Roe v. Wade overturned

Thanks, that makes sense. Although it seems a bit odd to me that the people making (and lobbying for) all those laws employing proxies for life were simply unaware of the scientific fact that life begins at fertilization, now conclusively determined by a survey.

I think that most people realize that life begins at or around conception as this scientific fact has been obvious for decades, but many pro-abortionists have been lied to and don’t think deeply about it. When virtually all biologists confirm this fact and that is related to pro-abortionists, they seem to alter their opinions on abortion.

I also think that the people proposing abortions up until birth (i.e., virtually all democrats) are ignoring the science and the will of the mass majority of Americans. That is why democrats are so scared to voice their opinions in clear ways, and why Americans disapprove of late term abortions by about 4 to 1 and why almost no countries in the world (other than North Korea, Vietnam, China, and Canada) have abortion laws as permissive as the US.

1 Like

I agree with most of this, although I think it goes both ways: most Americans don’t support a ban from fertilization, and Republicans won’t say they do for that reason.

I also don’t think that people who support abortion (at any point) are “ignoring the science” – I think they’d question both the legitimacy and relevance of that science, like I do, and argue instead in terms of the balance of rights and perhaps in terms of personhood as separate from (some concept of) biological life.

Not that it matters: hardly any laws are actually based on science.

1 Like

Incidentally, of the 3,336 biologists who affirmed the explicit “fertilization marks the beginning of human life” statement in that survey, 1,932 describe themselves as very pro-choice, 438 as as pro-choice, and 208 as neutral.

That gives us (1932 + 438 + 208) / 3336 = 77.2% of biologists who think life begins at fertilization but don’t oppose abortion. Presumably not all of them are sociopaths or ignorant of the science.

This argues strongly against criticisms that the study is biased, no?

Of course they are. How can you support killing a human a second before it is born but not a second after it is born without ignoring the science?

Depends on the criticisms. I wouldn’t argue that the survey itself is biased, and in fact the respondents were heavily democrat (92%) and pro-choice (85%).

The author’s interpretations of the data are a little dubious, like the example I gave above that he includes anyone who agrees that "The development of a mammal begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.” as affirming “life begins at fertilization” – even if they didn’t affirm the explicit statement saying so.

On that basis I think the 96% headline number is misleading. If we’re going to take one number it should probably be for the explicit statement, which was 75%.

Although if we include the 2,186 who declined to assess that statement, the number who actually affirmed it drops to 3336 / 5502 = 60.6%.

If we include all the 4,047 who responded to the survey but declined to assess any of the statements (I guess they just did the essay?), then we’re down to 3336 / 7383 = 45.2%.

So I’m not sure it’s as clear cut as the author claims. But “less than half of the respondents to my survey explicitly agree that life begins at fertilization” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it, does it?

By arguing that the woman’s right to bodily autonomy outweighs everything else. That’s not an argument I make, or agree with, but it doesn’t require ignoring any science.

I don’t think that this criticism makes any sense.

That is stupid. You are willing to assume that everyone who didn’t answer would have answered in the negative? No, you take them out of the equation and don’t make assumptions.

Bodily autonomy arguments don’t address the fact that they are killing a different human body.

1 Like

I’m saying they were presented with it and declined to affirm it. I can imagine all sorts of reason they might have so chosen, though I think the most likely one is that they could see where it was going and didn’t want their views interpreted that way.

Regardless, it isn’t “96% of biologists”, or even “75% of biologists”. At best it’s “75% of biologists who were willing to express a view”.

Really it just isn’t a very good survey. And I use that word rather than “study” because it wasn’t published in a journal or peer reviewed, it was part of a law/psychology PhD dissertation that was trying to make a much more subtle point about why views vary so widely. I’d be pretty surprised if the author himself considered his survey results to establish “scientific fact”.

I agree. And yet it doesn’t mean they’re ignoring the science. It just means they aren’t prioritizing it over bodily autonomy.

No, they declined to either affirm or deny it.

What’s the switch that goes off? It’s like when that autistic gal designed cattle gates for their slaughter and saw a cow get killed. She just stared at the carcass and said, “ Where’s the cow?”

I think, given the science, we need to be recalibrated. Btw they’re arguing this in the senate atm.

1 Like

Did they affirm it? No, they did not.

But anyway, if you ask the question to 7383 biologists and more than half of them say “I’m not answering that”, and then you just exclude those people, you can’t in good faith say anything about 75% of biologists. It’s 75% of less than half of the biologists you asked.

Meanwhile, back to the topic at hand: Collins and Murkowski introduced their own straightforward “codify Roe” bill:

I think the Democrats should support it, since they’re unlikely to get a better option before the unknown consequences of the midterms. But I expect they won’t.

I also don’t know whether they could get 8 more Republican votes for it, but it seems possible, and it would sure be interesting to find out – opposing this one would be harder to justify to their mostly-Roe-supporting constituents than opposing the much broader bill the Democrats were showboating.

1 Like

Already failed I think.

The Democrat bill failed, yeah, as expected. This one is new.

2 Likes

Did they deny it? No they did not.

Your point on this is nonsensical, and I think you know it.

Politicians are modern day performative artists. Here’s Elizabeth Warren claiming the abortion bill was blocked due to the filibuster (everyone get angry with the filibuster) it was voted down in a simple majority 51-49.

1 Like

Most Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances, according to a recent national poll.

The Pew Research Center published the results of a poll conducted in March that found 61 percent of U.S. adults believe abortion should be legal in most cases, while 37 percent said abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

Though the final opinion will be issued in June, nearly one in five U.S. adults say that abortion should be legal in all cases, with no exceptions. Fewer than 8 percent say abortion should be illegal in every case, without exception.

Pew also found that most abortion rights supporters, 56 percent, believe the length of a pregnancy should determine the legality of an abortion. This share of adults also believe abortion providers should be required to get the consent of a parent or guardian before performing an abortion on a minor.

Majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal in some cases, poll says – The Hill