One night she was knocked unconscious and raped, most likely by an American soldier. Suffers permanent brain damage. — praxis

That sucks.

Afghan women are immiserated to the degree that the child mortality rate is the highest in the world. Nothing expresses the sanctity of life and the love of children like the highest child mortality rate on the globe. — praxis

Gosh that's terrible. Imagine if the US was running the place for the last twenty years.

Oh wait. — StreetlightX

And if Afghanistan has the highest child mortality rate (exceeding countries in the Sahel region), then things have gotten better:

This thread reminds me of it again.

The fact that my country, and Sweden and Norway and Iceland and Denmark are in fact are legally tougher at women getting an abortion than the US as abortion laws in the US are actually more lax than in the Nordic countries.

And for some reason there isn't a debate about in our countries as there is in the US.

It hardly comes to mind when looking at the US discourse about abortion.

From what I read the primary driving forces were poverty and lack of education. Women are still intentionally educated at a fraction of the rate that men are. The gains in child mortality are primarily due to government midwife programs.

From what I read the primary driving forces were poverty and lack of education. Women are still intentionally educated at a fraction of the rate that men are. The gains in child mortality are primarily due to government midwife programs. — praxis

(I first thought you were responding to my next response about the Nordic countries... :joke: )

Yes, this is true. Povetry means lack of funding for everything. Lack of education means things won't change easily. Especially the illiteracy rates are extremely high in Afghanistan, although a lot have been done during the last twenty years. Naturally with women's education starting from the 90's Taleban policies anything would be an improvement. From it's neighbors only Pakistan has an low literacy rate (56%) while Iran has fairly high rate and the former Soviet Republics enjoy high literacy rates after enjoying many decades the (Russian) Soviet school system.

One of the worst things was the radical islamists like Al Qaeda actually were in favor of this "pious povetry". The backwardness was a blessing for them as Western materialism was not apparent in the country. These militant radicals would literally destroy economies. But let's see what happens.

Yet I think the Taliban would be happy to sustain the present health care system, but I'm not so sure how they can do it. The basic problem was that the now collapsed Afghan government was financed 80% by foreign aid and assistance, aid which now will go to near zero. That has to have an effect on Afghan health care.

The Justices of the Supreme Court of our Great Republic ("the Supremes") have decided on a 5-4 vote not to grant an injunction staying enforcement of the law. — Ciceronianus

The big problem is there isn't much in the way of federal law regarding abortion, so much of what the supreme court decides on this matter is more of an opinion, from my view. I personally don't view the supreme court as a method by which to subvert the lack of ability of the legislative process to create laws around this. And the reason the legislative process struggles to create laws is because it is a highly contested topic, and many voters don't want it and so likewise they vote for representatives who don't want it either.

From a philosophical standpoint, I see the abortion issue as being a slippery-slope for morality and societal values. Drawing a fine line at "no" doesn't take us down that slope, but when we say its justified there are many opinions about when and how long, etc. On the most extreme end, there are philosophers who believe it is acceptable to kill toddlers because "they don't have a personality so aren't a person." That is obviously a big extreme, but nevertheless demonstrates my concern.

So, back to this is all politics, all show, and lots of opinion with little logical debate. It's a big fist-fight. If we really want truth, then delve into the facts without all the opinions. But, we've already established our opinions here, and nobody is going to change their mind...

The fact that my country, and Sweden and Norway and Iceland and Denmark are in fact are legally tougher at women getting an abortion than the US — ssu

Is this something that can be laid out in a few sentences? And what are the consequences of the laws? Less intercourse? More birth control? Do all pregnancies run to term? And why any opposition?

My own view on abortion is that is a terminally grey area and unresolvable - which is one reason I like Roe v Wade: it seems to equitably and reasonably split the difference.

This thread reminds me of it again.

The fact that my country, and Sweden and Norway and Iceland and Denmark are in fact are legally tougher at women getting an abortion than the US as abortion laws in the US are actually more lax than in the Nordic countries. — ssu

Yet the abortion rate is about the same as in the US, at least in more recent years.

Abortion in Norway has an interesting history, as it does most places I imagine. An important milestone for the issue of abortion on request came on 15 January 1915, when Katti Anker Møller gave a speech in Kristiania (now Oslo) calling for legalized abortion on request. She said that "the basis for all freedom is the governance over one's own body and everything that is in it. The opposite is the condition of a slave." Apparently it was a feminist movement that eventually prevailed in the fight.

The big problem is there isn't much in the way of federal law regarding abortion, so much of what the supreme court decides on this matter is more of an opinion, from my view. — Derrick Huestis

Well, there's Roe v. Wade, which (broadly speaking) holds that a woman has a qualified right to terminate a pregnancy, and that after the first trimester, the State may regulate abortion for purposes of maternal health, and the body of case law which has applied it since its decision in 1973. Roe v. Wade is precedent, binding on courts. That's about as much as you can get in the way of federal law.

Is this something that can be laid out in a few sentences? And what are the consequences of the laws? — tim wood

Uh, no.

I'll refer to my original post on another thread (one year ago):

For some reason this isn't a hot topic in any Nordic country (I could be wrong, but I haven't heard about abortion clinics set on fire or the thing...)

Sweden:
Women can freely opt for abortion before 18th week. After that they have to have permission from the authorities and after 22nd week it isn't allowed.

Finland:
Abortion requires the signature of at least one physician (and in some cases, two), and in some cases additional permission from Valvira (the National Supervisory Authority for Welfare and Health). One doctor's signature is enough in the case of terminations 0-12 weeks when the applicant is under 17 years old or has passed her 40th birthday. Above 20 weeks, a threat to the physical life of the mother is the only valid reason for terminating a pregnancy.

Denmark:
Women can also freely opt for abortion before 12 weeks. An abortion can be performed after 12 weeks if the woman's life is in danger and even in cases where the woman has mental health problems. A woman may also be granted an authorization to abort after 12 weeks if certain circumstances are proved to be present (such as poor socioeconomic condition of the woman; risk of birth defects to baby; the pregnancy being the result of rape; mental health risk to mother)

Norway:
Women can have abortion on before 12 weeks, by application up to the 18th week, and thereafter only under special circumstances until the fetus is viable, which is usually presumed at 21 weeks and 6 days.
Abortion on request is legal until the end of the 22nd week of pregnancy

Iceland:
Abortion on request is legal until the end of the 22nd week of pregnancy. The request can be done for many reasons. Medically, an abortion is lawful if a pregnancy threatens a woman's physical or mental health, if the fetus has a serious congenital defect, or if the woman is deemed incapable of caring for a child because of her age or mental disability. Social grounds for allowing abortion include: if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest; if the woman has had several children already with only brief periods between pregnancies; if the woman lives in a particularly difficult family situation; or if the woman's or her partner's ill health prevents them from being able to care for a child.

And if people don't know it, abortion laws in the US are actually more lax than in the Nordic countries. Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont don’t limit abortion by gestational age at all. I think Roe vs Wade puts the limit to 28 weeks. It can be argued that state by state, a nearly uniform consensus has emerged in America: After roughly two dozen weeks, women should not be able to get an abortion for non-medical reasons.

Yet the abortion rate is about the same as in the US, at least in more recent years. — praxis

There you have it. It's not all about the existing laws, but how they are implemented. And how the society works.

Besides, one should note that both in the US and in the Nordic countries contraceptives are popular in use. This basically is more of a moral or a philosophical issue (and indeed fits perfectly in a Philosophy Forum).

Well, there's Roe v. Wade, which (broadly speaking) holds that a woman has a qualified right to terminate a pregnancy, — Ciceronianus

A precedent isn't the same as a law, a law on the federal level could overturn this, or it is technically possible for the supreme court to change it's stance, but the bipartisan fight over it seems to just keep things in limbo generally.

My own view on abortion is that is a terminally grey area and unresolvable - which is one reason I like Roe v Wade: it seems to equitably and reasonably split the difference. — tim wood

There is nothing reasonable about it and it is clearly inequitable. The state can regulate the practice of medicine however it wants (so long as it can fabricate some claim about “health of the woman”) and the women has no right to choose after “viability”. You invited conversation about why the case does a bad job at preserving reproductive choice, declined to discuss it, and then keep asserting that the case is some sort of great solution.

A law on the federal (or state) level cannot change a “precedent” in-so-far as the precedent is about prohibiting the limitation of a constitutional right absent the Supreme’s agreeing that it is narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest (or whatever other language the Supremes choose to invoke in the moment). The US is not like other countries where the ultimate tribunal’s decisions stand until the legislature (or other governing body) acts to the contrary.

Yes, the legislature can change the analysis until the Supremes have a chance for judicial review, but the American system (under the claim of checks and balances) has placed the power to decide whether laws are Constitutional outside of the scope of legislative fiat.

There is nothing reasonable about it and it is clearly inequitable. The state can regulate the practice of medicine however it wants (so long as it can fabricate some claim about “health of the woman”) and the women has no right to choose after “viability”. — Ennui Elucidator

I reckon you're not an American. But first things first: "There is nothing reasonable about it and it is clearly inequitable." Nothing reasonable about it? Clearly inequitable? These are ether categorical nonsense, or vicious. Make your case; I am demonstrably in error, or you stupid or worse.

Second: "The state can regulate the practice of medicine however it wants (so long as it can fabricate some claim about “health of the woman”)." No, it cannot. The state can pass laws but that is not the end of it. State law is inferior to federal law. Now, Roe is a Supreme Court judgment, so not exactly law. But what is coming are test cases. And to be sure, Congress has the power to pass a superior law - but will they do it?

My point was that while most folk seem to want abortion to be either or, I think it's neither nor. Pro-life and pro-choice both possess compelling arguments. But in a way they are about different things, hence all grey. My conclusion is that in consideration of the differences between the two sides, Roe is a pretty good, reasoned and reasonable, compromise. And you, my friend either don't know what you're talking about - take a lesson - or you do and don't care about either truth or accuracy - immeasurably worse.

Perhaps you missed where I responded to your earlier post and actually quoted Roe for you. If you like, go read it and let me know if your opinion still holds. Even if you don’t want to, the question is rather straight forward - Roe was based on medical technology in 1973 where viability was approximately six months after conception. If viability is pushed back earlier in time (five months, four months, three months, 9 weeks, 6 weeks, etc.), on your view, should that impact a woman’s right to reproductive choice? According to Roe’s reasoning, the state has an interest in protecting potential life which is sufficient to limit a woman’s right to reproductive choice.

Again, here is Roe for you “ With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the 'compelling' point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.”

As for your speculation, I am admitted to the bar in two states, so I am pretty confident that I know how to read a case for myself. You might want to spare me your summary of how you think law in the US works and actually get to the analysis of the language in the case that you are claiming is reasonable.

You might want to spare me your summary of how you think law in the US works and actually get to the analysis of the language in the case that you are claiming is reasonable. — Ennui Elucidator

My claim of reasonable stands. With your "nothing reasonable about it," your claim is impossible to demonstrate. Similarly with "clearly inequitable."

I suppose viability means outside a healthy mother's womb. How many sub-26-week fetuses can manage that, much less 6.5 week fetuses? Of course if by viability you mean, or understand to mean, with intervention, then by all means intervene. Blackmun's argument including noting that live birth was required to perfect potential rights; surely real intervention is required to intervene. That is, how many of those "viable" fetuses are going to survive with only potential intervention. And to be sure, how many would survive even with real intervention?

At it's core, the Pro-life argument is irrational and ignorant, because it's based on something that does not exist, a person inside a womb. Roe concedes that at about 26 weeks, there's a fair chance that if the fetus were out of the womb, it might survive, with odds increasing with more weeks.

And as to medical capability, Roe's argument also calculated the risk to the mother. Arguably that is much reduced, and on that axis, then, allowing for much later abortions.

I am tempted to start pointing you in the direction of literature on the issue of viability and how bad it was, but here is an amusing quote:

“ The change in viability statistics over time highlights one of the unfor- tunate consequences of using viability, a concept developed for medical purposes, as the basis for determining an individual's legal status under the Constitution. Compare a healthy 26-week-old fetus in utero in 1973 with an identical fetus similarly situated in 2009. Under the viability rule, a state likely could not adopt abortion regulations protecting the life of such a fetus at the time of Roe but could protect an identical fetus today.5 3 "According to the logic of Roe v. Wade, then, a whole class of unborn human beings would now merit legal protection but would not have merited it then."54
This difference in legal status between the 1973 fetus and the 2009 fe- tus seems impossible to explain in a principled fashion. No distinction be- tween the two fetuses justifies the disparate treatment.5 Nor is there any difference in the burden the two fetuses place on their respective mothers. 6 . . .

. . .changes in
a woman's location during pregnancy could cause a fetus to move in and out of viability. He illustrates the point with an example:
A woman is 25 weeks pregnant, and is visiting a doctor at the Monash Medical Centre in Melbourne. Since the Monash Medical Centre has one of the most advanced Neonatal Intensive Care Units in the world, the developing human inside her would be considered viable. Now suppose that the woman leaves Melbourne, and flies to Papua New Guinea. Once she arrives in Papua New Guinea, she walks up into the highlands, where she remains until the birth. Since sophisticated medical assistance is not available in the Papua New Guinea highlands, when she arrives in the highlands her developing human would not be considered viable, and in fact would not be considered viable for almost three months. In fact, if this woman was to continue to travel regularly between Papua New Guinea and a major centre in Australia, then her unborn developing human could reach the 'point' of viability several times, becoming viable whenever she was near sophisticated medical facilities, and not viable whenever she returned to the remote Papua New Guinea highlands.58” — “Easily Found Random Article on the Problem with Viability if You Cared to Look”

Random Article

And here is the Supreme Court discussing the Roe viability standard in Casey…

That brings us, of course, to the point where much criticism has been directed at Roe, a criticism that always inheres when the Court draws a specific rule from what in the Constitution is but a general standard. We conclude, however, that the urgent claims of the woman to retain the ultimate control over her destiny and her body, claims implicit in the meaning of liberty, require us to perform that function. Liberty must not be extinguished for want of a line that is clear. And it falls to us to give some real substance to the woman's liberty to determine whether to carry her pregnancy to full term.

94
We conclude the line should be drawn at viability, so that before that time the woman has a right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. We adhere to this principle for two reasons. First, as we have said, is the doctrine of stare decisis. Any judicial act of line-drawing may seem somewhat arbitrary, but Roe was a reasoned statement, elaborated with great care. We have twice reaffirmed it in the face of great opposition. See Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 476 U.S., at 759, 106 S.Ct., at 2178; Akron I, 462 U.S., at 419-420, 103 S.Ct., at 2487-2488. Although we must overrule those parts of Thornburgh and Akron I which, in our view, are inconsistent with Roe's statement that the State has a legitimate interest in promoting the life or potential life of the unborn, see infra, at ----, the central premise of those cases represents an unbroken commitment by this Court to the essential holding of Roe. It is that premise which we reaffirm today.

95
The second reason is that the concept of viability, as we noted in Roe, is the time at which there is a realistic possibility of maintaining and nourishing a life outside the womb, so that the independent existence of the second life can in reason and all fairness be the object of state protection that now overrides the rights of the woman. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S., at 163, 93 S.Ct., at 731. Consistent with other constitutional norms, legislatures may draw lines which appear arbitrary without the necessity of offering a justification. But courts may not. We must justify the lines we draw. And there is no line other than viability which is more workable. To be sure, as we have said, there may be some medical developments that affect the precise point of viability, see supra, at ----, but this is an imprecision within tolerable limits given that the medical community and all those who must apply its discoveries will continue to explore the matter. The viability line also has, as a practical matter, an element of fairness. In some broad sense it might be said that a woman who fails to act before viability has consented to the State's intervention on behalf of the developing child.

96
The woman's right to terminate her pregnancy before viability is the most central principle of Roe v. Wade. It is a rule of law and a component of liberty we cannot renounce.
— “Supreme’s Plurality in Casey”

PP vs. Casey

I look forward to your lesson on how I am “stupid or worse” and your demonstration of how I “don’t know what I am talking about.”

but Roe was a reasoned statement, elaborated with great care. — Ennui Elucidator

So much for your "nothing reasonable about it"!

You should really quit while you are ahead, Tim. Go read the dissent to Casey and the ink spilled on the judicial fiat of the majority in Roe. If you have any hope of understanding why Roe is in such peril, you really need to have a handle on what was actually done and whether the Robert’s court can walk Roe back without undoing the concept of precedent.

In some broad sense it might be said that a woman who fails to act before viability has consented to the State's intervention on behalf of the developing child. — Ennui Elucidator

Only if she knows she is pregnant. I'm a guy, so I have to take the word of others that at six weeks, most women don't know.

Only if she knows she is pregnant. — tim wood

That isn’t what Casey said, that isn’t the framework, and it is generally bollox. The actual case law in the US is that VIABILITY is the deciding moment when the state has a compelling interest in protecting the interest’s of a potential life against the mother absent a threat to her life or health. Not the mother’s knowledge or anything else. The right to abortion generally (as performed by doctors) hinges on birth having a worse medical outcome than abortion at the time performed.

If the point of Roe was to enshrine the right to reproductive choice, Roe failed.

I look forward to your lesson on how I am “stupid or worse” and your demonstration of how I “don’t know what I am talking about.” — Ennui Elucidator

You want it spelled out for you. Ok. You wrote the following:

There is nothing reasonable about it and it is clearly inequitable. — Ennui Elucidator

Then you produce this:

but Roe was a reasoned statement, elaborated with great care. — Ennui Elucidator

QED. Advice, when you're in a hole, stop digging.

The court claiming that Roe was well considered is like you claiming that you understood the decision - self-serving and meaningless for purposes of analysis.

Not the mother’s knowledge or anything else. — Ennui Elucidator

Then how can she be inferred to have consented?

In some broad sense it might be said that a woman who fails to act before viability has consented to the State's intervention on behalf of the developing child. — Ennui Elucidator

You are asking me to account for the non-sense that was the Casey reasoning? Go ask O’Conner.

But read her sentence before the one you quoted: The viability line also has, as a practical matter, an element of fairness.

She is trying to defend the viability rule using specious logic - logic that you easily rebut yourself when saying that actual knowledge is required for any claim to consent.

The court claiming that Roe was well considered is like you claiming that you understood the decision - self-serving and meaningless for purposes of analysis. — Ennui Elucidator

I didn't realize that you were the master. Forgive me.

The right to abortion generally (as performed by doctors) hinges on birth having a worse medical outcome than pregnancy/birth. — Ennui Elucidator

If you read Roe, you'd know that applies only after about the 26 weeks. But I'm beginning to doubt you've actually read it. The rule per Roe is that the mother is safer aborting within the first trimester than going to term (so the state has no grounds to interfere to protect the mother); second trimester, so-so, third trimester, safer going to term if otherwise healthy. Admittedly this collides with issues of viability. These days a women a probably safe with an abortion at almost any point. But the fetus is viable at 26 weeks. And by the way, if viability implies intervention or possible intervention, what obligations does that create, and on whom?

Why don't you propose a good rule and never mind the rest. I will too, it happens to be Roe. I do not suppose that I can improve on that. What do you got?

Did you see I quoted the actual case at you multiple times, Tim? Are you really going to play that dense? And are you further aware that the Case case that I quoted to you actually changed the trimester analysis seemingly laid out in Roe? So like the actual law in the US regarding abortion is not based on Roe but on the viability and undue burden standard?

Even in Casey the Supremes would disagree with your 26 weeks. The case is now thirty years old.

74
We have seen how time has overtaken some of Roe's factual assumptions: advances in maternal health care allow for abortions safe to the mother later in pregnancy than was true in 1973, see Akron I, supra, 462 U.S., at 429, n. 11, 103 S.Ct., at 2492, n. 11, and advances in neonatal care have advanced viability to a point somewhat earlier. Compare Roe, 410 U.S., at 160, 93 S.Ct., at 730, with Webster, supra, 492 U.S., at 515-516, 109 S.Ct., at 3055 (opinion of REHNQUIST, C.J.); see Akron I, supra, 462 U.S., at 457, and n. 5, 103 S.Ct., at 2489, and n. 5 (O'CONNOR, J., dissenting). But these facts go only to the scheme of time limits on the realization of competing interests, and the divergences from the factual premises of 1973 have no bearing on the validity of Roe's central holding, that viability marks the earliest point at which the State's interest in fetal life is constitutionally adequate to justify a legislative ban on nontherapeutic abortions. The soundness or unsoundness of that constitutional judgment in no sense turns on whether viability occurs at approximately 28 weeks, as was usual at the time of Roe, at 23 to 24 weeks, as it sometimes does today, or at some moment even slightly earlier in pregnancy, as it may if fetal respiratory capacity can somehow be enhanced in the future. Whenever it may occur, the attainment of viability may continue to serve as the critical fact, just as it has done since Roe was decided; which is to say that no change in Roe's factual underpinning has left its central holding obsolete, and none supports an argument for overruling it. — “Casey”

Why don't you propose a good rule and never mind the rest. I will too, it happens to be Roe. I do not suppose that I can improve on that. What do you got? — tim wood

Here is my equally as quippy a rule: a woman has a right to abortion on demand at any point until the fetus has been detached from her body. Viability is of no moment and the state never has a compelling interest in coercing someone to reproduce.