Just passing through for a the ol’ joint and reproductive healthcare twofer!

To accentuate the argument, relying on science here is not a good idea because concepts like “viability” will very likely change with technological advancement. In 100 years, it could be perfectly possible for a fertilized egg to grow into a baby outside a mother’s womb. Eggs or sperm could be genetically modified to correct for disorders and syndromes. What would viability really mean in this scientific context?

This argument tormented one of the SCOTUS justices on the original Roe vs. Wade decision.

Well i still find it much worse deciding based on feelings than lets say based on level of cognition or consciousness of fetus by properly defined and tested rules.

Then you have endless infighting because today people feels one way and tomorrow the other way.

You’d need to significantly increase overall education (both among voters ans legislators) on how science works to make the latter feasible.

Scientists are human. Scientists have opinions. Scientists require funding. Scientists disagree.

Simple example: The heliocentric model didn’t become accepted knowledge because the “earth is the center of the universe” crowd (who *were? scientists) was convinced by scientific argument - they weren’t. It did when they died.

Science holds a lot of high-likelihood facts. This is what we call the “generally accepted body of knowledge”. We know that the earth is round. We can predict gravity in most circumstances. And yes, we know that anthromorphic climate change is real.

But there’s also a lot of “game-changing” studies/experiments out there that are still to be debunked without ever making it into said body of accepted knowledge. This is normal, it is how science works.

Yet it also means that for virtually any hair-brained opinion that is not already strongly refuted by said body of knowledge (flat earth, for example, is refuted), you can find some not yet debunked science to support it.

Separating the wheat from the chaff here requires insight into the scientific process (and it’s assorted politics and market mechanisms) most people (and voters) don’t have.

And no, just telling people whether a fact is broadly accepted in the scientific community or fringe science doesn’t work. We tried that with the topic of anthromorphic climate change.

I’ve always said that the best way to reduce abortion would be to treat the reasons behind why women get abortions.

Suppose some women get abortions as a form of birth control (as the right likes to claim). You might be able to reduce this with better sex education and better access to birth control. If abortion happens due to rape or incest, figure out programs to reduce the incidence of these. (I’ll admit that I’m not knowledgeable enough to come up with specific proposals, but I’m sure people who know more than I do could come up with something.)

Nothing is going to be 100% effective, though. Abortion would need to be available for the cases that slip through. This would reduce how many abortions are performed by supporting women more instead of by banning them and putting women’s lives in danger.

But do they have a vagina? I’ll need photos for reference.

Could be a lady, sometimes those hysters gotta be ectomied.