[nineplay]

I hardly know what to make of this. If I was a wealthy woman in a blue state than it is wrong of me to give a damn about what happens to poor women in red states? That is a unique POV.

I can't imagine how a hypothetical Polish person got into this. I cannot cast a vote in Poland so their politics are outside of my control.

> they weight the fetus’ life more than ....

They weight the fetus's life more than its mothers life.

> The overturn of Roe v Wade was primarily about letting the states decide.

I'm paraphrasing something I read somewhere else, but I don't think it could be put better

- Why leave it up to the federal government and not the state? - Why leave it up to the state and not the counties? - Why leave it up to the counties and not the cities? - Why leave it up to the cities and not the neighborhood? - Why not just leave it up to the women herself?

I think it nicely reduces it down to the absurdity of the whole. Why exactly is it up to my neighbors whether or not I can get an abortion?

[orionsbelt]

I didn’t say it’s wrong for you to give a damn - I said the opposite, that you can certainly give a damn and support pro abortion policies. But you said it was a direct threat to YOUR health — is it really? Are you a poor woman in a red state? If not, while you can give a damn, my point was that people are unable to disagree these days because they make everything so personal - as if you are in direct serious threat - when perhaps that is an exaggeration that is being caused by our media.

The Poland example: sure, you have no vote there. But do you feel the same DIRECT THREAT? Are you any more likely to need an abortion in Alabama than Poland? While perhaps you have more of an ability to impact Alabama policies by voting, is it really more of a threat? And how much does your vote even matter; are you talking about a national election and live in a non swing state? If so, your money and activism could probably be spent just as well influencing Alabama or Polish views.

On the weighting of the fetus’ life - let’s say it had equal weight (and ignore the question of when life starts)? Wouldn’t the abortion certainly kill the fetus and only possibly kill the mother? Isn’t it the therefore liberals who weight the mother’s life more?

On your last point, it’s up to your neighbors whether you get an abortion because that’s how government works. If, solely for the sake of argument, you concede that a fetus is a real life the same as a baby, can you not see why a government should have a say over abortion? There are two competing lives at stake.

[bruce511]

There are obviously two sides to the abortion question, and we're not going to "solve" it here, but I think at least discussing it is healthy.

The pendulum has swung a lot in the last couple years, and I'd argue it has swung a bit too far. All laws have unintended consequences, and we're seeing the out-working of some of that now.

Right now the law is dictating to medicine - laws written by activists and politicians, not doctors. Placing legal liability on doctors as to who they can help, and when. That seems to me to be too far.

Equally the pendulum has swung to a point which is not the viewpoint of the majority. Not even in red states. When on the ballot pro-abortion positions are consistently winning. IVF is under threat (not by accident.)

Moving the law back to the states is a cop out. It creates inequality among citizens of the same country. Which in turn creates a divisive discourse between people who are now forced into one or other position.

Pro choice is not the same as Pro abortion. It moves the choice to the patients and doctors involved. Personally, for reasons, I'm not a fan of abortion. But I can see there are cases every it is appropriate. I support the notion that the right people to make that choice are the people involved.

Lots of people feel differently to me. Perhaps they're in the 50% who will never have to make that choice. Perhaps they are in the 99.99% who will not experience a loved one dying in a preventable way.