Thank you for this post and your conversation with Robin Marty. One of the really important things she said, that needs to be said over and over and over, is that "6 weeks" of pregnancy - the point at which 6-week abortion bans take effect - is really just 2 weeks after the earliest a person might find out they are pregnant. I wish that journalists talking about reproductive health care and rights would more often clarify that "6 weeks" is really just 2 weeks - at most!
Another area where people really need better information, and where I bet you could help, Dr. Jetelina (and/or you might know other epidemiologists who could), is about 2nd trimester abortions (and even the very rare 3rd trimester ones). Information about numbers of 2nd trimester abortions and the reasons for having an abortion then rather than earlier needs to be widely shared and clarified. Due to a lack of information, (and plenty of other factors), people have misconceptions that lead them to say things like that they support restrictions on "late-term" abortion, or on abortion past the 1st trimester. How many 2nd trimester or later abortions are happening because people couldn't get access earlier? What were the barriers to access? How many are due to medical reasons that weren't known until the 2nd trimester?
I was also really glad to hear her remind us that in addition to all the other reasons it is a problem for people who need an abortion to need to travel long distances to get that care, that there is also the increased risk of covid to consider if someone has to travel!
The people who base their opposition to abortion on biblical authority resort to the injunction to "be fruitful and multiply,." But how's that working out for us...all that multiplying? Diminishing resources. A wrecked ecosystem, massive species extinctions. Poisoned atmosphere, oceans, and soils. And now that injunction is leading to half the population being reduced to chattels and the nation riven into two warring camps. Perhaps those people should rethink this issue at a level deeper than they have up to now...
Basically, the idea is that the current birth rate of our existing population will lead to a smaller population, such that we won’t have enough young people to work and earn enough support the old people in the style they presently enjoy.
Yes, that's an issue all over global North, declining birth rates. India is an outlier. But global south isn't facing that problem and lots of their people want to move north. Can't we accept increased immigration to offset lost tax revenues, etc? I believe the pro-life community is in favor of adoption-. Isn't bringing in more immigrants a similar mechanism? Besides, that MIT economist, fifty years ago was predicting we would eventually have to accept declines in our standard of living. Maybe it's time to sit down at that banquet of consequences
Absolutely. I suspect that most people who object to illegal immigration don't object to legal immigration. Adoption is a good comparison. It's like legal immigration on a case by case basis. But it's not a good comparison with illegal immigration.
Our apparent inability to enforce the distinction between legal and illegal immigration on a programatic basis means we can't have a coherent national policy about immigration. Or rather, we have one, but it's not being enforced.
There are times, though, that I think that the people who risk their lives to sneak into the country are actually the kind of people we want...
It's a dystopian political system that results in extreme outcomes like this. Most countries in Europe allow for reasonable compromises because they run on multi party governance. A bipolar system only allows for extremes, particularly when rural (conservative) electorates hold a disproportionate amount of power. We figured that out in NZ 30y ago and changed to proportional representation. The USA is long overdue for such change.
Sorry Katelyn, but these suggestions are just bandaids. To begin with, there are more women in the U.S. than men. If women want to have rights, I suggest they vote out the politicians advocating laws that take away their rights. On the other hand, men also have a stake in this, as they will end of paying "child support". The bottom is that we cannot change the minds of extremists - we need to vote them out of office.
You are right that voting is vital to dozing this. However Dr. Jetelina is not wrong that those of us who can help in the ways she shared, or others like it should. She wasn't saying those were solutions, she said they were ways to help. Real women need access to care and help with that access while we are remedying this atrocity
It is an issue of choice, but even more fundamentally it is an issue of sovereignty. At issue is whether any official whether high or petty, any magistrate, legislature or agent of the state may dictate to any person the disposition of that person's body and usurp that person's will and sovereignty thereof. We say no. We cannot, under our system of ordered liberty, allow such a tyranny to establish itself and this is a banner under which both conservatives and liberals may jointly rally.
I'm sorry, it appears autocorrect changed your response from "advocating for the choice to control your own body". You have to watch tech, sometimes it gets squirrely on you.
Are you advocating that a person should be forced to give birth to a baby that can’t survive outside of the womb? Are you advocating that people die slow painful deaths from ectopic complications? Do you think people would go through the hell of pregnancy and just *decide* in the 7th or 8th month - nah being a parent isn’t for me?
If it was about limiting abortion, you all would want to regulate MEN (people don’t miraculously conceive on their own). If it was pro life, you would support people having paid leave, access to free formula, free prenatal care, free hospital care etc.
It is about forcing your beliefs on someone else. If you don’t believe abortion is moral, don’t get one.
Did I say I am against paid leave, access to free formula, free prenatal care, medical care, etc? Did I say I don't recommend surgery for ectopic pregnancies, etc? Please don't judge. We aren't all the same.
Then what, exactly, is your position? You seem to be pretty canny about not revealing it and changing the subject to "late term abortions," even though what's really happening is a complete ban on ALL abortions, including entopic pregnancies.
So: do you support the kinds of laws we have here in Missouri, which not only ban ALL abortions under ALL circumstances but also make it illegal for pregnant women to leave the state for someplace less insane? If not, what IS your position?
I too noticed a lawyerly hedging in Mx Dolle's statement. If you live in lovely Missouri, the state legislature does seem to be recapitulating the worst of the pre-Civil War legislation that created interstate legal conflicts that presaged the larger conflict that followed. Interested people should read about the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the problems it created when state sovereignties were put in conflict. We here on the west coast have already started laws to guarantee our state officials do not assist in whatever punitive arrangements other states may enact. Again, similar measures were enacted in northern states pre-Civil War. Plus ça change...
IMO "lawyerly hedging" is the most polite way possible to describe that. :-) And, yes, when the right wing talks about wanting to go back to the '50s, we need to bear in mind that they're thinking of the 1850s. Conflicting state sovereignties is fine with them as it replicates the "governance" model of the CSA, which they are actively working to establish.
One does wonder who really won that conflict... Were it not for the Senate, I'd say it was the North. LBJ wasn't joking when he ssid his party had lost the South for a generation, but he woefully underestimated how long that region would remain in the hands of the revanchists.
BTW it is usually a mistake to try and have a reasonable discussion about abortion on the internet. Don’t respond to these people - you aren’t going to change any minds. They know what they want to think you think, and what you actually think will be disregarded or lost down the rabbit hole.
I hear frustrations and it's experienced on both sides. We are all trying to do the best we can, and it's my belief that both "sides" of this issue can marshal strong moral arguments. As I said in my first response to Dolle, if we are ever to live in harmony together we must not demonize the other side and both sides must voluntarily drop force and coercion to have things arranged to their liking.
Thanks for the kind words Lisa. I think everyone who frequents YLE are interested in public health to some degree. As such we aren't at all invested in hoping some are healthy and others are not; we want safety and good health for all. In this sense such an aspiration is a universal solvent for political partisanship, right/left divides and all the bifurcations that plague our society. Indeed one might say that such partisanship is itself a public health crisis!
I don’t think human beings can live in harmony - generally, we can’t, and rarely have outside small groups.
The real question is how to minimize disharmony. One way to do this is to rigorously observe the principle of subsidiarity. https://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-6-number-4/principle-subsidiarity . This principle was built into the Constitution in the form of federalism (pejorative description is “states rights”), but has been eroded over the past century by the progressive movement which has with a great deal of success nationalized much of our political environment.
Whatever else one may think about Dobbs, it is a move in the direction of restoring the original Constitutional order, but it may be too late to help.
Well, I disagree entirely on the harmony pessimism, though our track record is not too great,. I subscribe to Allxelrod's theory of the evolution of cooperation. Incrementally there is a greater payout for harmony, but it is a very small delta so civilization is developing at a snail's pace. As to subsidiarity and the Constitution. You seem to know your history: Have you read Jefferson's letter to Kercheval? It has that wonderful clarity of that era. Please read it if you find time! [edited for spelling errors and Axelrod's name]
Could be a troll, though I don’t read it that way. Dr Jetelina has chosen to engage this issue, and she might chose to respond. The responses from other people are not germane.
Well one can't reasonably expect Dr. Jetelina to respond to every comment or challenge. Yours and Dolle's posts remain unresponsive, despite some people's willingness not to dismiss you out of hand. So perhaps Stephen is right.
Nor are we. If we're ever to live together in harmony, we have to see that everyone struggles under the burden of trying to do the right thing, and that the greatest burden is when two differing visions of the good collide. Harmony at its foundation lies in dropping coercion and force in dealing with others.
Thank you. You're on the side of the angels.
Thank you for this post and your conversation with Robin Marty. One of the really important things she said, that needs to be said over and over and over, is that "6 weeks" of pregnancy - the point at which 6-week abortion bans take effect - is really just 2 weeks after the earliest a person might find out they are pregnant. I wish that journalists talking about reproductive health care and rights would more often clarify that "6 weeks" is really just 2 weeks - at most!
Another area where people really need better information, and where I bet you could help, Dr. Jetelina (and/or you might know other epidemiologists who could), is about 2nd trimester abortions (and even the very rare 3rd trimester ones). Information about numbers of 2nd trimester abortions and the reasons for having an abortion then rather than earlier needs to be widely shared and clarified. Due to a lack of information, (and plenty of other factors), people have misconceptions that lead them to say things like that they support restrictions on "late-term" abortion, or on abortion past the 1st trimester. How many 2nd trimester or later abortions are happening because people couldn't get access earlier? What were the barriers to access? How many are due to medical reasons that weren't known until the 2nd trimester?
I was also really glad to hear her remind us that in addition to all the other reasons it is a problem for people who need an abortion to need to travel long distances to get that care, that there is also the increased risk of covid to consider if someone has to travel!
The people who base their opposition to abortion on biblical authority resort to the injunction to "be fruitful and multiply,." But how's that working out for us...all that multiplying? Diminishing resources. A wrecked ecosystem, massive species extinctions. Poisoned atmosphere, oceans, and soils. And now that injunction is leading to half the population being reduced to chattels and the nation riven into two warring camps. Perhaps those people should rethink this issue at a level deeper than they have up to now...
Actually, the economics say that our current birth rate cannot support our society.
Not support in what way? Not arguing your observation , but interested in your data.
Basically, the idea is that the current birth rate of our existing population will lead to a smaller population, such that we won’t have enough young people to work and earn enough support the old people in the style they presently enjoy.
Yes, that's an issue all over global North, declining birth rates. India is an outlier. But global south isn't facing that problem and lots of their people want to move north. Can't we accept increased immigration to offset lost tax revenues, etc? I believe the pro-life community is in favor of adoption-. Isn't bringing in more immigrants a similar mechanism? Besides, that MIT economist, fifty years ago was predicting we would eventually have to accept declines in our standard of living. Maybe it's time to sit down at that banquet of consequences
Absolutely. I suspect that most people who object to illegal immigration don't object to legal immigration. Adoption is a good comparison. It's like legal immigration on a case by case basis. But it's not a good comparison with illegal immigration.
Our apparent inability to enforce the distinction between legal and illegal immigration on a programatic basis means we can't have a coherent national policy about immigration. Or rather, we have one, but it's not being enforced.
There are times, though, that I think that the people who risk their lives to sneak into the country are actually the kind of people we want...
It's a dystopian political system that results in extreme outcomes like this. Most countries in Europe allow for reasonable compromises because they run on multi party governance. A bipolar system only allows for extremes, particularly when rural (conservative) electorates hold a disproportionate amount of power. We figured that out in NZ 30y ago and changed to proportional representation. The USA is long overdue for such change.
Sorry Katelyn, but these suggestions are just bandaids. To begin with, there are more women in the U.S. than men. If women want to have rights, I suggest they vote out the politicians advocating laws that take away their rights. On the other hand, men also have a stake in this, as they will end of paying "child support". The bottom is that we cannot change the minds of extremists - we need to vote them out of office.
You are right that voting is vital to dozing this. However Dr. Jetelina is not wrong that those of us who can help in the ways she shared, or others like it should. She wasn't saying those were solutions, she said they were ways to help. Real women need access to care and help with that access while we are remedying this atrocity
It is an issue of choice, but even more fundamentally it is an issue of sovereignty. At issue is whether any official whether high or petty, any magistrate, legislature or agent of the state may dictate to any person the disposition of that person's body and usurp that person's will and sovereignty thereof. We say no. We cannot, under our system of ordered liberty, allow such a tyranny to establish itself and this is a banner under which both conservatives and liberals may jointly rally.
It seems that you are advocating for late term abortions. Is that the case?
I'm sorry, it appears autocorrect changed your response from "advocating for the choice to control your own body". You have to watch tech, sometimes it gets squirrely on you.
Um no, my comment went through appropriately.
Are you advocating that a person should be forced to give birth to a baby that can’t survive outside of the womb? Are you advocating that people die slow painful deaths from ectopic complications? Do you think people would go through the hell of pregnancy and just *decide* in the 7th or 8th month - nah being a parent isn’t for me?
If it was about limiting abortion, you all would want to regulate MEN (people don’t miraculously conceive on their own). If it was pro life, you would support people having paid leave, access to free formula, free prenatal care, free hospital care etc.
It is about forcing your beliefs on someone else. If you don’t believe abortion is moral, don’t get one.
Did I say I am against paid leave, access to free formula, free prenatal care, medical care, etc? Did I say I don't recommend surgery for ectopic pregnancies, etc? Please don't judge. We aren't all the same.
Then what, exactly, is your position? You seem to be pretty canny about not revealing it and changing the subject to "late term abortions," even though what's really happening is a complete ban on ALL abortions, including entopic pregnancies.
So: do you support the kinds of laws we have here in Missouri, which not only ban ALL abortions under ALL circumstances but also make it illegal for pregnant women to leave the state for someplace less insane? If not, what IS your position?
I too noticed a lawyerly hedging in Mx Dolle's statement. If you live in lovely Missouri, the state legislature does seem to be recapitulating the worst of the pre-Civil War legislation that created interstate legal conflicts that presaged the larger conflict that followed. Interested people should read about the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the problems it created when state sovereignties were put in conflict. We here on the west coast have already started laws to guarantee our state officials do not assist in whatever punitive arrangements other states may enact. Again, similar measures were enacted in northern states pre-Civil War. Plus ça change...
IMO "lawyerly hedging" is the most polite way possible to describe that. :-) And, yes, when the right wing talks about wanting to go back to the '50s, we need to bear in mind that they're thinking of the 1850s. Conflicting state sovereignties is fine with them as it replicates the "governance" model of the CSA, which they are actively working to establish.
One does wonder who really won that conflict... Were it not for the Senate, I'd say it was the North. LBJ wasn't joking when he ssid his party had lost the South for a generation, but he woefully underestimated how long that region would remain in the hands of the revanchists.
BTW it is usually a mistake to try and have a reasonable discussion about abortion on the internet. Don’t respond to these people - you aren’t going to change any minds. They know what they want to think you think, and what you actually think will be disregarded or lost down the rabbit hole.
I hear frustrations and it's experienced on both sides. We are all trying to do the best we can, and it's my belief that both "sides" of this issue can marshal strong moral arguments. As I said in my first response to Dolle, if we are ever to live in harmony together we must not demonize the other side and both sides must voluntarily drop force and coercion to have things arranged to their liking.
Well said Michael.
Thanks for the kind words Lisa. I think everyone who frequents YLE are interested in public health to some degree. As such we aren't at all invested in hoping some are healthy and others are not; we want safety and good health for all. In this sense such an aspiration is a universal solvent for political partisanship, right/left divides and all the bifurcations that plague our society. Indeed one might say that such partisanship is itself a public health crisis!
I don’t think human beings can live in harmony - generally, we can’t, and rarely have outside small groups.
The real question is how to minimize disharmony. One way to do this is to rigorously observe the principle of subsidiarity. https://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-6-number-4/principle-subsidiarity . This principle was built into the Constitution in the form of federalism (pejorative description is “states rights”), but has been eroded over the past century by the progressive movement which has with a great deal of success nationalized much of our political environment.
Whatever else one may think about Dobbs, it is a move in the direction of restoring the original Constitutional order, but it may be too late to help.
Well, I disagree entirely on the harmony pessimism, though our track record is not too great,. I subscribe to Allxelrod's theory of the evolution of cooperation. Incrementally there is a greater payout for harmony, but it is a very small delta so civilization is developing at a snail's pace. As to subsidiarity and the Constitution. You seem to know your history: Have you read Jefferson's letter to Kercheval? It has that wonderful clarity of that era. Please read it if you find time! [edited for spelling errors and Axelrod's name]
That is why I haven’t responded. Neither of us will sway the other.
Your question was reasonable. This is shown by the predictably unresponsive reactions you are getting.
No, the question was clearly a troll, as shown by the refusal to respond to reasonable questions in response.
Could be a troll, though I don’t read it that way. Dr Jetelina has chosen to engage this issue, and she might chose to respond. The responses from other people are not germane.
Well one can't reasonably expect Dr. Jetelina to respond to every comment or challenge. Yours and Dolle's posts remain unresponsive, despite some people's willingness not to dismiss you out of hand. So perhaps Stephen is right.
Nor are we. If we're ever to live together in harmony, we have to see that everyone struggles under the burden of trying to do the right thing, and that the greatest burden is when two differing visions of the good collide. Harmony at its foundation lies in dropping coercion and force in dealing with others.