To form a political center, should conservatives abandon their opposition to abortion?

[Ouroboros]

"People still do it" is a stupid reason to withdraw opposition to something.

That said, yes, there is a reasonable compromise position, largely in the form of the law that was upheld in Dobbs.

That's the Left's response to border violations too: "you just can't stop them" so give in and enjoy it.

 

[Noodlegawd]

We don't just ban murder we also punish it. It is the punishment not the ban that is the deterrent.

This is a false distinction. What do you think "ban abortion" means?

 

[Noodlegawd]

That's the Left's response to border violations too: "you just can't stop them" so give in and enjoy it.

Oddly, they don't apply that same logic to passing gun laws that are completely incapable of saving any lives.

 

[j brown's body]

That's the Left's response to border violations too: "you just can't stop them" so give in and enjoy it.

This thread isnt about border violations.

 

[weaver2]

So you're saying that good hearted Libs don't really WANT "no restrictions," they're just FORCED to demand them because the other side is untrustworthy. Gag me.

Still nothing "centrist" about this. It's just Libs wanting to get what they want and sacrificing nothing-- which means that they don't REALLY want it badly.

I have not witnessed negotiating or compromising of anti-abortion evangelicals or Catholics with women on this matter. Yet you are demanding that women to do exactly that with two authoritarian, paternalistic organizations that believe women's reproductive lives should be under the control of male dominated churches. Tell me exactly why women should be embracing your idea of what "centrist " means.

 

[Lursa]

Oddly, they don't apply that same logic to passing gun laws that are completely incapable of saving any lives.

Not all liberals, not even close Havent you spent any time in our Gun sub-forum? Why do you have to hyperbolize and instead, show you dont have a strong base to argue the issue from?

So, can you articulate your claim against my post 190?

 

[Ouroboros]

Oddly, they don't apply that same logic to passing gun laws that are completely incapable of saving any lives.

?? You're saying that Lefties don't believe gun laws are capable of saving lives??

 

[Ouroboros]

This thread isnt about border violations.

It was just a side-point. If I had a nickel for every time a Mad Lib has deflected, I could buy ABC and fire the Liar myself.

 

[Ouroboros]

I have not witnessed negotiating or compromising of anti-abortion evangelicals or Catholics with women on this matter. Yet you are demanding that women to do exactly that with two authoritarian, paternalistic organizations that believe women's reproductive lives should be under the control of male dominated churches. Tell me exactly why women should be embracing your idea of what "centrist " means.

I asked whether you were agreeing with JBB's characterization of the Left getting what it wants and the Right getting nothing as "centrist." I'm still waiting for an answer.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Oddly, they don't apply that same logic to passing gun laws that are completely incapable of saving any lives.

the trifecta, abortion, guns and immigration.

well done

 

[weaver2]

I asked whether you were agreeing with JBB's characterization of the Left getting what it wants and the Right getting nothing as "centrist." I'm still waiting for an answer.

I'm sorry but I haven't a clue what you mean by "centrist". Instead of making up labels, state what specifically you want to happen as to the abortion issue.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm sorry but I haven't a clue what you mean by "centrist". Instead of making up labels, state what specifically you want to happen as to the abortion issue.

It's in the OP.

Practically speaking, its foolish to oppose it. Women still get them, they always have and they always will.

Bringing back a compromise like Roe seems like a good way to go for building a center. After all, most people support it. Plenty of people who say they dont support it also feel it should be legal.

So is a compromise like Roe a path to centrism?

 

[Deuce]

That's the Left's response to border violations too: "you just can't stop them" so give in and enjoy it.

Just going to pretend the right doesn't do this on any issue?

 

[weaver2]

It's in the OP.

I can see what JBB considers a centrist position. You mischaracterized what he said and then asked if I agreed? Agreed with what?

 

[Ouroboros]

I can see what JBB considers a centrist position. You mischaracterized what he said and then asked if I agreed? Agreed with what?

I correctly summed up his position, but even though you disagree For Reasons, you still ought to be able to say if JBB's proposal is centrist and if so why.

 

[Ouroboros]

Just going to pretend the right doesn't do this on any issue?

As I said to JBB, it was just a side-point, not a topic-changer.

 

[weaver2]

I correctly summed up his position, but even though you disagree For Reasons, you still ought to be able to say if JBB's proposal is centrist and if so why.

JBB said "Bringing back a compromise like Roe seems like a good way to go for building a center. After all, most people support it. Plenty of people who say they dont support it also feel it should be legal. So is a compromise like Roe a path to centrism?"

Ouroboros said, JBB's characterization of centrist is : "the Left getting what it wants and the Right getting nothing as "centrist."

In the first place JBB is not stating what centrist is or isn't. He is asking if people consider Roe the place to start building a compromise in order to reach a center that presumably most people would accept. He makes only one statement: Roe is a compromise. The rest of his post is conjecture about the possibility of using Roe as a starting point. The title also asks a question which needs some additional information. Does he mean conservatives have to drop all objections to abortion in which case they would no longer be an anti-abortion movement. Does he mean liberals expect this from conservatives. I don't think he means that since he acknowledges that there are people who object to abortion but still think it should be legal.

This does not match your interpretation of that JBB was stating: conservatives give up the all objections to abortion and concede to all the demands of the Pro-Choice.

You seem to think, correct me if needed, that Roe is not a compromise. It was very much so. The Catholic Church was at the time of Roe the engine driving the anti-abortion movement. At one time the Church and the AMA had combined efforts and gotten abortion banned in all states. In the late sixties and early seventies several states made abortion legal and the bans on abortions started to crumble. Nationally the abortion law was chaotic. Roe was accepted as a case partly to undo some of the chaos. The decision to allow abortion on demand during the 1st trimester and leave the 3rd trimester to each state to decide was a sincere effort at recognizing that at the point of viability the state had a vested interest in the fetus and could restrict or ban abortion as they saw fit. The Church was not happy with the compromise. They saw Roe as a loss of power over women's lives

 

[Ouroboros]

JBB said "Bringing back a compromise like Roe seems like a good way to go for building a center. After all, most people support it. Plenty of people who say they dont support it also feel it should be legal. So is a compromise like Roe a path to centrism?"

Ouroboros said, JBB's characterization of centrist is : "the Left getting what it wants and the Right getting nothing as "centrist."

In the first place JBB is not stating what centrist is or isn't. He is asking if people consider Roe the place to start building a compromise in order to reach a center that presumably most people would accept. He makes only one statement: Roe is a compromise. The rest of his post is conjecture about the possibility of using Roe as a starting point. The title also asks a question which needs some additional information. Does he mean conservatives have to drop all objections to abortion in which case they would no longer be an anti-abortion movement. Does he mean liberals expect this from conservatives. I don't think he means that since he acknowledges that there are people who object to abortion but still think it should be legal.

This does not match your interpretation of that JBB was stating: conservatives give up the all objections to abortion and concede to all the demands of the Pro-Choice.

You seem to think, correct me if needed, that Roe is not a compromise. It was very much so. The Catholic Church was at the time of Roe the engine driving the anti-abortion movement. At one time the Church and the AMA had combined efforts and gotten abortion banned in all states. In the late sixties and early seventies several states made abortion legal and the bans on abortions started to crumble. Nationally the abortion law was chaotic. Roe was accepted as a case partly to undo some of the chaos. The decision to allow abortion on demand during the 1st trimester and leave the 3rd trimester to each state to decide was a sincere effort at recognizing that at the point of viability the state had a vested interest in the fetus and could restrict or ban abortion as they saw fit. The Church was not happy with the compromise. They saw Roe as a loss of power over women's lives

That is a false analysis. The "compromise" of Roe did not build a center the first time; why would it do so now? Additionally, he makes the non-conjectural statement that "most people support" roe and that even that people "who say they don't support it feel it should be legal." How do you judge those not to be "statements?"

But since you take that stand, you indirectly answered my question: you do think that all that matters is whether JBB's alleged majority gets its way and the Right just gives in to whatever the Left wants.

 

[weaver2]

That is a false analysis.

It is not a false analysis.Roe was a compromise and most people approved of it and were against repealing it. Most disapproved of Dobbs largely because it was dishonest and distorted historical facts.
From :July 2022, Pew Research, one of the most accurate and respected research institutions in the US.
"Nearly six-in-ten adults (57%) disapprove of the court’s sweeping decision,(Dobbs decision in 2022) including 43% who strongly disapprove. About four-in-ten (41%) approve of the court’s decision (25% strongly approve).
Public support for legal abortion remains largely unchanged since before the decision, with 62% saying it should be legal in all or most cases."

Majority of Public Disapproves of Supreme Court’s Decision To Overturn Roe v. Wade

Opinion on the legality of abortion has changed little since before the court's decision, with 62% now saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

www.pewresearch.org

The "compromise" of Roe did not build a center the first time; why would it do so now?

I don't know what you mean by "build a center" but most people supported Roe the first time and now.
"Two years after the court’s decision (in 1973), 54 percent of U.S. adults said they supported abortion under certain circumstances and another 21 percent said abortion always should be legal, according to Gallup polling from 1975, while 22 percent of Americans said it should be illegal."

How has public opinion about abortion changed since Roe v. Wade?

States are a critical battleground over abortion rights, and polling reveals where opinions stand at the state and national level.

www.pbs.org

Additionally, he makes the non-conjectural statement that "most people support" roe and even that people "who say they don't support it feel it should be legal." How do you judge those not to be "statements?

JBB is right most people supported Roe right from the start in 1974 straight through to today and even those who didn't thought abortion should be legal. Those are facts about Roe. Are you objecting to the use of the word "most" or to the fact that I didn't cite those two facts as statements. The word most as an adjective is defined as:1: greatest in quantity, extent, or degree
the most ability and 2: the majority of most people https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/most Or are you objecting because I didn't call it a statement. My apologies if that is the case. I thought everybody knew some of the Roe statistics.

But since you take that stand, you indirectly answered my question: you do think that all that matters is whether JBB's alleged majority gets its way and the Right just gives in to whatever the Left wants.

You have not only mischaracterized JBB's position but, now also mine. I have not taken a "stance". I have been trying to understand what your objection is to JBB's OP.

 

[j brown's body]

It's in the OP.

I'm sorry for the confusion. I'm not suggesting that conservative centrists abandon their pro-life position, or even compromise it. I suggest they abandon the strategy of banning abortion because it is ineffective policy and to support positions, like increased access to a wide variety of contraceptives and comprehensive sex education, which are believed and perhaps even shown to be effective in diminishing abortions. .

So what would be the status of abortion? the pro-choice position of allowing them throughout the pregnancy? That's going too far the other way, so something like Roe would be a compromise, for both sides.

I would like to see those more centrist pro-lifers peeled away from "the life begins at conception" extremists and join pro-choice centrists who accept some abortion restrictions.

 

[weaver2]

I would like to see those more centrist pro-lifers peeled away from "the life begins at conception" extremists and join pro-choice centrists who accept some abortion restrictions.

At least one adamantly states-rights and pro-life advocate recognized that Dobbs was not working, had caused abortion rates and maternal and infant death rate to increase and suggested that the federal government pass a law standardizing abortion laws for all states and described something that sounded exactly Roe.

 

[Gordy327]

I'm sorry for the confusion. I'm not suggesting that conservative centrists abandon their pro-life position, or even compromise it.

I would suggest it, because their position is irrational, untenable, and not legally based.

 

[Oxnard]

Practically speaking, its foolish to oppose it. Women still get them, they always have and they always will.

Most adults understand responsibility for the decision rests with the individual. IMHO (ten cent libertarian) perspective is that unless we're the doctor or patient, personal reproductive decisions are not our concern. No one has the right to dictate others choices about abortion, birth control, or sexual partners. The question of whether a woman is ready, willing, or able to become a mother is hers alone—not the church’s or the state’s.

Other people's choices and privacy are certainly not my concern.

 

[Lursa]

I'm sorry for the confusion. I'm not suggesting that conservative centrists abandon their pro-life position, or even compromise it. I suggest they abandon the strategy of banning abortion because it is ineffective policy and to support positions, like increased access to a wide variety of contraceptives and comprehensive sex education, which are believed and perhaps even shown to be effective in diminishing abortions. .

So what would be the status of abortion? the pro-choice position of allowing them throughout the pregnancy? That's going too far the other way, so something like Roe would be a compromise, for both sides.

I would like to see those more centrist pro-lifers peeled away from "the life begins at conception" extremists and join pro-choice centrists who accept some abortion restrictions.

The right had a compromise in RvW and didnt accept it. Non-religious polls show that the majority of Americans support elective abortion up to some point...and aside from viability, no one seems to be able to provide any "reasoning" behind why any other timeframe makes sense.

It's trending in the right direction tho. Fewer young people even want kids. This will be reflected in their future votes.

Since RvW was overturned, every state vote except one went towards legal elective abortion and fewer restrictions. It became so obvious, some states started blocking it from the ballots and at least one (Ohio) even tried to overturn the vote and change their state const to get around it. Unsuccessfully.

We'll just have to be patient.

 

[Oxnard]

Is the same true of infanticide? Why or why not?

Seems one would have to be alive (born) for infanticide to apply.

Pregnancy begins with a small cluster of undifferentiated cells that are not, in fact, a child. The anti-choice movement calls it a child because it is essential to their spurious argument. But calling it “unborn child” does not make it so.

During gestation period the “unborn child” has a tail, webbed hands feet & gills. By no stretch of the imagination an “unborn child”.
At term, that small cluster has definitely grown into an unborn child. Somewhere on the continuum of fetal development it is reasonable to say it has become a person. That moment is difficult to define, but Roe at least made the effort.
Given the enormous consequences to the mother, it is important that we give her the right to choose her own well-being.