What if the Democrats moderated on abortion?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Put the limit at 21-22 weeks and that would be my ideal position.

As well as the consensus in most European countries.

I'm curious, would you support putting it earlier if technological advances continued to push the time of viability-with-medical-intervention earlier? Genuine question.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Put the limit at 21-22 weeks and that would be my ideal position.

As well as the consensus in most European countries.

I'm curious, would you support putting it earlier if technological advances continued to push the time of viability-with-medical-intervention earlier? Genuine question.

That's a tough question. On the one hand, viability with medical intervention could actually be an argument for allowing the termination of pregnancy, since it means that this can be done without ending the fetus' life. On the other hand, of course, I can imagine that the procedures involved might cause long-term harm, and, more horrifyingly than anything else, might be considered "too expensive" to be performed systematically (those are all conjectures - I admit I know very little about the medical issues surrounding pregnancy).

In this case, I assume the pro-life argument would be that since the fetus can (at least theoretically) survive without a mother, it should have the same right to life (and to avoid permanent non-lethal harm) as any other human being who can survive with medical assistance but wouldn't on its own. Is that correct?

I must say that this is not an argument I find very appealing. Even knowing that we can't avoid using a biological criterion as a basis for defining personhood (something which I'll never be happy with at a theoretical level), the ability to survive independently from the mother is one I find particularly unpleasant to consider. It seems to imply that humanity is defined by some measure of "self-sufficiency" (as partial as it might be). I find that philosophically unsavory. And beyond that, there's something seriously sketchy about a definition of personhood that relies on factors entirely independent from the would-be person. What makes a person a person must be the same in 2070 as it was in 1970.

I'm still a lot more comfortable with definitions based on cognitive capacities, such as the ability to feel pain. I would still say that even if viability was the latter point in time.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That makes sense. I apologize for assuming you cited the stage you did for viability reasons.

I'd note that I really can't think of a coherent argument against terminating a pregnancy without killing the fetus. Wouldn't that essentially be a pre-term C-section?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Yes, but what they also need to do is stop attacking Trump from the right on foreign policy. It is embarrassing, and it will be even more so in 2020, probably.

Putin Sympathizer!

[Beet]

Yes, but what they also need to do is stop attacking Trump from the right on foreign policy. It is embarrassing, and it will be even more so in 2020, probably.

Putin Sympathizer!

It's not about left or right, it's about loyalty to the country. Without that...there is no country. The ironic thing is that Trump is always campaigning on patriotism and his supporters accuse Democrats of not being sufficiently patriotic or nationalistic enough. But we've never cheered on a foreign power attacking American citizens.

[Fuzzy Bear]

There are several ways the Democrats could "moderate" their position on abortion without repudiating Roe v. Wade.

One way would be to unequivocally reject public funding for abortion.  They could do this by acknowledging Roe  as "settled law" while acknowledging the very real moral questions of life and death on this issue and not requiring folks to indirectly subsidize the practice with tax dollars.

Another way would be to strongly support "parental consent" laws.  There is reasonability to this; your kid can't get their tonsils out without parental consent.  Why should abortion be "special"?  (The "Daddy with a shotgun" arguments really don't apply in this day and age as they MIGHT have in 1970.)  

The best way would be for the Democratic Party to take abortion off the table as a "litmus test" issue, and make this an issue of conscience for each member.  This was the way it was in 1974; there were MANY pro-life liberal Democrats in the Congress.  There's maybe 1 or 2 now.  This would have the added benefit of building support for the kind of interventions for vulnerable children that need bi-partisan support to pass Congress.  This way, some Republicans would be able to walk out the sentiment that life begins at conception, but doesn't end at birth.

When I was an activist Democrat (1975-82), this was the case.  Social liberalism wasn't what the Democratic Party was all about back then.  Unfortunately, the Democrats have gone down the road they've chosen to the point where there's no turning back.  Abortion is a "Power/Control" issue for the Feminist Left, and the Feminist Left is a building block of the Democratic Party Establishment today in the way Big Labor and Big City Machines were in 1965.  The Feminist Left won't go for any of this, and they hold real sway over today's Democratic Party.  It's why folks like me, who are NOT "small government" types, but who are social conservatives and pro-life have, often grudgingly, become at least registered Republicans.  These Feminist Left types won't even give a straight answer as to when human life begins.  (Except for Barbara Boxer, who said human life begins when you take the baby home from the hospital.  I'm serious.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Here's a thought, why don't they spend as much time developing birth control "pills" for guys as they do on birth control for females?

To date, the efforts to do so have generally had excessive side effects. Also, unlike the female pill, male equivalents aren't nearly as effective.

[Antonio the Sixth]

That makes sense. I apologize for assuming you cited the stage you did for viability reasons.

I actually didn't know that viability occurred so early. Apparently by the 24th week there's already a 50% chance of survival - my guess would have been somewhere around the 30th. Legal issues aside, that's very heartening to know.

I cited 20-22 weeks mainly because there seems to be almost no demand for abortions beyond that point (and the abortions that are performed are usually to protect the mother's life, which I don't think anyone will object to). I knew that fetal pain only occurred much later (research suggests 29-30 weeks), but since I consider even this criterion (like every other biological milestone) to be inherently arbitrary, I'd much rather err on the side of caution. It also seems that higher brain activity begins at 22-24 weeks, so a 22 weeks ban would also respect this. I don't really understand why many American pro-choicers are so passionate about allowing late-term abortions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My guess was that such procedures might result in long-term harm to the fetus' health (but I might be completely wrong). If that is the case, I do think there's a somewhat coherent argument against terminating a pregnancy. It could even be defended from a certain pro-choice perspective. Still, it's not an argument I can accept.

[hopper]

The only reason for Dems to moderate on abortion would be to competitive in the Deep South which isn't happening except for Georgia in the near future.