal bootleggers from your personal baptists.

Otherwise, as I indicated, it’s entirely reasonable to see how a people, tribe, culture, or species facing extinction might rightly regard abortion differently than one facing overpopulation even within moral frameworks respected by both. But, again, the distinction between “like murder”, “like other crimes (such as skipping out on paternity)”, and “as murder” is too brain-hurty for you, so continue to try and improve your situation by trying to retard others to your level.

I mean, you do realize that if I damage yours (or anyone else’s) cells without killing you (or them), I’ve still committed a crime, right? Even if you aren’t aware or cognizant of the loss at the time, I can still be found and held guilty. That if I do it a lot in several other states, the days of me fleeing across any given state line and that state throwing up it’s arms and saying “Well he didn’t commit a crime here, yet, so there’s nothing we can do.” are long, long gone right?

You aren’t “mr_liberal”. Your thinking is as thoroughly homogeneous as the one narrow stream of perception you allow into your own head... as fed to you by utter morons like ENB.

[Rick James]

You need to ask yourself why killing another person is illegal. Why has that been true of every society throughout human history.

Not to nitpick, but that's NOT true of every society throughout human history. Lots of societies allowed murder. Most ancient societies allowed you to treat your slaves as if they were property. Honor killings are in fact a thing in some cultures. It wasn't until most of the globe became Christianized that the blanket idea of a prohibition on murder was seen as 'the norm'.

[mad.casual]

Technically (we're talking about human lives, nitpicking isn't a crime), killing another person isn't necessarily or inherently illegal in our society.

You may/can/will/should wind up having to justify your actions but, to the point, Kyle Rittenhouse had to prove he was defending himself, not that obliterating the clump of cells that made up Gauge Grosskreutz' right bicep was just convenient.

[Rick James]

Technically (we’re talking about human lives, nitpicking isn’t a crime), killing another person isn’t necessarily or inherently illegal in our society.

That is correct. But (speaking as an atheist) this trope of lower-case-c-christian morality being just like, the norm and shit as society progresses while pretending that these virtues are all just like, universal, man is becoming increasingly frustrating.

Is it any wonder Richard Dawkins, atheist evangelizer now refers to himself as a Christian Atheist?

[Mark U]

Is that Christianized as in the Inquisition, and when did most of the globe become Christianized?

[Nelson]

The Christians who do bad things don't count.

[charliehall]

Most of Christian history is about Christians doing bad things.

[Dangerangel]

>“We shouldn’t let women abort within our State or municipal borders because it’s like murder.” is not an extreme abortion position and, despite ENB’s idiocy, the electorate knows this.

It's not an extreme position compared to your imaginary position, no.

[mad.casual]

It’s not an extreme position compared to your imaginary position, no.

As indicated, it's not an extreme position compared to the very real position that we have federal law that allows for/facilitates the very real, day in-day out practice of hunting of deadbeat parents across State lines to exact restitution for their inability to abort their own children.

We can go on all day talking about how hard people must selectively retard themselves in order to accept your position but most people would've gotten the hint a while ago.

[Dangerangel]

I can't believe I missed this turd of a non sequitur. You really are a professional at squirting ink.

Federal law isn't evacuationist either, so what? It's possible (nay, common among libertarians) to believe abortion is immoral and realize that making it illegal would be an even greater evil.

Hitchens, who you two midwits think is on your side after reading a single paragraph of his writing, actually falls into this camp. So did Rothbard, by the way.

[Nelson]

"“We shouldn’t let women abort within our State or municipal borders because it’s like murder.” is not an extreme abortion position"

It's the definition of an extreme abortion position. You can't get any more extreme on abortion than "no abortions at all", just like you can't get more extreme than "because it's like murder".

Can the fetus survive if the mother dies? If the answer is "no", it has no individual rights because it is incapable of existing without the mother being alive.

Does the fetus have the minimum requirements for life? If the answer is "no", it has no individual rights because it is incapable of existing without the mother being alive.

As long as a fetus has a 0% chance of survival (21 weeks is where it becomes non-zero), it doesn't have rights. That's a simple, sensible, reasonable, and moderate dividing line. It's also called "viability", for those who have chosen to believe some another, incorrect definition of the word.

[TrueLibertarian2]

Abortion is a contentious issue, even among us long time LP members. I am an atheist, so it really boils down to the government having no compelling interest in the matter. Though the states define “murder” and prosecute those crimes (federal murder charges are rare). In the end, the woman and the doctor are both in the room. Individual liberty.

I can see that for religious reasons, one might consider abortion murder, and thus a case of mass murder when considering the quantity.

There’s no rule that a Libertarian must be an atheist. So that’s the source of the contention.

I find actual libertarians agree on most everything. This is an exception.

[Get To Da Chippah]

I can see that for religious reasons, one might consider abortion murder, and thus a case of mass murder when considering the quantity.

There’s no rule that a Libertarian must be an atheist. So that’s the source of the contention.

I don't think religion is the crux of the issue. The issue, to me, is at what point does a human become human enough to have individual rights, weighed against the rights of the mother.

From a non-religious, scientific standpoint, there's no arguing that at the moment of conception, the new lifeform is alive, of the homo sapiens species, and genetically distinct from both parents. At that point one has to start weighing the rights of that individual against the rights of others. That's not to say that the equation instantly is in favor of the fetus, just that a fundamental change has occurred that at lest merits consideration. From that moment onward, human development is continuous. At what point does this new human life sufficient rights to override casual termination because their existence is inconvenient to someone else? Some say at conception, some say only after birth, and most say somewhere in between, with vague nods to 'viability' or other measurable characteristics, all of which can vary from one individual to another.

[Nelson]

"From a non-religious, scientific standpoint, there’s no arguing that at the moment of conception, the new lifeform is alive, of the homo sapiens species, and genetically distinct from both parents."

But it isn't, nor should it be considered, a person with rights equal to the mother. A potential person isn't a person and almost 3/4 of fertilized eggs never become living, breathing humans. The "it might become a real person if everything goes right , although it often fails even when everything goes right, so you have to treat it like a real person" logic is flawed from top to bottom. A fertilized egg has exactly zero of the things required to survive. Until it does (the earliest a fetus has been born and survived is 21 weeks), it isn't a person.

Claiming the potential for something is indistinguishable from the actuality of something is why the extreme anti-abortion position is intellectually deficient. Government force should never be wielded against citizens for such a vapid and false reason.

If you believe that potential = reality, live your life that way. But leave the other 90% of us that know it's nonsense alone.

[Get To Da Chippah]

Did you just stop reading after the couple of sentences you quoted? Here, I'll post the rest again for you.

At that point one has to start weighing the rights of that individual against the rights of others. That’s not to say that the equation instantly is in favor of the fetus, just that a fundamental change has occurred that at least merits consideration. From that moment onward, human development is continuous. At what point does this new human life sufficient rights to override casual termination because their existence is inconvenient to someone else? Some say at conception, some say only after birth, and most say somewhere in between, with vague nods to ‘viability’ or other measurable characteristics, all of which can vary from one individual to another.

Had you bothered to read further, you might have noticed that I actually agree with you that conception is too early a point to start granting rights to the unborn. As for your statement regarding the earliest a fetus has been born and survived, that was due to technology--the fetus survived in a NICU unit until it could leave that environment. That kind of technology wasn't around a hundred years ago, and I think it's a fair prediction to say that there will be superior technology a hundred years in the future, such that fetuses then might be born earlier than 21 weeks and survive. Making rights contingent upon available technology doesn't strike me as a good framework upon which to base the commencement of legal rights.

[Nelson]

"That’s not to say that the equation instantly is in favor of the fetus, just that a fundamental change has occurred that at least merits consideration."

The only change is that each day up to 21 weeks, the fetus is one day closer to viability, the first point at which it makes any sense to discuss a woman's rights possibly being infringed (or challenged).

"From that moment onward, human development is continuous."

But will still only potentially yield a live human being. Even after viability, there is no certainty that a fetus will become a human being.

"At what point does this new human life sufficient rights to override casual termination because their existence is inconvenient to someone else?"

At viability, when the minimum conditions for life have been met. Until then, a fetus' rights are less than the actual, real human being who is hosting it.

If you prefer you can make it a weighted comparison, with the woman always at 100% and the fetus gaining ground as it develops a heart, liver, kidneys, a brain, a circulatory system, a nervous system, and lungs. You want a fetus to have equal (superior, actually) rights to the mother when it isn't even a human being yet. That doesn't make sense.

"vague nods to ‘viability’ or other measurable characteristics, all of which can vary from one individual to another."

Ah, the "viability is vague" chestnut. No, it doesn't "vary from one individual to another". Viability is the point at which the fetus has achieved the minimum necessary to sustain its own life. Literally the bare minimum for life. That doesn't vary at all.

It has to have a functioning heart, liver, kidney (at least one), circulatory system, nervous system, brain (with sufficient activity to regulate the body), and lungs. If it lacks any of them, or if they aren't sufficiently developed to function, the fetus isn't viable.

It's a very clear, very simple concept. The fact that the fastest fetus to achieve viability did it in 21 weeks, while the average is 24 weeks, doesn't change the standard. Saying it's a vague standard is dishonest.

A 100 meter race is always 100 meters. Some runners get there faster than others, but that doesn't change the fact that it's 100 meters. Viability os the same way.

"As for your statement regarding the earliest a fetus has been born and survived, that was due to technology–the fetus survived in a NICU unit until it could leave that environment."

You make my point for me. If the fetus' brain isn't developed enough to regulate its body functions, no NiCU unit can create a brain. If the fetus doesn't have lungs, no NICU unit can create them. Those are the last two things to develop, at roughly 20 and 24 weeks, respectively.

21 weeks is pushing the edge for lung development. Until we can create organs (which will probably require pluripotent stem cells), the record for reaching fetal viability isn't going to change much. Without functioning lungs, there is no viability.

"Making rights contingent upon available technology doesn’t strike me as a good framework upon which to base the commencement of legal rights."

So because, hypothetically, a technology might possibly be developed that could overcome the "no lungs" problem in the future we should, today, make the fetus have rights ... when? Because every other standard is even more speculative than viability.

You seem less ... strident ... than most anti-abortionists, so if you're willing I'd like to get specific:

At what point (gestational age) do you think abortion should be restricted, legislatively? Why?

What is your wiggle room? How much earlier or later could you accept? Why?

For me, at this point, it's 21 weeks. I believe a fetus should be given individual rights the moment it has a non-zero chance of becoming a separate individual. I could support the average point of viability, 24 weeks, but I couldn't see a justification for anything later. I also wouldn't oppose having the legislation be contingent on the earliest a fetus was delivered and survived, but that isn't likely to change by a day or two anytime soon.

I guess, to get really speculative, if an artificial womb were invented that could receive a pre-viable fetus I could support banning abortion and requiring that. It would be like putting a baby up for adoption, but before it's a baby.

How about you? How would you set out your position?

[Get To Da Chippah]

Fair enough, and it's nice to have a calm discussion about this subject. Thanks.

I don't like the viability metric, because it does indeed change from one fetus to the next. Not every fetus born at 21 months will survive, and the same can be said as the weeks progress up until you approach 30 weeks or so. And again, the fetuses survive due in large part to available technology, not because they're fully developed humans. A child born at 30 weeks in a rural tribe in the Amazon is far less likely to survive than one born in a first-world hospital.

I favor a shorter time frame, in the 6-10 week range. Many of the so-called 'Heartbeat Bills' are in that range. To me, this allows the woman ample time to make a choice about her pregnancy, and any abortion will happen so early into development that there's little chance of suffering on the part of the fetus; it's just too early in development to feel pain. I could go as late as 12 weeks, but not much earlier than 6.

The most common argument I've seen against those bills is that 'most women don't even know they're pregnant by then,' which I find exceedingly uncompelling. Women have every right to be sexually active if they wish, and they should be able to choose to terminate a pregnancy early enough to prevent any chance of suffering on the part of the fetus. Home pregnancy tests are abundant and inexpensive. Women who are sexually active but don't want to have kids should get into the habit of checking every other weekend or so to make sure they haven't accidentally become pregnant. This gives them ample time to act. I think it rewards irresponsibility to extend the timeframe in which one can get an abortion beyond the first trimester by citing ignorance on the woman's part. FWIW, I also think men who don't want to father kids should use condoms, get vasectomies, etc.

[Nelson]

"Not every fetus born at 21 months will survive"

Correct. In fact, only one fetus born at 21 weeks or earlier has survived. Every single other one has not.

But viability isn't a time standard, it's a capacity standard. Viability is the point at which a fetus Is capable of surviving outside the womb, which is directly dependent on organ development. Specifically the brain and lungs. If they haven't developed enough, no technology can change or fix that.

"Many of the so-called ‘Heartbeat Bills’ are in that range."

To be clear, a fetus doesn't even have a heart before about 10 weeks, and that's the first major organ to develop.

"it’s just too early in development to feel pain"

The scientific consensus is that fetuses don't feel pain until quite late in development (six months). This is because the brain development necessary to process pain doesn't occur until much later. The brain is the most complex organ on the body and it is one of the last to develop.

That's not to say it isn't possible that a fetus feels pain before the brain develops enough, since it's being actively studied, but the consensus remains six months and those advocating for earlier may have another agenda.

Like everything else surrounding abortion, there has been a concerted effort to push back every standard as early as possible to justify earlier and earlier bans. Heartbeat bills, when the fetus doesn't even have a heart, is the most obvious example, but "pain-capable fetus" bills are equally common and just as dubious.

"‘most women don’t even know they’re pregnant by then,’ which I find exceedingly uncompelling"

Why? Pregnancy is measured in gestational age, which is measured from the last day of the last menstrual cycle. 6 weeks is the first opportunity for a missed period, so 6 weeks (assuming it's a regular, 28 day cycle, which it never is) is literally the very first instant a woman could think to check if she was pregnant. Some women skip a period entirely. It's very common in athletes. That would make 10 weeks the very first time they could possibly suspect they might be pregnant.

And that's assuming that their cycle is always 28 days and they tested on the first day they expected their period. That's a completely unrealistic expectation.

"Home pregnancy tests are abundant and inexpensive"

And if you test too early it comes back negative. Their error rate is also quite high, with both false positives and false negatives.

"I think it rewards irresponsibility to extend the timeframe in which one can get an abortion beyond the first trimester by citing ignorance on the woman’s part. FWIW,"

To be fair, this is a personal value judgement based on your idea of what "responsibility" looks like.

The underlying premise of your position is that a woman has to do everything possible to discover if she's pregnant as soon as possible, have all the necessary conversations with her partner about options immediately, think through the possible ramifications, re-examine all her life plans and goals, and be absolutely positive about whether or not she wants to have a baby immediately.

Having a child is a big deal. It's not a decision that's made quickly or easily.

"I also think men who don’t want to father kids should use condoms, get vasectomies, etc."

You're making the mistaken assumption that condoms and birth control aren't being used.

Mathematically, every abortion in America could be accointed for by sex between a man using a condom and a woman on the pill. I kid you not. If you take all fertile American women (15-49), only during ovulation (25% of each month), taking the pill correctly (lowest failure rate), having sex with a man using a condom correctly (lowest failure rate), it takes roughly 2.8 sexual encounters per year to account for all of the annual abortions in America.

Crazy, right?

I can see why you have the position you have. Obviously we are far apart and, while I disagree with you, I can respect your position. I have several friends (and my mother) who are roughly where you are.

But since we're talking about legislation (and specifically legislation that would restrict an individual's rights), shouldn't there stricter and more objective standards?

Said another way, when considering legislation that would diminish personal rights, shouldn't it be necessary to justify each step of restriction with evidence, rather than starting from restriction and requiring evidence to regain your rights?

[Get To Da Chippah]

Like everything else surrounding abortion, there has been a concerted effort to push back every standard as early as possible to justify earlier and earlier bans. Heartbeat bills, when the fetus doesn’t even have a heart, is the most obvious example, but “pain-capable fetus” bills are equally common and just as dubious.

Agreed, because by contrast, there's an equivalent push to move the cutoff point later and later. Anecdotally, I was back home in NH recently, and the Democrat candidate for governor ran ads regarding the overturning of Roe and how it meant that women in the state were now (and I am literally quoting here) "second-class citizens." NH does have an abortion ban on the books--at 24 weeks. So she is literally campaigning for third trimester abortions.

"“‘most women don’t even know they’re pregnant by then,’ which I find exceedingly uncompelling”

Why? Pregnancy is measured in gestational age, which is measured from the last day of the last menstrual cycle. 6 weeks is the first opportunity for a missed period, so 6 weeks (assuming it’s a regular, 28 day cycle, which it never is) is literally the very first instant a woman could think to check if she was pregnant. Some women skip a period entirely. It’s very common in athletes. That would make 10 weeks the very first time they could possibly suspect they might be pregnant.

And that’s assuming that their cycle is always 28 days and they tested on the first day they expected their period. That’s a completely unrealistic expectation."

Why is it unrealistic? If a woman is sexually active, check for pregnancy once every other weekend. Even if the first couple of tests come back negative, it behooves women to know as early as possible if they're pregnant. There is literally no downside to being proactive. Any woman who isn't sexually active for whatever reason need not apply. The goal is to change people's behavior to make them more responsible. If you reward irresponsibility, you will get more irresponsibility. This isn't some puritan, bible-thumping "sex outside of marriage is a sin" argument, it's a reasonable course of action to let women be informed as early as possible if they become pregnant.

"To be fair, this is a personal value judgement based on your idea of what “responsibility” looks like."

Should I take that to mean you disagree with my position in this regard? In your mind, is it responsible to not be proactive and to not bother checking until after missing two or three periods before you discover you're pregnant and then start the self-examination and life-altering decision making process you mention below?

"The underlying premise of your position is that a woman has to do everything possible to discover if she’s pregnant as soon as possible, have all the necessary conversations with her partner about options immediately, think through the possible ramifications, re-examine all her life plans and goals, and be absolutely positive about whether or not she wants to have a baby immediately.

Having a child is a big deal. It’s not a decision that’s made quickly or easily."

I did not say women need to do "everything possible," since one could do far more than just take a home pregnancy test every couple of weekends. How long is a reasonable time to assess what you mention above, knowing that the clock is relentlessly ticking as the fetus develops more and more each day the woman contemplates? We seem to be talking about women who have already decided they don't want kids, but suddenly they need six months to ponder the ramifications of an unintended pregnancy, and can still go get the fetus terminated if they eventually decide 'nah'?

"I can see why you have the position you have. Obviously we are far apart and, while I disagree with you, I can respect your position. I have several friends (and my mother) who are roughly where you are."

Likewise! I understand the rationale behind your position even if I don't agree with it. Again, thanks for having a rational discussion about it.

"But since we’re talking about legislation (and specifically legislation that would restrict an individual’s rights), shouldn’t there stricter and more objective standards?

Said another way, when considering legislation that would diminish personal rights, shouldn’t it be necessary to justify each step of restriction with evidence, rather than starting from restriction and requiring evidence to regain your rights?"

Objective evidence would indeed be preferable, but there are few objective markers when it comes to fetal development and what that might mean regarding when the fetus gains rights as a person. The two major ones are conception and birth, of course. Anything between the two are conveniences folks use to rationalize their position (viability for you, 'heartbeat' for me, "quickening" of the womb--when the woman begins to feel the fetus kick and move inside her--in earlier times, etc.) It seems this statement could be turned around by people interested in conferring fetal rights early, and regarding more permissive abortion laws as deprivations of the fetus' rights.

[Nelson]

“Why is it unrealistic? If a woman is sexually active, check for pregnancy once every other weekend.”

Why should they have to do that? The only way to call that a reasonable and least intrusive infringement on an individual’s rights is if you start at zero weeks and grudgingly allow a woman to retain the smallest potion of their rights, but only of they jump through a bunch of arbitrary hoops and make a lofe-alterinh decision immediately.

I see rights exactlybthe opposite way, as something that should be grudgingly relinquished to the government with a very strict requirement for justifying any restriction and the least intrusive requirements that achieve that previously-proven government interest.

Why start at zero and force a person to justify getting their rights back with something like bi-weekly pregnancy tests for roughly 35 years?

“but there are few objective markers when it comes to fetal development”

That’s not a true statement. There are numerous benchmarks and developmental stages, all very weel-known, documented, studied, and publicly availabme. There are hundreds of books about the details of pregnancy, in minute detaol Fetal development is very well known and understood.

It’s one of the reasons why the “viability is vague” trope is so infuriating, because it’s exactly the opposite of vague. It’s as objective as a standard can get in medicine. Heart, brain, at least one kidney, lungs, liver, circulatory system, and nervous system. When all of those exist and are functional, you have a viable fetus. If you don’t have one of them, nothing in a NICU or medical science will make that fetus viable. If we gain the ability to create organs in a fetus, the discuassion will have to change. Until then, it is an easily-determined standard.

“Anything between the two are conveniences folks use to rationalize their position (viability for you”

Why do you think viability isn’t a valid and objective standard? Not the expected or average point at which viability is achieved, because that will vary. And viability isn’t a time/ weeks stanfard, it’s a capacity standard. Like I said before, 100 meters is 100 meters. It doesn’t change depending on how fast a runner goes. It’s still 100 meters if it takes 10 seconds or 20 seconds.

“‘heartbeat’ for me”

Do you acknowledge that it isn’t a heartbeat if there isn’t a heart?

“It seems this statement could be turned around by people interested in conferring fetal rights early, and regarding more permissive abortion laws as deprivations of the fetus’ rights.”

I agree completely. However, you first have to establish the rationale and objective reasoning as to why a fetus and a living, breathing woman are the same. That has never been done, legally, and is probably impossible. Anti-a prtionists have been making the “potential = actual” argument for 50 years in the court of public opinion and most people (between 2/3 for 15 weeks and 1/2 for 21 weeks) reject it. In a court of law, with stricter evidentiary standards, it would probably fare much worse.

All of that, however, is the unbridgable divide on abortion, since anti-abortuonists want a total ban because they think pro-choice people want to kill babies and pro-choice people want live birth because they don't trust anti-abortionists to accept a middle ground.

I'm most interested in why you believe the proper way to address an individual's rights is to start at 0% and require justification for more rather than starting at 100% and requiring justification for less. When it comes to Constitutional rights (and bodily autonomy is well established as a Constitutional right), I believe, and I'm pretty sure SCOTUS precedent requires, the least intrusive means of achieving a state interest. Is this a belief you hold generally, or is it just for abortion? Would you approach the right to religious liberty, free speech, assembly, keep and bear arms, etc in the same manner?

[Get To Da Chippah]

"Why should they have to do that? The only way to call that a reasonable and least intrusive infringement on an individual’s rights is if you start at zero weeks and grudgingly allow a woman to retain the smallest potion of their rights, but only of they jump through a bunch of arbitrary hoops and make a lofe-alterinh decision immediately."

Because there's another life inside of them, and my preference is to confer rights upon that individual as soon as possible while balancing a certain amount of practicality. It's impractical to call a zygote a human, but I think that delaying that classification for as long as possible merely for the sake of the mother's convenience is wrong. Doing the opposite strikes me as akin to calling someone 3/5ths of a person based on physical characteristics beyond the control of that person. The fetus has no say in where it's located, or how long it takes to be able to survive outside of the womb. That doesn't instantly give it squatter's rights, but it shouldn't be discounted for so long that fetal development progresses beyond the first trimester while still permitting casual termination as an option.

"Do you acknowledge that it isn’t a heartbeat if there isn’t a heart?"

Cardiac tissue begins to pulse somewhere around the 5th or 6th week. Ergo, a heartbeat. The development of the fetus is a continuous and seamless process. It's not as if there's nothing in the fetus' chest one second and then a fully developed heart appears with a little popping sound. This is why I say there are few objective markers. How early can you call cardiac tissue a heart? At what exact moment does pulmonary tissue become lungs? When, precisely, does cerebral tissue become a brain? Do those events happen at the same exact moment for every fetus? No.

"I’m most interested in why you believe the proper way to address an individual’s rights is to start at 0% and require justification for more rather than starting at 100% and requiring justification for less. "

Because, to me, the right to life is the most fundamental of rights. Without that, all other rights are moot.

"When it comes to Constitutional rights (and bodily autonomy is well established as a Constitutional right), I believe, and I’m pretty sure SCOTUS precedent requires, the least intrusive means of achieving a state interest. Is this a belief you hold generally, or is it just for abortion? Would you approach the right to religious liberty, free speech, assembly, keep and bear arms, etc in the same manner?"

I think we all hold it to be this way. My right to keep and bear arms does not grant me the right to end the lives of others unless my own right to life is threatened first. I can't kill the president and claim it was an act of expressing disapproval with the government, can I? My right to free speech will not be sufficient to keep me from being convicted.

[Nelson]

“Because there’s another life inside of them,”

That isn’t true, except in the most basic biological sense.

Why should that be considered more potent than the opposite belief, which has more objective, factual support? I’m not saying that anti-abortionists have to accept it as true, but neither do pro-choice folks and it isn’t factual enough to justify an infringement of rights.

If that belief were to ever be objectively proved, that’s a different conversation. But it has always been a purely rhetorical assertion.

An argument in favor of restricting rights has to have broadly proved facts as their foundation. Otherwise it’s just a popularity contest or a purely moralistic law. A woman indisputably has individual rights. A pre-viable fetus? Highly disputed and never attempted, legally, to be proved.

Remember, we’re talking about a law that would restrict an individual’s rights. Thay’s a huge deal.

“merely for the sake of the mother’s convenience”

It isn’t for the mother’s convenience. It’s an issue of rights and what the threshold is for restricting them. “Mother’s convenience” is a broad, generalized assumption with connotations of moral failure. Neither of those things are relevant in a discussion of fundamental rights.

“It’s impractical to call a zygote a human”

So fertilization is too early and live birth too late. Somewhere in the middle is a reasonable point. Doesn’t there have to be some factual, objective foundation in determining that point?

“Cardiac tissue begins to pulse somewhere around the 5th or 6th week. Ergo, a heartbeat.”

It’s a tube that won’t develop into a heart until a month later. It’s a purely emotional moniker. But, to be fair, so are a lot of political mottos. It’s as hyperbolic, and factually incorrect, as calling women second-class citizens because Roe was repealed.

“It’s not as if there’s nothing in the fetus’ chest one second and then a fully developed heart appears with a little popping sound.”

Agreed, but it also wouldn’t be capable of circulating blood in a body. It not only is structurally not a heart, it is functionally not a heart.

“How early can you call cardiac tissue a heart?”

When it has four chambers and can circulate blood throughout the body.

“Do those events happen at the same exact moment for every fetus? No.”

Again you seem to be claiming that the argument is about time. It’s not. It’s about functionality.

“At what exact moment does pulmonary tissue become lungs?”

When they are developed enough to inhale, oxygenate blood, and exhale.

“When, precisely, does cerebral tissue become a brain?

When it has sufficient development and neural activity to regulate bodily functions. But unlike the lungs, kidneys, liver, and heart, that can’t be detrermined with certainty when the fetus is still in the womb.

“Because, to me, the right to life is the most fundamental of rights.”

Agreed. But just saying something is true without proving it is a belief, not a fact.

I think one of the several fundemental issues on which we differ is what is required as a foundation for a law. Without proof, an assertion isn’t a fact.

“I think we all hold it to be this way. My right to keep and bear arms does not grant me the right to end the lives of others unless my own right to life is threatened first. I can’t kill the president and claim it was an act of expressing disapproval with the government, can I? My right to free speech will not be sufficient to keep me from being convicted.”

Agreed. But each of those restrictions first requires proof that the competing interest is valid. In abortion, that has never been done.

Can I just say that this discussion is fantastic? You and I are obviously far apart, but you respond thoughtfully and with relevance to my points. I hope you think the same about my replies to you, even if you disagree with the content.

I can’t tell you how much I appreciate what you’re doing in this thread.

[Get To Da Chippah]

Apologies in advance, I kind of jumped around a bit in this response.

"“Because there’s another life inside of them,”

That isn’t true, except in the most basic biological sense."

This seems to be a way of saying my statement is true without actually saying it. I don't see it written in the Constitution that complex biology is a prerequisite for inalienable rights.

"Why start at zero and force a person to justify getting their rights back with something like bi-weekly pregnancy tests for roughly 35 years?"

Because biology is what it is. I would hope I felt the same way if men were the ones who carried fetuses. I would much rather have people who don't want to have kids take steps to inform themselves as soon as possible if they become pregnant. As you said, some may want to take a long time to reconsider their position about not having kids. Fair enough. Why be opposed to starting the process early? How is it a deprivation of rights to expect people to be aware that they might be pregnant as early as they can?

"It’s one of the reasons why the “viability is vague” trope is so infuriating, because it’s exactly the opposite of vague. It’s as objective as a standard can get in medicine. Heart, brain, at least one kidney, lungs, liver, circulatory system, and nervous system. When all of those exist and are functional, you have a viable fetus. If you don’t have one of them, nothing in a NICU or medical science will make that fetus viable. If we gain the ability to create organs in a fetus, the discussion will have to change. Until then, it is an easily-determined standard."

This appears to concede my point that technology is the driver of the viability metric. Identical fetuses born at the same time, with different levels of available technology will have different chances of survival, and survival outside of the womb seems to be the basis for what is and isn't viable.

Also, there's no objective way to measure viability without exposing the fetus to outside conditions and seeing what happens. Organs can be examined and conjectures made as a result, but even the most educated conjecture is not indisputable fact.

"So fertilization is too early and live birth too late. Somewhere in the middle is a reasonable point. Doesn’t there have to be some factual, objective foundation in determining that point?"

Yes. "Regular pulses of cardiac tissue can be detected" seems pretty objective to me.

"Again you seem to be claiming that the argument is about time. It’s not. It’s about functionality."

And yet most abortion restrictions are based on some length of time passing. They may cite viability, heartbeats, or other markers of development as justification, but they all tend to put a cutoff limit (if any) in terms of weeks.

"Can I just say that this discussion is fantastic? You and I are obviously far apart, but you respond thoughtfully and with relevance to my points. I hope you think the same about my replies to you, even if you disagree with the content.

I can’t tell you how much I appreciate what you’re doing in this thread."

Agreed wholeheartedly! This has been one of the calmest discussions I've had on this topic. Understandably, the subject tends to evoke emotional responses quickly, but I'm glad we've both managed to avoid that. I'm with you that I strongly suspect neither of our minds will change from this (and that's okay!), but I've gotten a really good look into how someone with an opposing viewpoint thinks on this without getting insulted or frustrated. Thanks alot.

[Nelson]

"Apologies in advance, I kind of jumped around a bit in this response."

No worries. Been there, done that.

"This seems to be a way of saying my statement is true without actually saying it."

I never said it was untrue, but it isn't sufficient. Biological life is required, but other issues are also relevant to the determination. It isn't a one-factor test.

"Because biology is what it is."

And biology supports my position. But the issue is how to approach restricting fundamental rights.

It is irrefutable that a woman has rights, correct?
There needs to be a compelling reason to limit those rights. That reason has to be asserted and proved. As of now, fetal personhood has never been proved. I believe it hasn't even been asserted in a court, just in rhetorical arguments in public spaces.

"Why be opposed to starting the process early?"

Because it's a bad reason to legislate anything.

Remember, we're talking about forcing a woman, through a law, to relinquish her rights involuntarily. "Why not?" or "she should do A, B, and C because that's what some people thinks is right" are terrible rationales.

Consider the implications for other rights, if a minority-held moral belief were to justify limiting or eliminating someone else's rights.

"How is it a deprivation of rights to expect people to be aware that they might be pregnant as early as they can?"

Because fundamental rights aren't conditional. People may dislike what others do with their rights, but moral disapproval has no weight or influence. Nor should it. I think white supremacists are loathsome people, but they have the right to say that blacks are inferior to whites or that Jews control the media. They have the right to march with torches and chant "Jews will not replace us". It's morally bankrupt and evil, but that isn't a sufficient justification for limiting their First Amendment rights.

"This appears to concede my point that technology is the driver of the viability metric"

Absolutely untrue. While superior technology will increase the likelihood that a viable fetus survives, it can't create functioning organs

You keep trying to ignore or dismiss the fact that technology has to have something to work with. If a fetus doesn't have functional lungs, technology can't change that. Technology can't turn a nonviable fetus into a viable fetus. It's literally impossible for technology to pull a fetus over the line to viability.

"Identical fetuses born at the same time, with different levels of available technology will have different chances of survival,"

Viable fetuses? Yes. Nonviable fetuses? No. Technology without viability will never result in a living human being. It's impossible.

If you want me to concede that a viable fetus has a better chance of survival with superior technology, I willingly do so. Superior technology will always yield superior results. But it can't create something that doesn't exist.

Of the millions of fetuses delivered before 21 weeks, none have survived. There's a reason for that. The fetus' body is incapable of living, with or without technology.

"Also, there’s no objective way to measure viability without exposing the fetus to outside conditions and seeing what happens."

100%? No. 99.999999%? Yes.

Let's put aside matematical analysis, which can easily use available data to identify the point at which no fetus has ever been viable. Images of a fetus' lungs will show if they have developed enough to sustain life.

You seem to want to require 100% certainty about the exact instant a fetus becomes viable or it's "vague". That's an unreasonable standard that's impossible to achieve in ... anything in real life. Something doesn't go from perfectly accurate to unworthy of consideration because of a 1 in a million chance of being wrong. It doesn't work that way.

But I will concede that my more conservative position on what is justified, legislatively, regarding viability is influenced by the fact that, objectively, one day before the earliest fetus to survive was delivered is objectively the point at viability. Is the one that survived at 21 weeks an anomaly? A one in (multiple) millions chance? Statistically insignificant? Yes. But such a strict standard makes it a stronger argument as well.

And I don't have any concern about it changing too much in the future. Lung development is a limiting factor, and the one who survived at 21 weeks was at the bleeding edge. Lungs will never develop by 19 (or probably even 20) weeks, there isn't enough gestation time.

"And yet most abortion restrictions are based on some length of time passing."

Correct, but not because time has passed. It's because of what happens during those weeks and what that amount of time means for fetal development. It isn't just time for time's sake.

"I’m with you that I strongly suspect neither of our minds will change from this (and that’s okay!), but I’ve gotten a really good look into how someone with an opposing viewpoint thinks on this without getting insulted or frustrated. Thanks alot."

The chance of an internet chat changing someone's mind approaches zero. I use it to express ideas and opinions that I feel are important and find out how and what other people think.

A major reason I consider myself a libertarian is that I believe letting people do, say, and think what they want (assuming the NAP) is the best (but not calmest) way to run a society. But that means that there will be a LOT of opinions out there that I disagree with. That's more than OK, to me, it's fantastic. Not to "bumper sticker" it, but the only way you can be 100% sure that an idea is terrible is if everyone whole-heartedly agrees with it.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a "do unto others" guy. If someone comes at me with murder-this and love-killing-babies-that, I respond in kind. But I truly value a calm explanation of why someone thinks the way they do, and on contentious issues it's more important, not less. So thank you for engaging with me like this.

[Get To Da Chippah]

"“Because biology is what it is.”

And biology supports my position."

Does it? Biology supports my position that a fertilized egg is human, alive, and genetically distinct from either parent.

"It is irrefutable that a woman has rights, correct?
There needs to be a compelling reason to limit those rights. That reason has to be asserted and proved. As of now, fetal personhood has never been proved. I believe it hasn’t even been asserted in a court, just in rhetorical arguments in public spaces."

Yes, it is irrefutable that a woman has rights, but we've already agreed that those rights cannot override another person's right to life. The compelling reason is that dead people cannot exercise any other rights. It's equally irrefutable that a fetus is alive and human. The fundamental difference between our positions is the point at which awarding fetal personhood is appropriate. We both use different metrics is all.

Further, there is long-standing precedent that having a right doesn't absolve you of the need to act in a responsible manner. My 2nd Amendment right won't save me from prosecution if I leave loaded guns lying around where kids can get to them and harm happens as a result.

"“This appears to concede my point that technology is the driver of the viability metric”

Absolutely untrue. While superior technology will increase the likelihood that a viable fetus survives, it can’t create functioning organs"

Technology doesn't need to create functioning organs, it needs to perform the same function those organs would. A dialysis machine doesn't create a kidney, it performs the same function as a kidney would. A cardiopulmonary bypass machine does the job a heart would while a person's heart is inoperable, so it functions in the absence of a heart without being a heart. An incubator isn't a womb, it provides a thermal condition that is womb-like so a fetus born prematurely can survive. So, yes, local technology dose play a factor in viability, and it's very much the primary factor the earlier and earlier you get in pregnancy. There may well be a firm cutoff point where technology can't help, but where that might be is anyone's guess. I strongly suspect there are still improvements that can be made.

[Nelson]

"Does it? Biology supports my position that a fertilized egg is human, alive, and genetically distinct from either parent."

But it isn't a viable human. Viability is a biological standard. Saying that doesn't count is accepting some biological principles (if they support a preferred position) and ignoring or dismissing others (if they don't). So biology, accepting the entirety of the field, supports my position.

"we’ve already agreed that those rights cannot override another person’s right to life"

Agreed. But in order to say there is a competing rights interest, you first have to establish, objectively (or at the very least legally) that a fetus is a person. That has never happened. Anti-abortionists use the rhetoric, but only they accept it.

"It’s equally irrefutable that a fetus is alive and human."

It is completely refutable. It is biologically alive and it has human DNA. That doesn't make it a human being or a person. Plenipotent stem cells are alive, have human DNA, and have the potential to develop into a living human being. That doesn't make them a human.

As an aside, your definition of "human" applies equally to a fertilized egg (0 weeks) At implantation (3-5 weeks) it is in exactly the same position as it is at 6-10 weeks and 20 weeks. Still incapable of independent life, with a chance (decreasing from 23% at fertilization to less than 5% at viability) of never getting to that point.

"Further, there is long-standing precedent that having a right doesn’t absolve you of the need to act in a responsible manner."

The definition of "responsible" requires potent and objective arguments as to why it is a reasonable reason to abrogate rights. And even if it is considered sufficient, it has to be the least intrusive means possible. Your previously-stated definition of "responsible" doesn't satisfy either requirement.

"Technology doesn’t need to create functioning organs, it needs to perform the same function those organs would."

And in a NiCU, those technological means has failed 100 of the time before 21 weeks. The best technology that we have can't breathe for lungs that don't function.

Let's play the fantasy game and assume that a fetus without lungs can be hooked up to a machine that oxygenated their blood fast enough to allow survival (has never happened, but assume). How would that blood continue to be oxygenated? That fetus will never develop lungs.

You seem to want to have technology be a magical solution that can mitigate anything that a fetus lacks. It cannot.

Once viability has been achieved, technology (or lack thereof) can increase or decrease the chance of survival. Without viability, technology will fail 100% of the time. It is impossible for technology to succeed without viability.

"A dialysis machine doesn’t create ..."

When would the organs necessary for survival develop? The answers are not enough and never. If technology worked the way you say, at least one fetus delivered before viability would survive. They haven't because it isn't possible. Every single fetus that has ever survived early delivery has has reached the biological threshold to survive. That's called viability. Before that, none have survived. It is a stark, sharp, unbroachable line. Technology has never been able to pull a fetus across the line if it doesn't have the developmental requirements to survive. Never. Not once.

It may be that at some time in the future that will change. But laws can't be based on science fiction. They have to be based in reality and today's reality is that technology cannot create a viable fetus if it hasn't achieved it on its own.

"So, yes, local technology dose play a factor in viability,"

You keep using viability and survivability if they're synonyms and interchangeable. They aren't. Viability is the biological capacity to survive outside the womb. Survivability is a probability, not a capacity. The survivability of a pre-viable fetus is 0%.

"There may well be a firm cutoff point where technology can’t help, but where that might be is anyone’s guess."

No, it's factual and documented. It's 21 weeks. You don't have to guess.

There is absolutely a point at which technology can't help because fetuses have been delivered prematurely throughout history. Millions and millions of them. There is a point at which zero of them have survived. Zero survivability is indisputably, by definition, proof that a fetus isn't viable. And that point is 21 weeks.

The "well, we really can't know because ..." followed by something that either isn't dispositive to the argument isn't a valid point. Pretending that if it isn't absolutely certain, it isn't valid at all is disingenuous.

Viability is a valid, defined, commonly used biological concept. Trying to make it seem squishy because it there isn't a specific date at which it happens, and then using that mischaracterization to invalidate the concept completely (but only for humans!), is dishonest.

No one has ever said that at 24 weeks (or 26 or 28), all fetuses are viable. Like everything in medical and biological science, they can pinpoint specific developmental markers, based on data. The three that are most relevant here are the point where the first fetus has ever survived (21 weeks), the point where 50% +1 of fetuses survive (I believe it's 24 weeks, but I'm not sure), and the point where 100% of fetuses survive (live birth).

Being a contrarian and challenging basic concepts around the edges as a means to ignore them completely is fine for personal belief systems. We all do it and anyone who claims otherwise is lying to at least one person (themselves). But it isn't a valid basis for a law and is absolutely unacceptable as a basis to deprive someone of their rights.

"I strongly suspect there are still improvements that can be made."

Not really. It's the lack of lung development that has doomed every nonviable fetus ever delivered. Short of developing technology that can create organs for a fetus, we're about as far as we can get. Could a fetus survive a day or two earlier than the present record? Maybe? A week? No chance.

[charliehall]

"alive, of the homo sapiens species, and genetically distinct from both parents"

'Every sperm is sacred.' They are alive, of the homo sapiens species, and genetically distinct from the adult male. Next the religious nutjobs will be calling for a death penalty for masturbation.

[Get To Da Chippah]

A sperm cell doesn't carry enough genetic material to become a human on its own.

[markm23]

But an unfertilized ovum does. Copy each chromosome and you will have a complete set for a female human. It's probably suboptimal due to the lack of genetic diversity, but there's a good chance that none of the originals were fatally damaged.

[Mark U]

"At what point does this new human life (have) sufficient rights to override casual termination" That's easy to answer. The right begins when prior to birth the pregnant person or after birth any person or organization agrees to a binding agreement to provide care for that new human life without any condition of involuntary servitude until the time at which that new human life is able to support itself.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

That's called getting knocked up.

[Rick James]

I can see that for religious reasons, one might consider abortion murder, and thus a case of mass murder when considering the quantity.

So there's no non-religious reason that someone might think that on the magical trip down the birth canal, in the 8.9th month, that shoving an icepick in the base of the skull might be considered murder?

[Rick James]

If you don't agree, I strongly suggest you take it up with noted Atheist and cultural and political writer, Christopher Hitchens.

“In order to terminate a pregnancy, you have to still a heartbeat, switch off a developing brain, and whatever the method, break some bones and rupture some organs.” – Christopher Hitchens

[charliehall]

Judaism teaches that you would do that if necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman. Her welfare always takes priority over that of the fetus.

[mad.casual]

There’s no rule that a Libertarian must be an atheist. So that’s the source of the contention.

More self-retarding bootleggers and baptists idiocy.

You do realize you're, exceedingly idiotically, asserting that religion is the sole source of morality, right? That the only reason anyone could oppose the holocaust is because of Judaism or the only they could oppose the Civil War is because of Christianity, right?

Once again, you tards, if you aren't impugning far, far, more intelligent agnostics and secular moralists, you're signalling your desire to backhand religion and reason in order to kill clumps of other peoples' cells. Save us all the trouble and abort yourselves and your ideology like true believers would.

[Dangerangel]

Dude. That is not even comprehensible.

Get a paper bag. Clutch the end with your fist. Place it at your mouth and then take 6 to 12 breaths. Be sure to cover your nose and mouth while breathing and then remove the bag from your nose and mouth. Take a breath outside the bag and then repeat the process as necessary until you're okay.

[mad.casual]

Dude. That is not even comprehensible.

Again, we're all aware of the depths to which people who support your position have to retard themselves to accept the position. But we can go over things once again.

This isn't that hard: You don't have to believe in Yahweh or God (or Buddha or Joseph Smith or Zarathustra or Ra...) to find fault with the holocaust (or the holodomor or slavery...). Even a perfectly secular human can do it. Even a non-libertarian can do it. To say that the only reason someone, or a libertarian, would oppose abortion or murder or a holocaust or slavery or any other criminal or moral offense is because of their religion is to ascribe religion as the sole source of morality or libertarian notions of morality. Something even The Catholic Church hasn't effectively asserted in over 200 yrs. and the LP or even Classical Liberals of any semblance back to The Enlightenment has never done.

Rick James quotes Hitchens above, the point is perfectly valid. Religion isn't required. Just an awareness of the mechanics of reality and self-awareness and/or self-interest. Cogito ergo sum.

[Dangerangel]

>You don’t have to believe in Yahweh or God (or Buddha or Joseph Smith or Zarathustra or Ra…) to find fault with the holocaust

No shit. I'm waiting for the part where you explain how this isn't a religious issue.

All you're doing is explain how it doesn't have to be one, inherently. What a useless observation. It doesn't - but it is. There is no secular push to restrict abortion even if theoretically there could be one. This is 100% bootleggers and baptists all the way down.

[mad.casual]

I’m waiting for the part where you explain how this isn’t a religious issue.
…
This is 100% bootleggers and baptists all the way down.

As long as we’re clear that, in your mind, it’s 0% feminists vs. the patriarchy or 2nd wave feminists vs. 1st or dangerously fertile women vs. their own biology or womb-havers vs. the State I don’t have to demonstrate how fundamentally retarded your argument is.

[AT]

The age of the law is irrelevant. Did you know that in Massachusetts, there’s still an active law on the books against blasphemy? Literally – talk smack about God/Jesus/the Bible, go to jail.

That’s actually a law that they could enforce here, today, if they wanted. And it goes back even farther than this AZ law does. The age of the law doesn’t matter. Pretending it does is like being a gun control wacko who thinks that 2A refers to muskets.

This ultimately comes down to coward politicians (and voters) who nervously wring their hands and hope that the judiciary will step up and solve their problems for them.

This should have been easy. Arizona Legislature drafts a bill to repeal the 1864 law. Republicans seek “reasonable” restrictions to abortion access (there’s no such thing, because the only reasonable restriction is a complete one, but alas) – but because they’re cowards, they don’t want to in any way come off as pro-abortion. So, they hope that the 1864 law will do their job for them. But then the Democrats don’t want to legislate either, because if they challenge proposed restrictions, they’ll have to explain why. But see, they’re also cowards, because then they have to admit unpleasant things like, “We pretty much just want to kill babies at any time for any reason we want. Especially the black ones.”

And really, the same goes for the “average” voter. They don’t want to appear polarizing, but at the same time they don’t want to be accused of conceding in one direction or the other.

At the end of the day, it’d be easier if everyone could just be honest about where they stand. Like, I make no bones about – no abortions, for any reason whatsoever. Period. End of sentence. Why others who disagree with me can’t admit that plainly – like, literally – “well, I think we should kill some of the babies…” or “no, we should definitely kill any baby we want…” – well, like I said, cowardice.

[Dangerangel]

Useful idiot.

[Nelson]

"Why others who disagree with me can’t admit that plainly – like, literally – “well, I think we should kill some of the babies…” or “no, we should definitely kill any baby we want…” – well, like I said, cowardice."

The things you think pro-choice people should say are completely illogical, since it would require them to believe the irrational position that a fertilized egg is a person. It isn't. Nor is it a baby. It's a fetus, and a nonviable one, at that.

Over 90% of the country is smart enough to know that potential doesn't equal actual, but not you.

Of course, you think that use = abuse = addiction (unless it's alcohol, which is magically different), so you have a history of believing irrational things.

[AT]

it would require them to believe the irrational position that a fertilized egg is a person. It isn’t

What is it? Is it a human being? Is it merely possible that it's a human being? If not, what is it instead?

Over 90% of the country is smart enough to know that potential doesn’t equal actual, but not you.

That's your drug haze talking, addict.

[Nelson]

It's a potential person. With roughly a 27% chance of becoming an actual person.

There isn't enough extra credit work in the world to make it equivalent to the 100%, actual, real, living, breathing human being whose rights you want to strip away.

If you want to live your life by your beliefs, have at it. Just stop trying to force your mythology on everyone else.

[AT]

It’s a potential person.

A potential human person, though, right? We’re not expecting them to have a dog or a lizard or a platypus, right?

So, what does that mean exactly, “potential”? When does it go from potential to actual? Please cite me your scientific studies on the subject. And if you don’t know (and I know you don’t) why not give the benefit of the doubt to life?

Unless your express and explicit goal IS to kill that “potential” human?

IS that your goal? And if so, why?

Look, forget about actual humans. It’s bad enough you already want to kill them. Why would you even want to kill potential humans? What sick end-goal does that accomplish for you?

[Nelson]

"A potential human person, though, right? "

Yes, it will come out as a human.

"So, what does that mean exactly, “potential”?"

It means that there is a possibility it will become a living, breathing person, but it's not certainty. Is English your second language? Potential is a pretty basic concept.

"When does it go from potential to actual?"

Technically and legally? Live birth. Logically and morally? Viability.

"And if you don’t know (and I know you don’t) why not give the benefit of the doubt to life?"

I do know. And that's exactly the choice I would make. I would never choose abortion, if it were up to me.

But I'm also not so arrogant as to believee that "maybe, possibly, life begins at conceptuon" is a stronger argument than "this fetus is incapable of survival".

If you want to force others to live by your beliefs, you better have more than "there's a chance I'm right, so everyone has to do it my way" as support.

"Unless your express and explicit goal IS to kill that “potential” human?"

Almost no one has a goal to kill people. I always wonder if anti-abortiknists truly believe that pro-choice supporters are gleefully anticipating the next abortion or if they're just so out of touch that they will believe anything of the *checks notes* 90% of Americans who support legal abortion including *double-checks notes* majorities of every religious group except evangelical Christians. Even a majority of Catholics support legal abortion.

Do you really think 90% of Americans are psychopaths just because they disagree with your extremist position?

"It’s bad enough you already want to kill them."

I want nothing of the sort. I don't even want convicted killers to be killed and the 75% of them who are actually guilty deserve it. I think killing is almost never justified.

"What sick end-goal does that accomplish for you?"

The rights of individuals should not be infringed by government unless a compelling case can be made for that imposition. Your case isn't even stronger than the rebuttal, never mind convincing. Your side has made your case for decades, spending billions of dollars in the largest influence campaign in American history.

People aren't ignorant, nor are they amoral, nor are they stupid. They know what your arguments are. They find them unconvincing. They have overwhelmingly rejected the anti-abortuon position because it is a bad argument, bad policy, and bad law. That doesn't make them evil. They just disagree with you.

The fact that their disagreement elicits accusations of psychopathy speaks volumes about anti-abortionists. None of it good.

[AT]

It means that there is a possibility it will become a living, breathing person, but it’s not certainty.

But it is a living breathing person at conception. Living, check. Breathing, in a different way, but yea. Oxygen is being delivered, processed, and used. Person, I mean, it’s not a puppy that’s in there. So, your answer is conception. Great, glad we’re on the same page.

Logically and morally? Viability.

That’s neither logical nor moral.

If you require a heart transplant, at some point they remove the heart. You are no longer viable. You are literally 100% dependent on others for your continued survival. But, logically, you’re still obviously a human being. And morally, well if someone stormed into the operating room and put a bullet in your head – that’d be an obvious rights violation.

Or, since you mentioned “living, breathing” – suppose you stop doing that. Do you stop being a person? Because, y’know, I know CPR – and that’s not unlike a pregnancy. I’m now supporting your life functions, including breathing (in a different way). Or can I just abort you right then and there?

Viability has nothing to do with the question. It’s a red herring.

If you want to force others to live by your beliefs, you better have more than “there’s a chance I’m right, so everyone has to do it my way” as support.

That sword cuts both ways. But here’s the reason mine is the superior position:

If I’m wrong, women are inconvenienced. (And, frankly, it’s almost always a direct cause of their own poor choices. So, wah.)

If you’re wrong, it’s the single greatest genocide in all of human history, more than most of them combined.

It’s the same reason we shouldn’t execute prisoners. Even if there’s a 1% chance that we’re wrong, it’s a mistake we can’t take back.

Almost no one has a goal to kill people.

Except when they want to commit abortion or euthanasia or execute convicts or murder.

I always wonder if anti-abortiknists truly believe that pro-choice supporters are gleefully anticipating the next abortion

Pro-choice (and, for that matter, pro-life) is a disingenuous term that obfuscates the conversation and demonizes the opposition.

You are pro-abortion. You support, defend, and enable the intentional termination of the in utero. Period. I am anti-abortion. I do the opposite. Let’s not hide behind euphamism.

But to your point: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6ErQW7OQSY/

There are so many videos like this. (LOTT catalogs them.) But if you never leave your echo chamber – and I’m willing to bet you don’t – you’d probably never know that.

This one went crazy viral: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk3ueLO2l_I

Heck, google “Shout Your Abortion.”

They’re proud of it. They are, IN FACT, “gleefully anticipating.”

Even a majority of Catholics support legal abortion.

Then they don’t support Catholicism. There is no trade-off on that particular one. It’s one or the other.

Do you really think 90% of Americans are psychopaths just because they disagree with your extremist position?

Why is “mine” the extremist position? You’re the one that wants to kill the most vulnerable among us. Pretty extreme bro. Especially compared to my desire to protect them. You keep thinking that having numbers on your side makes a difference, but that kind of utilitarian dEmOcRaTiC argument falls on its face. If 90% of people believe that we live in a geocentric universe – which was true at one point in history – then 90% of people are wrong. The zealous nature of your fervent belief WILL NOT CHANGE REALITY/MORALITY.

(But notice, in that first video – that’s EXACTLY what they want to do. The guy at the end says the quiet part out loud.)

If they support intentionally terminating tiny humans in utero? Yea, absolutely. That’s the mindset of either a sociopath or the criminally ignorant, rationalized the exact same way any Nazi, Maoist, Stalinist, or slavery does: by intentionally denying their humanity.

In June of 1940, the Nazi Party was being celebrated by the same or greater numbers than you’re suggesting (which I call BS, btw, but I’ll not belabor the point because it’s a rabbit hole). What would you say about them now that you have the benefit of hindsight?

Which brings us right back to “the benefit of the doubt should to life.”

People aren’t ignorant, nor are they amoral, nor are they stupid.

He said, without even the slightest bit of self-awareness. LMAO.

[charliehall]

"2A refers to muskets"

No, rifles were around when the 2A was enacted.

[Liberty_Belle]

Just for the record ... Y'all realize that just because fertilization happens , that you aren't pregnant yet ... right ? We are all on the same page here, right ?

At conception / fertilization a zygote forms. That zygote takes half a month or so to implant into the wall of the uterus and then ... and only then ... are you pregnant. If it doesn't attach, that brand new lifeform / human / independent DNA goes straight down the toilet. I just get the feeling that the "life begins at fertilization" people are missing the details, but want an arbitrary start point to fuss about.

[mad.casual]

Just for the record … Y’all realize that just because fertilization happens , that you aren’t pregnant yet … right ? We are all on the same page here, right ?

Just for the record, y’all realize that the inability to distinguish between allowing something to die and killing it is a, if not the, moral and rational lynchpin between someone entitled to a full jury trial and all the rights and afforded by The Constitution and someone unfit to stand even in their own defense.. right? That adults and even children in the 6-8 yr. old range who, allowing for quibbling about details, generally fail to make the distinction are definitively identified as psychopaths, right?

I’d ask if we’re all on the same page here, but you’ve kinda definitively already answered that question.

[AT]

If it doesn’t attach, that brand new lifeform / human / independent DNA goes straight down the toilet.

Not intentionally. Not without malice aforesight.

That's really the key detail, Belle. If that brand new lifeform (thanks for admitting it as such) goes straight down the toilet because it didn't take - then it is what it is. If you INTENTIONALLY FRUSTRATE IT FROM DOING SO, or worse KILL IT AFTER IT HAS, that's something completely different. That's a problem.

If lightning knocks down an ancient tree, we regard that as a whole lot different than if some jerk goes out there and purposefully chops it down. Because the former was a random and uncontrollable thing. The latter was intentional. And awful.

[Nelson]

"Just for the record … Y’all realize that just because fertilization happens , that you aren’t pregnant yet … right ?"

No, they don't. They think Plan B is an abortion drug. They think fertilized eggs at an IVF clinic are people. They don't start from a position of reality and facts, then they veer quickly into pure delusion.

They think a fetus has a heartbeat a month before it has a heart. They think there's brain activity before the brain has formed. They intentionally and consciously only acknowledge the scientific facts that support their position and pretend that all others are irrelevant.

But I would be interested to see how many of them actually understand pregnancy.

So how about it? How many of you magical-DNA folks understand that a pregnancy doesn't even exist until week 2?

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

OK, so development occurs in stages. Is there anything special about those not-yet-quite human early stages?

Do you kill puppies? Should people (and society) be upset if you do? Should they impose laws about killing puppies?

[Nelson]

A puppy is an actual, living, breathing, independent (as in separate, before you trot out the "employed homeowner" nonsense), organism. Once a fetus achieves the same level of development as a puppy, it is a human being.

In other words no, I don't support killing a human being. And before you come back with your "a fetus is a human being" mythology, until it's viable it isn't a human being.

Legally until it is born alive it isn't a baby, individual, or human being, either. But for me, personally, my belief is that anything after 21 weeks (the earliest a fetus has ever been delivered and survived) is equal to a human being.

[AT]

A puppy is an actual, living, breathing, independent (as in separate, before you trot out the “employed homeowner” nonsense), organism.

Yea, but it’s not a human so screw it. It has no rights. It has no human life. Go ahead and kill it with impunity.

I mean, that’s literally your argument in a nutshell, right?

[Nelson]

No. You can't possibly be as stupid as your posts make you seem.

[diver64]

Exactly right. The repeal of the law which is over 150yrs old should be done and a referendum on the nearest state election should be put up. Failing that, the legislature should repeal it and let the people of Arizona elect representation that serves them and makes the law what they want. Don’t vote then shut the hell up