The Effect of "Abortion Rights" on the Political Landscape

[AndreusMaximus]

Actually, I'm revising my premise:

 

[jamil]

What's instructive is that you can recognize this, but only in other people

Do you have an example of that?

 

[jamil]

Well, apparently I haven't been clear enough, because you keep misunderstanding my starting premise.

"Is it really self-evident that the thing that makes abortion immoral "from conception", is human reason, or whatever it is about humans that make them more special than other creatures?"

No, I'm not claiming "from conception" as my starting point. "From conception" is not the premise, but the opposite: the conclusion.

My actual premise (or, to be more precise, one of them) is that it is immoral to kill a creature that possesses this thing that I call "rationality/sapience." As you said, this special capacity of a fully developed human for reason, emotion, compassion, etc., is, from a purely materialistic perspective, the apex of evolution; the best thing the universe has yet produced that we know of. And to erase that is a bad thing. Remember, this is a very, very limited claim: I'm talking about the most clear-cut possible example: A fully developed, fully aware human being with his/her full mental powers intact. I want to use as a starting point that it is at least bad to kill, for no due reason, such a human, because that would destroy an instance of the highest form of consciousness/intelligence/emotion/reason, etc., that exists in the universe, that we know of.

That's what I'm asking you to take at face value. And if you say you can't take it at face value, that's fine, but then I would like to ask you to give me your own version of it. In other words, what your starting premise (NOT your conclusion) is for a discussion on the morality of killing humans. If you can't do either of those two things, then I think we lack a basis from which to frame a logical discussion.

Yes, we have different worldviews. I don't expect you to change your worldview to fit mine, at this point I'm just trying to disprove the false claim that the only possible way to rationally argue for "Life at Conception" is to start from a religious worldview.

Okay. Then let’s make sure I understand. You’re saying that what makes it immoral, or more immoral, to kill humans than lesser beings, is the apex factor, for lack of a better term.

So if that’s your rationale, is there a threshold of how great humans have to be to deserve the special moral treatment? Or is it purely based on being the apex species?

I did give you mine, BTW. The short version of why it’s less moral to kill humans than other creatures is self preservation. I’ve said that murder is pretty universally immoral. Doesn’t matter what civilization across history. That notion runs throughout humanity for a reason.

 

[LeftyGunner]

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.

 

[Creedmoor]

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.

So you hate $2.00 gas, grocery and utility bills that were at least 50% cheaper, making 10-13% on investments, A smoking economy. Doubled the standard deduction – making the first $24,000 earned by a married couple completely tax-free. Doubled the child tax credit. Virtually eliminated the unfair Estate Tax, or Death Tax. Cut the business tax rate from 35 percent – the highest in the developed world – all the way down to 21 percent.
Virtually zero problems with illegals crossing out border, He cut Snap benefits to 750 thousand.
I can go on...

Vote better America.

 

[LeftyGunner]

So you hate $2.00 gas, grocery and utility bills that were at least 50% cheaper, making 10-13% on investments, A smoking economy. Doubled the standard deduction – making the first $24,000 earned by a married couple completely tax-free. Doubled the child tax credit. Virtually eliminated the unfair Estate Tax, or Death Tax. Cut the business tax rate from 35 percent – the highest in the developed world – all the way down to 21 percent.
Virtually zero problems with illegals crossing out border, He cut Snap benefits to 750 thousand.
I can go on...

Vote better America.

Watch the ad, then re-read the title of the thread.

You are nostalgic about cheap gas…women are nostalgic about surviving pregnancy.

Which one helps Trump more in 2024…votes from people who believe Trump’s ********, or voting-age women of every demographic and political stripe?

 

[jamil]

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.

Overturning RvW corrected a ruling based on smoke and mirrors. doesn't matter if it was a reasonable compromise to a divisive problem. It's not the court's purpose to fabricate law from shadows. My opinion is that the timing really sucked.

Trump's position was and is, that it's an issue for states to decide. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. This is clearly not the court's job to make the law, and it is clearly not the Federal government's job to ban or legalize abortion.

 

[Creedmoor]

Watch the ad, then re-read the title of the thread.

You are nostalgic about cheap gas…women are nostalgic about surviving pregnancy.

Which one helps Trump more in 2024…votes from people who believe Trump’s ********, or voting-age women of every demographic and political stripe?

I don't believe that 3 1/2 yrs is "nostalgic" by any means.
Vote better America.

 

[jamil]

Watch the ad, then re-read the title of the thread.

You are nostalgic about cheap gas…women are nostalgic about surviving pregnancy.

Which one helps Trump more in 2024…votes from people who believe Trump’s ********, or voting-age women of every demographic and political stripe?

Well, but those women kinda make it something it's not though, right? Like I said earlier, it's not pro-life vs pro-choice. Those are both just spin. The left keeps spinning up straw by claiming Republicans want to invade their bodies. And that's a ridiculous characterization. Or if you want to make the case that they're being honest and not just trying to spin up some straw, I'm open to hearing it.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Overturning RvW corrected a ruling based on smoke and mirrors. doesn't matter if it was a reasonable compromise to a divisive problem. It's not the court's purpose to fabricate law from shadows. My opinion is that the timing really sucked.

Trump's position was and is, that it's an issue for states to decide. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. This is clearly not the court's job to make the law, and it is clearly not the Federal government's job to ban or legalize abortion.

I agree with you about RvW being a serious judicial overstep. I also agree that the repeal was a legitimate legal remedy for the problems created by the original RvW decision.

However, I also recognize that overturning the decision takes a previously-recognized legal right away from people…and that type of thing has serious political consequences.

Trump can talk about how he won’t sign a national abortion ban until he’s blue in the face, but it isn’t going to help him politically for two big reasons:

1) The only people who actually believe Trump (about anything) are already voting for Trump.

2) The damage is already done. 10-year old incest rape victims, refused (or severely delayed) treatments for incomplete miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies and pre-natal hemorrhage are already happening, and it was Trump who picked the judges who made it happen.

The best way to correct both the legal and political issues surrounding RvW (in my opinion) would have been a constitutional amendment, because it necessarily involves the entire voting public, and it affords a way to anticipate and mitigate issues like the one addressed in the ad…the unintended consequences of sudden repeal.

RvW was the GOP’s albatross, and Trump couldn’t help himself but shoot it...and I’m sure you already know the how rest of that ancient rime goes.

 

[Twangbanger]

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.

Much as I hate to say it, you are correct. The GOP has multiple issues in relating to voters, and this issue adds another one they don't need. The "legal rights at full set of chromosomes" movement isn't strictly invested in whether the "national" GOP wins future elections, because their reward is in heaven. The GOP has leveraged its future on a group of people who don't care what happens on Earth.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Well, but those women kinda make it something it's not though, right?

People make decisions based on how the situation looks to them, though, not us.

At the voting booth their view of any given issue is just as valid as mine or yours…don’t you agree?

Like I said earlier, it's not pro-life vs pro-choice. Those are both just spin.

Okay, I can work with that as a given in this discussion.

The left keeps spinning up straw by claiming Republicans want to invade their bodies.

And the right says abortion is murder.

And that's a ridiculous characterization.

Seems like both sides of this forced and false dichotomy are guilty of propaganda reaching into the ridiculous…no?

Or if you want to make the case that they're being honest and not just trying to spin up some straw, I'm open to hearing it.

I am not trying to deal in straw. I keep coming back to the title of the thread and my core assertion: the effect of abortion rights on the political landscape is bad news for Trump in 2024.

Do you think that the repeal of RvW reasonably increases Trump‘s chances of winning the 2024 presidential election?

I’m open to hearing that.

 

[jamil]

People make decisions based on how the situation looks to them, though, not us.

At the voting booth their view of any given issue is just as valid as mine or yours…don’t you agree?



Okay, I can work with that as a given in this discussion.



And the right says abortion is murder.

The right calling abortion murder doesn't make the left's accusations honest. Whataboutism is never a justification. It's only a claim of comparison, and it's not always even a useful one. It's usually a deflection. You haven't dismissed the issue.

But since you mentioned it, you just admitted that the left is incorrect about the right's motivations. It's not to control women's bodies, or invade their privacy. They think it's murder and they want to make it as illegal as murder is.

Seems like both sides of this forced and false dichotomy are guilty of propaganda reaching into the ridiculous…no?

No. The left is lying. The right really believes it's murder. Regardless of what drives that belief, it is what it is, and it's disingenuous (that means they're lying) to claim it's about controlling or invading women's bodies. The right is not lying when they say it's murder. Is it ridiculous to say it's murder? No. Is it murder? Well, if you've been following the discussion, you know that I think that call is subjective. They think it's absolute.

Did you hear what Bill Maher said? You know, that far right wing, practically Hitler worshiping nutter? He said pretty much what I said, except he says it is murder, but he doesn't care because there are too many people in the world. This is opinion territory, so quick pretending that the anti-abortion abortion side wants to harm women's rights. They just want to stop murder.

I am not trying to deal in straw. I keep coming back to the title of the thread and my core assertion: the effect of abortion rights on the political landscape is bad news for Trump in 2024.

If any of your points support the nonsense straw the left is trying to spin, you're dealing in straw. But if you want to say that there are political consequences to pushing a very divided topic during elections, yeah. There are. How many women, though, would not be ***** hat wearing lunatics if they looked at the actual perspective of the right, instead of the straw being spun about their actual beliefs? What if both sides represented the other honestly, especially in the press? Biden would lose his ass. Bigly. That's what would happen.

Do you think that the repeal of RvW reasonably increases Trump‘s chances of winning the 2024 presidential election?

I’m open to hearing that.

No, but then isn't that because of the straw? THOSE RIGHT WING ZIONIST/NAZIS WANT TO INVADE YOUR *****!

Is the motivation of the right really that they want to limit women's choice? They really just want to control women's bodies? I challenged you to make the case that the left's accusation against the right is not straw. And you deflected rather than doing that.

 

[jamil]

I agree with you about RvW being a serious judicial overstep. I also agree that the repeal was a legitimate legal remedy for the problems created by the original RvW decision.

However, I also recognize that overturning the decision takes a previously-recognized legal right away from people…and that type of thing has serious political consequences.

I understand the political consequences. I've been beating that drum since it happened. Right ruling. Wrong timing. But, I think a lot of the consternation on the left is manufactured by media. What if they made the conversation about, is it murder or not. Instead of

Trump can talk about how he won’t sign a national abortion ban until he’s blue in the face, but it isn’t going to help him politically for two big reasons:

1) The only people who actually believe Trump (about anything) are already voting for Trump.

2) The damage is already done. 10-year old incest rape victims, refused (or severely delayed) treatments for incomplete miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies and pre-natal hemorrhage are already happening, and it was Trump who picked the judges who made it happen.

You left off reason 0 - The media has exaggerated Trump's relationship with the truth. They've lied way more than he has. Doesn't justify his lies, but it shows that their lies has exaggerated the perception of Trump as a liar far beyond reality. Or will Adam Shift finally present his great evidence of Russian collusion?

You pay lip service to rule of law, but then justify RvW. Far more is made of the supposed real world consequences to women than there actually is to it.

The best way to correct both the legal and political issues surrounding RvW (in my opinion) would have been a constitutional amendment, because it necessarily involves the entire voting public, and it affords a way to anticipate and mitigate issues like the one addressed in the ad…the unintended consequences of sudden repeal.

Be careful of what you wish for. And like I said, I think the unintended consequences of repeal is more about lying to make Republicans look bad than anything else.

RvW was the GOP’s albatross, and Trump couldn’t help himself but shoot it...and I’m sure you already know the how rest of that ancient rime goes.

You don't have to make the case to me that there are political consequences for this. The ***** hats are powerful mad. They'll go marching in the streets showing their flabby tatas, as if that will change people's minds about murder.

 

[jamil]

Much as I hate to say it, you are correct. The GOP has multiple issues in relating to voters, and this issue adds another one they don't need. The "legal rights at full set of chromosomes" movement isn't strictly invested in whether the "national" GOP wins future elections, because their reward is in heaven. The GOP has leveraged its future on a group of people who don't care what happens on Earth.

Republicans (really Democrats to) don't seem to understand Overton's window. Abortion deeply divides society. But, Republicans are pushing to ban abortions, and don't care that only 15% support a total ban. But, now that it's a state issue, some red states have majorities and they're hell bent on spending it on a total ban. So it's going to get banned in places. And then Democrats will look under every rock for that I told you so consequence. And they'll find it.

 

[LeftyGunner]

The right calling abortion murder doesn't make the left's accusations honest. Whataboutism is never a justification. It's only a claim of comparison, and it's not always even a useful one. It's usually a deflection. You haven't dismissed the issue.

But since you mentioned it, you just admitted that the left is incorrect about the right's motivations. It's not to control women's bodies, or invade their privacy. They think it's murder and they want to make it as illegal as murder is.

Jamil…you are literally making a straw argument to accuse me of making a straw argument.

Can you please address the points I make…or at least try to?

No. The left is lying. The right really believes it's murder.

Okay, I can play this game, too…nuh uh!!!

Only a small minority believe abortion is actually murder…even the people who post that nonsense on this board don’t actually want capital punishment for abortion when you press them…except for a few extremists, of course.

Regardless of what drives that belief, it is what it is, and it's disingenuous (that means they're lying) to claim it's about controlling or invading women's bodies.

If you are going to claim that “abortion is murder” is a legitimate position simply because a minority of people hold that position, you have to accept that “abortion laws are an invasion of my privacy” is legitimate as well…for the very same reason.

As far as controlling women…that is absolutely one of the motivations of some of the people who support the criminalization of abortion…especially among certain fundamentalist religious groups.

It is THE classic motte-and-bailey fallacy…”we don’t want to control women, we just want to save babies…by controlling women”

The right is not lying when they say it's murder. Is it ridiculous to say it's murder? No. Is it murder? Well, if you've been following the discussion, you know that I think that call is subjective. They think it's absolute.

jamil, why do you insist on inserting these non-sequitur talking points that you attribute to “the left” and ”the right” into our discussion, rather than address the actual points I make?

Did you hear what Bill Maher said? You know, that far right wing, practically Hitler worshiping nutter? He said pretty much what I said, except he says it is murder, but he doesn't care because there are too many people in the world. This is opinion territory, so quick pretending that the anti-abortion abortion side wants to harm women's rights. They just want to stop murder.

First, I don’t care what bill Maher thinks, says, or does…that guy is a schmuck.

Second…there are far too many people who actually do want to control other people for your argument to be valid beyond a first glance.

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

If any of your points support the nonsense straw the left is trying to spin, you're dealing in straw.

This is total BS…especially coming from you.

The transitive principle does not apply here…let me show you:

White nationalists love Trump, so if you support Trump you support white nationalism.

Jamil…you are using a straw argument to accuse me of making a straw argument.

But if you want to say that there are political consequences to pushing a very divided topic during elections, yeah. There are.

That’s what I’m saying...that’s literally the entire point of my posts in this thread.

How many women, though, would not be ***** hat wearing lunatics if they looked at the actual perspective of the right, instead of the straw being spun about their actual beliefs? What if both sides represented the other honestly, especially in the press? Biden would lose his ass. Bigly. That's what would happen.

What?

The stated perspective of the right is: “abortion is murder” in a place where murder is a capital offense, and you argue that women only oppose this position because they don’t understand it?

Nonsense...you are trying to place “abortion is not a capital crime” outside of the Overton window to the left…but in reality it is dead center.

No, but then isn't that because of the straw? THOSE RIGHT WING ZIONIST/NAZIS WANT TO INVADE YOUR *****!

I am not arguing that point, please stop tying to lay it at my feet….are you incapable of reflecting on your own straw men, Jamil?

Is the motivation of the right really that they want to limit women's choice?

That is the way abortion legislation works by definition…it necessarily limits the options available to women.

They really just want to control women's bodies?

Some really do. Your refusal to admit it does’t change that fact, and it makes me doubt the sincerity of your position.

I challenged you to make the case that the left's accusation against the right is not straw. And you deflected rather than doing that.

You are asking me to argue a position I don’t hold. I am not “The Left”, and I cannot sincerely argue their positions. I can only argue from my own position, which is exactly what I have been trying to do, but you insist on making this a discussion of stereotypical political talking points rather than stick to the points I am actually arguing…

…you know, a straw man argument…like the kind you keep accusing me of making.

 

[jamil]

Jamil…you are literally making a straw argument to accuse me of making a straw argument.

Can you please address the points I make…or at least try to?

Let's recap:


You didn't address the point I made. You deflected with a whataboutism. The left IS claiming the right just wants to control what women do with their bodies. I've had women actually say this to me, lock step with that narrative. So what I'm saying is not straw. Their characterization of the right's reasoning is willfully partisan or just flat out not honest. And instead of my point about that, you deflected with "the right says abortion is murder."

I responded that the right calling abortion murder, does not make the left's accusations honest. It does not negate the point I made. So how about YOU address the point I made? Make the case for why I'm wrong about the left's mischaracterization. You've touched on it later in your reply. But not with a logical case.

Okay, I can play this game, too…nuh uh!!!

That's facile to characterize my position as that.

Only a small minority believe abortion is actually murder…even the people who post that nonsense on this board don’t actually want capital punishment for abortion when you press them…except for a few extremists, of course.

That abortion is murder is not any more nonsensical, than it is to think abortion is just fine all the way through birth. Both are fringe opinions. The former is something like 15%, the latter is something like 13%. A majority think that abortions should be banned after first trimester: 51%. So if you're talking about fringe, as I recall you're on it. And by your standards, it's nonsense. Or, you can be reasonable, and say that it follows from your worldview, just like it does from the other side. I'm not saying that one's position follows from their worldview makes it right. It makes it rational to hold that position.

If you are going to claim that “abortion is murder” is a legitimate position simply because a minority of people hold that position, you have to accept that “abortion laws are an invasion of my privacy” is legitimate as well…for the very same reason.

That's not my position. I say that the "abortion is murder" is a legitimate (rational is a better word for what I want to convey) position because it follows from their worldview, which was a dominant worldview at one point in the US. Abortions had been illegal for a long time before RvW. You've seen the pages of discussion about the logic of that position.

People have worldviews that aren't consistent or based on logic. That's a human nature. 15% is a large chunk of folks still, and to classify their position as ridiculous, I guess I have to say, now do the 13% up-to-birth folks.

But they're both controlling the conversation instead of the 51%. So I do agree with you on that.

As far as controlling women…that is absolutely one of the motivations of some of the people who support the criminalization of abortion…especially among certain fundamentalist religious groups.

Bull ****. Republicans aren't against abortion just to satisfy some need for controlling women's bodies. If you find two people who say that you can technically say "some believe that". The view that it is widely held ranges from willfully partisan to outright disingenuous. The 51% of people who want to ban abortions after 1st trimester, what's their motivation? Are they trying to control women's bodies too?

It is THE classic motte-and-bailey fallacy…”we don’t want to control women, we just want to save babies…by controlling women”

You just learn about that one? You seem to be trying to force it into the conversation a lot where it isn't relevant.

Can't you make the same claim about any law? Why not: we don't want to control people. We just want to protect people from having their stuff stolen. <- Ah HA! It's the old motte-and-bailey fallacy! Run for your lives!

Maybe the people who want theft to be banned are actually motivated by the normal human instincts for morality.

Maybe the people who want abortion to be banned actually think abortion is immoral. I do. But I think the "abortion is murder" goes a bit too far. And it's probably not logically consistent. But a clear majority thinks abortion is immoral at some point in the pregnancy. I think being part of that 51% I can say the 15% joins that an opinion that abortion is immoral, though the latter is a bit overzealous.

jamil, why do you insist on inserting these non-sequitur talking points that you attribute to “the left” and ”the right” into our discussion, rather than address the actual points I make?

I did address the points you've made. But you keep calling them something else. This is indeed a left vs right discussion. What you think about abortion is absolutely correlated with worldivew.

First, I don’t care what bill Maher thinks, says, or does…that guy is a schmuck.

Second…there are far too many people who actually do want to control other people for your argument to be valid beyond a first glance.

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

Then so are laws against theft. You might argue, well, no one is harmed with an abortion. And only up to a point might that be true, but that is still worldview dependent. That's the crux of the whole "person" discussion. Regardless, a clear majority believes abortion is immoral at some point during pregnancy and wants to ban it. I keep harping on that point so that you understand the real dynamics of the issue. Even a schmuck like Maher understands that. If the fringe who wants to ban it from conception is a 1:1 analog for controlling women's options and behavior, the majority of people who want to ban abortion at any point in the pregnancy, only want to control women's bodies.

This is total BS…especially coming from you.

The transitive principle does not apply here…let me show you:

White nationalists love Trump, so if you support Trump you support white nationalism.

Jamil…you are using a straw argument to accuse me of making a straw argument.

I did not want to convey a transitive reliationship. I should have said it this way. If any of the points you make contain the straw the left is spinning, those points are made up of straw. That's the point I wanted to convey. It's not a transitive relationship to say A contains B.

That’s what I’m saying...that’s literally the entire point of my posts in this thread.

Well, you've said more than just that. That's the part I'm rebutting. Not the stuff I agree with.

What?

The stated perspective of the right is: “abortion is murder” in a place where murder is a capital offense, and you argue that women only oppose this position because they don’t understand it?

Nonsense...you are trying to place “abortion is not a capital crime” outside of the Overton window to the left…but in reality it is dead center.

No. I'm saying that if everyone were honest about abortion, Joe Biden would lose. Don't forget, I am not on the "abortion is murder" side. I'm with the 51% who agree with the statement, abortion should be banned after the first trimester. You even said so yourself that the "abortion is murder, ban it all" side is a small group. Joe Biden supports "up to birth", which is a slightly more fringe position than total ban.

The only reason Democrats can make this about Republicans is that the fringe 15% are kinda loud about it, and they control some statehouses in less populated states, and Democrats are successful in convincing a large chunk of the 51% to join their case. If everything were honest, the fringes wouldn't really have much say about it.

I am not arguing that point, please stop tying to lay it at my feet….are you incapable of reflecting on your own straw men, Jamil?

I am laying it at the feet of the Democratic narrative. They're the ones capturing a good chunk of the 51% with that narrative, as if the 51% agree with their fringe position. And if I'm laying it on you at all, it's only to the extent that A contains B.

That is the way abortion legislation works by definition…it necessarily limits the options available to women.

As we said above, now do shoplifting, or any legal prohibition on anything. It's spin to make the position sound worse to the actual majority who wants to ban abortion at some point during the pregnancy.

Some really do. Your refusal to admit it does’t change that fact, and it makes me doubt the sincerity of your position.

See? A contains B. Q.E.D.

Show me someone holding up a sign that says, "Control women's bodies now!" Claiming that the rhetoric about murder really means they want to control women's bodies is disingenuous and is indeed straw. It's not honestly representing the other side of it.

You are asking me to argue a position I don’t hold. I am not “The Left”, and I cannot sincerely argue their positions. I can only argue from my own position, which is exactly what I have been trying to do, but you insist on making this a discussion of stereotypical political talking points rather than stick to the points I am actually arguing…

…you know, a straw man argument…like the kind you keep accusing me of making.

I'm giving you reasons why I think some of your points contain straw. Throughout your post you have used "controlling women's bodies" as part of your points, without making a logical case that this is really their motivation. If you want me to stop talking about that. Stop saying it.

Or, make the case that it isn't straw. Demostrate how people who want to ban abortion, really just want to control women, and that their motivation isn't based on the immorality of abortion. But make sure you include the 51% who want to ban abortion at some point during pregnancy. Because if what you say is true, logically it should follow that they should also be motivated by a desire to control women's bodies too. At least enough of them to make that point about "controlling" relevant enough for the Left to justify it.

 

[jamil]

I pushed post before I had proof-read. So I reworded some stuff to make it closer to what I want to convey. Hopefully I haven't missed anything. And I think that's been a problem and is a problem in hot button topics. I think each side is eager to interpret the other side as the bad guys.

I do think that the biggest bad-guys in the national debate on abortion are the democrats. The anti-abortion Republicans are just out there pushing their worldview. I don't agree with all of it, but it looks sincere to me. The Democrats are out there trying to capture the 51% in the middle to form a majority against Republicans. And they've managed to convince a big chunk of the 51% to forget that they're anti-abortion themselves, other than that first 12 weeks.

 

[LeftyGunner]

I pushed post before I had proof-read. So I reworded some stuff to make it closer to what I want to convey. Hopefully I haven't missed anything. And I think that's been a problem and is a problem in hot button topics. I think each side is eager to interpret the other side as the bad guys.

I do think that the biggest bad-guys in the national debate on abortion are the democrats. The anti-abortion Republicans are just out there pushing their worldview. I don't agree with all of it, but it looks sincere to me. The Democrats are out there trying to capture the 51% in the middle to form a majority against Republicans. And they've managed to convince a big chunk of the 51% to forget that they're anti-abortion themselves, other than that first 12 weeks.

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:

No. I'm saying that if everyone were honest about abortion, Joe Biden would lose. Don't forget, I am not on the "abortion is murder" side. I'm with the 51% who agree with the statement, abortion should be banned after the first trimester. You even said so yourself that the "abortion is murder, ban it all" side is a small group. Joe Biden supports "up to birth", which is a slightly more fringe position than total ban.

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.

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.

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.

 

[KLB]

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:



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.

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.

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.

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?