"At the heart of the abortion question is the basic problem of unexpected pregnancies. Both sides could come together and lessen their number, if they were to direct their energies toward that task instead of ratcheting up the rhetoric. Expanding access to contraception is an easy compromise that could lessen the need for abortion. Free, high-quality pre- and postnatal care, combined with expansive economic and social support for parents and children, would make choosing parenthood a less daunting prospect. In high conflict, the nuanced middle flees the debate, leaving only the most extreme voices to shout from their two distant poles. The threats feel existential. And the normal rules of engagement — the ones that allow a society to function — cease to apply. The runaway blaze of high conflict is stoked by what Ripley calls “conflict entrepreneurs”: those who have something to gain from the conflict’s continuing, and who thus help it along rather than seek to tone it down, bundling conflicts together to make them feel worse and more distressing. These people delight in the fight, and in adding fuel to the fire. When not calcified into a state of high alarm, conflict can be positive — it can force us to reckon with our own beliefs and those of our neighbors. Conflict can motivate us to be better people, and compel us to seek solutions that might actually create radical and productive societal change." What is happening looks like an appalling caricatures of civilisation... The only sane option is compromise. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/13/abortion-roe-polarization-high-conflict/
What does sanity have to do with the supreme court decision? I can see why you might believe there is a connection between "sanity" and the abortion law policies, but you do realize that this supreme court decision is, at its core, not really about whether abortion should be legal or not? The actual question they are considering is whether the federal courts should have a right to interfere with state government decisions about this. Is it really actually "insane" (as you put it) for the court to decide "We don't really like the policy on this, but it should not be our decision to decide"? You mean we need a Supreme Court to tell us whether abortion should be illegal or not? That kind of seems insane.
It is unfortunate that the right seems to think of that as a dirty word. What is left when the other side refuses to be an adult and compromise?
Something the Pro-Choice side seems unwilling to do, just as much as the most zealous part of the Pro-Life side. If it was really all about the Supreme Court decision, why did so many states that were already very pro-abortion seem to be passing laws trying to make it easier for women to get abortions including very late into their pregnancies after the viability point?
Show me one state, just one that has placed no restrictions on abortion. We've already compromised, the Right is just plain crazy. Since you can't seem to handle the discussion, I will play both sides of the tennis court, just for you. The House passed a bill designed to piss Republicans off. The Dems want the Rs on the record as voting against abortion. Some Republicans are saying they'd vote for the codification for Roe v Wade. But I don't believe it, both sides are playing politics.
OK City bombing, Jan 6, consorting with Russians, the end of our republican democracy.. After the June decision is handed down, Republicans might vote to turn Roe v Wade into law, and but the only reason would be to avoid a midterm disaster.
The article is talking about escalating polarisation and escalating conflict. It's leading us towards a dark and violent place. Abortion is just the latest example.
In my mind, sanity would be having alternative solutions in place when/if abortion is outlawed. Providing better pre/post natal care for those who were aborting for economic reasons. For that matter, addressing childcare and school programs as well. In other words, if you want more children born then you need to make sure those children can be afforded and cared for properly.
Which doesn't necessarily have to do with this Supreme Court case, does it? Unless you mean that compromise will lead to more polarization, so we should all agree to one side.
Probably in combination with abstinence classes and free birth control devices for all. Maybe try to increase the marriage rate as well so that when women have pregnancies it will be easier to keep them. Off topic but if women have children sooner, it also means they can get their tubes tied sooner, and then no need for abortions.
Oh, my, it most certainly does. Republicans in Congress are quietly panicking over this. They know what will happen if they piss off every soccer mom in the country. You see, while they are trying to kill democracy, they very much don't want voters to know about it..
Women in 80% of the country have no reason to worry about any change in abortion access anytime soon, even if the Roe v Wade decision disappeared completely (which it won't). The majority of the most populated states (California, New York, etc) are pretty much all very pro-abortion. Maybe all those women who moved out of New York and California to other cheaper conservative states are afraid they might have to move back?
We absolutely need better sex education in high schools, and availability of free birth control would also make a huge difference. As for marriage rates and earlier pregnancies, I think that leans into the violation of rights...so tricky.
By that I hope you don't mean teaching everyone to become a transgender. Maybe you think teaching girls to enjoy "back end sex" or experiment with Lesbianism in college is a pregnancy reduction strategy?
Because we are discussing pregnancy, I meant sexual education that would effectively inform students about how pregnancy occurs and the effective and safe methods available to prevent them. But I guess any opportunity to throw the social issue of the day and teacher grooming into the subject works for you.
Preaching abstinence has always been a failure...NORMAL humans have sex. You can't FORCE people to not have sex. And BC is NOT obligatory. Now you want to FORCE women to marry.... Do you believe in using FORCE on women is the answer to all your needs? So now you want to FORCE women to have children sooner?
There is a great moment in The Expanse. Things are so bad the human race is a few years from starving themselves into extinction. A scientist had sent the recipe to Earth for this new variety of soybean that could feed millions more people. There was a war, so when security found out about it, they talked to him. He confessed, but in the language of a biologist. They had no idea what he was talking about, and let him go with a warning. What he was saying is that resistance is inevitable, and transformative. Come June, things start to change.
That seems very ideologically stubborn. I didn't say it was all of the solution. It is one factor. Why does it offend you so much to suggest that maybe people should have less sex?
No, that's the righties moronic level of sex education...... Oh, and they also say a woman should an aspirin between her knees because they deny science and facts ..
Is that what this is all about. Women having abortions all about timing. Not to reduce the number of babies born, but simply to adjust for her time tables? Wife with husband gets pregnant and tells her husband she'd prefer to wait 4 years before she has a baby, so it's better for her to abort now. Talk about lack of sanity...
You would like to think - but nope. The United States ranks first among developed nations in rates of teenage pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted infections and diseases. Only 38 of America’s 50 states have sex education laws, and 30 of those curricula promote the ideal of abstinence until marriage. Only eight include all components of a comprehensive sex education. https://scholars.org/contribution/why-sex-education-united-states-needs-update-and-how-do-it
So what, they don't need every last one of those "components". Do one of those include Abortion, because that could explain something. The statistics are not as bad if you adjust for race. Consider that South Africa is also a country with progressive sex education but a high pregnancy rate. Maybe the winter cold in European countries and Canada does something to reduce the pregnancy rate. Big question: Can you tell us if the pregnancy rate is actually lower in a state like California that has lots of sex education?