The Effect of "Abortion Rights" on the Political Landscape

[jamil]

I read through your post again, and rather than do another big point-for-point response I want to summarize and pivot a bit to address a specific point you made:

Well. That's disappointing because I really wanted to hear the case for claiming that Republicans want to ban abortion because they want to control women's bodies.

The “up to birth” position is the most logical opposing position to take when faced with the “abortion is murder” position…it’s tit for tat.

Hold on a minute. It sounds like you're saying that, but for being faced with "abortion is murder" they'd not have the "up to birth" position? If that's the argument, are you sure you want to pitch your tent in that spot? Because it sounds really petty.

To illustrate my point I will ask “when is abortion murder”?

We could plot it on a scale, from “abortion is always murder to abortion is never murder”.

Murder is a capital crime. People who commit capital crimes deserve to spend the rest of their lives in prison.

At what point during pregnancy is it appropriate to sentence a woman to spend the rest of her life in prison for getting an abortion?

That’s how I arrive at my position that abortion is never murder…which you call “up to birth”.

Take “abortion is murder“ off the table, and I’ll yield “up to birth“ in an instant.

You're switching arguments though. The "up to birth" idea does not exist as a tit-for-tat reply to response to "abortion is always murder". It's not to counter the prospect of woman being sent to prison for having an abortion. This is something you just injected. I think you know better. I've never heard Lefties make the point you're trying to make to justify "up to birth".

The rationale is always explained as, the mother always should be able to terminate a pregnancy on demand including up to birth as long as the baby is in the mother's body. Because she always should have the final say what she does with her body. Unless she doesn't want a vaccine.

Now, if you want to back off from that usual rationale, and go with the tit-for-tat thing, that's fine. But then that's petty.

I think this might be an illustration of one of your previous points…that the fringes control the narrative. I think it very much destroys nuance and the ability to find common ground.

Now I'll completely agree that both sides have an outsized voice in the debate. Polls taken since RvW was overturned have remained fairly consistent. The "total ban" and "anything goes" factions are small. And the 51% majority are taken for a ride that most don't realize they don't want to be on.

When the talking head on the CNN says that "Trump supporters" want to control women's bodies and ban abortion in all states, that's disingenuous, because not all Trump supporters want that. About half the voting public support Trump.

Only about 15% of the voting public want a total ban. That demonstrates not a majority of Trump voters actually want a total ban. In fact, some non-Trump supporters don't like him because he doesn't want a total ban. It looks like his opinion is in step with the majority. But that's not how the issue is being reported. They're tying Trump to a minority group, who aren't even all Trump supporters.

Then the outsized influence the total ban folks have a greater impact on the policy than their actual size.
Indiana illustrates this point. So a pew research poll puts the total ban numbers at 51%. It's going through the courts, but it's fairly likely that it's gonna go with the slim majority. So then a whole state is affected. I mean that's how democratic processes work. The 51% get their way and the 49% pound sand.

 

[jamil]

Is it murder if you kill the infant immediately after birth?

Assuming you think it is, what is different between the moments before birth and after?

The answer I get from "up to moment of birth" folks, it's not murder because the woman has the choice to get rid of the parasite as long as it's feeding off of her. McAuliffe, former governor of Virginia, said that it's her choice until they cut the cord! So even after birth! That's a really fringe view though. Crazy that a state governor would be that bat **** crazy.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Well. That's disappointing because I really wanted to hear the case for claiming that Republicans want to ban abortion because they want to control women's bodies.

Why do you expect me to argue that POV for you? I have told you, repeatedly, I do not hold that position.

“Republicans want to ban abortion because they want to control women’s bodies” is not an argument I have ever made because it is not something I believe.

What would be consistent with my beliefs would be something more like this: There are people in this world who abuse others with sexual and reproductive coercion, and their capacity for coercion is enhanced by laws limiting their victim’s access to abortion.

Those people are not going to carry a sign that says “I want to control women”, they carry a sign that says “abortion stops a beating heart”, but the effect (for them) is the same…an enhanced ability to abuse their chosen victim.

”The Republicans” might really just want to “save babies”, but the methods they endorse provide cover for others who would use those same tools for control.

I hope that sates your disappointment…it’s the closest I can get to arguing the point yo want me to.

Hold on a minute. It sounds like you're saying that, but for being faced with "abortion is murder" they'd not have the "up to birth" position? If that's the argument, are you sure you want to pitch your tent in that spot? Because it sounds really petty.

Who is they?

I am saying it is logical to hold the most extreme position on one side of the scale as a foil to those who hold the most extreme position on the opposite end of that same scale,

And you are right, I should not have described it as “tit-for-tat”, that makes it sound petty. I couldn’t think of the word “foil”, which would have been a better term around which to build my statement.

What I mean to say is that “abortion is never murder“ is a perfectly logical defensive position to take when faced with “abortion is murder” as the opposition’s stated position.

You're switching arguments though. The "up to birth" idea does not exist as a tit-for-tat reply to response to "abortion is always murder". It's not to counter the prospect of woman being sent to prison for having an abortion. This is something you just injected. I think you know better. I've never heard Lefties make the point you're trying to make to justify "up to birth".

I am trying to make the argument from a more novel perspective, something that doesn’t sound like I’m just parroting talking points from NARAL.

It’s just a different way of looking at the same issue.

The rationale is always explained as, the mother always should be able to terminate a pregnancy on demand including up to birth as long as the baby is in the mother's body. Because she always should have the final say what she does with her body. Unless she doesn't want a vaccine.

Sure, and I have argued this rationale myself, but framing it as a scale that runs between “abortion is always murder“ to “abortion is never murder” more genuinely speaks to my own personal reasoning for choosing and defending the position that I hold.

I’m allowed to think for myself, too.

Now, if you want to back off from that usual rationale, and go with the tit-for-tat thing, that's fine. But then that's petty.

Please stop conflating “their” rationale with mine…I am not “them”, and I do not speak for “their” rationale…thank you.

Now I'll completely agree that both sides have an outsized voice in the debate. Polls taken since RvW was overturned have remained fairly consistent. The "total ban" and "anything goes" factions are small. And the 51% majority are taken for a ride that most don't realize they don't want to be on.

When the talking head on the CNN says that "Trump supporters" want to control women's bodies and ban abortion in all states, that's disingenuous, because not all Trump supporters want that. About half the voting public support Trump.

Only about 15% of the voting public want a total ban. That demonstrates not a majority of Trump voters actually want a total ban. In fact, some non-Trump supporters don't like him because he doesn't want a total ban. It looks like his opinion is in step with the majority. But that's not how the issue is being reported. They're tying Trump to a minority group, who aren't even all Trump supporters.

Then the outsized influence the total ban folks have a greater impact on the policy than their actual size.
Indiana illustrates this point. So a pew research poll puts the total ban numbers at 51%. It's going through the courts, but it's fairly likely that it's gonna go with the slim majority. So then a whole state is affected. I mean that's how democratic processes work. The 51% get their way and the 49% pound sand.

No arguments here...take “abortion is murder” off the table and I’m perfectly happy to go along with what the 51% between the extremes choose for us.

 

[jamil]

Why do you expect me to argue that POV for you? I have told you, repeatedly, I do not hold that position.

“Republicans want to ban abortion because they want to control women’s bodies” is not an argument I have ever made because it is not something I believe.

When I brought it up, I did not say that this was your position. I said this is the position of the left. And then you deflected that point by what-abouting "the left thinks abortion is murder" or whatever. What I wanted you to address is the point I made about the left saying that it's controlling women. But you did dance around it at least a little when you said this.

---

Within the scope of abortion legislation “saving babies” is a 1:1 analog for “controlling women’s options and behavior”

---

So this to me smells like trying to defend the idea.

What would be consistent with my beliefs would be something more like this: There are people in this world who abuse others with sexual and reproductive coercion, and their capacity for coercion is enhanced by laws limiting their victim’s access to abortion.

I'm not sure you're really saying anything different. You're just abstracting basically the same idea. Okay, so that we get on the same page here, what do you believe is motivating anti-abortion folks to want abortion to be illegal?

Those people are not going to carry a sign that says “I want to control women”, they carry a sign that says “abortion stops a beating heart”, but the effect (for them) is the same…an enhanced ability to abuse their chosen victim.

See? I think you don't want to use the same words I did. You're using different words that kinda mean the same thing. I think this requires just as much sussing out the logic as what I said the left says.

”The Republicans” might really just want to “save babies”, but the methods they endorse provide cover for others who would use those same tools for control.

I hope that sates your disappointment…it’s the closest I can get to arguing the point yo want me to.

There are the nutters who bomb abortion clinics. Well. Not so much now, but several years ago that was a thing. People who stand outside of abortion clinics and try to shame women getting abortions. That's a very small group of people with the kind of mind like Westboro Baptist Church. It's a tiny and extreme subset of ant-abortion people. Claiming that "Republicans" are giving cover to them doesn't follow.

Who is they?

They is anyone who would use the rationale you described. You'd be in the set of "they" for example.

I am saying it is logical to hold the most extreme position on one side of the scale as a foil to those who hold the most extreme position on the opposite end of that same scale, And you are right, I should not have described it as “tit-for-tat”, that makes it sound petty. I couldn’t think of the word “foil”, which would have been a better term around which to build my statement.

Wait. Did you say logical? No. It's not logical.

Do you think the net result of the execution of two extremes cancels out the extremes? The ultimate net result is mutual destruction. Is that really a foil? A foil prevents something from happening. Is the thing you want to prevent from happening, saving babies? That's the only foil available in this scenario. You're certainly not preventing abortions from being limited in those red states.

So for every state that goes full anti-abortion the foil is to be like. "Haha, you wanted to save babies, but **** you, we'll just kill them to spite 'foil' you." I don't care if you smooth out the language from "tit-for-tat" to "foil". This sounds more like an emotional response than a logical one. Maybe foil is even worse for what it implies. So you think that's the logical?

What I mean to say is that “abortion is never murder“ is a perfectly logical defensive position to take when faced with “abortion is murder” as the opposition’s stated position.

Not in any practical way. Also, sometimes abortion is murder. What about the practitioner who was convicted of murder getting off on killing babies? Obviously that's not what we're talking about. But it's not the case that abortion is never murder. Unless you want to take the position that if the mother wants it dead, might as well let the practitioner have his jollies.

I am trying to make the argument from a more novel perspective, something that doesn’t sound like I’m just parroting talking points from NARAL.

It’s just a different way of looking at the same issue.

I'm open to the argument that if abortion is murder, the consistent position would be that the same penalties should follow an abortion as any other murder. But, let's be honest about that too. There are a range of penalties for murder. They don't all require the death penalty. So I'd say maybe chill that rhetoric a bit.

There are different levels of severity of murder in a lot of states. Usually sentencing follows depravity. Is a woman who gets an abortion really as depraved as a woman who brutally stabs her children to death? Give credit to those who think "abortion is murder" for understanding the difference between levels of depravity.

Sure, and I have argued this rationale myself, but framing it as a scale that runs between “abortion is always murder“ to “abortion is never murder” more genuinely speaks to my own personal reasoning for choosing and defending the position that I hold.

Idunno. I think the "choice" position is morally better than just picking a position to "foil" the other side.

I’m allowed to think for myself, too.



Please stop conflating “their” rationale with mine…I am not “them”, and I do not speak for “their” rationale…thank you.

You just said that you've argued this rationale yourself. Why is it astonishing to you that I attach that rationale to your own words.

No arguments here...take “abortion is murder” off the table and I’m perfectly happy to go along with what the 51% between the extremes choose for us.

I hope you put more thought into the whole "foil" position. It may even be worse than the "parasite" rationale for justifying "up to birth". Besides, aren't you lying to yourself about it? If your real position is "fine with the 51%" why would you say otherwise? Why isn't that your stated opinion if that's what you really think? You allow other people's extremes to drive you to extreme positions? I mean it's not the foil you think it is.

 

[LeftyGunner]

When I brought it up, I did not say that this was your position. I said this is the position of the left. And then you deflected that point by what-abouting "the left thinks abortion is murder" or whatever. What I wanted you to address is the point I made about the left saying that it's controlling women. But you did dance around it at least a little when you said this.

---

Within the scope of abortion legislation “saving babies” is a 1:1 analog for “controlling women’s options and behavior”

---

So this to me smells like trying to defend the idea.

You cannot ”save babies” with legislation without also controlling the behavior of women by limiting their available options…I’m not defending anything, I’m trying to point out these two concepts are inextricably linked.

I'm not sure you're really saying anything different. You're just abstracting basically the same idea. Okay, so that we get on the same page here, what do you believe is motivating anti-abortion folks to want abortion to be illegal?

I don’t think “anti-abortion people“ are a monolith, and I don’t think they all want abortion to be illegal for the same reasons, or to the same degree.

The only conclusion I am comfortable making for the entire group is that they want abortion to be against the law to ultimately reduce the number of abortions that get performed.

I would argue that there are better ways to accomplish that goal than criminalization.

Did you say logical? No. It's not logical.

It absolutely is…depending on the frame of reference.

”Abortion is never murder” is both an ideological position and a political position…and is perfectly logical when viewed as a starting point from which to negotiate in political bargaining.

Do you think the net result of the execution of two extremes cancels out the extremes? The ultimate net result is mutual destruction. Is that really a foil?

Yes, that is exactly what a foil is…even by your own definition:

A foil prevents something from happening.

Is the thing you want to prevent from happening, saving babies?

No, it’s criminalizing abortion...like I keep saying. I couldn’t care less about “saving unborn babies” from mothers who don’t want them to exist in the first place.

That's the only foil available in this scenario.

Only if you obtusely refuse to acknowledge that nuance exists.

You're certainly not preventing abortions from being limited in those red states.

No, but my position can still have an effect on the national discussion.

So for every state that goes full anti-abortion the foil is to be like. "Haha, you wanted to save babies, but **** you, we'll just kill them to spite 'foil' you." I don't care if you smooth out the language from "tit-for-tat" to "foil". This sounds more like an emotional response than a logical one. Maybe foil is even worse for what it implies. So you think that's the logical?

FFS…this is a gross misrepresentation of my position.

Bug, is that you? I expect misrepresentation from him.

Not in any practical way. Also, sometimes abortion is murder. What about the practitioner who was convicted of murder getting off on killing babies? Obviously that's not what we're talking about. But it's not the case that abortion is never murder. Unless you want to take the position that if the mother wants it dead, might as well let the practitioner have his jollies.

Again, you misrepresent my position to make your point…remember, I am referring to a scale that runs between “abortion is never murder” and “abortion is always murder”.

I'm open to the argument that if abortion is murder, the consistent position would be that the same penalties should follow an abortion as any other murder. But, let's be honest about that too. There are a range of penalties for murder. They don't all require the death penalty. So I'd say maybe chill that rhetoric a bit.

Again with your misrepresentation…I never claimed that capital crimes require the death penalty, I stated that all capital crimes include the possibility of capital punishment, and that murder is a capital crime…which it is.

There are different levels of severity of murder in a lot of states. Usually sentencing follows depravity. Is a woman who gets an abortion really as depraved as a woman who brutally stabs her children to death?

No.

Give credit to those who think "abortion is murder" for understanding the difference between levels of depravity.

No, I don’t think I will...It is not a nuanced position, and I will not give it the benefit of the doubt as one.

Edit: this is where I‘ll ask you to illustrate the nuance in the statement: “abortion is always premeditated murder” (as bug once posted) . I will consider your arguments in good faith, and adjust my position on the amount of nuance inherent in that position accordingly...maybe it really is a more nuanced position than I give it credit for, but I need some convincing to get there.

Idunno. I think the "choice" position is morally better than just picking a position to "foil" the other side.

That’s because you are misrepresenting both positions.

You just said that you've argued this rationale yourself. Why is it astonishing to you that I attach that rationale to your own words.



I hope you put more thought into the whole "foil" position. It may even be worse than the "parasite" rationale for justifying "up to birth". Besides, aren't you lying to yourself about it? If your real position is "fine with the 51%" why would you say otherwise? Why isn't that your stated opinion if that's what you really think? You allow other people's extremes to drive you to extreme positions? I mean it's not the foil you think it is.

Political arguments are ultimately a type of negotiation.

Ideologically, I am opposed to treating abortion as murder…ever…full stop.

Pragmatically, if I want to avoid a result that criminalizes abortion at all…in order to get there I cannot start from a position of “some abortion is murder”…this is not logically consistent, and it does not work to move the ultimate result toward my preferred outcome.

I am open to a negotiated outcome that ends up restricting some access to abortion in certain circumstances, so long as it does not result in the criminal prosecution of women who get abortions, but I don’t believe that outcome is compatible with a view that “abortion is murder”.

 

[jamil]

You cannot ”save babies” with legislation without also controlling the behavior of women by limiting their available options…I’m not defending anything, I’m trying to point out these two concepts are inextricably linked.

Then you cannot save people from getting their **** robbed with legislation without also controlling the behavior of thieves. Laws prevent people from committing harm to others. At some point during the pregnancy it is doing harm to the unborn to kill it. And 2/3 of voters recognize that.

Abortion and harming the unborn, at some point is harming the unborn. Those two concepts are inextricably linked. You either care about that or you don't.

I don’t think “anti-abortion people“ are a monolith, and I don’t think they all want abortion to be illegal for the same reasons, or to the same degree.

They're not a monolith. So we agree on that. The polling on total ban, as I said is about 15%. The polling on "abortion is murder" is pretty close to that. So I think I'm on fairly safe territory saying that most of the "from conception" folks believe abortion is murder. Most of that group are either conservative Christians or Jews. Not exactly monolithic but they do seem to agree on the reasoning. It's not that diverse.

The only conclusion I am comfortable making for the entire group is that they want abortion to be against the law to ultimately reduce the number of abortions that get performed.

I would argue that there are better ways to accomplish that goal than criminalization.

I think there are better ways to get people to not be in a position to want an abortion, just like I think there are better ways to get people to not want to steal. But we have laws to prevent behaviors that society doesn't want happening. I think abortion should be illegal after 3rd trimester.

It absolutely is…depending on the frame of reference.

”Abortion is never murder” is both an ideological position and a political position…and is perfectly logical when viewed as a starting point from which to negotiate in political bargaining.

If you're only saying it as a theoretical talking point to make your "abortion is never murder" point. But, c'mon man, I think there are way better ways to articulate that belief than making that "foil" point. At any rate, it's completely impractical. You're not bargaining with anyone in any practical sense. No one is going to negotiate with you. Or me. It's a clash of beliefs.

Yes, that is exactly what a foil is…even by your own definition:

It does not logically follow that negotiating from a position of "up to birth" will foil anything, where "foil" is the definition I gave, and the thing being foiled is banning abortion.

No, it’s criminalizing abortion...like I keep saying. I couldn’t care less about “saving unborn babies” from mothers who don’t want them to exist in the first place.

See, this is why I keep saying things you insist you're not saying. This implies a lot about what you believe.

Only if you obtusely refuse to acknowledge that nuance exists.

Of course nuance exists. Is this really nuanced? It seems pretty clear. Please explain the nuance.

No, but my position can still have an effect on the national discussion.

Well. I think if the "parasite" theory of abortion up to birth only disgusted people here, I suspect you're going to be disappointed in the results of your negotiation. I suspect you really don't know much about the opposing point of view. So maybe I can see why you think it logically follows.

FFS…this is a gross misrepresentation of my position.
Bug, is that you? I expect misrepresentation from him.

It was offensive hyperbole intended to make a forceful point about reality. I still suspect you haven't thought that position out thoroughly, because it does not follow that anything would be foiled from your position, unless the thing foiled is a baby not saved from abortion. Now when I say stuff like that you keep saying I'm misrepresenting your position. I don't think that's your position. I think that's the only way it works practically.

Again, you misrepresent my position to make your point…remember, I am referring to a scale that runs between “abortion is never murder” and “abortion is always murder”.

Again, I am not attributing that position to you. I'm saying that's the practical conclusion if you don't accept that abortion was murder in that case. The whole point was to correct your statement to include the possibility of someone who was actually murdering babies.

---

Also, sometimes abortion is murder. What about the practitioner who was convicted of murder getting off on killing babies? Obviously that's not what we're talking about. But it's not the case that abortion is never murder. Unless you want to take the position that if the mother wants it dead, might as well let the practitioner have his jollies.

---

It's a morbid statement, yes, to illustrate that depravity can accompany abortions and that they can be murder.

Again with your misrepresentation…I never claimed that capital crimes require the death penalty, I stated that all capital crimes include the possibility of capital punishment, and that murder is a capital crime…which it is.

Not a misrepresentation. That implies intent. I thought in the dialog between you and AMax, or maybe Bug, where you guys were arguing about whether you were or weren't making a straw man argument, that you had said something to that effect. I'm not going to go back and look for it. If you're saying now that this was not your position, I'll take your word for it.

No.

Agreed.

No, I don’t think I will...It is not a nuanced position, and I will not give it the benefit of the doubt as one.

Edit: this is where I‘ll ask you to illustrate the nuance in the statement: “abortion is always premeditated murder” (as bug once posted) . I will consider your arguments in good faith, and adjust my position on the amount of nuance inherent in that position accordingly...maybe it really is a more nuanced position than I give it credit for, but I need some convincing to get there.

Yeah, it's more nuanced. Polls showed they're pretty lock step on why they want abortions banned. Like I said, the people who want total ban are about 15%. The number of people who think abortion is murder is about the same.

However they're more divided on penalties. The pew poll I looked at doesn't really isolate the opinions of the "is murder" people. But it does isolate the numbers to the people who think abortion should be illegal at some point. So 60% of those want penalties for the doctor. Of those that want penalties, only 25% want jail time. Then the numbers are even less for the mother. Clearly those numbers cross between the "at conception" and "at some point" factions.

That’s because you are misrepresenting both positions.

How so? I think if I am not understanding your position as you understand it, answering this question should clear it up.

Political arguments are ultimately a type of negotiation.

Well, that's not so true. Not in a practical sense. But I'd agree that with political or any argument, there should be a negotiation on meaning. You think I'm misrepresenting you, and I don't think I'm representing you as much as you think I am. Take a couple of points above where I was not attributing those statements to being your position.

Ideologically, I am opposed to treating abortion as murder…ever…full stop.

Most people are. The polling suggests that even some of the folks who say it is murder, don't seem eager to penalize the mother.

Pragmatically, if I want to avoid a result that criminalizes abortion at all…in order to get there I cannot start from a position of “some abortion is murder”…this is not logically consistent, and it does not work to move the ultimate result toward my preferred outcome.

I think comparing your position to whether or not abortion is murder is not helpful in this conversation. If anything it muddles up what I perceive is your position. Maybe just saying whether you think there is a point during the pregnancy that you think abortion is immoral would be better. Then we don't have to **** back and forth about tit-for-tat or foiling.

I am open to a negotiated outcome that ends up restricting some access to abortion in certain circumstances, so long as it does not result in the criminal prosecution of women who get abortions, but I don’t believe that outcome is compatible with a view that “abortion is murder”.

I think if abortions are illegal there should be criminal prosecutions. I think when abortions are illegal, it falls more on the practitioner, and I think most people seem to think so according to polls. I think abortion should be illegal from 3rd trimester on. If a practitioner is performing abortions I think the bulk of the prosecution falls on them because they're performing an illegal procedure. So I think at least sanctions, loss of license, fines, and even jail time depending on circumstances. Mother? nah.

 

[Tombs]

The “up to birth” position is the most logical opposing position to take when faced with the “abortion is murder” position…it’s tit for tat.

You're saying the quiet part out loud.

Now explain how that position is prioritizing anyone's rights or healthcare, rather than playing tribalistic political games.

On the right people are arguing the position out of a basis of ideological belief systems, be it secular morality, religious morality, or simply knowing that the road that is being paved with this is the same road that lead to the holocaust. Because when you can't morally accept taking a life, and need to create excuses for how that isn't a life, things like that tend to happen. If someone can't draw clear and concise parallels to the "fetus" and "parasite" arguments and "subhuman" then they aren't very cognizant.

On the left people are just screaming and grasping at straw for how to be contrarian, and that's about the extent of their mental ability.

Hell, I'd just be happy if the left would compromise to the point of accepting that it is taking another human life. Even if that provides full term abortion under certain circumstances, it would at least be putting up a wall on the way towards this turning into something much uglier.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Then you cannot save people from getting their **** robbed with legislation without also controlling the behavior of thieves.

Um…okay…let’s see how this plays out.

Laws prevent people from committing harm to others.

They do?

Well, ****…I guess there’s no need for all these guns, then...we got laws!

At some point during the pregnancy it is doing harm to the unborn to kill it. And 2/3 of voters recognize that.

At ALL points in pregnancy killing the unborn harms it.

Abortion and harming the unborn, at some point is harming the unborn. Those two concepts are inextricably linked. You either care about that or you don't.

Yeah…I don’t.

I think it is a persons right to harm themselves…right up to causing their own death. I think this right extends to the pregnant. A woman’s unborn is hers to deliver…or not.

They're not a monolith. So we agree on that. The polling on total ban, as I said is about 15%. The polling on "abortion is murder" is pretty close to that. So I think I'm on fairly safe territory saying that most of the "from conception" folks believe abortion is murder. Most of that group are either conservative Christians or Jews. Not exactly monolithic but they do seem to agree on the reasoning. It's not that diverse.

Small point of disagreement…abortion as muder is not a widely-held view among mainstream Jews…thats a fundamentalist thing with us, especially in the West.

think there are better ways to get people to not be in a position to want an abortion, just like I think there are better ways to get people to not want to steal. But we have laws to prevent behaviors that society doesn't want happening. I think abortion should be illegal after 3rd trimester.

I was under the impression that the ”Trimesters” designation was a contrivance of RvW, but I follow your point.

I could potentially agree with outlawing late-term abortions, but most abortions that occur late in pregnancy are a matter of medical urgency, not maternal convenience…despite the rhetoric that gets thrown around by the talking heads on the right

(BTW, I think you mean after the 2nd trimester….after the 3rd trimester is birth, and it’s already illegal to kill those babies.)

If you're only saying it as a theoretical talking point to make your "abortion is never murder" point. But, c'mon man, I think there are way better ways to articulate that belief than making that "foil" point. At any rate, it's completely impractical. You're not bargaining with anyone in any practical sense. No one is going to negotiate with you. Or me. It's a clash of beliefs.

For the purposes of this discussion, I am deliberately separating the ideological from the political…those are two different conversations.

Ideological positions are personal, and they are only ever adjusted through internal negotiation…chewing threw moral dilemma to get to the bone of the issue for ourselves, and forming our own opinions from there…external negotiations don‘t carry much weight in ideological considerations.

Political positions are a different animal, though…we take political positions to affect public policy. These are negotiating positions…positions intended to be yielded to produce a negotiated politcal agreement.

My ideological position is that abortions after “viability” (another RvW contrivance) are only morally justified if they are medically justified…but I think that is a decision for a mother and her doctor to make, not the government.

My political position is that abortion is never murder.

 

[jamil]

You're saying the quiet part out loud.

Yeah, I don't think it was ever a quiet part. Seems they're quite content to say it openly.

 

[jamil]

Um…okay…let’s see how this plays out.

I have no idea what that means.

They do?

Well, ****…I guess there’s no need for all these guns, then...we got laws!

You're the one complaining that it controls women's behavior. Don't get too hung up over a word. You understand the point.

At ALL points in pregnancy killing the unborn harms it.

In a moral sense, at least to 51% of people, the point at which an abortion is done is perceived as morally different.

Yeah…I don’t.

Wow. That's basically Bill Maher's position. What did you say about Bill Maher?

I think it is a persons right to harm themselves…right up to causing their own death. I think this right extends to the pregnant. A woman’s unborn is hers to deliver…or not.

A woman's unborn is itself's, at least at some point in the pregnancy. She's just the life support during the whole process. Pulling the cord isn't her choice alone. At least not in my moral thinking.

Small point of disagreement…abortion as muder is not a widely-held view among mainstream Jews…thats a fundamentalist thing with us, especially in the West.

Ask Ben Shapiro what he thinks. Obviously one person doesn't define all Orthodox Jews, but his viewpoints don't seem to be all that far from many others I've heard speak on the issue of abortion.

I was under the impression that the ”Trimesters” designation was a contrivance of RvW, but I follow your point.

I could potentially agree with outlawing late-term abortions, but most abortions that occur late in pregnancy are a matter of medical urgency, not maternal convenience…despite the rhetoric that gets thrown around by the talking heads on the right

I have no problem with abortions necessary because of medical emergencies, regardless of when, as long as it absolutely is an existential circumstance for the mother. But those are extremely rare cases anyway, despite the rhetoric that gets thrown around by the talking heads on the left.

(BTW, I think you mean after the 2nd trimester….after the 3rd trimester is birth, and it’s already illegal to kill those babies.)

I misspoke. I meant to say after the first trimester abortion should be banned. The morality for most people, including myself, becomes less fuzzy as the fetus develops. I don't recall if I've been saying 3rd trimester all along, but the 51% agreement is after 12 weeks trimester. Not the second, or especially the third, lol. It's fine. I put the cereal box in the refrigerator the other day.

For the purposes of this discussion, I am deliberately separating the ideological from the political…those are two different conversations.

Ideological positions are personal, and they are only ever adjusted through internal negotiation…chewing threw moral dilemma to get to the bone of the issue for ourselves, and forming our own opinions from there…external negotiations don‘t carry much weight in ideological considerations.

Okay, well, I think you're perhaps using the wrong term then. If it's ideological then the implication of your ideals are as morbid as I said they were. Maybe you meant to talk more in terms of a philosophical position that illustrates some point. And if you'd set it up with that made clear, I would not have responded as I did. Now if you are calling it ideological in the same way I interpret that, I take nothing back.

Political positions are a different animal, though…we take political positions to affect public policy. These are negotiating positions…positions intended to be yielded to produce a negotiated politcal agreement.

So this makes it sound more like a philosophical point than an ideological one.

My ideological position is that abortions after “viability” (another RvW contrivance) are only morally justified if they are medically justified…but I think that is a decision for a mother and her doctor to make, not the government.

First, I want to say that this position isn't different from mine, except that I would put that point after the 1st trimester. But this seems to contradict the whole "I don't care" theme.

But about contrivances in the ruling, I think SCOTUS ruled in RvW codifying those contrivances because they thought that was the best law to make. But they don't get to make laws, so that's why RvW was decided incorrectly. Dobbs corrected that. But the timing really, really sucked.

Dobbs ruling probably made it improbable for Republicans to win at the national level for the forceable future, because the right is gonna right, and the left is gonna left. I suspect the DNC really doesn't give a **** about "women's choice". I suspect they might think Dobbs was a windfall for them because they'd have lost their asses in midterms, and Biden would be the modern Dukakis in 2024.

My political position is that abortion is never murder.

I don't see how that's not also ideological. Whether or not abortion is murder is a moral issue which is clearly in the realm of ideology. Political opinions themselves follow from ideology/worldview.

 

[Twangbanger]

...But about contrivances in the ruling, I think SCOTUS ruled in RvW codifying those contrivances because they thought that was the best law to make. But they don't get to make laws, so that's why RvW was decided incorrectly. Dobbs corrected that. But the timing really, really sucked.

Dobbs ruling probably made it improbable for Republicans to win at the national level for the forceable future, because the right is gonna right, and the left is gonna left. I suspect the DNC really doesn't give a **** about "women's choice". I suspect they might think Dobbs was a windfall for them because they'd have lost their asses in midterms, and Biden would be the modern Dukakis in 2024...

There was no choice on the timing. The GOP got one chance to make 3 appointments, with a President in office who DGAF, and a Senate Majority Leader willing to walk the appointments to the floor. They have been promising this to their 15% "Legal rights at full set of chromosomes" base for literally decades. If that "one chance" resulted in Roberts-like appointments who ruled on Dobbs in such a way that basically left the core principles of RvW intact, I think a good portion of that 15% would have walked. A lot of people rightly ask "why vote for the GOP" if this is all you get. And that would have been another brick in the wall. "We" had the chance and did nothing with it...Strike Three, some people would have been "out." The GOP has been politically "using" the "Legal Rights at a Set of Chromosomes" base for decades, and once Dobbs removed their ability to hide behind RvW as an excuse to fail to deliver results, they were either going to have to sh.t or get off the pot. In retrospect, the slavery analogy is a good one. The White Quiverfull Men and their "surrendered" wives, to borrow Abe Lincoln's phraseology, are like a Tiger the GOP holds by the tail, which can neither be held onto, nor safely let go. Promises have consequences, the window of opportunity finally came, and now the GOP has boxed itself into a corner and can't get out of it.

As for the "controlling women" aspect, the hyperbole of the Left notwithstanding, voters know "control" when they see it. It's the Texas thing. It's the 10 year-old Ohio girl that the old white men were braying and bellowing to force her to carry to term. Controlling Is as Controlling Does. That's not "stuff" invented by the Left. That stuff actually happened. The GOP has to be a fool not to realize stories like that are going to be front and center in this debate, and not because the Left is crazy, but because this stuff has real consequences for real people. Mike DeWine went to the microphone in Ohio the week before the 2023 citizen referendum, reassuring voters that the GOP "heard their message" about how politically nonviable the Ohio law turned out to be, and promising the GOP would use Occam's 3D Printer to "fix the law" and insert exceptions into it. The voters of Ohio said, "Nah, that's ok, we got this," and stuffed the citizen referendum up the GOP's azz by 7%, in a state Trump won by 8%. They didn't trust the GOP to do the correct political thing, because they didn't do it when they had the chance.

The voters are not fooled. They know the real reason for the "Legal Rights at Full Set of Chromosomes" position is not about Joseph Mengeles snipping spines. It is to make the Morning After Pill essentially un-sellable in as many states as possible. It is to remove choices from women. It is statistically claimed that something approaching 70% of pregnancy terminations now occur in the 1st trimester via some equivalent of the Plan B pill. This drives some on the Right absolutely nucking futs. People like Bug rant and bray on these very boards about how abortion is for birth control and allows women to escape the consequences of non-virtuous behavior. That's what "control" looks like. For the people who are voting for these citizen initiatives in places like Ohio, Kentucky, and Kansas, those are not Leftist enclaves. Those are places where reasonable people want the woman's choice to end her pregnancy, in the 1st trimester with a pill, to be something the Government stays TF out of. Because the Government screws up almost everything it lays its hands on, the Texas case being a prime example.

The Right now owns that, whether they realize it, or not. This is not about cutting throats 3 seconds before cutting an umbilical cord. This is about women taking a pill at a time when pregnancy tests might not even be accurate. The voters realize who the real extremists are here. It's the Right. That's why The Right is fighting so hard to keep this stuff off the ballot, in state after state. It's not because The Left is lying. It's because The Right wants to ban pills, and makes no bones about it.

 

[jamil]

Points for length.

There was no choice on the timing. The GOP got one chance to make 3 appointments, with a President in office who DGAF, and a Senate Majority Leader willing to walk the appointments to the floor. They have been promising this to their 15% "Legal rights at full set of chromosomes" base for literally decades. If that "one chance" resulted in Roberts-like appointments who ruled on Dobbs in such a way that basically left the core principles of RvW intact, I think a good portion of that 15% would have walked. A lot of people rightly ask "why vote for the GOP" if this is all you get. And that would have been another brick in the wall. "We" had the chance and did nothing with it...Strike Three, some people would have been "out." The GOP has been politically "using" the "Legal Rights at a Set of Chromosomes" base for decades, and once Dobbs removed their ability to hide behind RvW as an excuse to fail to deliver results, they were either going to have to sh.t or get off the pot. In retrospect, the slavery analogy is a good one. The White Quiverfull Men and their "surrendered" wives, to borrow Abe Lincoln's phraseology, are like a Tiger the GOP holds by the tail, which can neither be held onto, nor safely let go. Promises have consequences, the window of opportunity finally came, and now the GOP has boxed itself into a corner and can't get out of it.

As for the "controlling women" aspect, the hyperbole of the Left notwithstanding, voters know "control" when they see it. It's the Texas thing. It's the 10 year-old Ohio girl that the old white men were braying and bellowing to force her to carry to term. Controlling Is as Controlling Does. That's not "stuff" invented by the Left. That stuff actually happened. The GOP has to be a fool not to realize stories like that are going to be front and center in this debate, and not because the Left is crazy, but because this stuff has real consequences for real people. Mike DeWine went to the microphone in Ohio the week before the 2023 citizen referendum, reassuring voters that the GOP "heard their message" about how politically nonviable the Ohio law turned out to be, and promising the GOP would use Occam's 3D Printer to "fix the law" and insert exceptions into it. The voters of Ohio said, "Nah, that's ok, we got this," and stuffed the citizen referendum up the GOP's azz by 7%, in a state Trump won by 8%. They didn't trust the GOP to do the correct political thing, because they didn't do it when they had the chance.

The voters are not fooled. They know the real reason for the "Legal Rights at Full Set of Chromosomes" position is not about Joseph Mengeles snipping spines. It is to make the Morning After Pill essentially un-sellable in as many states as possible. It is to remove choices from women. It is statistically claimed that something approaching 70% of pregnancy terminations now occur in the 1st trimester via some equivalent of the Plan B pill. This drives some on the Right absolutely nucking futs. People like Bug rant and bray on these very boards about how abortion is for birth control and allows women to escape the consequences of non-virtuous behavior. That's what "control" looks like. For the people who are voting for these citizen initiatives in places like Ohio, Kentucky, and Kansas, those are not Leftist enclaves. Those are places where reasonable people want the woman's choice to end her pregnancy, in the 1st trimester with a pill, to be something the Government stays TF out of. Because the Government screws up almost everything it lays its hands on, the Texas case being a prime example.

I'll just pick this point to reply. No time for point by point.

I think whether it's "the old white men braying" to control women, or religious folks carrying out their beliefs, is a judgement call, which in my judgment favors the latter. Regardless, we have what we have now. I agree that the right owns the whole abortion thing. And in November when Joe Biden wins on this issue, the Trumpers will be weeping and gnashing their teeth over what they believe is surely another "steal".

But when it comes to punching the chads, the moderate voters who might have voted for Trump just won't be able to bring themselves to it, because the GOP abortion hardliners wrapped this around his neck. He owns it as much as the right does now. Which is unfortunate because Trump was pro-choice before he ran for office, had to pretend to pro-life as a Republican, and now, who knows. My money is that he hasn't actually changed his opinion. He says it's up to the states, which is a good political position, but it's also what you say when you have to satiate the faithful. He is then "plausibly" pro-life.

I think the GOP would be more palatable to people in the middle if they could see a glimpse of reason coming from their chambers. Of course the left exploited the 10 year old rape victim and made it public, because it's a slam dunk. A 10 year old gets raped, from which she becomes pregnant, and they want to force a 10 year old rape victim to carry that to term. In that poll from pew I mentioned, 85% said even if abortion is otherwise illegal, in cases of rape or incest, abortions should be allowed. Almost everyone can see the immorality in that.

The "Legal Rights at Full Set of Chromosomes" (I'd rather say "at conception" because the other is way too many words, and I have no need to dig the nails in) people, as a fringe, don't take the other realities into their decision making. It's just their side an no one else. Obviously there is more to the story when a young child gets pregnant from being raped. Nope. Only the unborn can be considered. 85% of the people think that position is unreasonable. And it will probably cost Trump the election.

The Right now owns that, whether they realize it, or not. This is not about cutting throats 3 seconds before cutting an umbilical cord.

The "at conception" and "up to birth" are obviously ideological points, not practical ones. No one is aborting a pregnancy "at conception". I don't have specific data on it, but I doubt many are performed just before birth, and if they are, it is doubtfully because the mother decides, nah. Just kill it.

We argue the ideological points because we disagree with each others ideas. Nothing wrong with that. But like I pointed out to LG, we have to acknowledge that practicalities don't give a **** about that.

This is about women taking a pill at a time when pregnancy tests might not even be accurate. The voters realize who the real extremists are here. It's the Right. That's why The Right is fighting so hard to keep this stuff off the ballot, in state after state. It's not because The Left is lying. It's because The Right wants to ban pills, and makes no bones about it.

I think it's about more than that. I dunno, unless you're privy to back room GOP discussions. I've talked with enough people IRL and here, and other forums online, and they're all pretty consistent with the 15%, is that any abortion is morally wrong and is murder. It's not astonishing to me that that would drive their motivations. But it just looks crazy, and even immoral, to the other 85%, when a 10 year old girl becomes pregnant from a rape, and their answer is, so? Have the child.

It's not just about the pills. Well. Maybe it is for Bug. Maybe he just wants to force people to be as responsible as he thinks they should be. But I think the Bug's of the world are rarer than you do. I don't doubt the sincerity of the people I've talked to about their views on it. It's why they're not gonna budge, even if in the long term they will cause ClownWorld™ to extend their power, which if given long enough, the victory over RvW will be short-lived.

 

[jamil]

For those who are on the abortion is always murder side. If the 10 year old gets an abortion after being raped, she willingly takes the abortion drugs (it's my understanding the Ohio girl was given these drugs in Indiana) did she commit murder? If so, what penalty should she face? I'd like you to make your beliefs understandable to me. Maybe it is not understandable within my worldview. Give it a shot.

Bug? You're in Ohio. I'd like your perspective on it. How do you judge this? Because of the rape, this isn't a matter of her just being irresponsible. It was not consensual.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

For those who are on the abortion is always murder side. If the 10 year old gets an abortion after being raped, she willingly takes the abortion drugs (it's my understanding the Ohio girl was given these drugs in Indiana) did she commit murder? If so, what penalty should she face? I'd like you to make your beliefs understandable to me.

Was the child a human being?
Define murder.
What crime did the child commit?
What other crime would we execute an innocent person for for the crime of their father?
How would a 10 year old be sentenced for killing her (let’s say) 1 week old baby brother today?

 

[BugI02]

This is an ad from the Biden campaign…seven months away from the election:



The general election isn‘t the primaries…Trump needs more than MAGA to win, and you are kidding yourselves if you think abortion moves the needle in Trump’s direction this November.

Personally, I think it would be pretty sweet to see RvW be the anchor that sinks Trump 2024.

Biden is going all in on limitless abortion because polling has told his handlers that that is essentially the only thing the electorate favors him over Trump to handle

I think it will be pretty sweet for the left to find out the hard way that no limits on murdering your unborn children will NOT outweigh inflation and the economy and the invasion at the border as well as limiting choices for cars, stoves, furnaces etc - except with the bitter middle-aged wine women demographic. For all their faults, somehow I doubt the Islamists he is courting so desperately are particularly in favor of abortion or in fact any women's rights

 

[jamil]

Obviously that’s some pretty toxic straw they’re spinning. But, it’s the obvious play. Almost everyone thinks it’s absurd to prohibit people from getting abortions by traveling to a state where it’s legal.

 

[BugI02]

The GOP has leveraged its future on a group of people who don't care what happens on Earth.

This is wrong. We care what happens on earth, what happens to our families and our loved ones - but we also care what happens to our immortal souls

I might care what happens to the world I just won't betray my faith to try to do something about it. Believers know where we are now and where we end up, it's just the journey in between that is opaque

You shouldn't think that a Christian is any less likely to go down fighting, you just might not understand what we're fighting for

 

[BugI02]

I would like to see how this debate would metamorphose were it to become possible to diagnose gay or transgender tendencies prenatally and people began aborting those children because of it

I suspect progressives would blow a gasket

 

[jamil]

Was the child a human being?
Define murder.
What crime did the child commit?
What other crime would we execute an innocent person for for the crime of their father?
How would a 10 year old be sentenced for killing her (let’s say) 1 week old baby brother today?

I guess I have to infer that the answer to "did she commit murder" is yes, given this. Asking what crime did the child commit is hyperbole. No one charged the unborn with a crime. It's a tragedy. I could ask, what crime did the child commit that she deserves the punishment of carrying a child to term and giving birth? A 10 year old! I call it a tragedy when people who don't deserve the consequences for someone else's actions. She will feel way more pain and suffering and emotional distress than the child will. So I don't think it's as black and white as you think it is.

Was just looking at the Alabama law. Getting an abortion in Alabama is not criminalized. Performing an abortion is. Is Alabama's law wrong then?