Ranked Vote: How Should the Law Handle Abortion?

Clearly in an ideal world we would just all agree with one another 100% and 100% of the time as you said.
But such isn't the case, and we need some civil system for settling differences of opinion.

Democratic systems are good for this in general, though if we're specifically comparing Ranked Systems (like Ranked Pairs or Instant Runoff) to Plurality systems, I'd say that the Ranked Systems are superior, and more likely to lead to results with broad support even if the support falls short of unanimity, in contrast to Plurality which is only ever going to be able to please about half the country (if even that much) at a time, especially as citizens become more polarized through the years (a phenomenon which coincidentally I blame, at least in part, on Plurality voting).

Also, it should be noted that Ranked Voting can in fact give us multiple answers to issues if we ever really need it to. An instant Runoff for example can be run multiple times on the same ballots to do it. Whereas the sorted nature of something like Ranked Pairs means that we can get our multiple results in just one go through. We'd simple go down the list after that from top to bottom and pick however many options we needed. In addition, there's actually a specific type of Ranked Voting, Single Transferable Vote, which is specifically set up to fill a set number of multi-member congressional seats (its probably the most complicated method, but also leads to the most representative results).

Not sure what you're asking here, but it looks interesting. Can you explain?

-Meta

 

What's weird about the thread?

Wait, didn't you already ask that in the discussion thread?
And didn't I already answer it there?... Well, I guess it doesn't hurt to explain it here too...

There are two main goals of this thread and the associated discussion:

a) To try and get people to start using better arguments for justifying their positions regarding abortion. As mentioned before, a lot of the arguments that tend to get made on this subject are not very good. "Abortion should be outlawed starting at week 0 because that's when life begins", "abortion should be allowed at anytime before birth because a woman's interests are the only ones that matter", "abortion should be allowed only up to week 24 because that's what the law says",... these are not good arguments when speaking of what we want the law to be... They are flawed, and based on a foundation of logically fallacious reasoning. If this thread can get folks off of using those types of arguments and onto using more sound justifications, then this thread has certainly done some good just by that.

b) The second goal here is to identify for us all a good logically-based consensus position. Personally I think that the observation of mental life and or the point at which pain perception becomes possible are good standards to use. But we will see what others think during the vote.
​

And on the overall status of the debate more broadly, again, I think its hard to say that the debate has really been adequately resolved when there is still such wide-spread and passionate disagreement over the matter, not to mention a number of state governments who regularly attempt to find ways to surreptitiously skirt around the current rules.

Basically, even if we have laws regarding the matter, if its still significant enough of an issue to divide us so and contribute to the discord, then I think its still an issue worth talking about and attempting to come to consensus on... even if in the end, that consensus isn't much different from the laws we currently have. Regardless of whether laws are changed, I want that when people talk about the issue, that they discuss it in terms that make more sense/using better arguments than they do now...

....because part of the divide is due to those highly flawed arguments being used on either side. When one tries to justify their view using what to someone on the opposite end of the spectrum is a clearly flawed argument, that doesn't change anyone's mind or help to foster understanding, it merely cements them further into their current position, even if their original justification for being in that position is likewise just as flawed as the first person's...

...and eventually these mutually bad arguments lead to everyone viewing everyone else as irrational, and not worth attempting to reason with... which itself leads to an inability and or an unwillingness for one to regularly reason through their own arguments, in turn leading to scores of people being stuck in positions of often flimsy logical backing, and in some cases, ultimately an assumption that anyone with a different view than their own (regardless of what it is) is part of the previously noted irrational group deemed not worth reasoning with.

We, imo, should do whatever we can to stop such cycles.
I think asking people to review the justifications for their own strongly held positions
and to consider other perhaps more logically sound justifications is a good place to start.

-Meta

 

Is this different from option O?

Seems like there is quite a lot of support for this one.

​

Its true that most abortions occur well before the period at which pain perception is possible, but it must be the case the capability to perceive pain develops at some point... Right? From what I gathered from the scientific JAMA research, the fibers necessary for transmitting pain connect up to the brain at 23 weeks. They become functional sometime around the 29 week mark. The earliest signs of consciousness which one might also consider a prerequisite to pain perception have been observed shortly after that period.

I think for an issue like this we need to be extra clear when stating our positions.
If we just say that we think abortion should be banned. People might assume we want to ban them from the point of conception.
Likewise, if we claim that there should be no ban on abortion, but do not further clarify. Folks might assume or accuse us of wanting
to change the rules so that abortions are allowed up through birth. Those assumptions may or may not be true, so I think its important
that we do our best to remove any confusion or misrepresentation that might occur up front by being as clear as we can.

Luckily, I think a poll like this helps; from your option picks, I think I have a pretty good idea of what your stance is.

-Meta

 

You mean the music video? Oh yeah I listened to a bit of it.
But afterwards I didn't find myself any closer to understanding why you don't like Ranked voting.
Which is why I asked if you could give an explanation using words instead of a video or picture of a chicken.

Lol, of course not! Anything I dislike, I have a good reason for disliking it.
And btw, something tasting bitter is also a reason for disliking it.
So then does Ranked voting leave a bitter taste in your mouth?
Lol! If its just the ranking of the options you find distasteful,
again, why not just pick one option out of the list as if this
were nothing more than a boring old Plurality vote?

-Meta

 

Exactly!

My thinking is that the criteria ought to be whether or not 'the being' has achieved consciousness and or the ability to perceive pain.

-Meta

 

kazenatsu and most of the other commenters in the thread have already voted. :/

 

If you want, I can mark that down for you as a write-in addition.

My own personal view is that I think the federal government ought to set some broad guidelines, and then let the states handle the finer details.
For example, the federal government sets a range for the cutoff, and the states can pick any period within that range for a more specific cutoff.
This is actually pretty much what exists right now, more or less.

I'd also like to see clearer rules put in place specifically geared towards preventing folks from trying to skirt around the main guidelines; particularly the state actors, some of which attempt to use some underhanded backdoor means to ban all abortions despite federal and constitutional law. If abortions are to be allowed at all, which I think they should be, we don't want some states taking advantage of loophole-creating vagueness in the law.

In that case I can mark you down for the following:

(write-in), I, E, X

(write-in) Abortion Issue Should be State-by-State Issue NOT Federal
I. Viability (Week 24): Because that's when a fetus is able to live outside the woman without artificial means
E. Viability (Week 20): Because the earliest surviving baby was born at just over 21 weeks
X. Use Tech to Remove Human Reproduction to an Industrial Process​

How does that sound?...(let me know if that X is a good fit)

-Meta

 

Because I want to know what the consensus answer to that question is.

In order to know if someone has changed positions because of a discussion,
I'd first have to know what their position was before reading/participating in that discussion.
And of course what it was afterwards as well. But such things aren't necessarily things which can always be seen.
After all, a person who's mind gets changed about something is under no obligation to let anyone know that.

Additionally, significant change is unlikely to happen instantly following a discussion anyways.
One's position more often than not tends to evolve gradually over long periods.
So even if they told us at every step what their position was, change in that position might not be very noticeable unless we kept close track and compared things over long intervals... and even then, it may be hard to attribute that change to just a single discussion or event. The change would likely be the result of a large number of discussions and events.

But yes, I have seen people change their mind about things. Folks come around all the time tossing out these anecdotes about how they used to be this or believed that but have now changed and since believe something else. Even within a single discussion, folks may enter a discussion with a certain outlook, but start to take a different tone as the discussion goes on, again, not usually declaring any major changes in their position, but they may for instance start considering or thinking about things that they didn't before, participants in a discussion may also find new areas of agreement that they didn't necessarily expect. Including just the simple agreement regarding the need for compromise and or the need for change from the status quo.

Bottom line though, is that even if these various changes are not immediate, or even if they go unseen, such does not mean that a good discussion if well executed isn't still worthwhile.

Maybe. Wont know if you can compromise with them unless you try. And even if it turns out to be the case that you can't, there are still plenty of folks out there with more moderate views for one to attempt compromise with instead.

-Meta

 

To that I'd say that selecting none-of-the-above/doing nothing is just as much an option as anything else.
If the majority of people don't feel that any of the available options are good, or prefer doing nothing to compromising,
then it makes sense not to do anything until better options come along.

But say for instance that 40% of folks in an area want a new highway going through the center of a city to ease traffic, and 40% want a railway to go through that same area instead. The other 20% want something else, but only 10% want to keep things the way they are, while 90% of folks would like some new transportation infrastructure regardless of what it is, even if its not their ideal choice...

...Assuming there's only space and or funding for one,
in the end the options would come down to something like this:

a) highway
b) railway
c) other
d) nothing

I do not believe that, just because no other option got >50%, that option d should be picked here over the others by default, especially when 90%, almost all of the people, want some infrastructure to be added and would prefer any of the options to doing nothing. If 90% of the people want some kind of infrastructure and prefer anything to the status quo, then one of the options, a or b (or possibly c), should be implemented. Do you agree?

-Meta

 

Well that's somewhat of a different subject. I'm not suggesting that a one-size-fits-all approach is always the way to go. For sure, some things are better handled at the state and local levels, while other things we'd like the federal government to take care of. And I agree with you that having the federal government define some broad guidelines and letting the states figure out the finer details is a good way to do things... I was actually just telling yiostheoy the same thing regarding the cutoff point for abortion.

Here though, all I'm saying is that any disagreements on what should be done (regardless of what level it occurs at) ought to be handled democratically, and that a lack of unanimous or near unanimous agreement on what the best option is shouldn't result in the automatic defaulting to the status quo, unless of course specifically doing nothing is actually the people's preferred consensus.

-Meta

 

Ah, got it! Thanks for the clarification

Good points.

-Meta

 

FYI, here is an updated list of options. Note the additions of @ and &.
If anyone wants to change their vote, feel free.

Where Should The Cutoff Line for Abortions be Placed?:

A. Lovemaking (Week 0): Because Any Form of Abortion is Murder
B. Conception (Week 0): Because Life Begins at Conception
C. Conception (Week 0): Because since no one knows exactly when a zygote becomes a child, it must be assumed to qualify as one
D. Nervous System (Week 12): Because the baby’s senses are developing and it looks pretty human at that stage
E. Viability (Week 20): Because the earliest surviving baby was born at just over 21 weeks
F. Thalamic Afferents (Week 20): Because its been theorized that connections between afferents may be capable of pain transmission
G. Thalamocortical Fibers (Week 23): Because a fetus cannot suffer feel or perceive pain without Thalamocortical Fibers
H. Viability (Week 24): Because that's when the law defines a fetus as becoming a child
I. Viability (Week 24): Because that's when a fetus is able to live outside the woman without artificial means
J. Thalamocortical Fibers (Week 29): Because a fetus cannot suffer feel or perceive pain without Functional Thalamocortical Fibers
K. Pain Perception Dvmnt (Week 23-29): Because a fetus cannot suffer feel or perceive pain without Functional Thalamocortical Fibers
L. Pain Perception Dvmnt (Week 20-29): Because this is the period in which a fetus develops the structures necessary for pain perception
M. Mental Life (Week 29): Because fetal consciousness cannot and has not been observed to occur before this point
@. Medical Community (Week ??): Because the decision should be left to the doctors and patients who are more than capable
N. Birth (Week ??): Because That is When a Baby No Longer Depends On Its Mother to Live
O. Birth (Week ??): Because Women Should Always Have the Right to do What They Want With Their Body
P. There should be Exceptions in cases of Rape
Q. There should be Exceptions if Health of the Mother is Threatened
R. There should be Exceptions if Life of the Mother is Threatened
S. There should be Exceptions for Certain Fetal Abnormalities
T. There should be Exceptions for Incest
U. There should be Exceptions based on Ability of Parent to Afford and Care for the Child
V. There should be No Exceptions to the Cutoff Point​

Other Ideas:

W. Graduated Restrictions and Requirements for Women Seeking Abortion as Gestational Age Increases
X. Use Tech to Remove Human Reproduction to an Industrial Process
Y. General Abortions Paid for by Person Getting It (Not the Government)
Z. Loan Program to Help Fund People Who Want to Get General Abortion
#. Improve Availability of Contraceptives
$. Where Abortions banned, State/Govmt/Taxpayer money used for any costs needed to keep pre-term infants alive
&. Abortion Issue Should be State-by-State Issue NOT Federal
!0. Nothing Needed Beyond Cutoff Point and Exceptions (Status Quo Option)
!1. Don't Feel Qualified/Knowledgeable Enough To Vote In This Poll
!2. No Strong Feelings One Way Or The Other
​

-Meta

 

Oh and BTW, here are the votes I have recorded so far:

Spoiler: Votes so Far

E,V,#,$
R,K,G,L,J,#,$,M,F,S,I,E,Q,H,D,P,Z,Y,V,U,T,!0,X,W
D,W
O,Y,#
D,E,R,Q,T,P,S,Y
@,#,!0,H,I,J,M,P,Q,R,S,T,U,Z
I,#,P,Q,R,S,T
O
&,I,E,X
D

-Meta