Ranked Vote: How Should the Law Handle Abortion?

Maybe, but unless we go with your option 1 there then the question of where an abortion cutoff line should be is one we should all still consider and try to come to some collective consensus(es) on. Like I was telling yio, my personal preference is that the federal government would set up some broad guidelines/a range of acceptable cutoff points, and then the state governments could work out finer details/set specific cutoff points within that range. Again, pretty much what exists right now, more or less...

-Meta

 

Yes. The Supreme Court of the U.S. Federal government has interpreted the constitution such as to prohibit anyone from placing undue burdens on women seeking abortions of nonviable fetuses, but has left it up to the states as for what to do after that point, and to a smaller degree has also left it to the states to figure out the meaning of undue burden and when fetal viability occurs. For that reason, the cutoff points set in states are not uniform. Some states choose to go with whatever the current medical community opinion on viability is. Some set a specific date of 24 weeks, while still several others choose a date of 20 weeks. A small few set the cutoff at third trimester (27 weeks) or beyond. Oh, and then there are the various exceptions for things like rape, life, abnormalities, etc.

The law in places is vague enough as it is. I don't really think its such a great idea to attempt to make it any more so.
To give states options on the abortion issue, again I'd much prefer it if the Federal government where to lay out a specific and clearly defined range of allowable cutoff points (rather than broadly interpretable phrases), along with specific things the states can and cannot do on either side and reasons they can make exception and the like. That'd be an improvement to what we have now imo, since rather than states and people guessing at what was meant by vague ill-defined terms and having the courts try and settle things after the fact, a specific range would mean that we would all always know exactly what was meant and have a clearer idea of when states were crossing the line. Also much less cause for expensive federal litigation that way.

-Meta

 

Maybe, I think though that if we were simply to start using ranked systems more/in more places as well as easing up on the discharge rules, those two things alone would lead to our government becoming significantly more able to come up with and implement actual solutions as opposed to its current perpetual can-kicking.

-Meta

 

Agreed.

I don't think anyone has performed that analysis on the broader population yet.
That analysis is actually what I 'm trying to do here in this thread,...
finding the consensus position which maximizes agreement...
but of course... here that would just be limited to politicalforum members,
or more specifically, members who actually bother to participate in the vote,
and not the country as a whole. Still though, I think something like this is a start.

-Meta

 

Perhaps... it wouldn't be able to generate a solution to every issue. But... at least until scientists are able to come up with an AI that can replace politicians and instantly come up with optimal political remedies for any and every eventuality, something like Ranked Voting may simply be the best option available to us... At any rate, its certainly better,... and more likely to lead to solutions being implemented,... than Plurality...

-Meta

 

Hmm... it would be whatever the largest cross-section of the people wanted. Which could mean something being implemented... it could also mean the continuation of a status quo, if that's what the people wanted instead. As for whether the paths chosen would end up being solutions to something, I do think that allowing the people to choose the path they want their government to take is more likely to lead to solutions to their problems and issues than anything else.

-Meta

 

You should cast a vote yourself mate.

 

Option & then?

&. Abortion Issue Should be State-by-State Issue NOT Federal

 

Thanks guys. I marked you each down accordingly.

 

Thanks Junkieturtle! Got you down for

E,F,G,H,I,J,P,Q,R,S,T,U,Y,Z,#​

Will try to post the final results of the vote sometime late this Friday.

 

BTW folks, here's the updated list of all the votes I have recorded so far.
If there's not one in there that looks like yours please be sure to post your preferences by Friday, thanks!

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
!2
&
E,F,G,H,I,J,P,Q,R,S,T,U,Y,Z,#

-Meta

 

Hmm, based on your explanation, did you intend to vote for @ instead of V?

@. Medical Community (Week ??): Because the decision should be left to the doctors and patients who are more than capable

V. There should be No Exceptions to the Cutoff Point
(i.e. if there's an abortion cutoff, there should be no exceptions for rape, life of mother etc.)

Also, what's £?

-Meta

 

Last Chance to post a Vote here if you haven't already!
Ranked Vote: How Should the Law Handle Abortion?

-Meta