Not true. If we could somehow pass a law that guaranteed a woman’s right to abortion up to the point of fetal viability, and allowed abortion until birth to protect the mother’s life, I’d be satisfied. So that’s one person, anyway.
Bonus points if it shuts the debate down for good.
I think the first rule of enlightened centrism when talking about left verse right is…a pox on both your houses. 
Both sides are equally bad is, I think, the 3rd rule when discussing left verse right wrt heinous shit they have done in the past. The 2nd rule is…PROFIT!
We never can get that right, sadly…
Yeah, I am a middle-grounder myself. If you look at polling, most people are ok with abortion in some cases and opposed in others.
As a policy issue, Roe v Wade is probably about where many people want the line to be drawn. Abortions allowed for a while, then not, unless there’s a really good reason.
Part of the reason it appears that there’s no middle ground is that politicians and activists are free to take hardline stances and know that they won’t actually come to pass and they can blame the court. I don’t know exactly what will happen if Roe gets repealed, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it ends up somewhere kind of like the status quo.
The fighting definitely won’t end, though.
Yeah, I agree. Personally, I hope we don’t have to find out, but my WAG is that it will basically end up where we are anyway, by and large, with perhaps some outlying states being more radical one way or the other (generally, anti-abortion though wrt extremes).
Myself, I’d definitely be opposed to any sort of ban on abortions, and I’d probably draw the line at post-birth wrt allowing the mother to choose, but I can see why there are various different lines others see or are hinked out about if those lines are crossed.
This is what the constitution currently protects. You are suggesting codifying Roe and Casey into federal law.
Yeah, that’s sort of the opposite of what these cases did.
Hey, I wasn’t saying it was the ideal solution. 
@bump said no one would be satisfied with a compromise in the middle, and I was just proving that statement untrue.
Are you saying Roe isn’t somewhere in the middle, but instead the extreme pro-choice position?
No it’s not.
It’s entirely possible to think that killing an eight-and-three-quarters month fetus for reasons other than saving the life of the mother is murder; but that killing a zygote, or an embryo, or an early-stage fetus is not.
If that were true, we wouldn’t have anybody defending Roe v Wade; which comes down somewhere in the middle.
Not true; because many of them want to allow it for rape and incest.
Not true; because many of them want restrictions in the last trimester.
And also not true for both groups overall, because a lot of individual people hold a lot of positions of various degrees of ambivalence.
I can pretty much guarantee that’s not going to happen. Even if you just mean in this thread.
ugh, quoted wrong
Can’t a guy dream on a Friday afternoon?
No, I think Roe is a reasonable compromise. The problem is the extremism of the various positions.
I, for one, think it’s distasteful to call abortion a “choice.” It’s the sad culmination of some unfortunate circumstances. Many women mourn their loss.
I’m also willing to accept (and in fact I agree) that life begins at conception. It’s not intelligent life, but it is the beginning of what will one day be a human.
But the solution to the sad reality of abortion isn’t prohibition. It will sometimes be medically necessary. And there are intelligent and proactive measures that can be taken to reduce its incidence. Comprehensive sex education and ready access to free birth control, for example. Moreover, even if life begins at conception, conception doesn’t begin at intercourse - there’s a 24 to 72 hour window before the sperm merged with the egg and implants in the uterus. So the “morning after” pill isn’t an abortion pill, in that it prevents conception. If it were me, I’d be giving them out over the counter; and possibly free.
And, for those who - despite these efforts - still needs an abortion, of course you ensure that it can be obtained safely and in the best of medical circumstances as possible.
There’s a way to be anti abortion, pro life, and still opposition abortion prohibition.
Of course, I think the court has already settled this issue, and this current case should be an easy invocation of precedent.
Here’s a pretty good article that claims, with support, that abortion will become illegal in 26 States if Roe is overturned.
If so, that would be stunning. Pregnancy by its nature inherently places tremendous burdens on a woman’s body. That is just medical fact.
Pregnancy with twins came very very close to killing my spouse. I very much hope that the above is not an argument that gets made, because it would be transparently false and specious to the point of being insulting to anyone who has been harmed, or had a loved one harmed, by pregnancy, or who has had to terminate a pregnancy because it’s too dangerous for her.
For what it’s worth, I think it prevents implantation, not conception.
There’s actually lots of middle ground - there are all sorts of ways abortion could be illegal , and even some form of homicide but not murder. But eschrodinger is correct- most people who claim to believe it’s murder don’t really believe it’s murder, not based on their actions. And I don’t just mean that they are careful to condemn and disassociate themselves from violence against clinics and doctors , or that they only seem to be concerned with the fetus before it’s born or that they always say don’t want to arrest the pregnant woman , but only the others involved - I mean on a personal level, most people in American society do not treat a fetus as a baby in any way and anti-abortion folks are not excluded from this. People who have not experienced a pregnancy loss or been close to someone who has do not typically treat a miscarriage or stillbirth the same way the treat the death of a one year old.
I probably should have read her specific words instead of a second hand reference. In fairness to Justice Barrett, she does seem to draw a distinction between pregnancy (although I don’t fully know how to parse her vaccine reference) and parenthood.
She seems to be of the mind that a person who doesn’t want to have a child can give them up for adoption (even anonymously), meaning that they have an alternative to aborting an unwanted baby.
In which case they shouldn’t need to hear it at all, surely?
Indeed. And yet, in almost any discussion of the subject, somebody shows up calling pregnancy an “inconvenience”.
OK. I agree with this.
Plus, even though I was sure that few people would tell a pollster that abortion was murder, now that I actually check, it looks like I was wrong. The question seems to be rarely asked in recent decades, but, when it was, most Americans who think abortion is morally wrong also will say it is murder.
Still, the middle ground also has a lot of support:
Majority in U.S. Still Want Abortion Legal, With Limits
Per the link above, in 44 years of polling, no more than 33 percent support was ever found for “abortion under any circumstances.”
I think you are pro-choice if the only circumstance for illegality is third trimester. But if the circumstance has to do with whether the woman fails to come up with a convincing socially approved reason, I might say the opposite.
Of note with regard to the current Supreme Court case:
AP-NORC Poll: Most Say Restrict Abortion After 1st Trimester
What you said was:
Which reads to me that both are equally at fault. Maybe that’s not what you meant, but it’s hard to come away from a straight reading of that that does not give that impression.
The anti-abortion is pretty one dimensional, I’ll agree. I don’t agree that the pro-choice side is nearly as much. There are people who are pro-choice that still have a cut-off at a certain point in pregnancy that they no longer support it that varies from person to person, and there are some who support abortion all the way to delivery. Pro-choice people also want the mother to be able to make a choice that is free from worries about being able to afford to raise the child, not to mention the costs of pre-natal care and delivery.
Many of us are pro-choice, but still personally don’t support abortion. Pro-choice also means having access to the tools and resources to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Well, yes, they are fairly exclusive. You can’t really have both.
That’s more or less the definition of a compromise.
I don’t know that you do. How do you reconcile any time when two groups want mutually exclusive things? You just see which side has more support, in the end.
And this is where I would have to disagree. Most of the things that the Democrats work for are actually supported by the majority of Americans. Your claim is that the Democrats are pandering to their fringes, and I really don’t see that. I see the Democrats trying to pass legislation that is widely popular among the entire party, as well as a significant part of the opposing party.
The ideological mainstream of the Democratic party is slightly to the left of center. In any other industrialized country, it would be a good distance to the right.
The problem comes down to a combination of choice as to where you get your news, and the algorithms that social media uses to show you what it thinks will engage you. What you see amplified are the most controversial of positions, on both sides. However, only on the right is that fringe actually listened to seriously in the setting of policy. On the left, a much more pragmatic approach is taken, where the far left isn’t exactly not given a seat at the table, but they certainly aren’t the ones giving the orders.
The status quo would be that abortion is legal in all states up to the point of viability of the fetus.
Many states are changing the status quo right now, which is what is triggering these court challenges.
So, I don’t see how the status quo stays the same.
And I am sure that the anti-abortion crowd will not be happy with just having Roe overturned and being allowed to restrict abortion in their states, they will immediately start working towards a national ban. I don’t know how well that will go, but given the rights pandering to their fringe, and the right’s ability to ignore the actual desires of the people they represent and yet still retain power, I am concerned that they will get such legislation passed.
No… the Democrats are still the good guys lately, but they’re not exactly aiming for the center either; they’re being led around by the progressives more than a lot of the centrists and swing voters probably prefer. I mean, Biden is a good example. He was elected to be “Not Trump”, and instead he’s taking that to mean that he should be FDR 2.0. I have a feeling that’s going to backfire on the Democratic party hard in 2022 and 2024, but I hope to God I’m wrong about that.
And the less said about the Republican craziness, the better.