What would be the last straw for you, as a Trump supporter?

[Atreus21]

also NOBODY wants to discuss this one issue because it does not currently matter.....and anybody who does discuss this issue with you will never win unless they totally agree with you!!

It sure seems to matter to the NYT, the Atlantic, and many other publications.

 

[Paratus]

The fact that, according to factcheck, abortions are permitted up to the point of birth as long as one can cite a health risk to the mother, and that it attempts no definition of "health". This is a departure from the previous law which permitted such abortions only when the mother's life was endangered.



You might have a look at this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/politics/democratic-candidates-abortion-survey.html

Question put to 2020 Democrat candidates: Should there be restrictions on abortion after the point of viability (roughly 24 weeks)? If so, what restrictions?

Michael Bennett: "No."
Corey Booker: "Abortion is health care and decisions regarding someone’s health care should be made between that person and their doctor."
Pete Buttigieg: "The fact is that less than 1 percent of abortions take place after 24 weeks of pregnancy. They often involve heartbreaking circumstances in which a person’s health or life is at risk, or when the fetus has a congenital condition that is incompatible with life. As I have said before, people and families in these circumstances are receiving the most devastating news of their lifetime, and the decisions that are made about medical care in these moments are not made better, medically or morally, by government dictating how these decisions are made. I trust people and their families to make these decisions with the guidance of their medical providers, who understand the complications and factors that are unique to every pregnancy.
Amy Klobuchar: Senator Klobuchar believes any restrictions must be consistent with Roe v. Wade.
Bernie Sanders: Bernie believes that women should control their own bodies, period.
Joe Sestak: This is a very difficult question. While I am loath to ever get between a woman and her doctor — for I believe that is not a proper place for government — I do believe that after the point of viability abortion should only be performed when there is a threat to the life or health of the mother, or in cases when it is determined that the developing fetus will not be able to survive outside the womb.
Tom Steyer: Every woman should have the right to control her own body.
Elizabeth Warren: Only 1.3 percent of abortions take place at 21 weeks or later, and the reasons are heartbreaking. 20-week abortion bans are dangerous and cruel. They would force women to carry an unviable fetus to term or force women with severe health complications to stay pregnant with their lives on the line. The decision whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is one of the most personal decisions anyone can make. We must not allow politicians to make this decision for parents and families just so they can score cheap political points.
Marianne Williamson: Late abortions are done infrequently and for medical reasons. This decision should be up to the woman and her doctor, not the government.
Andrew Yang: In the U.S. in 2015, 1.3 percent of abortions take place after the 21st week, and less than 1 percent take place after the 24th week. If abortions happen at this late of a stage in a pregnancy, it is almost always because of extreme circumstances, medical or otherwise. In these cases, Andrew believes the decision should lie between a woman and her doctor, not the government.

At no point does anyone offer even a hint of wanting to restrict late term abortion, instead suggesting it should be allowed if the woman decides it.

I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced. No reasonable observer would read their stated positions and conclude they are moderate by how you and I have defined it regarding abortion.

The two I highlighted in blue stated they support late term restrictions so your comment in red is false.

I also don’t understand your issue with protecting the health of the mother.

Women getting late term abortions are women who wanted a child and are now being forced to lose their pregnancy.

 

[fskimospy]

I've said they are opposed to restrictions on late term abortion, and provided evidence, their own words, to support my claim.

You said they are in favor of restrictions on abortion, and offered as evidence the fact that they haven't advocated for removing restrictions on abortion.

But there are no restrictions on late term abortion. It's the status quo, as long as Roe v. Wade stands. It prohibits any restriction on abortion, at any time, that doesn't contain a physical or mental health exemption.

If there were such restrictions, we have good reason to think they'd oppose them, just as they advocate for repealing the Hyde amendment and the Helms amendment.

What is the stronger argument? That they are opposed to position A because of stated opposition to it, or that they are in favor of position A because they've not stated opposition to it?

This is an argument from silence.

There are restrictions on late term abortion in literally every state. I am not aware of a single person running who has advocated for the removal of restrictions on late term abortions that make exceptions for the health of the mother, etc. It’s just not a thing. What you’re doing is looking at people dodging an awkward question and assuming things.

Face it, Democrats are the moderates you claim to want. The abortion debate has ALWAYS been this way, with pro-choice moderates against extremist restrictionists.

 

[Atreus21]

There are restrictions on late term abortion in literally every state. I am not aware of a single person running who has advocated for the removal of restrictions on late term abortions that make exceptions for the health of the mother, etc. It’s just not a thing. What you’re doing is looking at people dodging an awkward question and assuming things.

Face it, Democrats are the moderates you claim to want. The abortion debate has ALWAYS been this way, with pro-choice moderates against extremist restrictionists.

You haven't addressed any of what I said and are just repeating yourself. Again, Roe v. Wade prohibits all restrictions on abortion that don't allow exceptions for the mother's physical or mental health. And no one makes any attempt to define health.

You haven't provided any evidence that the 2020 democrat field has any interest whatsoever in restricting abortion. I've provided evidence that they have an interest in preventing such restrictions. I don't know why you continue this.

 

[fskimospy]

You haven't addressed any of what I said and are just repeating yourself. Again, Roe v. Wade prohibits all restrictions on abortion that don't allow exceptions for the mother's physical or mental health. And no one makes any attempt to define health.

Wait, you want the government to legislate what doctors can consider to be done in the interests of peoples' health?

If your argument is that we can no longer trust our medical professionals to adequately determine what is in the interest of our patients' health then we might as well replace the entire medical profession with the legislature. Just come up with a set of symptoms and legislate what procedures will be performed.

You haven't provided any evidence that the 2020 democrat field has any interest whatsoever in restricting abortion. I've provided evidence that they have an interest in preventing such restrictions. I don't know why you continue this.

I agree they have no interest in ADDITIONAL restrictions on abortion, but the US already has insane abortion restrictions as it is. If anything we need to roll back a lot of the crazy and dishonest laws that conservatives have passed in recent years. None of that means removing restrictions on third trimester abortions however and I'm not aware of any candidate who has ever advocated that.

Remember, Democrats already ARE moderate on abortion. They always have been. To use a different example if a Republican says that we don't need any additional restrictions on gun ownership do you think it would be fair to characterize their position to be that we should have no restrictions on gun ownership at all?

Edit: you also didn't address Paratus' post that explicitly showed that what you're saying about the candidates is false. Will you revise your statement in light of this?

 

[Atreus21]

The two I highlighted in blue stated they support late term restrictions so your comment in red is false.

Klobuchar cited Roe v. Wade and Sestak essentially did the same thing; citing exemptions for the health of the mother. Roe v. Wade prohibits any restriction on abortion that doesn't make exceptions for the physical or mental health of the mother. The effect of this is to prohibit all restrictions on abortion, as health can mean just about anything.

And Roe v. Wade has primacy over all state laws.

I also don’t understand your issue with protecting the health of the mother.

Because health is a subjective term, with no effort made by any authority to define it.

Women getting late term abortions are women who wanted a child and are now being forced to lose their pregnancy.

Not so. Guttmacher found that women seeking late term abortions fell into five profiles: “raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous [had never given birth].”

Largely the same reasons given for abortion at any other stage.

 

[fskimospy]

Klobuchar cited Roe v. Wade and Sestak essentially did the same thing; citing exemptions for the health of the mother. Roe v. Wade prohibits any restriction on abortion that doesn't make exceptions for the physical or mental health of the mother. The effect of this is to prohibit all restrictions on abortion, as health can mean just about anything.

And Roe v. Wade has primacy over all state laws.

Haha NOW we're getting somewhere. When you said 'moderate' on abortion what you meant was for them to support overturning Roe v. Wade, which would be a radical right wing position for them to hold. So no, of course you won't see radical right wingers in a Democratic primary. Why would you?

 

[IronWing]

So which specific damages to a woman's health are you willing to entertain in order to protect a fetus?

 

[Atreus21]

Wait, you want the government to legislate what doctors can consider to be done in the interests of peoples' health?

If your argument is that we can no longer trust our medical professionals to adequately determine what is in the interest of our patients' health then we might as well replace the entire medical profession with the legislature. Just come up with a set of symptoms and legislate what procedures will be performed.

Off-topic. The debate is whether or not 2020 democrat candidates are moderate on abortion. I'm trying my best not to get drawn into the larger abortion debate.

I agree they have no interest in ADDITIONAL restrictions on abortion, but the US already has insane abortion restrictions as it is.

Again, Roe v. Wade ensures that there are effectively no restrictions on when a woman can legally obtain an abortion, from conception to birth.

If anything we need to roll back a lot of the crazy and dishonest laws that conservatives have passed in recent years. None of that means removing restrictions on third trimester abortions however and I'm not aware of any candidate who has ever advocated that.

Again, there are no such restrictions. You can't advocate for removing restrictions that don't exist.

Furthermore, the entire 2020 field, or at least those among them who answered the NYT's poll, expressed resistance to any meaningful restrictions on abortion.

Remember, Democrats already ARE moderate on abortion. They always have been.

A claim for which you've presented no evidence, and cited it as evidence.

To use a different example if a Republican says that we don't need any additional restrictions on gun ownership do you think it would be fair to characterize their position to be that we should have no restrictions on gun ownership at all?

Not a very good analogy, because (1) you're starting at the outset by saying the Republican actually expressed an opinion. Whereas in this debate you've said the 202 Democrats haven't expressed an opinion, from which you draw assumptions. And (2) there are actual hard restrictions on firearm ownership, unlike abortion, for which citing health problems is sufficient to get past any restriction.

But to answer your question: In the abstract, no. But if the same Republican were asked, "Do you support restrictions on firearms" and he responded by dodging and citing the 2nd amendment, it would be fair to conclude that he was generally opposed to restrictions on firearms.

Edit: you also didn't address Paratus' post that explicitly showed that what you're saying about the candidates is false. Will you revise your statement in light of this?

Yes I did. I said both candidates cited restricting abortion unless the health of the mother is cited, and that is effectively no restriction.

What I'd like to know is this: Would any 2020 democrat answer No to the following question:

"A mother is 38 weeks pregnant. The child is healthy, the mother is healthy. Doctors have every expectation of a healthy delivery. The mother wants to abort. Should that be allowed?"

 

[Jhhnn]

And there is no reason to believe that such bans would be effective either.

The GOP leadership doesn't care. Affluent women will readily obtain abortion services as near as Canada.

 

[Atreus21]

Haha NOW we're getting somewhere. When you said 'moderate' on abortion what you meant was for them to support overturning Roe v. Wade, which would be a radical right wing position for them to hold. So no, of course you won't see radical right wingers in a Democratic primary. Why would you?

Now you've moved the goalposts. I said what I meant by moderate, and we've been debating according to that definition ever since. If you're going to abandon the original terms of the debate, you might have the courtesy to concede the point.

But if you insist on moving it, we might suggest the 2020 democrat field is radically out of step with the nation on late-term abortion, and is therefore extreme.

Poll: Nearly half of Americans say Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade

Nearly half of Americans surveyed in a Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released exclusively to The Hill say the Supreme Court should affirm the constitutional right to abortion established …

thehill.com

"Only 8 percent said abortions should be permitted up until the third trimester, and 6 percent said the procedure should be allowed "up until the birth of the child."

 

[fskimospy]

Off-topic. The debate is whether or not 2020 democrat candidates are moderate on abortion. I'm trying my best not to get drawn into the larger abortion debate.



Again, Roe v. Wade ensures that there are effectively no restrictions on when a woman can legally obtain an abortion, from conception to birth.


Again, there are no such restrictions. You can't advocate for removing restrictions that don't exist.

Furthermore, the entire 2020 field, or at least those among them who answered the NYT's poll, expressed resistance to any meaningful restrictions on abortion.



A claim for which you've presented no evidence, and cited it as evidence.



Not a very good analogy, because (1) you're starting at the outset by saying the Republican actually expressed an opinion. Whereas in this debate you've said the 202 Democrats haven't expressed an opinion, from which you draw assumptions. And (2) there are actual hard restrictions on firearm ownership, unlike abortion, for which citing health problems is sufficient to get past any restriction.

But to answer your question: In the abstract, no. But if the same Republican were asked, "Do you support restrictions on firearms" and he responded by dodging and citing the 2nd amendment, it would be fair to conclude that he was generally opposed to restrictions on firearms.

Yes I did. I said both candidates cited restricting abortion unless the health of the mother is cited, and that is effectively no restriction.

What I'd like to know is this: Would any 2020 democrat answer No to the following question:

"A mother is 38 weeks pregnant. The child is healthy, the mother is healthy. Doctors have every expectation of a healthy delivery. The mother wants to abort. Should that be allowed?"

Great, we have gotten to the heart of the matter. You asked if Democrats would moderate on abortion and defined that as them accepting any limits on abortion whatsoever.

When pressed on the matter you then declared that Roe v. Wade prohibits any restrictions on abortion. The logical conclusion from this is that you would only consider a Democrat to be moderate on abortion if they supported overturning Roe v. Wade, which is a radical right wing position.

So basically you took your own radical right opinion, declared it moderate, and then said you would totally support the Democrats if they would just moderate some.

I don’t know why you don’t just own your own radicalism. Being radical doesn’t have to mean you are wrong but you should at least acknowledge the reality that Americans reject your position overwhelmingly.

 

[fskimospy]

Now you've moved the goalposts. I said what I meant by moderate, and we've been debating according to that definition ever since. If you're going to abandon the original terms of the debate, you might have the courtesy to concede the point.

But if you insist on moving it, we might suggest the 2020 democrat field is radically out of step with the nation on late-term abortion, and is therefore extreme.

Poll: Nearly half of Americans say Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade

Nearly half of Americans surveyed in a Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released exclusively to The Hill say the Supreme Court should affirm the constitutional right to abortion established …

thehill.com

"Only 8 percent said abortions should be permitted up until the third trimester, and 6 percent said the procedure should be allowed "up until the birth of the child."

I used the definition of moderate you supplied, lol.

 

[nakedfrog]

Off-topic. The debate is whether or not 2020 democrat candidates are moderate on abortion. I'm trying my best not to get drawn into the larger abortion debate.

No it isn't. It's about "what would be the last straw for you as a Trump supporter", and you are yet to address that specific topic, surprising absolutely no one.

 

[Atreus21]

No it isn't. It's about "what would be the last straw for you as a Trump supporter", and you are yet to address that specific topic, surprising absolutely no one.

I addressed that a loooong time ago. In terms of how I vote, I don't qualify as a Trump supporter.

 

[Atreus21]

Great, we have gotten to the heart of the matter. You asked if Democrats would moderate on abortion and defined that as them accepting any limits on abortion whatsoever.

When pressed on the matter you then declared that Roe v. Wade prohibits any restrictions on abortion. The logical conclusion from this is that you would only consider a Democrat to be moderate on abortion if they supported overturning Roe v. Wade, which is a radical right wing position.

I said moderation would involve a willingness to restrict late-term abortion, to which 2020 Democrats have expressed clear resistance.

So basically you took your own radical right opinion, declared it moderate, and then said you would totally support the Democrats if they would just moderate some.

Quite the opposite. You've repeatedly claimed they are moderate against all the plain evidence, and offered no contradictory evidence apart from what they haven't said.

I don’t know why you don’t just own your own radicalism. Being radical doesn’t have to mean you are wrong but you should at least acknowledge the reality that Americans reject your position overwhelmingly.

Really. Please provide evidence that the American populace overwhelmingly supports late-term abortion.

 

[IronWing]

So which specific damages to a woman's health are you willing to entertain in order to protect a fetus?

Yes I did. I said both candidates cited restricting abortion unless the health of the mother is cited, and that is effectively no restriction.

Again, which specific damages to a woman's health are you willing to entertain in order to accomplish your mission of restricting abortion?

 

[fskimospy]

I said moderation would involve a willingness to restrict late-term abortion, to which 2020 Democrats have expressed clear resistance.

They have not, as you said they basically just say platitudes about the right to choose.

Regardless, you have now repeatedly stated that Roe v. Wade precludes ANY restrictions on abortion, therefore the only way they can be moderate in your eyes is by embracing your radical right wing views on Roe (that it should be overturned). If you consider being on the radical right to be moderate that's your business but don't be surprised when nobody else thinks that way.

This is a really simple A -> B based on your own given criteria. If you're looking for radical anti-choice candidates then the Democratic primary is not for you. It's fine if you think that way but then I don't see why it's necessary to pretend you are just looking for someone moderate.

Quite the opposite. You've repeatedly claimed they are moderate against all the plain evidence, and offered no contradictory evidence apart from what they haven't said.

Yes, they have shown exactly zero interest in removing already present restrictions on late term abortion.

Really. Please provide evidence that the American populace overwhelmingly supports late-term abortion.

Once again, you've said that Roe v. Wade precludes any restrictions on abortion whatsoever. 70% of Americans oppose overturning Roe as per my link. 7 out of 10 is overwhelming opposition in my opinion.

 

[Atreus21]

I used the definition of moderate you supplied, lol.

Your question:

what does ‘moderate on abortion’ mean to you?

My response:

To admit that abortion at some or any stage is not to be allowed.

We've been debating on that basis the whole time, when suddenly you then cite popular opinion for what determines moderate. That's a change of the goalposts.

Furthermore, I can't help but notice. You said this:

When pressed on the matter you then declared that Roe v. Wade prohibits any restrictions on abortion. The logical conclusion from this is that you would only consider a Democrat to be moderate on abortion if they supported overturning Roe v. Wade, which is a radical right wing position.

Whereas earlier you said this:

That’s the position (disallowing abortion at some or any stage-Atreus21) of literally every Democrat running for president to the best of my knowledge.

So if we're going to draw the same logical conclusion from them that you drew from me, you must therefore be saying that (1) since democrats support restrictions on abortion and (2) Roe v. Wade prohibits any such restrictions, then democrats must therefore support overturning Roe v. Wade.

Is that not so?

 

[fskimospy]

Your question:

what does ‘moderate on abortion’ mean to you?

My response:

To admit that abortion at some or any stage is not to be allowed.

We've been debating on that basis the whole time, when suddenly you then cite popular opinion for what determines moderate. That's a change of the goalposts.

That's not what moving the goalposts is.

Regardless, my only question was to ask you what you considered to be moderate, which turned out to be overturning Roe v. Wade. If you think that's moderate that's fine, but you're nuts. It's helpful for my understanding and the understanding of others I imagine to understand that your definition of 'moderate' is very different than everyone else's.

Furthermore, if, I can't help but notice. You said this:

Whereas earlier you said this:

So if we're going to draw the same logical conclusion from them that you drew from me, you must therefore be saying that (1) since democrats support restrictions on abortion and (2) Roe v. Wade prohibits any such restrictions, then democrats must therefore support overturning Roe v. Wade.

Is that not so?

That was my interpretation of your position BEFORE you gave up the game and stated that Roe prohibits ANY restrictions on abortion. That position is utterly insane and it's not a conclusion I would ever expect a rational person to draw so when I wrote what you quoted it didn't even cross my mind that you would feel that way.

Once you explained your position more thoroughly I applied simple logic:

1) To be moderate to you Democrats must accept restrictions on abortion.
2) Roe v. Wade prohibits any restrictions on abortion.
3) Ergo, Democrats must support overturning Roe v. Wade to be 'moderate'.

Pretty simple, using only your own arguments.

 

[Atreus21]

That's not what moving the goalposts is.

Regardless, my only question was to ask you what you considered to be moderate, which turned out to be overturning Roe v. Wade. If you think that's moderate that's fine, but you're nuts. It's helpful for my understanding and the understanding of others I imagine to understand that your definition of 'moderate' is very different than everyone else's.



That was my interpretation of your position BEFORE you gave up the game and stated that Roe prohibits ANY restrictions on abortion. That position is utterly insane and it's not a conclusion I would ever expect a rational person to draw so when I wrote what you quoted it didn't even cross my mind that you would feel that way.

Once you explained your position more thoroughly I applied simple logic:

1) To be moderate to you Democrats must accept restrictions on abortion.
2) Roe v. Wade prohibits any restrictions on abortion.
3) Ergo, Democrats must support overturning Roe v. Wade to be 'moderate'.

Pretty simple, using only your own arguments.

Would any 2020 democrat answer No to the following question:

"A mother is 38 weeks pregnant. The child is healthy, the mother is healthy. Doctors have every expectation of a healthy delivery. The mother wants to abort. Should that be allowed?"

 

[fskimospy]

Would any 2020 democrat answer No to the following question:

"A mother is 38 weeks pregnant. The child is healthy, the mother is healthy. Doctors have every expectation of a healthy delivery. The mother wants to abort. Should that be allowed?"

This was already covered by Paratus and then you declared their answers didn't matter because Roe v. Wade. Ironically, THAT is moving the goalposts, haha.

Klobuchar, for example, said it is important to have limits on third trimester abortions.

Can we revisit your demand that Democrats overturn Roe to be moderate though? Can you explain why you think that's a moderate position?

 

[Atreus21]

This was already covered by Paratus and then you declared their answers didn't matter because Roe v. Wade. Ironically, THAT is moving the goalposts, haha.

Klobuchar, for example, said it is important to have limits on third trimester abortions.

Can we revisit your demand that Democrats overturn Roe to be moderate though? Can you explain why you think that's a moderate position?

Do you think any 2020 democrat would answer no to that question?

 

[fskimospy]

Do you think any 2020 democrat would answer no to that question?

Sure sounds like Amy Klobuchar would, as I already said.

For the second time, can we revisit your demand that Democrats overturn Roe to be moderate? Why do you think that's a moderate position?

 

[Atreus21]

Sure sounds like Amy Klobuchar would, as I already said.

Looks exactly the opposite to me. She said restrictions must be consistent with Roe v. Wade, which necessarily precludes exactly such restrictions.

Anyone else? Is she the only one among the entire 2020 field you think would offer even tepid support for restricting the most egregious examples of late-term abortion?

And you think that lends support to your argument that the 2020 democrats are moderate? 1 out of 10, and that 1 we have to interpret as charitably as possible?

For the second time, can we revisit your demand that Democrats overturn Roe to be moderate? Why do you think that's a moderate position?

Sure: I didn't demand that, nor did I describe it as moderate.