I re-read it. What I’m wondering about is the ‘yes’ in response to ‘sensible regulations’. Is it ‘yes’ because it’s a compromise between no abortion and no regulation at all, even though women are being hurt every day by these sensible regulations? Or is there some other reason?
I was using the Abortion issue as a way to demonstrate how moderates tend to think on subjects. Instead of the absolute/passionate position that extremes take, moderates think through what is being presented and whether it is reasonable, practical and makes sense. So to parse out that paragraph:
...the answer may not be so black and white. Should women have the choice to have an abortion. Yes. Can the government ban late term abortions? Sure.
--These were two items that are stipulated within Roe.
What about at 15 or 20 weeks? Maybe. Some sensible regulations? Yes. Is requiring abortion providers to have operating privileges at a hospital a sensible regulation? uh... (beats me).
--''Sensible regulations" have also have been a part of this issue since Roe as well. Regulations on protecting the life and health of the mother along with fetal health after viability, subject to the mother's health--Harry Blackmun wrote it in the original Roe Opinion!. But states began being more forceful and proactive as to what that meant which led to Casey's "undue burden" standard, which was helpful but still clear as mud as to what a "sensible regulation" was. Main thing here though is that there are varying degrees--an entire spectrum-- as to what that means, and moderates are not as monolithic as "pro choice=good/ pro-life= bad" as you seem to be.
Like I said, I just wrote that paragraph to demonstrate moderate logic, I didn't even note anything about what I personally think of the issue itself. And for some reason you seem to want to pick a fight with me on something you don't even know.
But if you want to read more about the topic, and compromises that have occured on it since Roe. here's a post from a month ago.
You misread what was written. Please read it again.
I re-read it. What I’m wondering about is the ‘yes’ in response to ‘sensible regulations’. Is it ‘yes’ because it’s a compromise between no abortion and no regulation at all, even though women are being hurt every day by these sensible regulations? Or is there some other reason?
I was using the Abortion issue as a way to demonstrate how moderates tend to think on subjects. Instead of the absolute/passionate position that extremes take, moderates think through what is being presented and whether it is reasonable, practical and makes sense. So to parse out that paragraph:
...the answer may not be so black and white. Should women have the choice to have an abortion. Yes. Can the government ban late term abortions? Sure.
--These were two items that are stipulated within Roe.
What about at 15 or 20 weeks? Maybe. Some sensible regulations? Yes. Is requiring abortion providers to have operating privileges at a hospital a sensible regulation? uh... (beats me).
--''Sensible regulations" have also have been a part of this issue since Roe as well. Regulations on protecting the life and health of the mother along with fetal health after viability, subject to the mother's health--Harry Blackmun wrote it in the original Roe Opinion!. But states began being more forceful and proactive as to what that meant which led to Casey's "undue burden" standard, which was helpful but still clear as mud as to what a "sensible regulation" was. Main thing here though is that there are varying degrees--an entire spectrum-- as to what that means, and moderates are not as monolithic as "pro choice=good/ pro-life= bad" as you seem to be.
Like I said, I just wrote that paragraph to demonstrate moderate logic, I didn't even note anything about what I personally think of the issue itself. And for some reason you seem to want to pick a fight with me on something you don't even know.
But if you want to read more about the topic, and compromises that have occured on it since Roe. here's a post from a month ago.
https://purpleusa.substack.com/p/the-coming-electoral-tsunami-on-abortion
Enjoy.